Labor backs ban on gay marriage in Australia
Gay marriage will be made illegal in Australia before the federal election.
By Meaghan Shaw
8/4/2004
Gay marriage will be made illegal in Australia before the federal election after Labor yesterday said that it would support the Government's proposed ban.
While Labor has stated previously that it is opposed to gay marriage, it had referred the original legislation to a Senate committee to examine the legal, constitutional and social impacts of the legislation.
Opposition attorney-general Nicola Roxon told the National Marriage Coalition forum in Canberra that Labor would now pass the bill.
We understand how strongly many people feel about retaining and promoting the institution of marriage between men and women and as a bedrock institution for families, she said.
Prime Minister John Howard told the forum that he would reintroduce legislation within a fortnight, saying he wanted the issue dealt with before the election.
While gay marriage is not recognised in Australia, Mr Howard has expressed concern that the courts could adopt a more liberal interpretation. He said he wanted to enshrine in law the notion that marriage was a union between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others.
It would be a great pity if this issue were left hanging in an election campaign, he said.
In putting it into law in the next two weeks nobody can say it's being used as a wedge, nobody can say it's a diversion, everybody can say it's a united expression of the national parliament and therefore of the will of the Australian people.
Labor's move was condemned by gay groups and the minor parties.
Equal Rights Network spokesman Rodney Croome said that by breaking its promise to send the bill to be examined by a committee, hey have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy on gay and lesbian rights.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Damien Meyer said Labor had abdicated any claim it may have had to being a party of social justice and inclusion after its gutless decision.
Australian Democrats justice spokesman Brian Greig said Labor had made a panicked decision to remove the issue from the election. He said both the Government and ALP were pandering to conservative religious organisations.
The National Marriage Coalition, formed last month, consists of the Australian Christian Lobby, Australian Family Association and the Fatherhood Foundation. It is supported by Catch the Fire Ministries, the evangelical church addressed by Treasurer Peter Costello in May.
More than 1000 people from all over the country attended yesterday's forum, arranged only three weeks ago to influence parliamentarians on the marriage legislation. They gave Mr Howard three standing ovations.
One speaker, Margaret Court, former tennis star and Christian minister, told The Age that homosexuality was a sin of the flesh, and the children of gay unions suffered shame and guilt. I think they're thinking about a relationship for their own selfishness and not for the children.
Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson addressed the forum, which was attended by other MPs, including Kevin Andrews, Neil Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop, Ron Boswell and Guy Barnett.
Mr Howard is reintroducing the bill so that it deals solely with gay marriage, either in Australia or overseas. The original bill included a ban on gay couples adopting children overseas. Ms Roxon said Labor did not support this because adoption law was the responsibility of the states and territories.
Originally posted by ivanhoeInteresting, but hardly surprising in Australia.
Labor backs ban on gay marriage in Australia
Gay marriage will be made illegal in Australia before the federal election.
By Meaghan Shaw
8/4/2004
Gay marriage will be made illegal in Australia before the federal election after Labor yesterday said that it would support the Government's proposed ban.
While Labor has stated previously tha ...[text shortened]... support this because adoption law was the responsibility of the states and territories.
Is this a ban on gay marriage in a legal, church or common sence ?
Opponents of heterosexual marriage often claim that it will undermine the institution of heterosexual marriage, or that it undermines the family. I find these claims confusing. How does homsexual marriage threaten the institution of heterosexual marrage or the family in general? Will heterosexuals stop getting married if homosexuals start getting married? Will heterosexuals stop having children if homosexuals start getting married? Will heterosexuals be worse parents if homosexuals start getting married? Suppose you are a married heterosexual with a couple children. Suppose that a married homosexual couple moves to your street. Now, has your marriage thereby been undermined by the mere fact that your new neighbors are married? Have your children thereby been harmed by the mere fact that your new neighbors are married?
Originally posted by bbarrPerhaps their argument would be something like this...
Opponents of heterosexual marriage often claim that it will undermine the institution of heterosexual marriage, or that it undermines the family. I find these claims confusing. How does homsexual marriage threaten the institution of heterosexual marrage or the family in general?
The University of Washington is currenly a respected
institution of learning. RBHILL's rantings are not. But
if RBHILL's rantings became an accredited "college,"
all places of higher learning would suffer from that.
They would not suddenly individually start providing
an inferior eduction, but the reputation they have
as a group is diminished by including a "college" that
they deem unworthy. It's not the invidual colleges,
but their reputation as a whole, or the reputation
of the institution of higher learning as a whole that
would suffer.
So when married people see "inferior" types of
couples being "accredited," they see not their
individual family, but traditional families as a group,
as having its reputation tarnished.
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by Cribs
Perhaps their argument would be something like this...
So when married people see "inferior" types of
couples being "accredited," they see not their
individual family, but traditional families as a group,
as having its reputation tarnished.
Dr. Cribs
And so Cribs gets his first rec from pc.
Originally posted by CribsYes but is that argument not only valid if the goodness of heterosexual marriage comes solely from its good reputation.
Perhaps their argument would be something like this...
