New PM, same old stance on gay marriage

Ripa says:

08:36am | 01/07/10

@ Informed Giant, completely agree with your comment, i believe if they chose to call it something different, like, “civil partnership” rather than pushing for the word marriage i would bet over night it would be supported.

Nothing to do with Gillard says:

06:54pm | 02/07/10

It is not Gillards choice,it is the Australian peoples choice!
Gillard is a poor example when assessing Marriage
Gillard is only interested in Gillard
Gillard only does what she is told, gays are better off lobbying Shorten

Tim says:

09:31am | 01/07/10

Yeah because everyone knows that gays would never get divorced or have bad marriages.

Kordez says:

10:20am | 01/07/10

@Tim, its important that there is the opportunity to have a bad marriage and get divorced just like any one else.

Tim says:

12:06pm | 01/07/10

Kordez,
that may be your view but Ray’s point that gay marriage should be allowed because there are bad heterosexual marriages is seriously flawed logic.

Fiona says:

01:46pm | 01/07/10

@Tim, it’s not great logic but every agrument from the conservatives as to why allowing same sex couples to marry is that it would ruin the sanctitity of marriage. Ray was merely pointing out how ridiculous that argument is when there is such a high divorce rate already having a good crack at doing that.

Mark says:

04:08pm | 06/11/10

The precise reason why there is such a high divorce rate is because we have devalued marriage. It’s no longer “us” but “you and I” with our own separate selfish lives. A friend told me recently marriage is just a piece of paper (well if you treat it like that then guess what - it will be) - come to think of it he has gone through several failed relationships. Listen folks if we restore the value of marriage and the values it represents you will radically reduce the divorce rate. Our nation was built on Godly values - when you throw these out our foundations to all that is good and wholesome crumbles.
This is why many people do not support gay marriage. It’s not a rights issue - it’s a responsibility issue. We need good role models for our future generations where are they? Mums and dads working together to build stable families creates stable societies. Shame on us if we want anything other than this.

The Redman says:

08:39am | 01/07/10

Gillard does support same sex unions, Tara. She has merely pointed out that in her view, the majority of public opinion is not yet behind the concept. I tend to agree with her. Gillard has only a few months in office before the next election, so it’s unlikely that this issue is going to be a major policy to pursue at this stage. I would hope, however, that if whe wins the next election, she will advocate for same sex unions. She could start by removing the Federal veto on legislation in the ACT for same sex unions.

man up says:

07:07pm | 01/07/10

A referendum would settle the matter in the negative and we would not have to read this boring socially engineered,selectively indiginent self rightous,minority group crap,no one cares,get over it,it is not important thats why no one in govt does anything about it!

joe says:

10:11pm | 01/07/10

Yeah the UK have a huge government debt too for many years. Doesn’t mean we don’t want that either. You had better vote informal then if Gillard is too conservative for you.

Seano says:

08:29am | 01/07/10

Very well said.

This is the sort of issue that will hopefully be addressed by a progressive PM who’s bedded into to their Prime Ministership. It’s not a burning issue for the community and it’s certainly not a vote winner but we definitely should end the discrimination as soon as possible.

Of course this is an issue that will never be addressed by Abbott. So lucky he’s unelectable and will never be PM.

Tom says:

08:40am | 01/07/10

Actually, the community as a whole has significant support for gay marriage. The most recent Galaxy Poll found 60% of Australians supported it. The argument that the community does not support it has no basis in reality.

The unfortunate thing is that the people in the right-wing factions in the Labor party do not support it. We have seen recently that this is the only electorate that really matters :(

Julia Gillard’s position is ultimately cowardly, discriminatory and disappointing. I expected better of her.

Seano says:

09:32am | 01/07/10

You’re talking about a poll commissioned by the gay marriage lobby. Now it maybe that the poll is completely fine but then would you be accepting of a poll commissioned by the Christian lobby?

And how is it cowardly for Gillard to not want to put this issue on the table when it’s not even on Abbott’s radar.

I agree we should not have discrimination of this sort and hope that it will be removed in the near future. But really gay marriage is not a burning issue for the electorate and it’s certainly not a vote winner. What you call cowardice I call simple common sense.

Tim says:

09:33am | 01/07/10

Tom,
please don’t bring up that galaxy poll again.
It was commissioned by the proponents of gay marriage and contained significant flaws in the polling process. It was commissioned to get the resullt that it did.

The Redman says:

10:19am | 01/07/10

Tom, I’m a bit leery of polls, but I hope you’re right. I guess I’m commenting on my personal discussions and observations, and it’s pretty clear to me that if there is majority support, it is tenuous to say the least. You only have to read letters to the editor and opinion columnists whenever this issue is raised that there is significant opposition to same sex union, and not just among the religious.

I’ve no doubt that if Gillard accepts that a shift in public opinion has occurred, and that a signficant proportion of the population supports the policy (not 50.1%), she will act on it.

But this is an absolute truth. It would not matter if 99.9% of the Australian population voted in a plebiscite to accept same sex unions, Prime Minister Tony Abbott will never, ever allow such solical inclusion to occur, thus allowing his personal religous views to supercede the will of the people. Gillard is not allowing her personal opinions to dictate what the nation will and will not accept. She is accepting that a significant number of people oppose it. Gillard on re-election should, and I expect will, lead the public debate in favour of same sex marriage, and hopefully sway public opinion to such an extent that legislation can be passed with the support of the majority of the people.

This is something Abbott would never allow.

