Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roman social and cultural history. I actually did my MA on sexual ethics in the Roman Empire and early Christian movements. PhD topic is perceptions of suffering and pain in the Roman world.

Awesome. I enjoy 'researching' Roman history (and other cultures) on my own, but I'm far from an expert. I really need to start keeping notes. I collect antiquities (nothing crazy. I'm not wealthy) and when I get something new, it usually leads to hours of reading about the era it's from.

I don't quite understand your PhD topic. Can you expand on that a bit? Sounds interesting

(Sorry for the derail folks. I won't ask a bunch of questions)
 
I know this thread is mainly about marriage equality in the US, but I'd just like to say I am utterly disgusted with the Australian House of Representatives today. 42-98 against marriage equality. The ALP split 38 for, 26 against - most notably current PM Julia Gillard and previous PM Kevin Rudd both voted against. The lone Green obviously voted for, the independents voted 3 for and 2 against, and all 70 Liberal/National MPs voted against. That number includes Malcolm Turnbull, who said he would have voted for if the Liberal Party had allowed a conscience vote ... but the Liberal Party does not expel MPs for crossing the floor, so he could've crossed and voted against the party line.

There is an essentially identical bill before the Senate that is an outside chance of passing, but even if it does pass, it'll die in the House.

Meanwhile, New Zealand yet again shows itself more ahead of Australia. Its gay marriage bill passed its first reading with a majority of every party voting for it except the incoherent populists of New Zealand First (who only hold eight seats). Even the Nationals voted for it 30-29, with that thirty including the current PM. Numbers may be weakened when it comes back out of committee but it should still pass its second and third readings. Few of Labour's 30 for votes are likely to drop and all 14 Greens will vote for, so the bill simply needs to find another ~17 votes amongst the other 77 members to pass. Shouldn't be a problem.

So for the first time in a while on political matters, I'm proud to be a Kiwi and disgusted to be Australian.
 
Haha, morons. By the end of the year, probably at least one state will have passed a marriage equality bill.

Will be interesting - and infuriating - to see any subsequent legal challenge and whether it is upheld as constitutional or not.
 
I can't wait for the day about a year on from when it's legalised here, and all the people who are currently rallying so hard against it realise that they haven't been affected in the slightest, and society as we know hasn't crumbled and burned.
 
Yeah, I'm still waiting here in Iowa to see that apocalyptic scenario play out that all the anti-gay marriage folk seem to think will occur. It's been about three years or so and yet...nothing. Sort of like the people who keep insisting every few years or decade or so that the world will come to an end soon.

Good move on New Zealand's part, and bad move on Australia's. Hopefully the pro-gay rights side will soon win out there.

“I would like to thank the Opposition for keeping its election promise and for all those members of Labor who, as a matter of conscience, voted to ensure that marriage remained between a man and a woman,” Mr Wallace said.

Yeah, actually, denying people equal rights means you don't have a conscience, moron. It also means you don't have a heart.

God, I wish these people would just grow up and get over themselves already.
 
I can't wait for the day about a year on from when it's legalised here, and all the people who are currently rallying so hard against it realise that they haven't been affected in the slightest, and society as we know hasn't crumbled and burned.

I must admit I'm worried that a legal challenge to a state legalising gay marriage will succeed. The commentary that I've read indicates that it would stand a good chance of succeeding. See, for instance Explainer: can Tasmania legalise same-sex marriage?

Short version: if a state marriage law conflicts with federal law, the federal law wins unless the high court is willing to employ a very careful reading of the Marriage Act. Our states are not as powerful as American states in this regard.

Tassie will probably pass a marriage equality bill - an amazing proposition given it didn't even decriminalise homosexuality until 1997 - and then things will get really interesting. Most other states either have or will soon have a marriage equality bill before their parliament, but Tasmania's by far progressed the furthest and will probably be the test case.

(I kind of see this going the same way as the Northern Territory legalising euthanasia in 1997; I recognise that's not a perfect analogy due to the greater control the federal parliament has over territories than over states, but I think it's valid.)
 
Incidentally, in light of Tassie not decriminalising homosexuality until 1997, that makes Bob Brown's career all the more astounding. He's lived in Tassie since 1972 ... and announced he was gay in 1976. He was Tasmania's first openly gay member in 1983, federal parliament's first in 1996, and the first openly gay leader of an Australian political party - and never mind the law of his home state.

Now that's courage and determination.

Australia could do with more politicians like him, less moral cowards like Gillard and Turnbull, and absolutely no moral detritus like Abbott, Boswell, and Bernardi.
 
unless I missed it somehow
it seems Indy still hasn't recognized that homosexuality is between 2 consenting adults in a relationship based on equality
unlike incest, bestiality, polygamy an whatever other nonsensical comparisons

of course society benefited from heterosexual relationships when humankinds welfare profited from an increasing population
it seems a safe assumption to me this is the main reason it became part of 'our culture' to 'promote' heterosexual relations, it was deemed in our best interest

just as it is in our best interest now not to discriminate against a section of our pooulation, creating a divide not based on any rational argument

if anyone really doesn't see the vast difference in homosexuality and incest than they have little to no grasp on the fundamentals of nature, psychology or reason
 
I must admit I'm worried that a legal challenge to a state legalising gay marriage will succeed. The commentary that I've read indicates that it would stand a good chance of succeeding. See, for instance Explainer: can Tasmania legalise same-sex marriage?

