Politics

[manticle]

For what it's worth, I think churches should have the right to employ their own conditions on marriage ceremonies. There are non-religious means to the same end (and gay friendly religious churches and the ability to begin one in this country should one see a need).

I don't think churches need to be forced to celebrate gay weddings - just that gay weddings should be enabled and recognised in a legal framework.


Conservative churches will just show how irrelevant they are to modern western life anyway.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Rudd has well and truly wedged Abbott on this issue.

 

[manticle]

A little analogy Komodo - Imagine if, way back in the 70s when we we were trying to decide if the indigenous should be recognised as citizens we said 'we will offer you voting rights, rights to legal counsel when needed and all other rights that white citizens are entitled to BUT we won't call you citizens.

Formality or insult? Citizens in the same country need to be treated the same in name and function regardless of gender, race or sexuality.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

A little analogy Komodo - Imagine if, way back in the 70s when we we were trying to decide if the indigenous should be recognised as citizens we said 'we will offer you voting rights, rights to legal counsel when needed and all other rights that white citizens are entitled to BUT we won't call you citizens.

If it was the 60's thats prob what would have happened.

 

[manticle]

We've still got a long, long way to go with that too and it's something I'd be keen to hear more about from both sides as well as smaller parties. Forget goat people - what about the people that already live here?

 

[manticle]

And sorry for the multiple postings komodo but I'm typing on a phone.

Your comparison with russia doesn't cut it for me. We are not russia, we take pride in the fact that we afford certain rights and protections to the populace that separate us as a nation from them (legal context) and others.

You can't tell a rape victim here that they would have copped it worse in Iran and expect that anyone should consider you capable of serious debate.

Perspective is one thing - I'm grateful every day that I'm not a peasant in Europe in the dark ages but that doesn't stop me asking for a pay rise after 10 years of service on the same fixed pay band. Could be worse sure but could be a hell of a lot better too.

 

[Bridges]

Damn straight we've got a long way to go. Today the leader of the coalition when asked to list the qualities of one of his parties candidates felt the need to include "she has sex appeal". WTF. Must be all the suppositories, or he could just be stuck in the 50's.

 

[nu_brew]

I think this is good analysis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnGhFJ_mZ88&feature=youtu.be

Gets to the Australian stuff a couple of minutes in but worth watching for full effect.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

That was pretty funny.

 

[punkin]

votecompass.jpg

That picture makes my one look funny. I didn't take a screen shot but at first i thought they hadn't put the red dot for Labour in there.

The reason i couldn't see it was that my grey dot was so squarely over the red that you could just barely see a fuzzy red outline round the grey


ThatDidNotSurpriseMePunkin

 

[djar007]

Mine was the same punkin . smack bang on n top of Labor. I was hoping to be different. Just like everyone else.

 

[Dave70]

For what it's worth, I think churches should have the right to employ their own conditions on marriage ceremonies. There are non-religious means to the same end (and gay friendly religious churches and the ability to begin one in this country should one see a need).

I don't think churches need to be forced to celebrate gay weddings - just that gay weddings should be enabled and recognised in a legal framework.


Conservative churches will just show how irrelevant they are to modern western life anyway.

If the law of the land states that gay marriage is legal, no church, mosque or synagogue has the right of refusal far as I'm concerned. Religious 'law' should never be allowed equal footing, let alone circumvent civil law in a secular society. And since homosexuality is regarded an abomination across the board by all the Abrahamic religions, it's obvious agents of the 'gay friendly' religion's are letting their natural sense of morality act as their guide rather than 1st century text calling for their murder, much to their credit. They should really just discard their clerical collars in the bin on the way out the door and be done with it.

Every church is by definition, conservative. In the worst way.

I also find the idea that a gay person should want to love - receive the blessing from - god, in light of his instructions in Leviticus and so on kind of bizarre and / or masochistic. Even the hippie Jesus commanded 'every jot and tittle of the law shall be fulfilled' in between handing out fish and rolls. Whatever floats ya boat, I guess.


Not arguing with you here mant's, by the way, just my opinion on the issue.

 

[komodo]

And sorry for the multiple postings komodo but I'm typing on a phone.

All good. The discussion is good

You can't tell a rape victim here that they would have copped it worse in Iran and expect that anyone should consider you capable of serious debate.

No, but the fact is people should be able to walk freely and NOT be raped - that's a human right. Much like basic access to water fit for human consumption is a human right. Gay marriage - first world problem.

If the law of the land states that gay marriage is legal, no church, mosque or synagogue has the right of refusal far as I'm concerned.

WHAT? Are you serious? Even a civil celebrant has the right to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple. Why should the church be any different?
If gay marriage is passed surely the church has right to refuse to marry gay couples. Much like Muslims have the right to refuse to eat food that's not halal. Its a choice. Surely gay marriage is a choice issue and if giving gays the choice is taking away the choice from the church then I go from marginally opposed to being in die hard opposition.
Basically your suggestion is to give a right to one minority and take that same right (the right of choice) away from another. Well done.

As I've said I'm not opposed to gay civil unions. Give them a certificate the full bit. I don't even care if they are commonly referred to as marriages. BUT I would rather see that on official documentation that they are referred to as a civil union (or similar).

 

[Liam_snorkel]

So England and NZ got it wrong? How does that stack up against manticle's point at the top of the page?

 

[manticle]

All good. The discussion is good

No, but the fact is people should be able to walk freely and NOT be raped - that's a human right. Much like basic access to water fit for human consumption is a human right. Gay marriage - first world problem.

.....................

As I've said I'm not opposed to gay civil unions. Give them a certificate the full bit. I don't even care if they are commonly referred to as marriages. BUT I would rather see that on official documentation that they are referred to as a civil union (or similar).

I contend that human beings inside a political system like a liberal democracy have the right to be treated equally under the law. Call it a human right, call it a first world problem but there is no reason - NONE- that makes any logical sense as to why the legal rights or appellations should be any different for different, consenting adults. Again I don't believe churches should be forced to celebrate any more than I believe a Men's club or fraternity should be forced to into accepting female members but there should be an avenue for identical (not 'almost the same') treatment.

If it's such a small issue/non issue why are so many people opposed to it? That's what makes it an issue. Yes you can get married but do you mind just calling it something else because really your relationship makes me feel a bit dirty? Yes you can come to the dinner but please sit up the back and pretend you're not here.

 

[OzPaleAle]

Heard an interesting angle on wether we should subsidise the car industry from Jeff Kennett on the radio the other day.

He pointed out that its important to maintain a car industry from a national defence point of view.
He said that its important for a country to have a local manufacturer so that in the unlikely event of needing to manufacture our own military vehicles etc we are able to.
Car manufacturing needs to be maintained because their assembly lines are the best suited to be reconfigured for this purpose and more importantly is to maintain that stream of people with the skill-set to manufacture vehicles.

An interesting angle I hadn't considered, plenty of things I would disagree with Jeff on but I kinda agree on this.

 

[sponge]

I am of the opinion that if two people choose to make their relationship a legal commitment, they should be treated the same, no matter which sexes it's between, and be allowed to legally call it a marriage with all the same laws/rights/etc. Who cares who the two people in a relationship are, they are just happy to spend their lives with each other, and if you don't like it, turn the other way.

I do not believe though that churches/celebrants should have to wed a couple, be heterosexual or homosexual, if they do not believe in the union of the couple, for lack of a better term. The couple can always go elsewhere to get wed, so it's not like they're removing the right completely, and there would be plenty of churches and celebrants who would be happy to wed a couple of any orientation. I do not believe that someone should have to go against what they believe in, for whatever reason, in order to fulfill someone elses request. I see it similar to an organisation/company/business not tendering for a project because of moral/financial/safety/religious regions. If they don't want the business, they don't have to take it..

Probably a pretty poor comparison, but of a similar mentality.