The Redman says:

10:20am | 01/07/10

Oh, and Tom, I’ve two words to you when it comes to you accusations of political cowardice. Peter. Costello.

Randal says:

12:18pm | 01/07/10

@Seano & The Redman, you must have been listening to a different interview as what Ms. Gillard actually said was:

“We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman”

Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was.

Wow, what a progressive ideology that is and based on the above I can strongly suggest that she has no intention of changing that point view now or in the future.

It also identical to the policy of the Coalition and there is absolutely no difference between the two parties on this issue, and to attempt to paint Gillard in a more progressive light on this issue than Abbott is simply untrue.

This is the problem with allowing a political view to cloud your moral view, and from that perspective what hope is there ever that change can be affected.

In my view, on this issue both parties have their head stuck in the 1950’s and it is an absolute disgrace that we do not allow members of the community to be wed under the Marriage Act based on a simple fact that it may be unpopular to a specific community group.

I am a Liberal party member, and from my posts on this site many would suggest that I hold conservative views, however on issues such as gay marriage I detest the view held by the party and tell them so whenever the opportunity arises.

Perhaps rather than making excuses for Gillard you should follow the same suit and perhaps from there we may actually see come action to rectify this disgraceful act of discrimination.

Seano says:

07:43pm | 01/07/10

@Randal all she’s saying is that as it stands she supports the Act ini it’s current form. She hasn’t said gay marriage was wrong at any stage and she did go on to say:

‘‘Social change does not come easily and full legal equality for gay and lesbian Australians will take time to achieve. However, I believe that with ongoing community support the campaign for full equality will succeed.’‘

In other words she supports the move to change but doesn’t feel the community is ready for it. As gay marriage is not a hot political issue for bulk of the electorate who can blame her if she gets a second or third term and the ground swell of support keeps increasing who knows.

One you of course must understand as a conservative is that gay marriage will never likely be on the the coalition agenda and certainly never under a coalition lead by Abbott.

Tom says:

09:32pm | 01/07/10

All polls have issues, but Galaxy is a respected agency regardless of who actually paid for it. The fact is that gay people should not have to ask the rest of the community for permission to get married anyway, but if community values are going to come into it, it’s fairly clear that there is relatively little, if vocal and powerful opposition, and a whole lot of apathy from the rest of the community who perhaps understandably can’t understand what the fuss was about.

I agree it’s not a hot button issue for most of the electorate, but it is very important for those it effects. The fact is that all the Labor party has to do to make me happy is remove their OPPOSITION to gay marriage at a federal and leave it open to a conscience vote on the inevitable private members bill. It is then just a waiting game until the make-up of parliament changes to better reflect community values on the issue.

Seano says:

09:37am | 02/07/10

“The fact is that gay people should not have to ask the rest of the community for permission to get married anyway”

Um yes they should, not because they are gay and not because there is anything at all wrong with who they are but simply because we live within a set of community standards. Sure those standards aren’t perfect and they aren’t always correct or fair but that’s life.

Labor don’t necessarily oppose gay marriage the support the status quo, I know it might seem like an inconsequential distinction but really all they are saying is that when the community is ready to support gay marriage then they will look at the issue.

What I find interesting is that you set a different standard for Labor than for Liberal, obviously realising that Liberal minds are completey closed to the issue.

Seano says:

08:25am | 01/07/10

I don’t see gay marriage on Tony Abbot’s agenda.

Tom says:

08:48am | 01/07/10

60% of the electorate support Gay Marriage.

The fact is, you’re the one peeing into the winds of history.

bec says:

09:11am | 01/07/10

Personally, I’m against people who can’t use ellipses voting. Alas, my prejudice has more of a basis than yours.

hatesrednecks says:

09:14am | 01/07/10

Sounds like your from Nth Qld to me. Your shout mate!

Aldous Huxley says:

09:52am | 01/07/10

‘comparing it to the civil rights movement of the 60s is belittling to that movement’ . . . Nice one. May I remind you that homosexuals were, in fact, treated more poorly than many Jews during the holocaust, are still executed in many parts of the world and continue to receive ‘separate but equal’ status in most ‘progressive’ western nations (separate but equal would be called an improvement in Australia, all things considered).

Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I would assume that you’re probably white, male and middle-class. Clearly I also cannot begin to understand the massive obstacles you’ve faced in your life thus far. Furthermore, I won’t begin to question the fundamentally flawed argument of majorities deciding what rights minorities are entitled to, because that’s never led to problems in the past . . .

Barney says:

01:15pm | 01/07/10

Please don’t tar all north Queenslanders with the same ‘redneck’ brush…some of us are reasonably intelligent and didn’t fall off the turnip (or sugar cane) truck yesterday. I bet the ratio of north Queenslanders supporting gay marriage is about on par with every other area of Australia.

Bigos says:

01:36pm | 01/07/10

@ Aldous Huxley
“May I remind you that homosexuals were, in fact, treated more poorly than many Jews during the holocaust, are still executed in many parts of the world..”
And Roma Gypsies were treated even worse then Homosexuals during the holocaust. Are you actually trying to make a point?

“(separate but equal would be called an improvement in Australia, all things considered).”
All things considered such as? Are homosexuals imprisoned, denied employment, killed, threatened or denied the expression of their sexuality in Australia!?

“I would assume that you’re probably white, male and middle-class. Clearly I also cannot begin to understand the massive obstacles you’ve faced in your life thus far”

Probably the same obstacles in life as any other person, but wtf would you know when you can just make a sweeping generalisation.

joe says:

10:20pm | 01/07/10

60% of statistics are made up on the spot. Homosexual are just scared of the opposite sex.

