Rename Margaret Court Arena?

@ said:
@ said:
I also don't get the Same Sex Marriage thing…Why is it such an issue...? **Is it just because they can't...?** I mean there are 1000's upon 1000's of hetro-sexual De-Facto relationships which have all the rights and responsibilities of married couple in death and taxes or that end in relationship breakdown(divorce)...Is it different for Same Sex Relationships..?..Are they not recognised by Law as the same...?

I am genuinely curious...If you love someone and are prepared to spend the rest of your life committed to them..What's a piece of paper...?

Hit it on the head.
It's only a beginning.
I think it's because **only heterosexuals can be married in a church**.
I'd go as far to say that if, and it will happen eventually, the government allowed civil unions (marriage) between gay couples the next step for the LGBT lobby will be to force churches into letting them marry.
I can't understand why gays want so much to be unhappy like the rest of us anyway!

Because the government are being exclusive, what is so hard to grasp about that?

Unfortunately churches have their own traditions and criteria that need to be met in order to be able to be married within their walls. It's not just limited to SSM either, a lot of Catholic parishes will make you undergo counselling sessions first before wedding you, some other religions require one or the other to convert.

Despite being about as anti-Organised religion as they come, I don't believe Churches should be required to allow SSM as they have their own definitions of what it means. The LBGT should be free to lobby with those organisations to consider SSM within their walls but in no way should they be legally forced to do so. I am definitely in support of SSM being legislated under the Marriage Act as a secular institution though.
 
@ said:
Free speech - a term I remember…

Mrs Court expressed her view. Right or wrong it is her view. The issue here is not her view, its the bullying that she is now receiving due to expressing it.

Two months ago... The Coopers / bible society / parliament online ad where two Australians were discussing their views on gay marriage. One was in support, one was against and they were talking about it over a beer. What was the response - Coopers were bullied by the gay loby into taking it down after their customers were threatened with being boycotted.

Can anyone else see the irony.

It would be like the Wests Tigers coming on here and threatening to cancel memberships if people express a view that is negative to their position.

Having a view is a wonderful thing. Being told you can't hold or share a contrary view is Un-Australian.

In countering her opinions, others are exercising their right to free speech as well Mccarry. Others are well within their right to tell her that her views are bigoted or outdated. Anyone with an opinion in the minority is going to be shouted down, it doesn't necessarily constitute bullying.

What everyone is forgetting is that when you put a view in public forum (be it in the paper, a televised announcement or on a footy forum,) you are giving others the right of response. When you state an opinion in a public forum and then complain about response, you might want to rethink voicing your opinions in public again.

Court has the right to express her views. Anyone who agrees has the right to state that they agree. Anyone who disagrees has the right to counter those views. It's as simple as that. There's no free exchange of ideas if one side attempts to censor the other.
 
I am a little confused about marriage and how society now sees its role.

I feel like a more recent view is marriage is about making two people feel accepted as equals to other couples. In this case the relationship of two men or two women or two transgender people being equal in community status to a man and a women.

Is that how you all see it?

My confusion is, I more see marriage as the key institution of the household - of the family, especially around providing what is best for children. In this context I believe children have a right to a mum and a dad due to the different role both play in raising children for our society.

My view on this was crystalised when I considered my own children. I appreciate that this view will upset people, however if the following illustrative scenario occurred I would prefer people to be upset rather than my children miss out.

Lets say my wife and I died in a plane crash and we didn't have any close family to look after our two wonderful children, I would want a selection process to then occur to determine which two adults would be appropriate to parent my children. There would be many factors such as age, character checks, financial factors… and ... gender.

Why gender? Well, to me, I want my children to experience the different love, guidance and relationship that comes from the two genders. In my experience, women and men are quite different in a complementary way. I would like my children benefit from this.

So when my sister (lesbian) asked with tears running down her face, I stood by my view that I want my children to have a genetic mum and a dad. If I want this for my children then as painful as it is to put children ahead of adults, it is how I feel.

I guess for me marriage is a social institution that exists for society. Its objective is not to help one group or another feel better about their relationship (same sex, transgender, multi-partner marriage). I believe young future Tigers players will be better off with one mum and one dad as often as possible.

I lived in Africa and saw first hand cultural groups where family structures were not to the 'exclusion of others' i.e. dads were not present and instead were free to be a promiscuous as they liked. Once again, this informs my view of what marriage is for our society. Yes, that will upset some people.

