We've got no hope.

[nabraxas]

The House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted against legislation that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry.

Just 42 MPs supported the private members bill put forward by Labor backbencher Stephen Jones, while 98 MPs voted against.

 

The Australian Senate has joined the House of Representatives in voting down legislation aimed at allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The final vote on the bill introduced by Labor senators was 26 in favour and 41 against.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-20/an-senate-votes-down-second-bill/4272428

If over half ov our elected representatives on a conscience vote think same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed, what hope

do we have ov any progress in the war on some drugs?

I mean opinion polls show that around two thirds ov Australians support same sex marriage.

source:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-poll-backs-samesex-marriage-20120213-1t1h4.html

Yet even w/that level ov support the fuckwit politicians still voted & argued against it, even using bestiality as an argument.

I don't think there would be as much public support for decriminalising low level drug use.

And i can imagine the standard ov debate if any such measure came before the house:

"gateway drugs, brain damage, rape, blah blah blah"

With such a backward view on even the most basic question ov equal rights, how much chance is there ov getting any progress on individual liberties?

[goneski]

With such a backward view on even the most basic question ov equal rights, how much chance is there ov getting any progress on individual liberties?

 

Very little. Articles like this make me a very sad panda, to say the least.

I also think the opinion polls are probably BS. In that example, 2/3 of people supported same-sex marriage -- out of a total of 786 people.

Surely that's not a sufficient sample size and hardly representative of the overall population?

Unless my understanding of opinion polls is horribly wrong, perhaps there's a bias where the kinds of people who gravitate toward these polls are those who are more likely to show their support,

whereas those neutral or against just couldn't be bothered?

Homophobia is still rampant, IME.

Edited September 21, 2012 by SYNeR

[chilli]

It could be representative SYNeR, depending on how the sample was selected.

nabraxas, I thought the Liberal party didn't allow their members a conscience vote, so they all had to vote against, in line with party policy, even though some of them may have personally felt differently.

[Sallubrious]

Do you think it's purely homophobia or penny pinching and a general contempt for human rights?

Married people pay less tax, have easier access to adoptions and associated welfare payments etc, it wouldn't be a massive total but it would alter budgets to some extent.

I know homophobia is part of it without doubt. Some extreme veiws about it leading to beastiality and social decay etc have been raised by some of the sick minded politicians here and in the US lately.

As for relevance to decriminalisation, it's easy to see the same sort factionalism and toeing the party line happening there too.

[chilli]

On the bestiality issue, I think it is a tasteless thing to say and I completely support full rights and equality for LGBT people.

However, is there actually a logical point there?

If an animal is not being coerced, couldn't the acceptance of bestaility be argued for on similar grounds that the acceptance of homosexuality is?

[IndianDreaming]

^ Chilli - No! - back away from the chicken...

[nabraxas]

oops, yes chilli you're right it was only a conscience vote for Labor, i didn't realise that.

Still i doubt whether many Liberal MP's would openly support gay marriage anyway.

If an animal is not being coerced, couldn't the acceptance of bestiality be argued for on similar grounds that the acceptance of homosexuality is?

It's not the acceptance ov homosexuality that's being argued, it's whether they should have equal rights with heterosexuals.

The argument made was that if homosexuals can marry then the next step is allowing marriage between a man & his donkey.

But as far as acceptance goes there's a bit ov difference between accepting that two people can love each other & that a wo/man & animal can love each other.

but maybe you mean acceptance ov the actual act ov homosexuality & bestiality, & in that case i'd say what goes on between consenting adults/animals behind closed doors is none ov the politicians business.

but they will try to interfere:

oral sex is illegal in 18 US states. Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

(source:http://cornellsun.com/node/18235)

Edited September 21, 2012 by nabraxas

[IndianDreaming]

^ Well you learn something new every day. I'm glad I don't live in any of these places! I'd be hung, drawn, quartered, stoned, flogged, whipped, tarred and feathered 1000 times over by now! http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Sodomy_law

"In England and Wales buggery was made a felony by the Buggery Act in 1533, during the reign of Henry VIII. The punishment for those convicted was the death penalty until 1861." - dear me... I bet they all did it though...