Tom says:

09:01am | 01/07/10

That argument is ridiculous. No psychology body in the western world agrees with your position.

“The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Psychology

Read that, do further research and educate yourself please.

Rick says:

10:27am | 01/07/10

Wow Tom, wikipedia… you certainly know how to do research.

Andrew says:

10:29am | 01/07/10

Do you give this same insane explanation to animals in the wild that have same sex attraction? “psychological damage done to the individual in early childhood.”  You poor deluded fool!

James1 says:

10:43am | 01/07/10

If the research is extensive and conclusive you should be able to point out some refereed papers or articles for us Steve.  Can you do that please?

Steve says:

10:57am | 01/07/10

I am not ignorant, Tom. There are clear links in the early clinical research between certain patterns of early psychological injury, and subsequent same-sex attraction. It is very common, but it is not normal. Hetrosexuals also have psychological scars that affect their sexuality. It is never the victim’s fault, but sticking our collective heads in the sand is counterproductive.

As in the area of climate change, recent research in sexuality is extremely biased and agenda-driven. Dissent is not tolerated. I believe that that was initially a reaction to the religiously driven stigmatism of homosexuality. But we’ve gone way beyond a sensible rejection of religious homophobia to the point where all people experiencing same-sex attraction are encouraged to adopt and live with distorted sexual identities. Those responsible have a lot to answer for.

Latte_left says:

11:41am | 01/07/10

Hey Steve,

I’m Gay, and I cannot remember a single occasion where I was ‘psychologically damaged’ in my childhood. In fact, I would say that my loving, supportive family has done a stellar job in raising me. I reject your assertion entirely and find it truly offensive.

Furthermore, the AMA doesn’t recognise homosexuality as an illness, nor does the Royal Australian and New Zealand college of Psychiatrists. Surely if the research you refer to was indeed extensive and conclusive, shouldn’t such highly regarded bodies hold the same view that you do?

Unless you’re a psychiatrist with 16 years of training under your belt, or a psychologist with a PhD, kindly sit down and know your place.

Steve says:

02:17pm | 01/07/10

@Latte_left
I did not work in the field, but when I studied psychology at university, the dominant view was that same sex attraction was due to psychological damage. While some people can remember particular incidents or patterns of relationship that were factors, others have no such memories. There are cogent explanations for that. Nor is it necessary that the family were unloving or incompetent. No family is perfect.

The modern rejection of the clinical evidence on which the old consensus was based depends on the claim that the social and religious context predisposed people to such a conclusion. While it is true that the modern social and religious context predisposes people against the conclusion, that was not true back then. The subjective nature of the science was openly acknowledged, conclusions were held tentatively, and debate was acceptable. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Kordez says:

03:30pm | 01/07/10

@Steve, you use out of date, disproved and offensive facts you learnt at school? To call a large group of people mentally ill? Mate that’s piss poor effort. Even if your ramblings are true there is no law preventing those who are of mental illness from being married. The same regard should be given to homosexuals.
What really pisses me off is you seem intelligent and your education has been used to demonise an entire culture by labelling them retards. Dollars well spent.

latte_left says:

04:21pm | 01/07/10

You studied psychology at University? Pretty much every single person who does an arts degree can study psychology at University, so unless you actually have a PhD in it (which i’m sure you probably don’t), then you’re no more qualified than most in making a comment here.

I’m a med student, I have many friends who are very well respected psychiatrists who would vigorously refute the statements that you have made here.

Give me the citation of a single current, peer-reviewed journal that supports your claim and I might revise my view of you as highfalutin, second string university graduate who thinks that studying a few units of a subject at university suddenly makes you an expert.

Any emotional trauma that I might have experienced up to this point has been caused mainly by people like you, denigrating me, not by my family ‘screwing up’ in some way or another. Not only do you offend every single LGBT person in this country, you offend their loving, caring families who have done nothing to deserve the out-dated vitriol you’ve spewed forth.

PaulB says:

10:29pm | 01/07/10

Medicalizing something that you fear is the modern way Steve, now that biblical invocations no longer work.  Nice try but your inner Jesus is showing.

Greg says:

01:41pm | 05/07/10

You must be Steve Price!

Andrew says:

09:26am | 01/07/10

Actually Sarah, people are at risk. Young individuals questioning their sexuality or identifying as homosexual are more likely to attempt (and succeed at) suicide, physical and verbal abuse and a sense of being an out cast from society. Depression in LGBT adults is also of a higher instance. A recent study in QLD found that the majority of LGBT individuals had been physically or verbally abused.

Whilst Marriage/Civil Unions/formal recognition is not the only answer. This recognition legalises a same-sex relationship at the highest level in this country. At the moment bigot and homophobes are somewhat justified in their abuse, as the government does not fully recognise same sex attracted individuals as equal.