I truly want as many people to be happy as possible. I regret that my view will hurt or offend some people. However please don't call it hate speech or wrong or bigoted.

I believe Australian society is one of the best in the world. This is an first hand informed view. I believe that our concept of marriage and family has been a foundational pillar of this. I am not yet prepared to mess with it.

Perhaps a civil union or other term for the formalisation of other relationships types?
 
@ said:
@ said:
Free speech - a term I remember…

Mrs Court expressed her view. Right or wrong it is her view. The issue here is not her view, its the bullying that she is now receiving due to expressing it.

Two months ago... The Coopers / bible society / parliament online ad where two Australians were discussing their views on gay marriage. One was in support, one was against and they were talking about it over a beer. What was the response - Coopers were bullied by the gay loby into taking it down after their customers were threatened with being boycotted.

Can anyone else see the irony.

It would be like the Wests Tigers coming on here and threatening to cancel memberships if people express a view that is negative to their position.

Having a view is a wonderful thing. Being told you can't hold or share a contrary view is Un-Australian.

In countering her opinions, others are exercising their right to free speech as well Mccarry. Others are well within their right to tell her that her views are bigoted or outdated. Anyone with an opinion in the minority is going to be shouted down, it doesn't necessarily constitute bullying.

What everyone is forgetting is that when you put a view in public forum (be it in the paper, a televised announcement or on a footy forum,) you are giving others the right of response. When you state an opinion in a public forum and then complain about response, you might want to rethink voicing your opinions in public again.

Court has the right to express her views. Anyone who agrees has the right to state that they agree. Anyone who disagrees has the right to counter those views. It's as simple as that. There's no free exchange of ideas if one side attempts to censor the other.

Kind of feels like people are attacking her…?

Imagine if the reverse happened. Rod Laver comes out as pro-gay marriage and someone says Rod Laver arena should be re-named.

If one view is more free than the other I suggest we are on dangerous ground.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Free speech - a term I remember…

Mrs Court expressed her view. Right or wrong it is her view. The issue here is not her view, its the bullying that she is now receiving due to expressing it.

Two months ago... The Coopers / bible society / parliament online ad where two Australians were discussing their views on gay marriage. One was in support, one was against and they were talking about it over a beer. What was the response - Coopers were bullied by the gay loby into taking it down after their customers were threatened with being boycotted.

Can anyone else see the irony.

It would be like the Wests Tigers coming on here and threatening to cancel memberships if people express a view that is negative to their position.

Having a view is a wonderful thing. Being told you can't hold or share a contrary view is Un-Australian.

In countering her opinions, others are exercising their right to free speech as well Mccarry. Others are well within their right to tell her that her views are bigoted or outdated. Anyone with an opinion in the minority is going to be shouted down, it doesn't necessarily constitute bullying.

What everyone is forgetting is that when you put a view in public forum (be it in the paper, a televised announcement or on a footy forum,) you are giving others the right of response. When you state an opinion in a public forum and then complain about response, you might want to rethink voicing your opinions in public again.

Court has the right to express her views. Anyone who agrees has the right to state that they agree. Anyone who disagrees has the right to counter those views. It's as simple as that. There's no free exchange of ideas if one side attempts to censor the other.

Kind of feels like people are attacking her…?

Imagine if the reverse happened. Rod Laver comes out as pro-gay marriage and someone says Rod Laver arena should be re-named.

If one view is more free than the other I suggest we are on dangerous ground.

I'm sure a lot of people in the gay community feel like they're being attacked by her views as well. If you're going to put it out there, you open yourself to criticism. That's the way it works.

If I said on this forum that I thought a particular section of society (be it race, sexual orientation etc,) were subhuman I don't think I could expect to get off without my views being countered, especially by members of said section of society.
 
@ said:
I am a little confused about marriage and how society now sees its role.

I feel like a more recent view is marriage is about making two people feel accepted as equals to other couples. In this case the relationship of two men or two women or two transgender people being equal in community status to a man and a women.

Is that how you all see it?

My confusion is, I more see marriage as the key institution of the household - of the family, especially around providing what is best for children. In this context I believe children have a right to a mum and a dad due to the different role both play in raising children for our society.

My view on this was crystalised when I considered my own children. I appreciate that this view will upset people, however if the following illustrative scenario occurred I would prefer people to be upset rather than my children miss out.