OP: I'm hardly surprised by these sorts of decisions these days, the order of things seems to go:

Money

Power

Adamant opposition from old fogies

Human rights

Edited September 21, 2012 by IndianDreaming

[Torsten]

most labour members lose votes by voting for it, but won't lose anywhere near as many by voting against it. it's all about keeping their jobs and most probably don't have strong feelings on the issue anyway.

[Thelema]

going against the voice here, I honestly have no problem with same-sex couples or homosexuality.

"Marriage" however I regard as a cultural institution deliberately designed by heterosexuals FOR heterosexuals.

To begin with, I don't even understand why homosexual couples would want to intrude upon that ceremony.

Secondly, many heterosexual couples (at least 50% at last count) live "de-facto". Hence marriage does not even have a majority voice in unionships.

Theefore, it makes sense, if politicians are our represenatives, to pass on both this apathetic "de-facto" culture and for the church to defend the heterosexuality of marriage.

Sometimes I think the whole issue is just a prostelysing issue.

Maybe they can make their own fucked up ceremony - "g-marriage" - not condoned by the church but condoned by government.

[nabraxas]

"Marriage" however I regard as a cultural institution deliberately designed by heterosexuals FOR heterosexuals.

i agree, but i also feel that its unfair for homosexuals to be denied that existential hell.

if they want to commit to that who are we to stop them?

[Torsten]

Thel - I personally couldn't care less about marriage. It's only the fact that it is being denied others that bugs me. Marriage is not just a church thing and I don't think anyone expects the churches to actually perform such rituals. It's about all the other equalities before the law. Many of these have been address via defacto laws, but they can also be changed back [as is evident in qld]. There are still serious issues not addressed by these band aid laws which would be solved the moment gays are allowed marriage. eg:

* next of kin rights and responsibilities. I don't want my parents making medical decisions if I am incapacitated. For a straight person it is natural to assume the partner does it, but gays don't have that luxury.

* inheritance law. This is still lagging behind.

* superannuation. not transferable to same sex partners.

* tax advantages of couples. The ato tolerates some of these, but it is not official policy.

* adoption rights

* parentage. a child born to one partner does not automaticaly have the other partner as legal parent. First precedent was set a few months ago, but it is still a complex legal fight and so far is only applicable to women. Just imagine two women raise a child and the biological mother dies. The child then has to go to the next of kin on the biological mother's side rather than staying with the other 'mum'. And what if two women raise a child and then separate? The non-biological mother has zero rights even if she had been the primary caregiver for 10 years. Imagine being that person and the devastating effect this has.

One of the best things Rudd did was to update many discriminatory federal laws in his first few months in office, but since then the process has stalled. I would personally be quite happy if all state and federal discriminations are removed and marriage stays hetero, but for many this is not enough as it is not as solid as real equality.

[Psylo]

Thel - I personally couldn't care less about marriage. It's only the fact that it is being denied others that bugs me. Marriage is not just a church thing and I don't think anyone expects the churches to actually perform such rituals. It's about all the other equalities before the law. Many of these have been address via defacto laws, but they can also be changed back [as is evident in qld]. There are still serious issues not addressed by these band aid laws

 

Exactly, let's cease to fight for the various rights of same sex couples in relation to specifics such as inheritance, adoption, superannuation and other discriminatory matters, because it will (I believe) result in only 'some' matters being amended, and the lobbying will continue for years. Quite simply, when the Federal government allows same sex marriage to be recognised in an equal manner as heterosexual unions, then everything else falls into place around only one consideration. That these two people are married. The rest of the structure already exists around such a formal union.

While I am opposed to formal marriage (with any configuration of couples) due to it's origin in religion, we are at a stage now where such a union is very often an irreligious matter between non-believers. It's startling to think that in 2012, with widespread acceptance afforded to gay men & women, that the Federal government will stand firm on the laws of matrimony. Yet another example of how church & state are most certainly not independant of each other.

