Same sex marriage debate...

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

Well as I understand it, if they were legally the opposite sex at the time of the marriage they're sweet. If one makes the switch they're still married and because the legislation doesn't let gay divorce they're stuck together unless they go overseas

If the government does not approve of gay marriage then one would think that for consistency they would favour gay divorce to that less gay people would be married??

 

[Abraham]

By the same token you can't state that things that occurred overseas under different legislative frameworks will definitely or probably occur in Australia or how any of this is directly linked to SSM rather than part of a broader shift towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

You've put forward examples asking for them to be refuted and I've replied citing current legislative framework and experiences. You seem to think the Marriage Act amendment is a vanguard to future changes that would limit people's rights to be homophobic. I don't see how that is supported.

Now to your sources. They were told a gay couple had been put forward to adopt the child they had fostered. They then made comments about that being a joke and the kid needing a mummy. They weren't defenders of traditional marriage, they were homophobes who objected to gay parenting. On that basis they were removed from the books. The article in the Christian paper is factually incorrect. They were turned down for adoption because their house was too small. Maybe that was a cover I dont know, but the official record is that they were not denied the chance to adopt because of the anti-gay comments. Again if you can point me to a single case in Australia let me know. We've had gay parents for some time and it is gay parenting not marriage that this issue related to.

I think we are going around in circles now. We have every right to fear the same stances will be taken in australia as they were in Europe and Nth America because there are no sageguards to suggest they won't.

My challenge to members to refute what i was saying, was in response to those telling me none of this had happened, like i was making it up or something. Its clear for everyone to see these are real life examples that i have referenced. Whether you think they will be repeated in this country is a matter of opinion which you and i disagree on.

Your response to the adoption issue is exactly what i fear will become liegislated for soon. People denied the right to adopt children they already care for, because they want the kids to have a mum and dad, and not a dad and a dad (or homophobia as you wrongly call it). This is the absurd slippery slide we are heading for.

No you're either misreading or misconstruing what I've said and what the articles said.

The couple was not denied the chance to adopt the child because they don't agree with gay marriage. They were denied because their house was too small.

Secondly they got them kicked off the books for fostering because they made objections to a gay couple adopting the child. Not because they hold a personal belief, because they commented on someone else being unsuitable for being gay. It is a small but subtle difference. In any case gays can adopt children now so the SSM amendment is meaningless to this example.

Thirdly their sole objection was that the other couple were gay. That's it. I think their homophobes. That's my opinion.

You can fear what you want based on cherry picked selective case. The case law in this country doesn't support your position. Your arguments are not applicable to gay marriage as a discrete thing, they're your interpretation of how tolerance towards gays and lesbisns at a broad level has undermined the rights of people to take an anti-gay position.

So churches are already marrying gay couples? Religious schools already teaching LGBT issues under a national directive? Businesses already being forced to service gay weddings? To suggest nothing changes is simply not true.

I could argue against your comments re the adoption case, but ultimately we are obviously coming at this from different angles, and with widely different world views.

I say we revisit this in 12-18 months should the yes vote win, and see the extent that wider society is affected.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

I thought that the telegraph couldn't be believed. And was a rag that wrote BS to suit their agenda. Now according to some of those people, they are the bringers of the truth and all that is good.
Remember that Guys when you next want to go accusing them of lying to suit themselves.
I'd love to know who started the ruckus ( if it happened) and what provacation was supplied by either / both parties.
It's in the No camps interest for these things to continue and get even bigger. Maybe rent a crowd is now working for Tony and his Cronies in the God Squad.

Isn't it strange that the article was written by Miranda Devine , the most ardent supporter of Tony and that fine gentleman Cardinal Pell, our favourite child abuser protector. Yes of course it's all true
Now if all gay people drove 4WD drives, Miranda could have even more reasons to vilify them.

https://youtu.be/fQJs0EmEDTk

GCT providing the lols yet again…

Thanks B and W. I am glad that someone had the courage to write the truth about what happened. The dignity demonstrated by the No protesters is refreshing. This should have gone to a full plebiscite to avoid this type of behaviour.

 

[Yossarian]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

Well as I understand it, if they were legally the opposite sex at the time of the marriage they're sweet. If one makes the switch they're still married and because the legislation doesn't let gay divorce they're stuck together unless they go overseas

If the government does not approve of gay marriage then one would think that for consistency they would favour gay divorce to that less gay people would be married??

If you can't have gay marriage it follows that you can't have gay divorce. The latter is dependent on the former.