Lets say my wife and I died in a plane crash and we didn't have any close family to look after our two wonderful children, I would want a selection process to then occur to determine which two adults would be appropriate to parent my children. There would be many factors such as age, character checks, financial factors… and ... gender.

Why gender? Well, to me, I want my children to experience the different love, guidance and relationship that comes from the two genders. In my experience, women and men are quite different in a complementary way. I would like my children benefit from this.

So when my sister (lesbian) asked with tears running down her face, I stood by my view that I want my children to have a genetic mum and a dad. If I want this for my children then as painful as it is to put children ahead of adults, it is how I feel.

I guess for me marriage is a social institution that exists for society. Its objective is not to help one group or another feel better about their relationship (same sex, transgender, multi-partner marriage). I believe young future Tigers players will be better off with one mum and one dad as often as possible.

I lived in Africa and saw first hand cultural groups where family structures were not to the 'exclusion of others' i.e. dads were not present and instead were free to be a promiscuous as they liked. Once again, this informs my view of what marriage is for our society. Yes, that will upset some people.

I truly want as many people to be happy as possible. I regret that my view will hurt or offend some people. However please don't call it hate speech or wrong or bigoted.

I believe Australian society is one of the best in the world. This is an first hand informed view. I believe that our concept of marriage and family has been a foundational pillar of this. I am not yet prepared to mess with it.

Perhaps a civil union or other term for the formalisation of other relationships types?

That's your view, and many people share it. While I disagree I think you've presented your view reasonably respectfully and you can outline why, most importantly without the need to bring up the notion of religion which seems to think it has a mortgage on the institution which predates it!

There's many single parents out there, both mums and dads who slug it out without the other parent present in the child's life. Marriage has no bearing on the raising of that child. Children in divorced families, etc. Many good people come from these scenarios without the supposed benefit of marriage. And marriage is not an indicator of good moral character. Many a person are adulterous within marriage and that does nothing to suggest that marriage negates the apparent promiscuous behaviour you've mentioned.

The institution of marriage and the role it plays is shifting, much the way it did when the major organised religions lifted it for their own uses from the previous cultures and societies before them.
 
Cate McGregor (LGBT activist) has asked for the LGBT community to ease up on Court, saying “piling onto her will erode our moral authority.”
Moral authority now seems to be wearing a different face lol
 
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/margaret-court-voice-of-a-pulpit-defends-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/ar-BBC8ils?li=AA4RE4&ocid=spartandhp
–------------------------------------

Now the lady is speaking in tongues - stay tuned
----------------------------------------------
© Vincent Thian/Associated Press Margaret Court in 2015 at a ceremony in Melbourne for the remodeled arena named after her. Her remarks about homosexuality and same-sex marriage reignited calls to rename the arena.
At the Victory Life Center, Margaret Court’s church in the Perth suburb of Osborne Park, a crowd was gathering for the second morning service on Sunday.
As Ms. Court, a tennis superstar who holds the record for the most singles titles in the sport, took the pulpit, she set aside her prepared message, saying she had “a word from the Spirit.” She led the audience in speaking in tongues — what she calls a language only God understands — for several minutes.
“It is like picking up the phone to God,” she told the congregants at the Pentecostal church. “The Devil doesn’t understand it, man doesn’t understand it, but God understands it.”
Ms. Court, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has generated controversy recently with a series of inflammatory comments about gays and same-sex marriage. On Sunday, she told her congregation that she had received more than 1,000 emails from across Australia last week supporting her stance.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing: Asia and Australia Newsletter
For those who attend Victory Life Center, a contemporary Christian church complete with catchy music and bright lights, Ms. Court’s oratory is strong, and the sincerity of her beliefs undeniable. She steadfastly presents a vision of the world in which there is good and evil, and little ambiguity.