Stewart Henstock says:

09:40am | 01/07/10

I agree with Sarah as i said above i have my beliefs on the issue and that the subject matter isn’t really an issue for me.
The only issue i have is against the left wing gay smear merchants who rip into anyone whose opinion differs from theirs like Tom,Beck and Hatesrednecks.
Firstly your Galaxy Poll like most polls done recently aren’t worth a nickle.If you had the majority of consensus why isn’t it an election issue.
No i’m not a banana bender although i like some on my cereal.
I am a little disappointed tho…nobody has called me homophobic yet…lol

Kordez says:

09:43am | 01/07/10

Your right Sarah, but if we ignored all cultural minorities requests and desires we wouldn’t be the country we are now.
Farmers are a minority, if we postponed legislating increased protections and rights for them they’d be rightly pissed off.
Woman was once considered a minority despite they outnumber man, would you fight for your right to vote and attend a pub today?
Slaves were a minority, the cultures used in the past seem happier today don’t you think?
So Sarah, it is important to perhaps only 5% of the nation, but that number is growing because the public opinion will adapt when loved ones cannot marry their loved ones.

Paul says:

09:43am | 01/07/10

Sarah, it wasn’t so long ago that being gay got you nicely sheltered and fed in prisons, and re-educated with aversion therapy.  The point to me is that we should be valuing stable relationships.  I’m in one, have been for 20 years, and perhaps this is more scary to conservative Australia as it deprives them of the sexually promiscuous homosexual they can all hate.  I have no desire to get married, but I think I should have the right to have my relationship recognised and valued.  I’m sick of hatred and judgement.

Seano says:

09:50am | 01/07/10

I agree with Sarah, this is a non issue for most of the electorate. It’s an incredibly long bow you draw Andrew from someone questioning their sexuality to suicide because they can’t marry a person of their choosing. And I doubt that not being able to marry is the cause of much abuse either.

Gay couples were given more rights than ever before last year under this government so for some people to be having a go at Gillard over not taking on a challenging issue which is simple not important for the majority of the electorate simply because she’s not religous seems to me to be disingenuous.

Jo says:

10:13am | 01/07/10

I’m not gay and it matters to me. Actually, it matters to me a lot. It should matter to everyone. And it is a big issue. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be talking about it at all. The very fact that you say it isn’t concerns me, and it’s attitudes like that that are stopping our country from moving forward.

And it can be a life/death situation. Just have a look at the suicide statistics.

progressivesunite says:

10:15am | 01/07/10

No Sarah, but life for that 5% can still be quite tough. Young gays and lesbians are still more likely than young straights to commit suicide, for example, partly because they live in a society that still sees their relationships as less legitimate than straight relationships - hopefully that’s a “big issue” to people even if they’re not gay themselves….. I wish people would stop trotting out the majority/minority argument - one day you might be in the minority on something, you know!!

Phil says:

10:39am | 01/07/10

@ Sarah, Exactly!

This country has much bigger issues than gay marriage.
Most people honestly dont really care that much about it, its just something that keeps getting dragged up (like yesterdays topic about pretty much the same thing) Maybe they are on a commission scheme that pays per post at the punch?

Id rather see real issues addressed like roads, public transport, healthcare, education, planning for the countries future (a bleak one if it goes on with the lack of planning that is evident in Australia.) 

@Andrew, There are not enough services which are able to help the growing numbers of people with mental health issues (not saying being LGBT is a mental health issue either) but these people are just as prone to self harm, suicide, being outcast from society and depression , abuse etc and they cant get good help either! why focus only on gay people to make sure they are ok, you are discriminating against others which would make up a larger % than the LGBT community. Being allowed a Civil union or marriage wont fix these issues.

Im all for a civil union setup etc, i dont want the word marriage used but the problem i see is once they get it, they will just start complaining about something else pushing the bigot & homophobes angle on everyone who doesnt agree with them until they get it.

“A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices” So while its thrown at straight people who may not agree with what they have to say and make them feel bad (?) they are in turn being bigots themselves.

Paul says:

11:38am | 01/07/10

@ Stewart

Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals, Stewart.  No one has called you homophobic this because you’re obviously not afraid of homosexuals.  You just hate them instead.

Fred says:

02:48pm | 01/07/10

Phil and Sarah have clearly never belonged to a minority that has been discriminated against in their lifetime.  It’s so much easier to understand if do have, and so much harder to explain when people make statements such as theirs.

iansand says:

07:34pm | 01/07/10

But it is a small thing to rectify - a small amendment to the Marriage Act (or at worst the Parliamentary Counsels’ office spending an idle Friday afternoon drafting a short bill that says that, should they choose to, the benefits of marriage should extend to any couple).  But the benefits to a substantial minority of Australians is immense.

Bondi Billy says:

10:35am | 01/07/10

That so wrong.

progressive says:

04:35pm | 01/07/10

I think you meant ‘That’s so wrong’, Bondi Billy. I may not be able to get married, but I can definitely string a cohesive sentence together.

TC says:

04:48pm | 01/07/10

How progressive to pick up a tpyo

Kordez says:

10:27am | 01/07/10

@Fen aka Francis, yesterday you said the same thing. You have option available to you now. You can get married to your friend and never have sex. Just like most married couples.
If your asking to have a civil union, you can go to the ACT and have this.
The topic of conversation is Gay Marriage not a commitment ceremony between mates.

The Redman says:

10:27am | 01/07/10

You can. If you are male and female and are best friends and want to adopt, you can get married. You don’t have to prove that you have slept together, or are ever going to sleep together to get married. I’ve yet to hear a marriage vow include the phrase “I will honour you for all of my life, and bonk you whenever I get the chance”. There is absolutely no legal impediment for a man to marry is best platonic girlfried at all.

Now, if two hetrosexual blokes or two hetrosexual women don’t want a relationship, but reckon they could bring up a child just as well as anyone, they have no legal recourse to do so. Similarly, if same sex unions are legalised, there is nothing to stop you ‘marrying’ your friend and applying for adoption. As I said, the promise to be sexually involved with each other is not part of the ceremonial or legal aspect of marriage.

(If it is, after 20 years of marriage, can I sue? lol)

Tim says:

12:04pm | 01/07/10

Redman,
what if I want to marry my two girlfriends?
This kind of discrimination against bigamists and polygamists has got to stop.
Marriage rights for everyone.

The Redman says:

12:14pm | 01/07/10

Well, to be perfectly honest, laws against bigamy and polygamy are also religious based. But I wouldn’t overturn them. It’s a protection mechanism. I have enough trouble keeping one lady happy, let alone any more!!

Francis says:

12:49pm | 01/07/10

@ Kordez,

I cant as we are both of the same sex and are regarded as living in a homosexual relationship. Gay marriage or friends marriage is the same thing why does sex ( the act) have to be important?

That why if they introduce a gay marriage law they should also include a friends marriage law.

Daniel says:

01:52pm | 01/07/10

Francis, still chipping away at that slippery slope argument eh?
Allowing same sex marriage doesn’t mean it will legally called gay marriage and prevent same sex friends from marrying. It will just be called marriage. If two people want to make that kind of commitment it does not appear that anyone wants to stop it or anyone cares. You should try the “if two men can can get married then why can’t I marry a goat?”.  Its just as feeble but a litle more entertaining.

Kordez says:

10:43am | 01/07/10

@Bondi Billy, In 2004 the Howard Government amended the Marriage Bill (1961) to ensure Australian same sex couples couldn’t marry, one third of the house of representatives who had to vote didn’t even have the decency to turn up.
Gay lobby groups don’t pretend anything, sexual orientation is not a choice as you might think. Gay Lobby groups clearly and definitively outline what impact the introduction of gay marriage would have to current and future marriage’s within Australia and there is not one ounce of evidence to suggest it would damage the legal value of marriage at all.
Protect the children? For Christ’s sake man, get a hold of yourself.

James1 says:

10:48am | 01/07/10

“People choosing to be gay”?  Lets put this myth to bed please.  I would assume that you are either gay or bisexual as well Bondi Billy, and that you simply choose not to act on your attraction to men, because if homosexuality is a choice we are all bisexual by definition.  Surely as a gay or bisexual man yourself, you can understand why your fellow gays and bisexuals want the same rights as the rest of us?

DR says:

11:10am | 01/07/10

I didn’t choose, I wish I had the chance to, as if I had a chance to “choose to be gay” I probably wouldn’t have since it caused so much angst in earlier life etc.  So when did you choose to be heterosexual?

And Re: the marriage debate.  I’m not really worried, a piece of paper doesn’t really mean much, and you can have a ceremony anywhere you want these days.

And yes Bondi Billy, I agree with you about how gay relationships and heterosexual (not hetrosexual, please use a spell check in future) are different.  I don’t go home and smack up my partner like you probably do every night.

DG says:

11:38am | 01/07/10

DR:

You didn’t choose to be gay, but you do choose to pursue a homosexual lifestyle (for obvious reasons- in particular, that’s what makes you happy). The social consequences come not from your desire to have physical relationships with people of the same gender (which is beyond your control), but your decision to behave in accordance with your desires (not beyond your control).

Like any person who behaves in accordance with their desires, there is the potential for those desires to include behaviour that other persons in the community will find offensive or abhorrent - and consequently, challenge what is socially acceptable.

Personally, I don’t care who you want to marry, have sex with, fantasize about or watch as they walk down the street (see below for my 3 step approach to re-writing marriage). But you must accept some responsibility, it is you decision to behave in such a manner that causes angst in some sectors of the community. Just as you’re world view is challenged by the opposing view, your decision to behave in certain a certain way challenges their world view.

There is no moral high ground in this - simply a difference of opinion. Presently the public opinion seems to be swinging to the more liberal - “do what you want so long as it doesn’t affect me directly” - that give’s the illusion of ‘right’, not that long ago you were soundly in the ‘wrong’. (this is why it is not an issue of right and wrong, but what is popular).

Just remember your fight for the right to walk down the street holding hands with another person of the same gender* is a fight to take away other persons right to walk down the street without being confronted by what they consider to be offensive behaviour.

*I know this is not about something as simple as holding hands, but I hope that you see the analogy.

DR says:

12:13pm | 01/07/10

DG, when did you choose to be heterosexual and choose to engage in those behaviours?  Also when did you choose to be a discriminatory bigot?

Tim says:

12:32pm | 01/07/10

*DG’s point*
DR’s Head.

Bondi Billy says:

12:44pm | 01/07/10

@DR

since you are infering straight men smack up thier husbands, it would probably indicate a couple of things you father probably abused you or you need to seek help or you live in a box and need to get out more. Please open you mind to the fact the men and women do live together in normal. loving relationships.Such bigots and hetrophobe comments are not welcome.

Nicole says:

01:26pm | 01/07/10

@Bondi Billy - Err, I didn’t know straight men had husbands.

DG says:

04:05pm | 01/07/10

DR:

I choose to participate in heterosexual behaviour whenever my wife says I am allowed. Equally I choose not to participate in homosexual behaviour because it just doesn’t appeal to me.

Strangely, a mate of mine and I have a running joke - he claims that he doesn’t understand how I could find the idea of having a physical relationship with a woman appealing, I make the same claim about his decision to prefer same sex partners.