 

[Yossarian]

By the same token you can't state that things that occurred overseas under different legislative frameworks will definitely or probably occur in Australia or how any of this is directly linked to SSM rather than part of a broader shift towards tolerance of gays and lesbians.

You've put forward examples asking for them to be refuted and I've replied citing current legislative framework and experiences. You seem to think the Marriage Act amendment is a vanguard to future changes that would limit people's rights to be homophobic. I don't see how that is supported.

Now to your sources. They were told a gay couple had been put forward to adopt the child they had fostered. They then made comments about that being a joke and the kid needing a mummy. They weren't defenders of traditional marriage, they were homophobes who objected to gay parenting. On that basis they were removed from the books. The article in the Christian paper is factually incorrect. They were turned down for adoption because their house was too small. Maybe that was a cover I dont know, but the official record is that they were not denied the chance to adopt because of the anti-gay comments. Again if you can point me to a single case in Australia let me know. We've had gay parents for some time and it is gay parenting not marriage that this issue related to.

I think we are going around in circles now. We have every right to fear the same stances will be taken in australia as they were in Europe and Nth America because there are no sageguards to suggest they won't.

My challenge to members to refute what i was saying, was in response to those telling me none of this had happened, like i was making it up or something. Its clear for everyone to see these are real life examples that i have referenced. Whether you think they will be repeated in this country is a matter of opinion which you and i disagree on.

Your response to the adoption issue is exactly what i fear will become liegislated for soon. People denied the right to adopt children they already care for, because they want the kids to have a mum and dad, and not a dad and a dad (or homophobia as you wrongly call it). This is the absurd slippery slide we are heading for.

No you're either misreading or misconstruing what I've said and what the articles said.

The couple was not denied the chance to adopt the child because they don't agree with gay marriage. They were denied because their house was too small.

Secondly they got them kicked off the books for fostering because they made objections to a gay couple adopting the child. Not because they hold a personal belief, because they commented on someone else being unsuitable for being gay. It is a small but subtle difference. In any case gays can adopt children now so the SSM amendment is meaningless to this example.

Thirdly their sole objection was that the other couple were gay. That's it. I think their homophobes. That's my opinion.

You can fear what you want based on cherry picked selective case. The case law in this country doesn't support your position. Your arguments are not applicable to gay marriage as a discrete thing, they're your interpretation of how tolerance towards gays and lesbisns at a broad level has undermined the rights of people to take an anti-gay position.

So churches are already marrying gay couples? Religious schools already teaching LGBT issues under a national directive? Businesses already being forced to service gay weddings? To suggest nothing changes is simply not true.

I could argue against your comments re the adoption case, but ultimately we are obviously coming at this from different angles, and with widely different world views.

I say we revisit this in 12-18 months should the yes vote win, and see the extent that wider society is affected.

I don't understand your opening paragraph. When did I say any of those things? If your argument is that until gay marriage is allowable we don't know what will happen, I don't buy it. Any of the things you talk about would require further legislation or be covered under existing law. Amending the Marriage Act does none of the things you refer to.

Up to you if you if you want to debate the adoption thing. I'm presenting the facts as per the article. I realise we have different views on these things but a fact is a fact. They weren't stopped from adopting the kid because they support "traditional" marriage. It's not true.

As I've said, any changes are reflective of broader social trends. The causation between amending the Act and other events would be difficult to prove conclusively.

 

[Chainlink]

Is this thread still going?

Yeah it something about baking cakes now. Here I was just thinking we were being asked if other people have a chance to be as happy as others.

Marriage equates to happiness? Ask the 43% of Australians who divorced last year.

Piece of paper is just a piece of paper - a successful partnership requires more than that

However having said that I am ambivalent - good on em if they feel this legitimises their relationship and they need that.

10 million Austalians got divorced last year?! Wow!

But I know what you mean.

 

[Tigerdave]

Surprised this is still going

So, essentially, this is a case of "I want to be able to say no and potentially discriminate against a group of people and I don't want to get in trouble for discrimination, so I feel this stops my freedom of speech and it's not fair"

Is that right?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Surprised this is still going

So, essentially, this is a case of "I want to be able to say no and potentially discriminate against a group of people and I don't want to get in trouble for discrimination, so I feel this stops my freedom of speech and it's not fair"

Is that right?