She defended her opposition to same-sex marriage, notably in joining the Queensland businessman Stuart Ballantyne in criticizing Qantas over the airline’s support for marriage equality. But her tone was not entirely defiant; she expressed regret over some comments.
In those comments, made to a Christian radio broadcaster, Ms. Court called homosexuality “a lust for the flesh” that would lead young people to “destroy their lives.”
“I was 90 to 95 percent in the Spirit, but some of what I said was in the flesh, and I repented that,” she said on Sunday.
Supporters of gays and lesbians in Australia and around the world have reacted with outrage. The tennis great Martina Navratilova wrote an open letter to Ms. Court on The Sydney Morning Herald’s website condemning her comments, which have reignited calls to rename Margaret Court Arena in Melbourne. “We should not be celebrating this kind of behavior, this kind of philosophy,” Ms. Navratilova wrote.
During the service on Sunday, the crowd was emphatic in applause for Ms. Court. Congregants were aware of the controversy but seemingly unperturbed by it as speakers declared the church would continue to fight for the truth it says can be found in the Bible.
Victory Life Center was founded in 1995 and is growing. Plans have been drafted to expand the auditorium so it can accommodate 1,800 people.
Michael Greaves, the executive pastor, defended the message of the church, highlighting its outreach in schools and universities on issues like drugs and alcohol.
“We have a few people from the L.G.B.T.I. community in our church,” he said, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. “They are not kicked out. They are involved. We are not homophobic, and Pastor Margaret is not homophobic.”
In her recent radio comments, Ms. Court also said that the numerous polls showing majority support in Australia for same-sex marriage were wrong.
“They want us to think they’ve got the majority,” she said. “We know it is wrong, but they’re after our young ones.”
The campaign to rename the arena that bears Ms. Court’s name, one of the most prominent stadiums in the country, is not new. It began in earnest in 2012, after earlier statements she made about homosexuality.
Then last month, Ms. Court doubled down, saying that “tennis is full of lesbians” and criticizing programs like Safe Schools, which is designed to combat homophobia, and the acceptance of transgender youth as “all the Devil.”
“That’s what Hitler did and what Communism did: got the minds of the children,” she said. “And it’s a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get the minds of the children.”
Richard Pengelley, the Anglican dean of Perth and an Olympic water polo player, has known Ms. Court for years.
Mr. Pengelley said they “ended up parting ways over doctrine,” but he recalled Ms. Court spoke a number of times at a sport and spirituality course he ran at the University of Western Australia.
“Margaret would come and tell her story, and it’s powerful,” he said. “The juxtaposition of her incredible focus, determination and skill on the tennis court — with her faith.”
“In the late 1970s she went to a Pentecostal church in the United States with a friend and had a healing experience, a heart condition healed,” he added. “She turned from a mildly lapsed Catholic to a born-again Pentecostal Christian who ultimately started the Victory Life Center.”
“What is really fascinating to me is the very contemporary presentation,” he said. “Big screens, lots of music, combined with a very conservative doctrine.”
Mr. Pengelley noted that Anglicanism, by comparison, combines a traditional outward appearance with a “teaching that is quite socially progressive.”
“We affirm same-sex relationships,” he said. “Same-sex marriage is not legal so we can’t do it, but we have no problem with unions or blessings.”
In 1960, when Ms. Court was 17, she won the first of seven consecutive singles titles at the Australian Open, part of a career in which she ultimately collected 64 major titles.
In 1970, Ms. Court became the first woman during the Open era to win the singles Grand Slam. That year, South Africa refused to grant a visa to the black tennis star Arthur Ashe and was expelled from the Davis Cup competition. Ms. Court was reported to have denied that apartheid was “entirely faulty,” saying: “South Africans have this thing better organized than any other country, particularly America.”
Ms. Navratilova raised those comments in May while pressing for the name of Margaret Court Arena to be changed, describing Ms. Court as racist and homophobic.
At her church on Sunday, Ms. Court described the accusation of racism as “ridiculous.”
“We have people from 10 different African nations at our church,” she said.
Mr. Pengelley said that Ms. Court’s reputation as an athlete was beyond doubt despite the controversy.
“There would be a general feeling that her sports career and remarkable achievements remain,” he said. “There have been many sports stars who have said and done things that upset people.”
Still, the backlash does not show signs of subsiding. Phil Shanahan, Ms. Court’s nephew, has said the Margaret Court Tennis Academy, based in Albury-Wodonga, which he oversees, has been targeted for abuse, including strongly worded criticism online. His aunt is entitled to her views on same-sex marriage, he said, but he understood why her comments were divisive.
“I spoke to Margaret. I think if she had a chance to take those remarks back she probably would,” he said. “It’s upset people, and it’s upset us.”
On Sunday, Ms. Court told her congregation: “This isn’t about the Margaret Court Arena. This is about the truth.”
 
