Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Dougie]

Not that you're coming up with anything but emotional bs ...

There is nothing stronger than one can fall back on that society's verdict, since in the end thats really all that matters.

And just incase you haven't noticed, this forum in no way represents society, or even youth in general, its blatantly leftist with a few exceptions.

haha i just found where your 60% came from. You're seriously stupid enough to believe a news poll!?! no wonder your arguement is falling apart. i spose you're the kind of fool who thinks that disabled people should be put into homes and left there.

 

[bshoc]

and i guess you think that the current system of marriage is based around legalities rather that a joining of two people in love. in which case you don't even know what it is to be married.

I've already explained it, learn to read moron

"Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give you that piece of paper either. Get over it."

 

[spell check]

yeah marriage is pretty stupid

i'm pretty sure the only reason it ever existed from a legal standpoint was to transfer women from the possession of their father into possession of their husband and to allow men to rape their wives with impunity

 

[bshoc]

Yeah that's true enough.

Do you at least support Civil Unions/Tax Breaks and the other breaks of Civil Unions for homosexuals?

No.

And since you want to "fuck marriage," why the fuck are you even arguing about it, I also doubt the people who are married right now would be "appreciative" of your views.

 

[_dhj_]

yeah marriage is pretty stupid

i'm pretty sure the only reason it ever existed from a legal standpoint was to transfer women from the possession of their father into possession of their husband and to allow men to rape their wives with impunity

Fair enough.

 

[Dougie]

"Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution "

you've never once said it's between a man and a woman. same sex relationships are natural too.

 

[bshoc]

haha i just found where your 60% came from. You're seriously stupid enough to believe a news poll!?! no wonder your arguement is falling apart. i spose you're the kind of fool who thinks that disabled people should be put into homes and left there.

The proof of that 60% as they say, is in the pudding, note:

Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill (2004)

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

 

[dagwoman]

I've already explained it, learn to read moron

"Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give you that piece of paper either. Get over it."

We read that the first time. And argued it. Let's not go in circles.

 

[bshoc]

Where does the polygamous nature of most relationships pre the 1800's fit into your idological situation?

Roman marriage systems, other things like that?

...

Roman marriage was no different from christian or today's marriage.

Sure gay relationships were accepted in some classical societies (not really Rome after Augustus, but say Greece), but not marriage.

 

[Dougie]

The proof of that 60% as they say, is in the pudding, note:

Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill (2004)

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

exactly, that's what the govenment say it is, not what it should be. unless you believe it too

 

[bshoc]

exactly, that's what the govenment say it is, not what it should be. unless you believe it too

Yeah because governments in Australia elect themselves right? LOL Governments that go against peoples intrests dont stay governments for long, especially in a democratic society.

 

[Dougie]

I'm FAIRLY sure he does believe it... otherwise this argument wouldn't be happening.

i know which means this will spiral into yet another never ending, no conclusion, each to their own ideas threads

 

[dagwoman]

Considering it's 66 pages long, I think we're already there. Regardless, I still think it's an important and interesting debate.

 

[townie]

The proof of that 60% as they say, is in the pudding, note:

Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill (2004)

Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

bshoc, do u understand the concept of the legislature, let me give u a run down

every 3 or so years, the citizens of Australia vote in these things called ELECTIONS, right, u still with me?

We then elect a SENATE and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, the party with the most seats in the HoR FORMS GOVERNMENT, are u still with me?

the GOVERNMENT, then decides which laws they want to pass, the GOVERNMENT, is made currently up of ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIVE members of the COALITION, no THE LABOR PARTY, also voted for the ammendment, meaning that roughly in total TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN PEOPLE voted for the ammendment, in doing so they were following THE PARTY LINE.

We didnt have a REFERENDUM on the ammendment, TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN PEOPLE out of TWENTY MLLION SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE people voted for the bill, the people who voted were elected on an ELECTION PLATFORM, which has NUMEROUS ISSUES, none of which i can recall were GAY MARRIAGE, as such, the government didnt SEEK A MANDATE to pass that law, of course the GOVERNMENT cant always SEEK A MANDATE for every piece of legislation, this would be INNEFFICIENT, thats why we have ELECTIONS and the ability to CHANGE LEGISLATION. In other words, THE PASSING OF LEGISLATION DOES NOT IMPLY SUPPORT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE UNLESS SUCH LEGISLATION WAS THE ONLY ISSUE IN AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

 

[Dougie]

Shut up townie you faggot.

second that, even if you're on my side

 

[dagwoman]

Great post, Townie.

 

[townie]

Yeah because governments in Australia elect themselves right? LOL Governments that go against peoples intrests dont stay governments for long, especially in a democratic society.

51.The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: -

(i.) Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States:

(ii.) Taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States:

(iii.) Bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth:

(iv.) Borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth:

(v.) Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services:

(vi.) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth.

(vii.) Lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys:

(viii.) Astronomical and meteorological observations:

(ix.) Quarantine:

(x.) Fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits:

(xi.) Census and statistics:

(xii.) Currency, coinage, and legal tender:

(xiii.)Banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money:

(xiv.) Insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned:

(xv.) Weights and measures:

(xvi.) Bills of exchanging and promissory notes:

(xvii.) Bankruptcy and insolvency:

(xviii.) Copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks:

(xix.) Naturalisation and aliens:

(xx.) Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth:

(xxi.) Marriage:

(xxii.) Divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants:

(xxiii.) Invalid and old-age pensions:

(xxiiiA.) The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

(xxiv.) The service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States:

(xxv.) The recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States:

(xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

(xxvii.) Immigration and emigration:

(xxviii.) The influx of criminals:

(xxix.) External Affairs:

(xxx.) The relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific:

(xxxi.) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:

(xxxii.) The control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth:

(xxxiii.) The acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State:

(xxxiv.) Railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State:

(xxxv.) Conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State:

(xxxvi.) Matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides:

(xxxvii.) Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law:

(xxxviii.) The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia:

(xxxix.) Matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

See, bshoc, there are AT LEAST 39 issues on which governments can make laws, governments tend to be elected on broader platforms than a single issue, just because a party is in power

(1) doesnt imply 100% of Australians support their policies

nor does it imply

(2) that the people who voted for the party supports all it's policies

case in point: WAF probably voted liberals, WAF has made it clear he doesnt support all the policies of the liberal party. I voted Labor, i dont support all the policies of the labor party

people vote for parties NUMEROUS reasons, the passing of legislation does not mean the government has the support of all the people on such legislation

 

[bshoc]

townie I don't see how explaining to me the first week of my political science lecture changes the marriage amendment act of 2004. At most you've proved that its not a viable or important consideration for most people, which just destroys your case even further.

 

[Dougie]

townie, what do YOU think on the issue?

 

[bshoc]

A big thankyou for townie and Nolanistic for making this thread too stupid to post in anymore.