ACT Same-Sex Marriage Act in the High Court (2 Viewers)

[Crobat]

Round 2 up and coming: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...id=Corp_News-Nov2014|News-Nov2014_FBP|abcnews

This proposal sounds promising.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Round 2 up and coming: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-...id=Corp_News-Nov2014|News-Nov2014_FBP|abcnews

This proposal sounds promising.

Just before the ACT bill there was a really similar NSW bill with the most beautifully sneaky language choices I've ever seen. It probably would have held up against a HCA challenge (it would have stood a much better chance at very least). Unfortunately it didn't get passed by parliament, it was like 2 votes off or something iirc. Hopefully this mimics NSW, because the language on the ACT bill was never going to hold up to scrutiny. That NSW one was frankly gorgeous though.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Just went back and read the comments from last year. The people making religious arguments mustn't know a whole lot about the bible. According to the bible, women can't be teachers in coed or all boy schools (1 Timothy 2:11-15), is that illegal because religion influences society? Yeah no, because that would be a dumb law. Just like how laws which discriminate against homosexuals are dumb laws.

 

[Crobat]

Taken the liberty to attach the proposed bill and its explanatory memo:

Proposed Amendments: Freedom to Marry Bill 2014

Explanatory Memorandum: Explanatory Memo

Current Marriage Act: Marriage Act 1961

 

[Crobat]

Just went back and read the comments from last year. The people making religious arguments mustn't know a whole lot about the bible. According to the bible, women can't be teachers in coed or all boy schools (1 Timothy 2:11-15), is that illegal because religion influences society? Yeah no, because that would be a dumb law. Just like how laws which discriminate against homosexuals are dumb laws.

Haven't gone back to read what I said about religion before but my current stance on it is just that it's fine to hold whatever religious beliefs you hold but they should not be influential in law making decisions and nor should you treat them so. Of course, religions also should not be forced to change their ideologies on relatively minor issues that won't really harm society, which this proposed bill recognizes, so now at least you can call out people on their blatant homophobic bigotry since they can't hide behind the mask of "it's my religious belief".

 

[Graney]

Haven't gone back to read what I said about religion before but my current stance on it is just that it's fine to hold whatever religious beliefs you hold but they should not be influential in law making decisions and nor should you treat them so.

Why should religious beliefs not be influential in law making?

Laws are ideologically and ethically determined. Religion is the stated basis of ethical decision making for most of our politicians and prime ministers.

How do you expect someone like Abbott or Rudd to make an ethical determination that isn't influenced by their religious beliefs?

Why are moral parables from the bible an inappropriate basis for political decision making, but parables from peter singer aren't? Or what's the reason biblical knowledge is a worse source of guidance than experiences from a politicians personal life?

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Haven't gone back to read what I said about religion before but my current stance on it is just that it's fine to hold whatever religious beliefs you hold but they should not be influential in law making decisions and nor should you treat them so. Of course, religions also should not be forced to change their ideologies on relatively minor issues that won't really harm society, which this proposed bill recognizes, so now at least you can call out people on their blatant homophobic bigotry since they can't hide behind the mask of "it's my religious belief".

Yeah, I basically agree. I think an argument can be proposed for a religiously founded legal system when the vast majority of people follow that religion and where it's actually a religiously founded legally system across the board, not just a religious excuse made to cover a prejudice. You can't say:

'The bible says women can't be teachers, but it was written in a different time! Of course modern women can do anything they want!'

'The bible says you can't wear clothes made out of a mixture of different threads. But that's really impractical and dumb, that can't be illegal!'

'The bible says you can't shave your face (or 'mar the corners of thy beard' as these fancy bible writers put it). But that's insane, why would we tell people what they can and can't do to their own body hair?!'

'The bible tells you not to work on Sundays, but we're not going to make that illegal!'

'The bible forbids sex outside of marriage, but we can't make that illegal, that intrudes on people's privacy!'

'The bible says two men can't get married. I think butt sex is icky. So yeah, that's illegal. Because God.'

The argument doesn't work.

I'll have a look at that legislation now. Hopefully a conscience vote is allowed, have you heard if it is yet?

 

[SylviaB]

Haven't gone back to read what I said about religion before but my current stance on it is just that it's fine to hold whatever religious beliefs you hold but they should not be influential in law making decisions and nor should you treat them so. .

should religious people be barred from voting then?