@ said:
Imagine if the reverse happened. Rod Laver comes out as pro-gay marriage and someone says Rod Laver arena should be re-named.

It is an interesting point and one that on the surface seems silly…except it is not. There is no reason this could not happen. Those who are anti SSM have every right to feel that their values and feeling towards the issue are being mocked. They could easily claim that the pro crowd are being bigoted and ignorant towards their values just as much as the reverse is true. We will never see this happen though because both sides of the argument operate differently.
 
@ said:
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/margaret-court-voice-of-a-pulpit-defends-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/ar-BBC8ils?li=AA4RE4&ocid=spartandhp

Now the lady is speaking in tongues - stay tuned

I did post earlier that her views are also shared by the fundamentalist Christian lobby. This is a very powerful and well funded lobby with political clout. Our local federal member who is also a Minister in Turnbull Government is one well known member. .
 
@ said:
Given that marriage is governed by a secular institution in this country (the Australian government,) it is probably the notion that the Australian government considers marriage an exclusive institution, not available to all consenting adults. If the government were denying Indigenous Australians access to a secular institution do you think it would be tolerated?

Your last sentence is conflating race with sex/gender. Not the same thing.

However regarding the Government, i don't believe the Government has any business involving itself in marriage whatsoever. The role of a Federal Govt is to protect people's liberty, provide security, and provide basic utilities/amentities. We are now at a stage where regulations and government interference pervade every aspect of our lives.

I believe the law should be such that if you want to marry according to cultural or religious customs, then fine. Go to your Church/Temple/Synagogue/Mosque/Cultural Centre and have your ceremony. Everybody else can receive a certificate of civil union from the Government, and the issue completely disappears.

One rule for everybody. no perceived discrimination, and then we can talk about more important things affecting the nation.
\

@ said:
There are other factors as well I believe such as next of kin, estate matters and the like that are afforded to spouses that may not be afforded to de facto couples. There may have been changes and I am happy to be corrected though.

If the piece of paper is not that important, why have marriage at all?

In Australia gay couples are considered de facto's and have basically the exact same rights under law as married couples.

This is why the label "Equality" is misleading.

In the USA some states did not previously recognize gay relationships, so people missed out on inheritances and the such. So obviously something needed to happen in countries like the US, where there was no equality to speak of.

However in Australia there is already equality under the law, so why this has developed into the biggest issue since Adam was a boy is mystifying. I suppose some people just need something to be constantly outraged about.

Instead of lobbying for tangible improvements to society, we have a whole segment of the country lobbying Government to change the meaning of a word in the Dictionary.
 
OK, like I said happy to be corrected. Maybe they were issues once for all de facto couples and not just the gay community.

I still don't agree about marriage and it's religious links, the institution itself predates all current major organised religions (ancient Greeks never even used to have a ceremony, it was merely an agreement,) yet they all think they have a mortgage on the word. The government legislates the definition of marriage in this country, and it is done so as a secular institution. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one Abe.
 
@ said:
OK, like I said happy to be corrected. Maybe they were issues once for all de facto couples and not just the gay community.

I still don't agree about marriage and it's religious links, the institution itself predates all current major organised religions (ancient Greeks never even used to have a ceremony, it was merely an agreement,) yet they all think they have a mortgage on the word. The government legislates the definition of marriage in this country, and it is done so as a secular institution. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one Abe.

I never raised it as a religious argument though CB. I simply said the Government has no business in people's personal lives.

There have been more gay-friendly civilisations than ours throughout history who never even considered expanding marriage to include gay couples. When you understand why, then you understand how ridiculous and misguided the current faked outrage is.
 
@ said:
@ said:
OK, like I said happy to be corrected. Maybe they were issues once for all de facto couples and not just the gay community.

I still don't agree about marriage and it's religious links, the institution itself predates all current major organised religions (ancient Greeks never even used to have a ceremony, it was merely an agreement,) yet they all think they have a mortgage on the word. The government legislates the definition of marriage in this country, and it is done so as a secular institution. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one Abe.

I never raised it as a religious argument though CB. I simply said the Government has no business in people's personal lives.

There have been more gay-friendly civilisations than ours throughout history who never even considered expanding marriage to include gay couples. When you understand why, then you understand how ridiculous and misguided the current faked outrage is.