Not sure if this is a cases of not wanting to get into trouble for discrimination or a case of your conscious will or should bother you if you discriminate. There is that fine line when we realise we are crossing the bounds and doing something wrong.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

To really confuse this subject

Can anybody tell me how Transexuals and Transgenders (pre marriage and post marriage) fit into this equation

I'm totally confused :unamused:

Well as I understand it, if they were legally the opposite sex at the time of the marriage they're sweet. If one makes the switch they're still married and because the legislation doesn't let gay divorce they're stuck together unless they go overseas

If the government does not approve of gay marriage then one would think that for consistency they would favour gay divorce to that less gay people would be married??

If you can't have gay marriage it follows that you can't have gay divorce. The latter is dependent on the former.

Not necessarily. The gays may have got married overseas or married when a window of opportunity presented itself but then later closed like has been the case a few times in USA. This tooing and throwing has occurred in Australia with euthanasia law - they had to try and resuscitate a guy. The federal government overruled the territories. Or again an already married partner may have had trans gender surgery so they became a same sex couple then the other partner wanted out.

 

[Tigerdave]

Surprised this is still going

So, essentially, this is a case of "I want to be able to say no and potentially discriminate against a group of people and I don't want to get in trouble for discrimination, so I feel this stops my freedom of speech and it's not fair"

Is that right?

Not sure if this is a cases of not wanting to get into trouble for discrimination or a case of your conscious will or should bother you if you discriminate. There is that fine line when we realise we are crossing the bounds and doing something wrong.

When arguments are presented here of people losing their jobs etc, I see that as some trying to say that people should be allowed to discriminate.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Surprised this is still going

So, essentially, this is a case of "I want to be able to say no and potentially discriminate against a group of people and I don't want to get in trouble for discrimination, so I feel this stops my freedom of speech and it's not fair"

Is that right?

Not sure if this is a cases of not wanting to get into trouble for discrimination or a case of your conscious will or should bother you if you discriminate. There is that fine line when we realise we are crossing the bounds and doing something wrong.

When arguments are presented here of people losing their jobs etc, I see that as some trying to say that people should be allowed to discriminate.

I am sure there is hurt on both sides that is why the "progressives" were saying that a plebiscite or referendum will bring out bigots - so both sides have hardliners, good luck to them. Blame any hurt on the gutless government.

 

[Tigerdave]

Surprised this is still going

So, essentially, this is a case of "I want to be able to say no and potentially discriminate against a group of people and I don't want to get in trouble for discrimination, so I feel this stops my freedom of speech and it's not fair"

Is that right?

Not sure if this is a cases of not wanting to get into trouble for discrimination or a case of your conscious will or should bother you if you discriminate. There is that fine line when we realise we are crossing the bounds and doing something wrong.

When arguments are presented here of people losing their jobs etc, I see that as some trying to say that people should be allowed to discriminate.

I am sure there is hurt on both sides that is why the "progressives" were saying that a plebiscite or referendum will bring out bigots - so both sides have hardliners, good luck to them. Blame any hurt on the gutless government.

yeah I'm not even talking about both sides. From the arguments on here, the no voters have presented an argument and then articles about how people have been negatively affected by voicing their anti-SSM stance as if people should be able to discriminate others and suffer no consequences.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

What happens if after 2 heretosexual's get married, one of them gets a sex change and they became a same sex couple? Does the marriage become annulled? Should it be?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

…...........

10 million Austalians got divorced last year?! Wow!

But I know what you mean.

I was thinking along the lines of giving complimentary NRL tickets to those divorcees to boost attendances then realised maybe their spouse's obsessive footie watching caused the divorce or may have had footie player husbands who assaulted their wives that caused divorce.

I was also thinking of giving discriminated-against gays free tickets but if they roll up to a Bulldogs game with the fans they have the gays may never recover.

So the safe bet is that don't get married and don't be gay.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

What happens if after 2 heretosexual's get married, one of them gets a sex change and they became a same sex couple? Does the marriage become annulled? Should it be?

I know that in least one country where there is no divorce permitted homosexualiness is grounds for annulment, as well as being infertile or insane or having AIDS. If you read the Kennels site they would have Dessie on that list as well.

 

[Abraham]

I don't understand your opening paragraph. When did I say any of those things? If your argument is that until gay marriage is allowable we don't know what will happen, I don't buy it. Any of the things you talk about would require further legislation or be covered under existing law. Amending the Marriage Act does none of the things you refer to.

Up to you if you if you want to debate the adoption thing. I'm presenting the facts as per the article. I realise we have different views on these things but a fact is a fact. They weren't stopped from adopting the kid because they support "traditional" marriage. It's not true.

As I've said, any changes are reflective of broader social trends. The causation between amending the Act and other events would be difficult to prove conclusively.

My exact point has all along been that if the Marriage Act is amended, it will be the catalyst for changes to other laws. Changing the Marriage Act in isolation doesn't affect other Legislation, but it is the starting point for changes to many of the other associated areas that i have mentioned.

This has been my point from the start, so i am not sure where your idea that i have been talking about amending the Marriage Act alone does these things?

As for the adoption case: **"After the father asked “you’re joking?”, a social worker allegedly said their own adoption request would not be considered, because their discriminatory viewpoint makes them “unfit to be adoptive parents"**

I don't need to comment further, the words of the social worker say everything.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

As for the adoption case: **"After the father asked “you’re joking?”, a social worker allegedly said their own adoption request would not be considered, because their discriminatory viewpoint makes them “unfit to be adoptive parents"**

I don't need to comment further, the words of the social worker say everything.

And rightly so. An adoptive child could be gay and then be abused by the parents - a complete and unnecessary disaster. Biological parents could also do this of course but governments are really hands on in adoption cases - just as child sex molesters cannot adopt.

I may be equating child molesters with discriminating parents then so be it.

 

[Yossarian]

Well as I understand it, if they were legally the opposite sex at the time of the marriage they're sweet. If one makes the switch they're still married and because the legislation doesn't let gay divorce they're stuck together unless they go overseas

If the government does not approve of gay marriage then one would think that for consistency they would favour gay divorce to that less gay people would be married??

If you can't have gay marriage it follows that you can't have gay divorce. The latter is dependent on the former.

Not necessarily. The gays may have got married overseas or married when a window of opportunity presented itself but then later closed like has been the case a few times in USA. This tooing and throwing has occurred in Australia with euthanasia law - they had to try and resuscitate a guy. The federal government overruled the territories. Or again an already married partner may have had trans gender surgery so they became a same sex couple then the other partner wanted out.

You're conflating a few things. The law recognises marriages conducted overseas but there is no provision under law for a gay couple to get divorced in Australia.

The other matter concerns the Commonwealth's ability to override territory legislation which it can do on any matter. It can only do so with state law where there is a conflict. This presumably is one of the reasons Howard amended the Act to begin with.

With your example it would depend on a few things but if they were married onshore they shouldn't have a problem. But I'm no big city lawyer…

 

[Yossarian]

I don't understand your opening paragraph. When did I say any of those things? If your argument is that until gay marriage is allowable we don't know what will happen, I don't buy it. Any of the things you talk about would require further legislation or be covered under existing law. Amending the Marriage Act does none of the things you refer to.

Up to you if you if you want to debate the adoption thing. I'm presenting the facts as per the article. I realise we have different views on these things but a fact is a fact. They weren't stopped from adopting the kid because they support "traditional" marriage. It's not true.

As I've said, any changes are reflective of broader social trends. The causation between amending the Act and other events would be difficult to prove conclusively.

My exact point has all along been that if the Marriage Act is amended, it will be the catalyst for changes to other laws. Changing the Marriage Act in isolation doesn't affect other Legislation, but it is the starting point for changes to many of the other associated areas that i have mentioned.

This has been my point from the start, so i am not sure where your idea that i have been talking about amending the Marriage Act alone does these things?

As for the adoption case: **"After the father asked “you’re joking?”, a social worker allegedly said their own adoption request would not be considered, because their discriminatory viewpoint makes them “unfit to be adoptive parents"**

I don't need to comment further, the words of the social worker say everything.

Because you're saying amending the Marriage Act will lead to x, y and z. Like there's a causation. I'm saying the change is part of a broader trend and opposing the amendment won't change that.

The articles re the adoption matter states the foster parents were told their house was too small before this. And it is clear that the social worker objected to the foster parents characterisation of gay parents.

I also note that adoption in the UK is handled at a local government level - totally different setup. Once again if you're able to point to a similar case in Australia let us all know.

Up to you if you comment. Facts are they were told before this that their house was too small. Then when it's been suggested a gay couple will adopt them they've made comments about that being unsuitable. Quote is below. You might think they've been poorly treated. I don't.

“having heard that the prospective adopters were a same-sex couple you shared some opinions in relation to this proposed placement which are concerning… as these views could be detrimental to the long-term needs of the children”.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Byron raised a good point earlier that was overlooked. What happens if the child they adopted turned out to be gay?