Short version: if a state marriage law conflicts with federal law, the federal law wins unless the high court is willing to employ a very careful reading of the Marriage Act. Our states are not as powerful as American states in this regard.

Tassie will probably pass a marriage equality bill - an amazing proposition given it didn't even decriminalise homosexuality until 1997 - and then things will get really interesting. Most other states either have or will soon have a marriage equality bill before their parliament, but Tasmania's by far progressed the furthest and will probably be the test case.

(I kind of see this going the same way as the Northern Territory legalising euthanasia in 1997; I recognise that's not a perfect analogy due to the greater control the federal parliament has over territories than over states, but I think it's valid.)

Fingers crossed for the best. Today's downvote and the bogan reaction to the Islamic riots has me monumentally depressed this week.

Seeing so many posts on Facebook calling for all Muslims to be deported, or even atomic bombs dropped over the entire middle east.
 
Wish the right the world over would adopt David Cameron's position: "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative; I support gay marriage because I am a conservative."
 
Meanwhile, New Zealand yet again shows itself more ahead of Australia. Its gay marriage bill passed its first reading with a majority of every party voting for it except the incoherent populists of New Zealand First (who only hold eight seats). Even the Nationals voted for it 30-29, with that thirty including the current PM. Numbers may be weakened when it comes back out of committee but it should still pass its second and third readings. Few of Labour's 30 for votes are likely to drop and all 14 Greens will vote for, so the bill simply needs to find another ~17 votes amongst the other 77 members to pass. Shouldn't be a problem.
yeah, i heard john key saying he had no problem with allowing same sex marriage to be legalised, despite saying exactly the opposite when he was campaigning for pm. but hey, it just goes to show how times have changed (or if you want to be cynical, how desperately he wants to be re-elected when that time comes).
 
I don't quite understand your PhD topic. Can you expand on that a bit? Sounds interesting.

Basically it looks at the concept of pain as a construct rather than a biological phenomenon. I try to understand how Romans conceptualized pain and draw some conclusions about what actually caused it and how they dealt with it. Hopefully this will have some wider implications about identity and culture in general.
 
LA Times


By Tiffany Hsu

September 19, 2012, 11:09 a.m.

Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive’s comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.

The Civil Rights Agenda, which dubs itself the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group in Illinois, said Chick-fil-A agreed in meetings to stop donating to groups such as Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage. Such groups oppose same-sex marriage.

A report from LGBT advocacy group Equality Matters found that between 2003 and 2009, Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million to Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. In 2010, the fast food company gave nearly $2 million to such causes, according to the report.

The LGBT collective said the Atlanta-based restaurant chain also sent a letter, signed by its senior director of real estate, to Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno.

Chick-fil-A said in the missive that its nonprofit arm, the WinShape Foundation, “is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas,” according to TCRA.

Moreno helped fan this summer’s controversy, after Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said his company was “guilty as charged” of supporting the biblical definition of the family unit. Moreno, who runs Chicago’s trendy Northwest Side ward, said he would block the chain from opening shop in his area.

Now, according to the Chicago Tribune, Moreno has softened his stance and will allow Chick-fil-A in.

The restaurant firm may have helped mend the relationship by also promising to amend an official company document to reflect that its “intent is not to engage in political or social debates,” according to TCRA.

The document, called “Chick-fil-A: Who We Are,” will also state that the chain will “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation and gender.” The company took a similar stance this summer, as politicians, celebrities and customers around the country began taking sides.

Outside of that statement, Chick-fil-A spokesman Jerry Johnston said the company is “not offering any response” to the news from TCRA.

“Chick-fil-A has taken a big step forward," said Anthony Martinez, TCRA’s executive director, in a statement. “We are encouraged by their willingness to serve all people and ensure their profits are not used to fight against a minority community that is still trying to gain full and equal civil rights.”

Now, the group wants Chick-fil-A to put in a corporate anti-discrimination policy to address complaints about a “culture of discrimination within the company,” it said.
 
My point has never been that marriage laws and customs don't change. Only that the process matters. In a republic the morals and values of the citizens should be reflected in the laws. And in a democracy laws should be enacted with the consent of the governed, i.e. not by judges overturning the will of the people.
So you are comfortable with a tyrannical majority?
 
iron yuppie, that sounds incredibly fascinating. Hope the studies go well, it'd be great to hear the findings on that topic.

Wish the right the world over would adopt David Cameron's position: "I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative; I support gay marriage because I am a conservative."

:up: Exactly. Never ceases to amaze me how someone can claim to be a conservative and support minimal government interference only to then turn around and support the government actively interfering in and regulating people's love lives.

Also, good news to hear that about Chick-fil-A. Be interesting to see how that pans out.
 
iron yuppie said:
Basically it looks at the concept of pain as a construct rather than a biological phenomenon. I try to understand how Romans conceptualized pain and draw some conclusions about what actually caused it and how they dealt with it. Hopefully this will have some wider implications about identity and culture in general.