Sorry Abe I didn't mean to come across that you were. I was agreeing to disagree about the governments place in respect to marriage.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Imagine if the reverse happened. Rod Laver comes out as pro-gay marriage and someone says Rod Laver arena should be re-named.

It is an interesting point and one that on the surface seems silly…except it is not. There is no reason this could not happen. Those who are anti SSM have every right to feel that their values and feeling towards the issue are being mocked. They could easily claim that the pro crowd are being bigoted and ignorant towards their values just as much as the reverse is true. We will never see this happen though because both sides of the argument operate differently.

Well if Rod Laver did just that, plenty of folks would come out to condemn him. Any anti-gay lobbies would criticise him, you can bet Margaret Court would have something to say.

But it's a very different comparison in two ways.

Firstly, if Rod Laver ever said such a thing, he'd be advocating equal rights, i.e. that all Australian citizens should have access to the same public institutions and government support. Margaret Court is not advocating equal rights, she is advocating discrimination based on her personal beliefs.

Secondly, Rod Laver would also likely be on the side of popular opinion in this instance. You aren't going to rename arenas based on minority public pressure. By definition that's not really pressure at all.
 
@ said:
@ said:
I am a little confused about marriage and how society now sees its role.

I feel like a more recent view is marriage is about making two people feel accepted as equals to other couples. In this case the relationship of two men or two women or two transgender people being equal in community status to a man and a women.

Is that how you all see it?

My confusion is, I more see marriage as the key institution of the household - of the family, especially around providing what is best for children. In this context I believe children have a right to a mum and a dad due to the different role both play in raising children for our society.

My view on this was crystalised when I considered my own children. I appreciate that this view will upset people, however if the following illustrative scenario occurred I would prefer people to be upset rather than my children miss out.

Lets say my wife and I died in a plane crash and we didn't have any close family to look after our two wonderful children, I would want a selection process to then occur to determine which two adults would be appropriate to parent my children. There would be many factors such as age, character checks, financial factors… and ... gender.

Why gender? Well, to me, I want my children to experience the different love, guidance and relationship that comes from the two genders. In my experience, women and men are quite different in a complementary way. I would like my children benefit from this.

So when my sister (lesbian) asked with tears running down her face, I stood by my view that I want my children to have a genetic mum and a dad. If I want this for my children then as painful as it is to put children ahead of adults, it is how I feel.

I guess for me marriage is a social institution that exists for society. Its objective is not to help one group or another feel better about their relationship (same sex, transgender, multi-partner marriage). I believe young future Tigers players will be better off with one mum and one dad as often as possible.

I lived in Africa and saw first hand cultural groups where family structures were not to the 'exclusion of others' i.e. dads were not present and instead were free to be a promiscuous as they liked. Once again, this informs my view of what marriage is for our society. Yes, that will upset some people.

I truly want as many people to be happy as possible. I regret that my view will hurt or offend some people. However please don't call it hate speech or wrong or bigoted.

I believe Australian society is one of the best in the world. This is an first hand informed view. I believe that our concept of marriage and family has been a foundational pillar of this. I am not yet prepared to mess with it.

Perhaps a civil union or other term for the formalisation of other relationships types?

That's your view, and many people share it. While I disagree I think you've presented your view reasonably respectfully and you can outline why, most importantly without the need to bring up the notion of religion which seems to think it has a mortgage on the institution which predates it!

There's many single parents out there, both mums and dads who slug it out without the other parent present in the child's life. Marriage has no bearing on the raising of that child. Children in divorced families, etc. Many good people come from these scenarios without the supposed benefit of marriage. And marriage is not an indicator of good moral character. Many a person are adulterous within marriage and that does nothing to suggest that marriage negates the apparent promiscuous behaviour you've mentioned.

The institution of marriage and the role it plays is shifting, much the way it did when the major organised religions lifted it for their own uses from the previous cultures and societies before them.

I agree with you CB.

Marriage and family are certainly a pillar of Australian society, so it's disappointing that anyone thinks they have the right to decide which two people can be married.

The government actually can't interject about having families, so that one is already available to gay couples, albeit with much more difficulty.

But in terms of marriage, the only marriages that Australian law forbids is: under 18s, polygamy, siblings, parent-children, grandparent-children. You can legally marry your first-cousin. Doesn't anyone find it ironic that you can happily marry your uncle or sexy first cousin, but not the same-sex person you love?