I see some changes very soon, and much of the developed world contemporises their views. 15 years ago, nobody would have dreamed that there would be a US President of African-American heritage, nor a godless, unmarried female Australian Prime Minister.

With an incresed acceptance of homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals (such as in the Armed Services for the last 20 years, and same-sex immigration sponsorship), and Human Rights & Equal Opportunity laws in place, how is it that the Fereral Government is not held accountable for what is ultimately a serious breach of anti-discrimination laws by disallowing equal rights for same sex marriage ?

[chilli]

I completely agree with Torsten that equal rights for marriage is about equal recognition and protection by the legal system. This actually matters in very practical ways to a lot of gay couples.

While I am opposed to formal marriage (with any configuration of couples) due to it's origin in religion

 

It is a common misperception fostered by the religious that marriage has it's origins in religion. Marriage takes many different forms in different cultures and predates recorded history.

[qualia]

there is hope. just compare now to 20 or 30 years ago. homosexuality was illegal in tasmania even in the 90's, now they're the first state to try and legislate in favour of same sex marriage. medical marijuana was mostly unheard of 20 years ago, now 19 states in the US have it. progress is slow and undoubtedly hindered by conservatives, and certainly isn't helped by reactionary politicians (wazzup WA), but it happens. change is inevitable, whether or not it happens in your or my lifetime depends on how long we live i guess.

[Torsten]

homosexuality was illegal in tasmania even in the 90's,

Just so there is no misunderstanding, homosexuality itself was not illegal in tas. I only clarify this point because there are countries where homosexuality itself is illegal, ie where expressing love for a same sex partner can get you locked up or killed. There was nothing illegal about expressing your love for a same sex partner or living in a same sex relationship. Just don't tell anyone you're having sex! It was homosexual sex itself that was illegal. ie the idea was that while gay people were tolerated, their sexual activities needed to be criminalised to keep them secret. This backfired spectacularly when tasmania realised [very quickly] just how much of their tourism dollar was pink. Still amazing to think that that was in the mid 90's though.

[goneski]

The religious roots of marriage is such a bogus argument, considering statistics from the ABS show the majority of marriages in Australia are secular anyway.

And considering high divorce rates, there's nothing 'sacred' about it, either.

I can't believe that in this day & age we even need to be having these conversations.

Edited September 22, 2012 by SYNeR

[Psylo]

Just so there is no misunderstanding, homosexuality itself was not illegal in tas.

 

That's just dumb, considering one of the finest politicians of our time is the openly gay former Senator Bob Brown. Or was this prior to the commencement of his tenure?

/snip/ there are countries where homosexuality itself is illegal, ie where expressing love for a same sex partner can get you locked up or killed.

 

Are you talking about 'expressing love' or the physical act of fucking ? Because there are some unusual exceptions in countries where the hardline legal stance formally prohibits gay sex, and/or the hardline religious stance opposes heterosexual sex outside of marriage. The trouble is, as we all know, many virile adolescent boys only ever think about sex ! As a result, it is common (well more common than you, dear readers, may think) for boys to engage in sexual activities with other boys, without there being a consideration that it's a gay act. These are natural urges, and they are fulfilled. No love, just sex, and they will mostly never feel any intimate emotional bond, and go on to their wife in years to come, and think nothing else of it.

The same justification is evidenced with adolescent bestiality in many countries. Young boys want to fuck, so they turn to the barnyard for stimulation. For those interested in this off-topic peculiarity I recommend watching Asses of the Caribbean. (not really an attempt at justifying my statements above, but I would like to share the video with the SAB SFC) Enjoy your Saturday afternoon !

/snip/ their tourism dollar was pink

 

I'm getting a bit sick of gay men thinking they can appropriate the colour pink. Equal rights for the entire spectrum, I say.

[Torsten]

Are you talking about 'expressing love' or the physical act of fucking ? Because there are some unusual exceptions in countries where the hardline legal stance formally prohibits gay sex, and/or the hardline religious stance opposes heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

That's the point I already made about tas. In tas it was only the actual sex act that was illegal. In uganda and some muslim countries for example it is illegal [by death penalty] to BE gay. There are many different permutations and one has to be careful to not misrepresent them. eg in Moscow it is legal to be gay and to have gay sex, but it is illegal to hold a gay rally or other open promotion of gay rights.

The same justification is evidenced with adolescent bestiality in many countries.

asses of the carribbean has been shared here before ;) http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30917&view=findpost&p=346732

I'm getting a bit sick of gay men thinking they can appropriate the colour pink. Equal rights for the entire spectrum, I say.

Hmm, actually we own the full spectrum too, LOL. Think rainbow flag

[Psylo]

Damn you. At least let us hetero's keep the leprechaun.

[Torsten]

LOL, you must spend a lot of time googling stuff like that to come up with such 'gold'. And yes, you can have the leprechaun. I can't recall any gay guy ever laying claim to that

[Rabaelthazar]

I think if heterosexuals have to suffer the agony of marriage, then so should homosexual people.

Seriously though, this whole issue just sucks balls. There is simply no valid argument against it. These are the main arguments that get raised from what I've seen:

Destroys the sanctity of marriage.

What fucking sanctity? How long do most marriages last these days? I think it's something like 60% of marriages end in divorce within three years or some crazy number like that. (don't quote me but if you google it you'll find the real number somewhere in the depths of the internet.)

It's unhealthy for a child to grow up with two mums or two dads.

And what about the single families? What about kids born to 14 year olds? What about the kid who grows up from the sperm of a rapist? What about kids born to a mother and father where the father beats the mother on a daily basis? What about the kid who gets born in Tasmania?

Surely it's better to have two loving parents, regardless of sex who love and care for their child?

It's morally wrong cos the church says it is.

Hmmm... the church. So it's ok for a member of the cloth to have his "sceptre of god" exalted by a choir boy in exchange for mars bars, but it's not ok for to grown men to agree to spend the rest of their lives together and celebrate that with the people they love?

I identify as GLBT and if it had been a man I'd chosen to be the one I wanted to marry, I'd have been fucking livid if that was denied me. Marriage is an ancient tradition of humanity... why is that not open to all humanity> Reminds me of Dr Suess's star bellied sneetch book.

I have two friends, both men, in a really loving relationship with a two year old son. That son's is an awesome kid. Outgoing, friendly likes kicking soccer balls. He's way happier than a lot of other two year old kids I see.

A lot of the above posts have been about the political stuff, which I agree is what this is about more than anything, but the actual emotional part of it is just shit.

[Rabaelthazar]

Hi, by the way.... it's been a while since I posted. weird year for me 2012. Anyway, I think I'm back at the Corroboree.

[naja naja]

* parentage. a child born to one partner does not automaticaly have the other partner as legal parent. First precedent was set a few months ago, but it is still a complex legal fight and so far is only applicable to women. Just imagine two women raise a child and the biological mother dies. The child then has to go to the next of kin on the biological mother's side rather than staying with the other 'mum'. And what if two women raise a child and then separate? The non-biological mother has zero rights even if she had been the primary caregiver for 10 years. Imagine being that person and the devastating effect this has.

 

i worry about this even in a hetro relationship. If my wife were to pass away, I am pretty sure I have no legal leg to stand on and all rights tranfer immediately to his dropkick biological father.

[Mycot]

The subject of allowing homosexual marriage is probably the least important of humanities problems.

Many would say "who gives a shit" viewing the matter as extremely trivial.

Peeps really need to get a grip and a sense of prespective about what is important.

We also need more people to think for themselves(and think deeper) instead of being so damn politically correct believing that this is progressive thinking when it is just fashionable swarminess.

Kudo's to Thelema for having the courage to be politically incorrect, myself being no stanger to controversy.