 

[komodo]

I'm in a polyamorous relationship. I can't marry both my partners. No ones up there making a big song and deal about it for me. Even if I could I wouldn't want to because the relationship is different. In fact many people are against it because they believe polygamy is a religious thing - which its not at all.
My gay friends are either opposed to gay marriage (one even more so than myself) or not fussed either way. One gay couple have hyphenated their names and said they wouldn't bother getting married anyway even though they're mums to two kids together.
Alright yes that's a small group (5 people) to collect data from but it seems to be a bigger issue amongst straight people than gay people.

I support subsidising the car manufacturing industry. BUT I'd like to see more separation from parent companies and I'd like to see us build luxury cars rather than affordable family cars. I'd also like to see Australian manufactured cars (where more than 50% is local content) become FBT and LCT free. Never going to happen really. I do think there is a market for Australian built cars but I believe for the most part we chase our tails with mass production when specialist production would be more suited to the Australian market. Look at the mining sector. They buy Toyotas and Nissanas (or these days they're looking at the American pickups which don't last as long as the 'yotas but have a higher GVM) and then spend thousands having them modified with ROPS and cutting wagons into trays. Why can't we get Ford AU or GMH manufacturing mining spec vehicles. Our biggest problem is the legal loop holes for getting a vehicle on our roads. Poor old OKA could be building these things too instead of chasing the emergency services work and recreational vehicles work.

This said I'd also like to see a better policy on government spending on Australian manufacturing content on government funded projects. I don't think that the current loop hole of employing an Australian builder who can then source materials/labour from where ever does enough to protect local jobs and prop the local economy when undertaking infrastructure projects.

 

[Dave70]

All good. The discussion is good

No, but the fact is people should be able to walk freely and NOT be raped - that's a human right. Much like basic access to water fit for human consumption is a human right. Gay marriage - first world problem.

WHAT? Are you serious? Even a civil celebrant has the right to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple. Why should the church be any different?
If gay marriage is passed surely the church has right to refuse to marry gay couples. Much like Muslims have the right to refuse to eat food that's not halal. Its a choice. Surely gay marriage is a choice issue and if giving gays the choice is taking away the choice from the church then I go from marginally opposed to being in die hard opposition.
Basically your suggestion is to give a right to one minority and take that same right (the right of choice) away from another. Well done.

As I've said I'm not opposed to gay civil unions. Give them a certificate the full bit. I don't even care if they are commonly referred to as marriages. BUT I would rather see that on official documentation that they are referred to as a civil union (or similar).

What muslims choose to eat is no more relevant an issue than what beer you and I choose to drink.

My point is these cults are not a law unto themselves. If we accept that sexuality is hard wired into our genetic make up, and it is, what argument can be presented by any entity to discriminate? Being born gay is no more a choice than being born coloured, and we don't need to go into what an uproar we'd witness if certain churches refused to marry blacks due to exercising their scripturally interpreted 'right of choice'.
(Dramatic example yes, and I'm in no way implying this is what you're advocating.)

If laws are passed to legalize gay marriage, what right does the church - or celebrant - have to deny matrimony on the basis the couple are gay? Heterosexual's born that way have all options open to them, and guaranteed by law, what's the difference?
The only reason churches have been forced to abandon questionable and downright abhorrent practices over the years is due to pressure applied by law. Otherwise you can bet there'd still be elements within fighting for the right to keep slaves.

Bottom line is the whole issue goes further to drag into the spotlight religions utter incomparability with a modern progressive society and equality. The sooner we unhitch our ethical and moral wagon to this nonsense the better off we'll all be.

 

[komodo]

Where's the choice?
By your thought process that means a sex worker should have no right to deny a client. She's a sex worker there for she should do sex work for anyone that wants to make use of her services even if the client makes her uncomfortable or wants services which she doesn't want to do for her own moral reasons.
Yep its the polar opposite end of the spectrum but the issue is still an issue of choice - or rather the removal of.