The reason that it’s a joke is because we both understand that a persons sexual preference is no more definitive of a person than is their preference for vanilla over strawberry, or savoury over sweets. It’s a biological preference, and every time you choose your behaviour, it makes sense that you will choose the one that appeals most to you.

A rational and responsible person considers the consequences of their behaviour when deciding how to behave in any given situation.

“Also when did you choose to be a discriminatory bigot? “

Did you actually read my post, or just run off on some wild tangent assuming that because I said you have a choice about your behaviour that I must be a bigot?

If you read it you would find that I said:

“Personally, I don’t care who you want to marry, have sex with, fantasize about or watch as they walk down the street (see below for my 3 step approach to re-writing marriage).”

Hardly the phrase of a discriminatory bigot.

I was trying to be conciliatory. I was hoping that, if you stopped to think about how other people feel rather than going off in a huff about your demands and what you want, you might understand why there is some resistance by some sectors to your proposal. I did not, and I make this clear since it appears that you missed it, say that I opposed gay marriage. I said quite the opposite.

I suspect that you are just trolling the forums, angry that your lifestyle isn’t as popular as some others, hoping that by accusing others of being bigots and homophobes you justify your decision to follow your desires - despite the hardship it causes. However, a word of advice, abusing people who actually support marriage as a social union that is not limited to “a man and a woman” is hardly in your best interest.

It does however, prove my point that, you are judged not by your thoughts and feelings but by your behaviour. You previous post (a behaviour) is a perfect example of why some people feel that their world is being ripped away from them by heartless people who care only about their own interests, and have no sympathy for those whom they hurt in the process. By people who don’t listen, and don’t care, who, with greed in their hearts, abuse others and demand that they they are treated in a specific way.

By making demands that the community change to accept your world view, you are demanding that someone else loses the happy world they have now. Think about it - and have some regard for those that feel that they are losing something.

I’m not saying that they are right or justified, I am simply pointing out that those people have the same right to pursue their happy world as you do, even tho you don’t see it you are bringing an end to their happy world by contaminating it with something that they see as abhorrent.

Are they justified? I put it to you that they are no more responsible for their feelings of disgust at homosexuality than you are for your feeling of attraction towards other persons of your gender. The question is what will they choose to do?

Even thought I feel no desire to pursue a homosexual relationship, I feel that you should be free to do so. For that reason, and that reason alone, I support gay marriage. It’s not inconsistent with my ideal world.

But, if some people choose to do as their heart desires and prohibit gay marriage, are they really doing anything different to your decision to pursue your desires (for same sex marriage)?

Both you and they are pursuing a personal image of the perfect world.

PaulB says:

10:37pm | 01/07/10

Billy, you really are an idiot. There’s no point in even trying to debate with someone like you.  Go post over on some dumb American christian website where they welcome that kind of illiterate mindlessness.

Othello Cat says:

11:54pm | 02/07/10

” I support gays right to work, own a home and get social welfare.”

Awwwwww! You are sooooooooooooooooo gracious Bondi Billy. Mustabin real hard and all that to come out and be soooooooooooo tolerant and all. Best nominate your for a peace prize eh?

NEFFA says:

06:52pm | 01/07/10

I agree. just abolish the whole practise and then we can be free.

DJ says:

11:59am | 02/07/10

When marriage was first introduced people’s life expectancy was considerably lower, plague, war all these things meant you weren’t spending 50 plus years with the same person. You cannot guarantee that you will feel the same way about someone 10-20 years down the track, people change and if the relationship isn’t nurtured the feelings die which explains our high divorce rate, 2 out of 3 marriages end in divorce, those aren’t exactly good odds. Why marry? live in sin it’s more fun

DG says:

09:22am | 03/07/10

Why do you assume that it’s all about how you feel in 10 years rather than about being loyal, honest, committed and supportive.

I suggest that the problem with society as a whole is an obsession with how they feel at any given moment (i.e selfish, greedy) than they are in sticking to the promises or that they have made, of compromise and sacrifice. its proof of the greed is good philosophy at the cost of community interests.

Its one things to separate when one person isn’t keeping their promises, it’s quite another to separate “because I feel like it”. The later shows a persons contempt for the promises that they make, their inability to be trusted and their honour. In lieu of respectable behaviour, society has sunk to the level of accepting (even rewarding) disrespectful, dishonourable and despicable behaviour.

I put it to you that the world would be a far better place if people behaved honourably, respectably and in accordance with their promises - rather than just doing whatever they “feel’ like.

DJ says:

11:57am | 05/07/10

DG - because what you FEEL is a big thing, if you no longer love someone why stay married to them just for the kids? do you think the kids can’t feel it or don’t notice it? they are very intuitive and can pick up on things and if you are arguing best to end it, what if you fall in love with someone else? are you meant to live in misery just so you don’t break a promise? that’s why you shouldn’t marry, don’t make a promise you can’t keep.

DG says:

01:02pm | 06/07/10

“why stay married to them just for the kids”

No, I’m not saying stay for the kids - I am saying stay married because you are a honest, loyal and trustworthy person who does as they promise. As opposed to being some despicable, untrustworthy, disloyal scoundrel who ignores their promises, their obligations and duties (that they willingly accepted) just because they don’t feel like it. If your choices lead you to a life that you don’t like, that’s the result of your choices. It’s hardly the fault of the person who trusts you, is loyal and has built their life on their trust for you.