Voting ultimately influences laws, and voting is influenced by religious belief.

 

[SylviaB]

Yeah, I basically agree. I think an argument can be proposed for a religiously founded legal system when the vast majority of people follow that religion and where it's actually a religiously founded legally system across the board, not just a religious excuse made to cover a prejudice. You can't say:

'The bible says women can't be teachers, but it was written in a different time! Of course modern women can do anything they want!'

'The bible says you can't wear clothes made out of a mixture of different threads. But that's really impractical and dumb, that can't be illegal!'

'The bible says you can't shave your face (or 'mar the corners of thy beard' as these fancy bible writers put it). But that's insane, why would we tell people what they can and can't do to their own body hair?!'

'The bible tells you not to work on Sundays, but we're not going to make that illegal!'

'The bible forbids sex outside of marriage, but we can't make that illegal, that intrudes on people's privacy!'

'The bible says two men can't get married. I think butt sex is icky. So yeah, that's illegal. Because God.'

The argument doesn't work.

I'll have a look at that legislation now. Hopefully a conscious vote is allowed, have you heard if it is yet?

youre a muslim who evidently knows jack shit about christianity so gtfo

also marriage (in the context of this discussion) is an institution created by the government, so a 'ban' on same-sex marriages is not actively dispossessing anyone of liberties the way prohibiting sexual intercourse would be

 

[SuchSmallHands]

youre a muslim who evidently knows jack shit about christianity so gtfo

also marriage (in the context of this discussion) is an institution created by the government, so a 'ban' on same-sex marriages is not actively dispossessing anyone of liberties the way prohibiting sexual intercourse would be

I was Christian for the first 16 years of my life, I taught Scripture classes and attended Catholic school for 13 years (including 2 spent in an Irish convent school, taught exclusively by nuns). All of that is in the bible. I can go find you the references if you want. I provided one for the first example earlier on.

It's still not a valid argument to say 'religion should influence the law. Except those parts of our religion we chose to just ignore for our own convenience. Sorry, what we meant to say is where our religion supports our bigotry it should influence the law'.

 

[Kiraken]

Imo religion has a role in the determination of laws in a democratic country if the large majority of civilians in that democracy follow those religious principles and if said principles don't outright discriminate against other people solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

i.e. for a majority Christian state like the Vatican City it would be reasonable to expect religion plays a major role in their laws etc. That's understandable since practically everyone there would agree to that.

But obviously if said state had a minority population of say Jews or Muslims or atheists and there were laws that actively discriminated against them, then that's not right.

From what I understand, the most followed religion in Australia is Christianity, with 61% (from the 2011 Census). Not all of said Christians are Catholic and not all of said Christians are necessarily particularly religious. As such i do not think it is unreasonable to expect religion in such a country should play little role in determining national policy and law if it was truly to reflect the democracy we live in.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Taken the liberty to attach the proposed bill and its explanatory memo:

Proposed Amendments: Freedom to Marry Bill 2014

Explanatory Memorandum: Explanatory Memo

Current Marriage Act: Marriage Act 1961

Okay cool, so it's taking a similar route to the ACT amendments, but it's not a big deal because it's federal legislation this time. Will be interesting to see if it passes or not, or how they'll amend it to get it to pass.

 

[SylviaB]

I was Christian for the first 16 years of my life, I taught Scripture classes and attended Catholic school for 13 years (including 2 spent in an Irish convent school, taught exclusively by nuns). All of that is in the bible. I can go find you the references if you want. I provided one for the first example earlier on.

yes but my point is that if you think that if a law being "in the bible" per se means it has to be followed by chrsitians then you are very ignorant about chrsitian theology

It's still not a valid argument to say 'religion should influence the law. Except those parts of our religion we chose to just ignore for our own convenience. Sorry, what we meant to say is where our religion supports our bigotry it should influence the law'.

Being called a bigot by someone who follows a religion that see the imprisonment or execution of homosexuals in countries that follow it.

top kek :^)

 

[Iwillget9995]

youre a muslim who evidently knows jack shit about christianity so gtfo

also marriage (in the context of this discussion) is an institution created by the government, so a 'ban' on same-sex marriages is not actively dispossessing anyone of liberties the way prohibiting sexual intercourse would be

Ok.

First, you attempted to discredit someone's argument by saying "should religious people be banned from voting then"?

People elected to govern this country doing so on the basis of non-secular beliefs, and peoples personal beliefs being informed by religion aren't in any way analogous. The government, unless given clear evidence otherwise, should prioritise people's rights to be free from persecution over people's rights to have laws made in their favour. i.e. they should prioritise the right for LGBT peoples to not be banned access to marriage, over the right from religious people to not have to live in a society where gay marriage is allowed. Also, voting doesn't really influence laws, honey, we democratically elect parties every four years from which we largely place faith in their capacity to organise and influence laws on our behalf.

Second, them being a muslim != an inability to talk about Christianity. Everything he said was correct and sourced, so don't be a bigot.

Third, let's parse your logic:

marriage = government institution
banning access to government institutions != active dispossession of liberties

let's play substitute the government institution!

hospitals = government institution
banning access to free health care != active dispossession of liberties

law and order = government institution
banning access to law and order != active dispossession of liberties.

It would be a generous description - given the sheer lack of logic behind your arguments - to even label them sophistry.

 

[Iwillget9995]

Wiki says:

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion.

It's really not that difficult.

People in parliament can be religious. But they are not allowed to form official opinions (i.e. ones regarding legislation) on the basis of such religions, to do so would be to privilege one group of beliefs held by a portion of society over another.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

yes but my point is that if you think that if a law being "in the bible" per se means it has to be followed by chrsitians then you are very ignorant about chrsitian theology

Being called a bigot by someone who follows a religion that see the imprisonment or execution of homosexuals in countries that follow it.

top kek :^)

Yeah I don't know, I was always taught that if the bible explicitly says not to do something or to do something than as a Christian you're supposed to not do it or do it respectively. Please tell me how the phrasing in passages dealing with homosexuality differ from those dealing with all those other things that mean gay marriage should be illegal whereas the rest shouldn't be according to Christianity. I'm curious.

 

[Iwillget9995]

yes but my point is that if you think that if a law being "in the bible" per se means it has to be followed by chrsitians then you are very ignorant about chrsitian theology



Being called a bigot by someone who follows a religion that see the imprisonment or execution of homosexuals in countries that follow it.

top kek :^)

I am genuinely facinated. On what calculus does Christian theology then decide to strictly follow the bible? Or is it sort of, more like, a guide, yeah?

In which case; perhaps we shouldn't oppress 5% of the population on an issue which Jesus didn't deem important enough to address even once.

 

[Crobat]

Why should religious beliefs not be influential in law making?

Laws are ideologically and ethically determined. Religion is the stated basis of ethical decision making for most of our politicians and prime ministers.

How do you expect someone like Abbott or Rudd to make an ethical determination that isn't influenced by their religious beliefs?

Why are moral parables from the bible an inappropriate basis for political decision making, but parables from peter singer aren't? Or what's the reason biblical knowledge is a worse source of guidance than experiences from a politicians personal life?

Because whilst there is a strong foundation of ethics (and tolerance, love, happiness, etc) in religious texts, there is also a strong foundation of discrimination. Laws govern the lives of everyone in the state, and I see no reason why those who do not follow the particular religion of our politicians to have to have their liberties subject to religiously-sourced discrimination and interference in their lives, especially when they are not also a follower of said religion.

I expect them to do so when the risk of harm is minimal to society, and yet religiously forbidden. It's fine if their personal ethical determination is influenced by their religious beliefs, but as a politician you are supposed to be a representative of society. Our society is multicultural and multi-faithful, so their personal religious beliefs shouldn't be interfering with the lives, liberties and beliefs of the subjects of their decision making.

Laws are ethically limited to the narrow measurement of harm to society; their purpose is to maintain social order and well-being by prohibiting harmful actions. All I expect of politicians is that they use the basis of harm to society as the chief measurement of assessing ethical laws, rather than their religious beliefs.

should religious people be barred from voting then?

Voting ultimately influences laws, and voting is influenced by religious belief.

Actually a very good question - one I think would make a great topic for a debate (especially in law school).

In the interests of democracy, no, of course. Voters should be able to vote based on their personal preferences, and that will inevitably include religious beliefs. On an external level you could argue that subjecting people outside of your way of life to your own beliefs is more morally/ethically incorrect than allowing people to live their lives as they see fit. But I think this must be the reason that only the Government has law making power, rather than every member of society voting of each separate bill, and they are supposed to be bound by the separation of Church and State.

