I don't know anybody this would fit.

@dog said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with God.

… unless you believe it does…

You cannot in this country get married without signing the civil contract, the marriage licence. The state issues the licence. Repeat after me. Religion has nothing to do with marriage other than performing the ceremony.

But you said "I’d be for this except that all of our laws recognise the marriage not the civil union. "

The ceremony is NOT the marriage

Correct. So what’s wrong with my initial comment: " I see no problem with the system used in much of Europe - a legal registration in the courthouse, and a separate “church” marriage which does not have the same legal ramificaitons… that would surely overcome that argument…"

You sign the licence paper - then if you wish, you go to church and have the union blessed/ratified or whatever your thing is.

All of this is moot really - it’s not a vote, just a mailed in poll - it the pollies were doing their job, they’d vote on it and get on with life.

OK, what is the difference between a civil ceremony marriage & a civil union?

One is a legal marriage, the other is not.

For example, a civil union is enacted by state or territory law and may not be recognised outside that state.

Maybe look at this another way. Let’s say you take religious superstition and prejudice against gays out of the equation. Granting equal rights in legal relationships to every person then becomes a no-brainer. I’m pretty certain that allowing them to marry is the reasonable, rational and compassionate response.

All the arguments I have seen so far against it, including some on this page, are the kinds of things that people say when they have already decided against the proposition but are then forced to come up with valid reasons. It is a natural reflexive debating technique.

This whole marriage thing is a man-made construct. There is no natural law of the universe that determines it. We made, it, we can change it. The only reason we don’t is that some people don’t want to. They then concoct a whole lot of bullshit reasons why it shouldn’t happen, all of them also man-made.

When it comes down to it, some people see homosexuality as a disease that can be treated or stamped out and they view ratifying the resulting relationships in no different a light to granting a schizophrenic’s inner voice legal status. Other people are still subconsciously responding to the stigma that has always been attached to being gay. When I was young, it was the worst thing you could call someone.

It is natural to reject all of the above, humans are good at lying to themselves.

OK, why can’t they have a civil ceremony marriage but leave it up to the various Churches to decide if they want to allow it to take place in their church?

That’s a separate issue. If same sex marriage was legalised, then churches MIGHT be found to be in contravention of existing anti-discrimination laws if they refused to allow a SSM ceremony in their church. I don’t know if that is the case.

If a baker refuses to make a cake for a gay wedding, then they probably are breaking the law as it currently stands. That is already the case if they refused to serve a person on the basis of their nationality, gender, sexuality or religion. Same sex marriage will not change that.

We couldn’t be married in a Catholic church because I’d been divorced.

They didn’t say we couldn’t, they just made it too hard & too expensive to do.

I had to have my previous marriage annulled by the Catholics even though I wasn’t married in a Catholic church the first time.

Application fee was non-refundable & stood at $750 20 years ago.

@silentC said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

That’s a separate issue. If same sex marriage was legalised, then churches MIGHT be found to be in contravention of existing anti-discrimination laws if they refused to allow a SSM ceremony in their church. I don’t know if that is the case.

Isn’t that the crux? The operative word is MIGHT. Even @dog has used similar. Are we not at risk though, without those sureties of giving one set of people “equality” and taking away the right of others to believe differently?

The problem is that we are not terribly far removed, and our laws are not removed at all from a time when state and church were integral, so changes need to be addressed somewhat holistically. I cannot identify with the dogmatic (no pun intended) beliefs of some opposed to the concept, but I will defend their right to believe them (whatever their religion).

This is not a vote - it’s an opinion poll. There are no policies attached to it, no draft assurances of preservation of other persons rights, it’s all “might, probably, won’t” any assurances are meaningless as they aren’t policy. For me it’s not about same sex marriage, the concept of the poll is wrong - they have polls every day - they know what the population is thinking and they understand the debate, just get on with it, but for crying out loud do it right.

BTW, we have four gay couples in our immediate social circle, one is already married (In the US), one “might” and the other two won’t marry. I have no idea what that means in the context of the debate, other than it seems that not everyone is champing at the bit to tie the knot. I suspect the argument is more about “rights” than actually implementing them.

A bit like me whinging about not getting the pension really… no there’s a chance for the equality argument to really take off! :wink:

I’m curious - is everyone in the shed going to return a “vote”?

I’m not, for obvious reasons, although if I were perhaps @dog would be surprised at which box was ticked!

@Cliff-Rogers

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

We couldn’t be married in a Catholic church because I’d been divorced.

No matter how screwy that might appear (to me at least) that’s fair enough. Church membership is voluntary, so if you don’t like it you can lump it. I do like the “well for just a little extra money we can forgive you” approach though.

It’s a bit like being fined for not voting really…

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

I suspect the argument is more about “rights” than actually implementing them.

Yes I think I said something similar. There are even gay people who don’t like the fact their ‘cause’ is being railroaded by do-gooders.

But as you say, it is not a vote for some legislation, it is an opinion poll, ostensibly so that the govt can decide whether they need to even look at the issue. Subsequent to a yes vote, the details of the legislation need to be proposed, debated, rejected, redrafted, withdrawn, spat out, turned over, scrapped, taken up again and so on until some actual tangible piece of legislation can be put before the Australian people (or their representatives). Probably in the year 2032.

Until then, we have no detail, and all the mights and maybes are no reason to not at least have the debate - in Parliament where it should be taking place to begin with.

Then, if it does go ahead and it is determined that they should be given the same rights to protection from discrimination as other groups, so be it. I’m sure the churches will work out some way to avoid such sacrilegious acts taking place within their premises.

I will return a yes vote, mainly because I see no good reason to stop it. In my case it is more a vote against the influence currently exerted by conservative and religious interests than a vote for anything.

I’ll be returning a yes vote. My opinion (one I’ve held for a long time) is that if two people want to get married, that is a matter of concern to them and their family and friends and is no business of anyone else’s. I cannot see why anyone else should want to interfere in something so personal.

@Col your footer says it all for me… thanks!

administrators

There is zero chance that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples. Religious schools already get exemptions to allow them to discriminate against gays, people who are of different religions etc. A Jewish school is allowed to only hire straight, practising Jews.

If the Yes vote carries then the SS marriage legislation will pass before Christmas. The current government cannot afford this issue to drag on through the next election. They’ll be crucified.

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

@Col your footer says it all for me… thanks!

Glad you agree, BM. Kennedy put it very well but it’s a thought that has been voiced by others over the years, including John Stuart Mill. Tolerance of people with whom you disagree means allowing them an opportunity to express their opinion - which in turn allows you an opportunity to refute that opinion.

Intolerance means attempting to close down the opinions of others. That has never been a successful strategy in the long term - as evidenced by the failures of Nazism, communism, Pol Pot and his thugs.

We are seeing quite a lot of intolerance in the public arena at the moment.

administrators

@Cliff-Rogers said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

OK, why can’t they have a civil ceremony marriage but leave it up to the various Churches to decide if they want to allow it to take place in their church?

And they will.

SS couples will be allowed to choose what kind of ceremony they want as long as the church they choose is happy to perform the service. If they want to get married in a Catholic church and said church doesn’t want to the SS couple will have to go elsewhere.

Businesses will have to abide by anti-discrimination laws.

The ceremony is not the marriage however. Marriage is a legal construct and occurs once the marriage licence is signed. Churches can have as many ceremonies as they like but none will be marriages until the legal papers are signed. This is why I say marriage has nothing to do with religion.

administrators

@bitingmidge said in I don't know anybody this would fit.:

And no I don’t even care about a “slippery slope” - but why shouldn’t the goat fanciers have equal rights?

As soon as bestiality is legal and the goat have informed consent, we can talk about giving goat fanciers equal rights. Until then they are out of luck.

The slippery slope argument is just plain stupid.

The Anglican priest in Albury is actively campaigning for a yes vote.

I figure that this will then extend to offering marriage ceremonies for SS couples when the legislation is passed.

If the vote had of been 10’years ago I would have voted no

I will be voting yes, it will have no effect on my life whatsoever, but will extend to everyone the same rights and protections that I have.

Some of the stories that are emerging on the lack of legal rights that longterm SS partners have is wrong. It needs to be fixed and I’m pissed that the Libs are playing this out as they are.

The reality is, if this change is not passed now, as soon as Labor is returned to power, whether that is at the next election or the one after that or if it takes 20 years before they are back in power, they will bring the change before parliament as their first piece of legislation, and it will pass.

The world is changing, better to be the ones who bring it in than go down as the ones who tried to stop it.

Let’s face it, the churches are scrabbling for customers as it is, I’ll bet it won’t be long before the mainstream religions welcome them with open arms. Some of the fringe will and some won’t.

Naturally I didn’t see it, and because I’m too tight to pay for a vpn we can’t watch it on iView, but apparently Q& A put asked the question whether marriage was a dated concept and should be abolished. Now that’s a decent question!

Looks like your connection to The Blokey Shed was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.