And then you move onto divorce or single-parent families, which are acceptable by law but by Mccarry's argument not fitting with the makeup of an "ideal" family experience.

The other argument Mccarry makes, which confuses me, is that children should have "the different love, guidance and relationship that comes from the two genders", then going on to talk about different cultural approaches to family, such as first-hand experience in Africa. But why does a same-sex family unit preclude strong male and female role-models? Just as some fathers can be almost absent in their children's lives, non-parent females can be very involved in child rearing, be it grandmothers, sisters, aunties, close friends etc. What about kids raised by their father and grandmother, due to death of a mother? Why does it have to only be your real genetic mother or father?

I think it's very risky bordering on oppressive to assume to prescribe how other people should raise their own children. There are people brought up in very unhealthy heterosexual households, just as sure as there are children brought up in healthy homosexual households.

Mccarry's opinion is fine as an opinion, but I don't believe it is fine when it comes to law. Someone's opinion should not have legal ramifications for sound-minded, responsible, loving, feeling, living adults. Therefore, same as all races should have equal rights (and they do), so should all sexes and all real loving relationships.
 
@ said:
Firstly, if Rod Laver ever said such a thing, he'd be advocating equal rights, i.e. that all Australian citizens should have access to the same public institutions and government support. Margaret Court is not advocating equal rights, she is advocating discrimination based on her personal beliefs.

No. She is voicing an opinion that is supported by the law. In this situation Laver would be acting radically, not her.

@ said:
Secondly, Rod Laver would also likely be on the side of popular opinion in this instance. You aren't going to rename arenas based on minority public pressure. By definition that's not really pressure at all.

Dont you believe it. The far majority couldnt give a stuff.
 
@ said:
@ said:
Firstly, if Rod Laver ever said such a thing, he'd be advocating equal rights, i.e. that all Australian citizens should have access to the same public institutions and government support. Margaret Court is not advocating equal rights, she is advocating discrimination based on her personal beliefs.

No. She is voicing an opinion that is supported by the law. In this situation Laver would be acting radically, not her.

@ said:
Secondly, Rod Laver would also likely be on the side of popular opinion in this instance. You aren't going to rename arenas based on minority public pressure. By definition that's not really pressure at all.

Dont you believe it. The far majority couldnt give a stuff.

Well her opinion is not supported by the law, it just happens that her opinion and the law meet on this one point. The law does not invoke God or religion, nor does it outlaw homosexuality which Court has spoken against.

Similary, if you are racist against Aborigines and don't think they should be allowed to vote, then until 1962 the law and your opinion held the same result, but that's not to say the law specifically supported your opinion.

Proposing to amend the law need not be "radicalism", and I think you chose that word on purpose. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 formed the basis of what was termed the "White Australia Policy". It was not formally replaced until the Migration Act of 1958 - what a radical notion!

The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 first gave women the right to vote, 114 years after the colony was created. Women's suffrage is now a basic right in 189 countries. Radical!

Same-sex marriage is currently recognised in 22 countries; in 2000 it was not recognised in any countries (Netherlands was the first).

Even our Family Law Act of 1975 did not recognise federal de facto rights for property separation and financial maintenance involving children until it was amended in 2009! What radical thought that up, to let de factos claim childcare support and half the family home.

In terms of "far majorities not giving a stuff", please do enlighten us with facts rather than sweeping generalities.

The Ipsos poll of 2015 (1402 respondents) showed 69% supporting change to law for same-sex marriage, 25% opposed.
http://ipsos.com.au/labor-lead-increases-after-choppergate-scandal-fairfax-ipsos-poll/

The Guardian's Essential Poll Aug/16 showed 62% national support for marriage equality.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/23/support-for-marriage-equality-has-grown-since-election-essential-poll-shows

The ReachTel Poll of Feb/17 (2740 respondents) returned almost 62% support for a same-sex marriage vote by their federal members.
https://www.australianmarriageequality.org/2017/02/06/the-equality-campaign-latest-poll-reveals-the-majority-of-australians-want-parliament-to-vote-on-marriage-equality-this-year/

The Galaxy Poll of Aug/12 (865) respondents found that 64% supported gay marriage rights.
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GalaxyAug2012.pdf

I honestly looked, I couldn't find any polls showing a majority against or not caring about same-sex marriage.
 
Back
Top