 

[Iwillget9995]

Because whilst there is a strong foundation of ethics (and tolerance, love, happiness, etc) in religious texts, there is also a strong foundation of discrimination. Laws govern the lives of everyone in the state, and I see no reason why those who do not follow the particular religion of our politicians to have to have their liberties subject to religiously-sourced discrimination and interference in their lives, especially when they are not also a follower of said religion.

I expect them to do so when the risk of harm is minimal to society, and yet religiously forbidden. It's fine if their personal ethical determination is influenced by their religious beliefs, but as a politician you are supposed to be a representative of society. Our society is multicultural and multi-faithful, so their personal religious beliefs shouldn't be interfering with the lives, liberties and beliefs of the subjects of their decision making.

Laws are ethically limited to the narrow measurement of harm to society; their purpose is to maintain social order and well-being by prohibiting harmful actions. All I expect of politicians is that they use the basis of harm to society as the chief measurement of assessing ethical laws, rather than their religious beliefs.



Actually a very good question - one I think would make a great topic for a debate (especially in law school).

In the interests of democracy, no, of course. Voters should be able to vote based on their personal preferences, and that will inevitably include religious beliefs. On an external level you could argue that subjecting people outside of your way of life to your own beliefs is more morally/ethically incorrect than allowing people to live their lives as they see fit. But I think this must be the reason that only the Government has law making power, rather than every member of society voting of each separate bill, and they are supposed to be bound by the separation of Church and State.

Really great responses.

I think the quite clear answer to the voting question, is that the process of voting is inherently inviting people to submit their own views, whether coloured by religion, or any number of personal factors. That is the whole idea of having an aggregate of votes - no one person's view obscures another. Because we have an elected parliament, these views only go so far as to place faith in a party and their platform; not specific legislation, so the secular processes of parliament are ultimately still the ones controlling the passing of laws.

 

[SylviaB]

First, you attempted to discredit someone's argument by saying "should religious people be banned from voting then"?

What's wrong with that? The point of 'debate' is to discredit other opinions.

People elected to govern this country doing so on the basis of non-secular beliefs, and peoples personal beliefs being informed by religion aren't in any way analogous. The government, unless given clear evidence otherwise, should prioritise people's rights to be free from persecution over people's rights to have laws made in their favour i.e. they should prioritise the right for LGBT peoples to not be banned access to marriage,

verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

Don't talk like a pompous dickhead when you don't even know the meaning of rudimentary words

over the right from religious people to not have to live in a society where gay marriage is allowed.

What protected rights people should have is a contentious issue in the first place. You value gay marriage and think it should be protected, other people don't and think it shouldn't be protected. Why are your values any more valid than theirs?

Also, voting doesn't really influence laws, honey, we democratically elect parties every four years from which we largely place faith in their capacity to organise and influence laws on our behalf.

I said ultimately influences laws, as opposed to directly. Which it DOES, because the party is elected on the basis of an expectation to enact specific laws or some kind of laws that aim for a particular outcome. If voting had no influence on laws whatsoever then voting would be utterly meaningless.

Second, them being a muslim != an inability to talk about Christianity. Everything he said was correct and sourced, so don't be a bigot.

muslims accuse anyone who isn't a muslim and talks about islam of being ignorant and unqualified to talk about it, but im sure they arent bigots.

hospitals = government institution
banning access to free health care != active dispossession of liberties

Correct. Without government, there wouldn't be government-provided free healthcare. Therefore, it's not a liberty.

law and order = government institution
banning access to law and order != active dispossession of liberties.

Firstly, order is a state of being, not an institution.

Secondly, the government has a monopoly on law and prohibits other law-making parties from operating within its jurisdiction.
Therefore its not a valid comparison.

It's important to note that marriage of the kind desired by 'marriage equality' advocates can only exist with government. If government were to suddenly collapse and cease to exist, gays would still not have the right to marry, and yet there is no government restricting them from marrying. Then whence cometh the oppression? If a right does not exist in the absence of government, then how can government be responsible for the deprivation?

It would be a generous description - given the sheer lack of logic behind your arguments - to even label them sophistry.