Man this sounds really interesting. What's it involve? An X-word thesis?

I've always prided myself on being able to bullshit through university assignments (I've essentially made it into an art form) but this sounds like it actually requires knowledge an hard work :wink:
 
Man this sounds really interesting. What's it involve? An X-word thesis?

I've always prided myself on being able to bullshit through university assignments (I've essentially made it into an art form) but this sounds like it actually requires knowledge an hard work :wink:

I'm not familiar with the term "x-word thesis," I'm afraid. :lol:

It's actually very tedious work: going through texts and looking for the ways in which certain words are used and the contexts in which they appear. There will also be an art history element to it. It's a long road.
 
iron yuppie said:
I'm not familiar with the term "x-word thesis," I'm afraid. :lol:

It's actually very tedious work: going through texts and looking for the ways in which certain words are used and the contexts in which they appear. There will also be an art history element to it. It's a long road.

Oh the X was just a substitute for a word count.

I wish you luck.
 
yeah, i heard john key saying he had no problem with allowing same sex marriage to be legalised, despite saying exactly the opposite when he was campaigning for pm. but hey, it just goes to show how times have changed (or if you want to be cynical, how desperately he wants to be re-elected when that time comes).

I just get the impression John Key is apathetic towards it - just like he's apathetic towards anything that doesn't personally affect him. At least he's not completely dense and can see that voting for rather than against will ultimately mean he won't be remembered for opposing the inevitable (unlike Seddon being remembered as the PM whose government defied him and enfranchised women).

Personally, I'm stunned Peter Dunne voted in favour of the first reading. I thought United Future would be vehemently against marriage equality!
 
More disappointment: the marriage equality bill before the Australian Senate failed today, 26-41. Another reason to hate Stephen Conroy - as if there were not enough already - is that he was one of the ALP Senators who voted against it. The 26 supporters were the nine Greens, independent Nick Xenophon, and 16 from the ALP including the Senate leader Chris Evans and (obviously enough) Penny Wong.

Sue Boyce from the Libs, who has been very vocal about her support for marriage equality, was absent from the vote instead of crossing the floor. Slightly disappointed but at least absenting herself is a step better than Turnbull's cowardice.
 
In simple terms:

House of Representatives (lower house): members represent a local electorate, and electorates are determined by population - hence more populous states have more members.
Senate (upper house): members represent their state or territory. Each state receives the same amount of members, twelve. The two territories receive two Senators each.

Frontbench and backbench are from the House of Reps. Government is formed in the House, and those who hold government office - i.e. ministers - sit on the frontbench (or in the case of the opposition, frontbenchers are shadow ministers). Backbenchers are not holders of government/shadow office, so it's less prestigious; backbenchers are usually early career politicians, senior figures who have been demoted, or politicians who for whatever reason choose to sit neither in the ministry or the shadow ministry.

And this is why our system is called the Washminster system, since it is a hybrid of the Westminster and Washington systems.

---

Further bad news: looks like Tassie's marriage equality bill will narrowly fail to pass its Senate. So it'll fall to another state to be the first to legislate for marriage equality. Most states have pending bills so it'll probably happen by the end of the year, and then - as I've noted already - the country will probably be off to the federal high court to determine whether the states actually have the constitutional ability to legalise same-sex marriage.
 
INDY500 said:
Are we talking about the Democrats forcing Obamacare through the Congress without one Republican vote?


You are aware that this is a representative democracy that also has three branches of government one of which is te judiciary?
 
I'm not trying to take your responses to me out of context but here are a few that tickled me. I have to say that arguing with you is like arguing with a Dorato on the end of a fishing line. Once you're on there's no telling what direction you'll run.

I'm not trying to take your responses to me out of context but here are a few. I have to say that arguing with you is like arguing with a Dorato on the end of a fishing line. Once you're on there's no telling what direction you'll run.

his defense for incest (you really think I was defending or making a case for incest?)

deep seated bigotry

Your comparisons to older women and people with Downs Syndrome is shameful


it's the lack of wisdom in that same book that tries to keep the world from spinning forward (in response to my response to another poster bringing up incest in the Bible, something I had avoided up this point)

statements like this completely reveal your bigotry and blind acceptance of the crap in the bible

So you've admitted that you think homosexuality is immoral. (in response to my saying "In a republic the morals and values of the citizens should be reflected in the laws."

You'll run in any direction except the direction I'm going. Which was that incest laws vary but historically they were not, and still are not, imposed primarily because of inbreeding fears. But for moral reasons and the benefit of society as a whole.

Considering that your old book

It's your bigoted and ignorant bible that implemented the bannings and executions

Your aggressive hostility to values informed by religious teachings which have been passed on and tested for thousands of years as opposed to values informed by pop culture and emotions is... puzzling to me.

I assume eugenics is part of your forthcoming, obligatory slippery slope argument?

Eugenics did, and could only, originate from the Left and progressivism. The notion that a human suffering from severe disabilities is of lesser moral worth and therefore less desirable to society is incompatible with both Christianity and constitutional conservatism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom