Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aust Parliament Votes Against Same-sex Marriage  
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2769 times:

In what same-sex marriage campaigners describe as "a slap in the face", the House of Representatives voted against a bill that would have amended the Marriage Act and allowed same-sex couples to marry.

While the Labor party allowed a conscience vote, the Liberals were expected to toe the party line and vote against. Malcolm Turnbull, a Liberal frontbencher spoke in favour of same-sex marriage but was forced to vote against because of Tony Abbott's refusal to allow a free vote.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Deputy Wayne Swan voted against while some of Cabinet voted in favour. Gillard, who is not married to her male partner, had previously said that she did not see the need for marriage. In other words, she is allowed to choose but she will not allow others the same freedom of choice.

The debate was not been free of quite ridiculous and hateful claims by some. Leader of the Australian Christian Lobby likened the health effects of smoking with homosexuality, while Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi suggested that if gay marriage were allowed the next thing would be demands to recognise relationships between humans and animals.

The defeat of the bill comes despite repeated polls showing that 62% of the public support for laws providing marriage equality. The final vote was 42 for and 98 against.

There are three similar bills before Parliament but it is not known when or if they will be brought forward to be voted on.

Edited to add link. Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-1...x-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016

[Edited 2012-09-18 22:13:54]

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2737 times:

It's an interesting example of democracy not quite functioning exactly how it was intentioned. Even a consciense vote would not be the 100% correct way to go. Aren't they supposed to represent the view of their constituents?? In any case, a 98-42 result against the bill is quite distant from the community view.

I think it will pass at some point, within the next 10 years or so.

There actually has been some healthy debate on the topic, from both sides. Even the guy that made the comparison with smoking provoked some interesting discussion, (although his rather flimsy grasp of the statistics and causal relationships allowed the crux of his argument to be undermined and ridiculed).

Bestiality.....that was just a comedy sideshow. He paid for it though. Was forced to resign this morning


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7577 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

I'd like to say something here:

I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Marriage is something that should be defined by someone's individual beliefs, not by what a government says.

I wish THAT was on a nation's capital hill.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19725 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2563 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Marriage is something that should be defined by someone's individual beliefs, not by what a government says.

Great. So I and 100 of my closest friends want to file joint taxes because we're married. And we want joint COBRA benefits and healthcare from just one of our employers...

See why it's necessary? What ISN'T necessary is denying it to same-sex couples.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5453 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2509 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Gotta say I agree with your sentiment. When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

Is it at all possible for a referendum to be called? It would seem that is the only other option given how blind the House of Representatives appears to be in this case.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Gotta say I agree with your sentiment. When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

While I am in favor of same-sex marriage, is that a good reason for same-sex marriage? I think it should be on equality. What if 55% of Australians were against same-sex marriage. Would this ruling be right then?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
While I am in favor of same-sex marriage, is that a good reason for same-sex marriage? I think it should be on equality. What if 55% of Australians were against same-sex marriage. Would this ruling be right then?

I'm in favour of same-sex marriage as well, but this isn't so much a same-sex marriage issue for me. The majority has made the determination that they are for the passing of a bill, and the officials representing that same majority have gone against their will in astonishing numbers. It doesn't matter if this is gay marriage or a tax on apples, the government has defied the sentiment of the majority they represent, which I find rather unacceptable.

Frankly it's just bad business on behalf of these politicians. I voted for the Progressive Conservatives in the last Canadian federal election. The PC ultimately won. If the PM went and did something contradictory to the desires of a majority of the country that put him in office with a majority, there are going to be a whole lot of people changing their mind on who they vote for in the next election.

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Deputy Wayne Swan voted against while some of Cabinet voted in favour. Gillard, who is not married to her male partner, had previously said that she did not see the need for marriage. In other words, she is allowed to choose but she will not allow others the same freedom of choice.

For some reason I missed this line in my first reading. How hypocritical of Gillard!



Flying refined.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2486 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
See why it's necessary? What ISN'T necessary is denying it to same-sex couples.

To add to that if you are gay and your partner is seriously injured you cannot make decisions on their behalf even if you have been together for say over 10 years.

That really isn't fair one bit.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

This is why I like binding referendums, thought it does seem wrong to vote on what are generally considered to be rights.


Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
I'm in favour of same-sex marriage as well, but this isn't so much a same-sex marriage issue for me. The majority has made the determination that they are for the passing of a bill, and the officials representing that same majority have gone against their will in astonishing numbers. It doesn't matter if this is gay marriage or a tax on apples, the government has defied the sentiment of the majority they represent, which I find rather unacceptable.

Well I still don't think it's black and right. Back in 1900 it was the majority opinion to segregate blacks... even when segregation did start to end I believe most were against it (not quite sure but you get my point.) I'm sure the majority of Americans were all for the force removal of the Indians, etc

It is pretty egregious though, when the majority is in favor of something morally right* but the leaders still kill the deal. The "I don't think marriages are necessary" woman had probably the dumbest opinion (IMO)

*but then again, what is morally right?  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2474 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):

As a rule of thumb, the governments should decide based on what the majority of their constituents want, unless it would infringe on the rights of a minority (as in the cases of segregation of blacks that you mentioned) or if it goes against national interests (like people voting for no taxes whatsoever). If it is ever allowed for gays to get married, nobody else's rights and freedoms are infringed and there is nothing that goes against national interests.

[Edited 2012-09-19 14:53:32]

User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 9):
This is why I like binding referendums, thought it does seem wrong to vote on what are generally considered to be rights.

Agreed, but sometimes when the other side pushes back as hard as this, you gotta start somewhere.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
The "I don't think marriages are necessary" woman had probably the dumbest opinion (IMO)

Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

Quoting lewis (Reply 11):

   X 1,000



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

I thought that was a comedian (see quotation under me, that's why I thought that)... yeah that's the worst lol

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 1):
Bestiality.....that was just a comedy sideshow.
Quoting lewis (Reply 11):

That sounds pretty sound actually. Then again (and I'm NOT agreeing with them,) I'm sure the other side says it's in the "nation's interest" to keep families together or whatever. But yeah, I see what you're saying, and society's morals seem to change. As of now, I can confidently say allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
I'm sure the other side says it's in the "nation's interest" to keep families together or whatever

It sure is, but gay marriage has nothing to do with keeping families together or not, unless the dad decides to marry his secret gay lover!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
and society's morals seem to change. As of now, I can confidently say allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do

Coming from a pretty conservative society (pseudo-christian as I like to call it), I had a very weird experience when my mother visited me here in CA. We have a lot of relatives in SoCal and, during a family dinner, she was shocked when she found out that one of her nephews is actually gay, married and has adopted a little girl with his partner. She did give me the talk about how it doesn't seem right to her. It only took 5' and some very logical arguments for her to realize that it was only because of her ingrained prejudice and her "morals" that she found the whole situation weird. She had nothing else to base it on and I think this is true with most people that oppose same sex marriage.


User currently offlinesquared From Canada, joined May 2005, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 11):
As a rule of thumb, the governments should decide based on what the majority of their constituents want, unless it would infringe on the rights of a minority (as in the cases of segregation of blacks that you mentioned) or if it goes against national interests (like people voting for no taxes whatsoever). If it is ever allowed for gays to get married, nobody else's rights and freedoms are infringed and there is nothing that goes against national interests.

Exactly. This is how liberal democracies (as opposed to illiberal) should function. Minority rights should not be subject to the will of the majority. But what is particularly baffling in this case, is that the majority is in favour of extending rights to a minority group. How can the Australian House of Representatives could be so out-of-touch with the average Australian?

In some other countries, this legislation would be subject to a court challenge. But since I am not too conversant on the Australian Constitution, I'm unsure what the next steps will be.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.

Yup. If marriage was solely a religious institution, then the state would have no business providing a definition.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5697 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
despite repeated polls showing that 62% of the public support for laws providing marriage equality.

I see this brought up time and again yet I don't get to see the polls, who commissioned them, where they were taken and how scientifically they were conducted.
Not saying they are wrong, but we often get told there is only one real poll, the one held every 3 yrears or so.

In a democracy we elect our representatives for just that purpose, represent, if we don't like the way they do that then we tell them, if they don't listen we get our chance to change them!

Not saying the decision was right or just but it is the one we got!

Saw a poll the other day that claimed over "over 60% of xxx felt yyy", drilling down the sample was 3... yes THREE



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

Nowhere has he said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, he's pointing to the ludicrousness of using the 'but they love each other' argument and how if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Why don't you read the whole speech which frankly is a pretty good one and outlines major reasons why pure liberalism is so extreme when taken to its logical conclusions.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...e-4367-ad53-c5359a072920%2F0198%22

Quoting squared (Reply 15):
But since I am not too conversant on the Australian Constitution, I'm unsure what the next steps will be.

Our Constitution is unfortunately slim on rights, there are only 3. It mostly only points to the running of government.
As for next steps, there were multiple bills that will all be voted down, we'll hear some hard rhetoric from the left. The only hope of getting it passed is if the Liberals switch to Malcolm Turnbull who may allow a conscience vote which could get them the numbers.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6664 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
Liberals were expected to toe the party line and vote against

How liberal ! Wait a minute... what ?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Now ? Didn't the US have laws disallowing some people to marry (you know, blacks with whites) even before it was the US ?

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 17):
if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Polygamy : personally I'm not against it in theory, in practice it's never a marriage of equals and I have a problem with that. On the other hand people having a spouse and a lover are extremely common and few would imagine a marriage happening there.

Bestiality : an animal is not "someone" so your argument fail. Here incest has been mentioned (by a Catholic Cardinal), a more sound argument I guess, although of course incest is currently illegal even if it's a man and a woman, so allowing two (wo)men to marry should not change that other part. Well, incest recognized by the state that is. Sex between ascendents or brothers/sisters is not illegal if between adults.

France is currently debating the issue, as it was a strong element of François Hollande's platform and of the platforms of the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Left Front. There is little doubt it will pass however, since opponents are mostly religious leaders and have so poor arguments it isn't even funny, in fact most opponents even refuse TV debates because they know they won't fare well (including opposition members who will mostly vote against it).

There was a show I watched with some of the same debaters we had in 1999 when a law was passed allowing civil unions for all, a feminist reminded a crazy Catholic that all the doom and gloom she prophesied would happen at the time hadn't happened, civilization hadn't ended. Unsurprisingly she again affirmed civil unrest will ensue and our civilization will end, albeit this time she can't bring her bible to the national assembly's floor (something very unusual in secular France) since she has been defeated in last election.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19725 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2341 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
How liberal ! Wait a minute... what ?

Quick primer:

In Australia Liberal=Conservative and Labor=Liberal

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 17):
Nowhere has he said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, he's pointing to the ludicrousness of using the 'but they love each other' argument and how if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.


User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2744 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 1):
Aren't they supposed to represent the view of their constituents?? In any case, a 98-42 result against the bill is quite distant from the community view.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

There is no disconnect what-so-ever and they are NOT ignoring the will of the people. You have to understand how a Parliamentary Democracy works, and/or the true meaning of an elected Parliament or House of Representatives.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
I see this brought up time and again yet I don't get to see the polls, who commissioned them, where they were taken and how scientifically they were conducted.
Not saying they are wrong, but we often get told there is only one real poll, the one held every 3 yrears or so.

Now THIS is the correct answer. When a Member of Parliament is elected, it is to represent their views.... but it is also NOT a single issue election. One weighs the candidates and votes for the one that best represents the OVERALL number of issues you agree with. It's highly unlikely that an elected representative would match exactly the viewpoints of all the electors on every issue.
So frankly, nobody gives a damn what the polls say, or the numbers being thrown around that 62% favour the gay motion, the reality is that the elected members VOTED 71% against that gay marriage.
Now the gay crowd can try and elect representatives on that SINGLE ISSUE, but then they might get a Parliament that completely screws up everything else such as the economy, jobs, taxes, etc. So the voters made a choice and those who only vote on a single issue will have to learn to Live with it. At least until the next election.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
Saw a poll the other day that claimed over "over 60% of xxx felt yyy", drilling down the sample was 3... yes THREE

Well it can still be statistically sound, they just need to state that the margin of error is um, about 59%  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.

It's just a lazy argument meant to incite and distract. I think it's a lot like interjecting race into every argument (the ones not deserving it.) It's so absurd and dumb that you just argue something completely off topic and not the actual topic (if you try, they think they "got you" into some corner)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6664 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Quick primer:

In Australia Liberal=Conservative and Labor=Liberal

Actually liberals here are right wing too (and a rare bunch), but still really liberal, meaning they want less regulation of everything. What I wanted to put in perspective was that a party called liberal didn't allow its members the liberty of their opinion.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 20):
Now THIS is the correct answer. When a Member of Parliament is elected, it is to represent their views.... but it is also NOT a single issue election.

Well, first, who said that system was the best ? Furthermore, the way the parliament is formed can be very remote from being representative (if it's anything other than 100% proportional). And then if you add the fact that most votes are not free, then its quite questionable that this is how democracy is supposed to work.

In fact I had never heard of this conscience/free vote. I find the very free way the votes happen in the US to be pretty dysfunctional (not helped by the existence of only two parties), but I didn't think the opposite system existed. Here votes are free, and party discipline is necessary on important votes like the budget, meaning voting against it could get you in trouble with the party, but aside from that it's very common to have congresspeople vote against their party line, as long as they don't end up voting mostly opposite of their camp it's fine. In practice with 6 groups and a group of "free members" if you don't fit in your current one anymore you can go to one on the left or on the right without jumping over a big divide like between US democrats and GOPs.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7577 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.

then let them legally marry. Or at least decide what rights go where. or define it better without calling it marriage, just to satiate the religious dicks.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2293 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.

Agreed. Anyone who can extrapolate a line from gay marriage rights to bestiality is missing this understanding. And in my opinion, if this is not obvious to them, then I worry about their underlying prejudice about the gay community, and access to even more basic human rights.

And besides, marriage is about love, as opposed to sex, (granted they are related.....the amount of times I have sex is inversely proportionate to how long my wife and I have been married). In my experience, a straight couple does not have a greater capacity to be in a loving relationship than a gay couple. In


25 Maverick623 : LOL. Nobody is saying "as long as one party is in love, both parties should be allowed to be married". A non-human is incapable of legally consenting
26 Post contains links fr8mech : I'm game. Get the politicians to act. Problem is, that every time it has come up for vote here in the States, homosexual marriage has been voted down
27 Post contains links Quokkas : Sadly, this is not necessarily the view of those who oppose same-sex marriage. In declaring his opposition to changing marriage laws, Labor senator J
28 QFA380 : I don't agree with what he said however I can see his point and believe he has over generously used hyperbole to his own detriment but this is a man
29 Maverick623 : Assuming the Court stays the same, it's not hard to predict which way they'll go, especially given that Section 3 of DOMA has been struck down by eve
30 DocLightning : No it is not because liberalism is not about allowing perfect autonomy without respect for the rights of others. So you are making a statement based
31 Post contains links mariner : The AFL - Australian Football League - is to play an ad saying "No to Homophobia" at various football games: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ga...ls
32 Mir : They're only dicks if they seek to legally impose the beliefs of their religion on others. Those aren't a vast majority. -Mir
33 DeltaMD90 : Well ignoring your hateful comment against religious people (just as bad as homophobia) why would we create a separate but equal system to oppose tho
34 Post contains links mariner : Now Tony Abbot won't even consider a civil unions bill: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...il-unions-push-20120920-269id.html "Abbott rejects civi
35 DeltaMD90 : What is the main reason for opposition? The US gets a very bad rap on gay rights but umm, isn't the same thing happening here? Is it religious? For th
36 bookishaviator : A bit of both. Tony Abbott is well known as a devout Catholic - I believe he very nearly became a priest before entering into politics. So no doubt h
37 DeltaMD90 : And yet it was far from a few conservative politicians... an overwhelming majority struck it down! Just interesting IMO. The way many on this board t
38 bookishaviator : I actually agree with you. The only point I was really making was that those are the sorts of voices that invariably end up in mainstream news - the
39 mariner : I can almost understand Tony Abbott - although he has a lesbian sister - being against it. He's called the Mad Monk. What fries my brain is that the
40 QFA380 : The Labor party stands for mostly blue collar, working class and lower middle class people not some overriding ideology of 'equality'. Many of those
41 mariner : This Australian Labor Party may be that now, but as an old Labor man, it is quite shocking to me to see it so debased. And I don't buy Albanese's arg
42 QFA380 : Don't think it was an argument, rather a soft promise that the issue isn't settled. He voted in the affirmative. I'm not saying they wouldn't (or don
43 Aesma : As we discussed earlier in the thread most of the liberals aka the "centre right" that would have voted in favor were prevented to do so by their par
44 mariner : "Argument" in the sense of theme of the debate. However contentiously, marriage equality is policy of the Labor Party. I might have expected some par
45 Post contains links Quokkas : Don't worry, we have our own fair share of those with less accepting views. An independent candidate in next month's Australian Capital Territory ele
46 DeltaMD90 : Yikes. Well it sounds like your guys' media doesn't give them attention, unlike our media (but of instigators)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
In Support Of Same-Sex Marriage - What To Do Next? posted Wed May 27 2009 10:07:35 by Tugger
Support For CA Ban On Same Sex Marriage Drops posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:06:59 by Travelin man
Gay Designer Gabbana Against Same-sex Parenting posted Thu Dec 21 2006 23:24:26 by Jimyvr
Same-sex Marriage Demonstrations In Italy posted Sat Jan 14 2006 18:23:22 by ManuCH
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
Same-Sex Marriage OK'd In Spain posted Thu Jun 30 2005 18:28:23 by Johnboy
Canada: Same-sex Marriage Bill Is Passed. posted Wed Jun 29 2005 03:36:40 by Jean Leloup
NY Judge Strikes Down Ban On Same-Sex Marriage posted Fri Feb 4 2005 21:13:57 by RJpieces
Same-Sex Marriage In Canada Come Thursday posted Tue Dec 7 2004 23:43:53 by SKYSERVICE_330
Majority Of Canadians Support Same Sex Marriage! posted Thu May 10 2001 19:16:04 by Chrisa330