I completely agree that a person shouldn’t get married if they are unwilling to stick to their promises. but they should have the honesty to acknowledge that while they do not choose how they feel, the do choose how to behave (of course some people choose to behave however they feel, others choose to do what is fair* even at great costs to themselves).

*by fair, in this instance, I mean that if another person has structured their life around promises that you make - and then you break those promises because you don’t feel like sticking to them, accept responsibility, accept that you have carried out the ultimate betrayal. it is not fair to that person who has done as they promised, who wasted their years with a person who’s integrity is non-existent, whose loyalty is waived on a whim, who has no respect for the person to whom you have made the promises.

One a person decides to put their own feelings above their loyalty to others, their personal integrity and their honour - how can such a person ever be trusted or respected ever again?

This is what is wrong with society - we are far to willing to allow a person to justify their most despicable behaviour with the excuse “I felt like it”, rather than calling them to account for their reprehensible behaviour (we call it “No Fault Divorce”).

Mark says:

04:33pm | 06/11/10

Hi Alicia,
Lasting marriage is not a fantasy it just takes commitment from both parties to make it work. Sadly these days self has become the new god on the block hence the rapid rise in divorce. Many of us though are committed to making our marriages work and this is where our society needs to be heading - back to solid values then we will see a drop in divorce rates, crime etc.

The Redman says:

10:31am | 01/07/10

Maybe if you stopped posting comments that are clearly homophobic and bigoted, you would be subject to such epiphets. You preface your post by referring to monies spent on mental health. I take it that you, therefore, view homosexuality as a mental illness. If that’s not homophobic and bigoted, I don’t know what is.

Kordez says:

10:48am | 01/07/10

@Stewart Henstock, “they perceive that they are the only ones on the planet who are discriminated against.”
So your stating that the Australian Government discriminates against Homosexuals? Well guess what Stewart Henstock, in Australia it is unlawful to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Right for your mouth… BAM!

Andrew says:

10:55am | 01/07/10

I’m not referring to those with a different opinion… I’m referring to those that have physically and verbally abused myself and friends in the past.

When was the last time someone punched you because of your identity? Or called you a name you find offensive? Or that someone looked at you sideways as you held your partner’s hand? Or openly made derogatory comments as you walked past? Or denied you service?

You are entitled to your opinion… so am I. It’s just the government doesn’t recognise my rights to be the same as yours! As such it holds your opinion above mine.

iansand says:

11:24am | 01/07/10

“...the left wing gay movement ...”  Are you sure there are no gay people in the Liberal Party?

bec says:

10:31am | 01/07/10

Why don’t you write something yourself then? Because I’ve seen you post the same variation on your usual gormless comments over twenty times now.

Kordez says:

11:15am | 01/07/10

@bec, sometimes they are insightful.. But Margaret doesn’t do well with this particular topic.

TC says:

04:47pm | 01/07/10

The reason she writes so well is because she is so often right.

Couldn’t agree more Margaret

bec says:

05:58pm | 01/07/10

No, I’m yet to see her make a point that doesn’t screamingly say “I’m a supremely privileged person who has lived in a comfortable coccoon of advantage my entire life and I’d rather insist that everyone who doesn’t have the same advantage of being born into my situation suck it up and do the crap jobs that I wouldn’t deign to do myself”. She is never in the position to have to cope with racism, or being prevented from marrying the person she loves, or to have to live on the street or face long-term unemployment, and she doesn’t have the empathy to understand *why* people are in these situations. Everything she says seems to revolve around the key premise of “why won’t these people eat the turd sandwich that society forces upon them? Uppity minorities!”

Stuff what she has to say, and stuff her comfortable bubble.

Tim says:

09:51am | 02/07/10

And every comment you make Bec is about how the majority should pander to every whim of minorities because of this supposedly disadvantaged predicament that society has forced on them. It’s bullshit.

bec says:

09:15am | 03/07/10

And here’s the problem, Tim: you assert that *you* and your beliefs are the majority. That what you are is the norm, and what everyone else is is distinctly different or lesser. That you, as a white straight male (which would be, I presume, an actual minority of the population globally), presumes everyone else who is brown or female or non-straight is the minority (when we comprise the numeric majority) or abnormal.

You don’t seem to get that you’re the noisy minority of the world, Tim. That for too long, people globally have had to put up and shut up if you wanted to invade a country to be able to keep drinking tea or coffee, or have sex with someone who was unwilling because you had “needs”, or make a little extra off people you could justify paying less to. You are a numerical minority and yet you earn an overwhelming majority of the world’s money, you own a huge amount of the world’s property, you consume a huge amount of the world’s food, have a lion’s share of presence in the world’s biggest media empires, and you have the gall to call yourself normal, and everyone else the minority?

Girl, please.

You come talk to me about “noisy minorities” when you figure out that *you* are the noisy minority. I might start a protest humanitarian movement for you and your plight. This will probably involve drawing a sadface on MS Paint and lighting my favourite Emo Crystal Tears candle.

bec says:

09:21am | 03/07/10

I should probably clarify that further still, most straight white dudes aren’t such entitled crybabies that they believe that they’re the norm and everyone else is aberrant, and that the world should bend to their whims. So even within that minority you’re a minority.

Tim says:

01:43pm | 05/07/10

Where did I mention white male Bec?

Maybe your just a little preoccupied with your victim mentality.

Tim says:

02:10pm | 05/07/10

Oh,
and I also find it a little ironic, that (whilst doing some of the best stereotyping i’ve seen recently) you can decry all the things that allow you to live the life you do. You seem to forget that you are one of the prime beneficiaries of these evils.
Must be fun to be out there fighting the “man” whilst living a life of relative luxury thanks to said “man”.

Nicole says:

11:33am | 01/07/10

As a proud sister of a gay brother, I find your bigoted post extremely offencive. ’ Us normal folk’ please define normal? Hilarious. Here’s a tip for you dear, and it’s free.  There are other Countries, where people of your ilk reside, where they still live in denial, where homophobia runs rampant and they still drag their knuckles. Please go and live there.

bec says:

06:00pm | 01/07/10

Emily, darling, please do not sully the perfectly good word “normal” by asserting you fit within it. You are clearly less intelligent than the norm.

latte_left says:

04:25pm | 01/07/10

Well, not really. They’re allowed to marry who they’re attracted to. Your assertion is false, as is your use of apostrophes.

TC says:

04:54pm | 01/07/10

Latte. You didn’t use capitals for your name

Stewart Henstock says:

12:06pm | 01/07/10

Yes but i don’t think the right wing hit squads of Sussex St are pro gay….you may want to change your vote to the Greens.
Or
You could always hope to out breed us…but i don’t think that will happen..p~

LifeofY says:

01:09pm | 01/07/10

The Greens who wouldn’t let the ETS pass the senate? Those Greens?
I think not. In a 2 party preferred system I would rather my vote count.
And out breed who? The Liberals?

The Redman says:

02:32pm | 01/07/10

Rights greater than nature gives? I assume, therefore, that infertile couples would be included in this group exluded from IVF. In fact, I assume you think IVF should be outlawed completely. Basically, what you are saying is that if one, for whatever reason, cannot concieve through the act of sex, they cannot have children. Obviously, adoption would be out of the question, so we can reopen all the orphanages of the 19th century there. Or are you, as I suspect you are, merely singling out homosexuals for this ban, ergo exposing your bigatory for all to see?

Kordez says:

12:25pm | 01/07/10

@Stewart Henstock, my interpretation was accurate, your statement could not possibly be misconstrued given the topic in discussion. If it was meant to read “act as if” you should have chosen a word other then “perceive”. You insinuated it’s okay to treat gay activists discriminately and that they are not the only groups to be discriminated against on the globe.
I’m understanding that gay marriage in Australia isn’t an attractive right for some groups and there are people who disagree with it. But I would not make ignorant statements supporting discrimination against any group or people opposed.
I’m understanding that gay marriage in Australia isn’t an attractive right for some groups and there are people who disagree with it. But I would not make ignorant statements supporting discrimination against any group or people opposed.

joe says:

10:19pm | 01/07/10

Yeah we need to be modern like Iceland and have a huge crippling debt. That country also recently let themselves be shafted by shonky financial companies who sent them broke then took off. Now tell me we should be following iceland.

Chris says:

05:46pm | 02/07/10

Excellent deduction, Joe! Clearly, financial stability is the foundation of correct sexuality!

Kordez says:

08:59am | 02/07/10

@Hona, bull shit like this has poured from religious groups and party leaders looking for the majority of votes for almost a decade. Religious groups do not define or control the Marriage Act nor does their opinion influence governmental decisions of amendments. Gay Lobby groups are sick of their mission being used as a political wedge each election and tire of the “it’s mine, so you can’t have it” routine a reducing portion of the public express. I have not read the Act myself, but I’d be very surprised if it mentioned anything relating to reproduction within a marriage or instilling family values within Australian marriages. Most of the gay society accepts there’s only a controversial place for them in any religious group, so they develop their own faith. What gay culture will never accept is the lack of legal recognition Australia offers them.
The really evil part is that for taxation, family support, unemployment benefits, carers allowance and disability pensions they are now forced to reveal their relationships even though the Australian government refuses to allow them legal recognition of it. So no Hona, your argument remains discriminatory to a minority and Australia should endorse an amendment to recognise same sex relations, like other reputable countries around the world already have.

bec says:

09:17am | 03/07/10

Your “friends” may say that they like and agree with you, but secretly and rightly, they’re probably just biding their time until they pour sugar in your petrol tank.

DJ says:

12:11pm | 02/07/10

Not all marriage between man and woman is a stabilising family platform, we have step families, blended families etc. abusive spouses, kiddy fiddlers, fathers and mothers who kill their children to make their spouses pay. yeah real stable

Freeman says:

08:43pm | 02/07/10

Yes DJ, you could find poor examples of a family. still, a child is usually much better off in family unit than in a single parent situation or any other arrangement.

Bigos says:

11:04pm | 02/07/10

@ DJ

“abusive spouses, kiddy fiddlers, fathers and mothers who kill their children to make their spouses pay. yeah real stable.”

These are traits of individuals and have nothing to do with the family platform. Plenty of the same sort of crimes committed by homosexual couples, but you can’t say it’s the homosexual relationship platform that causes it.

DJ says:

11:54am | 05/07/10

Freeman and Bigos, With 2 out of 3 marriages ending in divorce how is the ‘normal’ working? and as a single parent my child has in no way been disadvantaged by not having a father 24/7.

I will never marry so will stay a single parent, and out of 20 in my childs and my nephews classes at school only 3 of the kids have parents who are married (my nephew is one of the 3), they really wont miss out when the majority are in the same boat

DJ says:

11:05am | 06/07/10

Oh GOD yes, get rid of them, and these Australia’s Got Talent all this shit get rid of the reality TV shows, here’s an idea for reality TV look out your freaking window