The University of Washington is currenly a respected
institution of learning. RBHILL's rantings are not. But
if RBHILL's rantings became an accredited "college,"
all places of higher learning would suffer from that.
They would not suddenly individually start providing
an inferior eduction, bu ...[text shortened]... family, but traditional families as a group,
as having its reputation tarnished.
Dr. Cribs
I've known people to be married for a number of reasons (and love seems to be one of the more popular) but no one have mentioned the desire to get a share of the good reputation of heterosexual marriage.
In my view marriage will solely be the business of me and my loved.
If gays want to marry and be merry then I don’t see how its ever going to affect me after all I'm not going to be part of it.
The argument that it threatens the reputation of heterosexual couples might ass well be used to say that it threatens the reputation of Australians in the first place.
And that would be a dangerous road to take.
Originally posted by CribsSo, homosexual marriages don't harm the institution of marriage itself, but merely offend heterosexuals by using the term 'marriage' for relationships they consider inferior, unnatural or profane. Well, OK. I thought these folks were claiming that heterosexual marriage itself, and families more generally, would be harmed by homosexual marriages. Apparently, claiming that homosexual marriages undermine the institution marriage amounts to little more than claiming that homosexual marriages are offensive to some set of heterosexuals. But if this is the argument, then how can the claim that homosexual marriages will undermine the institution of marriage be presented as an independent reason not to allow homsexual marriages? After all, if you're correct, then this argument amounts to little more than heterosexuals complaining that they find homosexual marriages offensive.
Perhaps their argument would be something like this...
The University of Washington is currenly a respected
institution of learning. RBHILL's rantings are not. But
if RBHILL's rantings became an accredited "college,"
all places of ...[text shortened]... es as a group,
as having its reputation tarnished.
Dr. Cribs
Edit: Also, the argument you present only applies to homosexual marriage qua marriage, and not to civil unions. The argument has no implications concerning the acceptability of providing the same rights to homosexual couples currently provided to heterosexual married couples as long as the hmosexual couple's relationship is referred to as a 'civil union' and not a 'marriage'.
Originally posted by pcaspianhehe - yes that's actually more funny than originally intended.
Originally posted by Scheel
[b]
The argument that it threatens the reputation of heterosexual couples might ass well be used to say that it threatens the reputation of Australians in the first place.
And that would be a dangerous road to take.
Hehe, spot the typo 🙂
Freudian if you ask me.[/b]
Glad to see that Freuds work was not in vain.
I think I'll let it stay to amuse others.
Originally posted by bbarrBennett, I would bet that a vast majority of those who oppose gay marriage would also oppose civil unions. The argument (not intended to be logical) is that they are violating God's laws and are not due the rights and priviledges afforded to heterosexual couples. It seems to me that the biggest danger to the tradition of marriage today is not gay marriage, but rather divorce.
So, homosexual marriages don't harm the institution of marriage itself, but merely offend heterosexuals by using the term 'marriage' for relationships they consider inferior, unnatural or profane. Well, OK. I thought these folks were claiming that heterosexual marriage itself, and families more generally, would be harmed by homosexual marriages. Apparent ...[text shortened]... the hmosexual couple's relationship is referred to as a 'civil union' and not a 'marriage'.
Originally posted by bbarr
So, homosexual marriages don't harm the institution of marriage itself, but merely offend heterosexuals by using the term 'marriage' for relationships they consider inferior, unnatural or profane. Well, OK. I thought these folks were claiming that heterosexual marriage itself, and families more generally, would be harmed by homosexual marriages. Apparently, claiming that homosexual marriages undermine the institution marriage amounts to little more than claiming that homosexual marriages are offensive to some set of heterosexuals. But if this is the argument, then how can the claim that homosexual marriages will undermine the institution of marriage be presented as an independent reason not to allow homsexual marriages? After all, if you're correct, then this argument amounts to little more than heterosexuals complaining that they find homosexual marriages offensive.
Edit: Also, the argument you present only applies to homosexual marriage qua marriage, and not to civil unions. The argument has no implications concerning the acceptability of providing the same rights to homosexual couples currently provided to heterosexual married couples as long as the hmosexual couple's relationship is referred to as a 'civil union' and not a 'marriage'.
Maby you should write them a letter explaining their flawed moral code.
let us know how it goes.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianGood luck explaining anything to those bigots. The only reason I'd write them a letter is if I needed somone lynched, a practice for which they seem to have preternatural facility.
Originally posted by bbarr
So, homosexual marriages don't harm the institution of marriage itself, but merely offend heterosexuals by using the term 'marriage' for relationships they consider inferior, unnatural or profane. Wel ...[text shortened]... ing their flawed moral code.
let us know how it goes.
cheers
For those who are interested: The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church regarding legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003,
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
By the way one section is called:
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS.
Don't forget to read the rest !
Have fun !
Originally posted by bbarr
Good luck explaining anything to those bigots. The only reason I'd write them a letter is if I needed somone lynched, a practice for which they seem to have preternatural facility.
Hehe, slightly harse words don't ya think ? I mean, according to their views, your ethics sees nothing wrong with killing pre 6 month old babies in the womb yet preventing homosexuals from marrying is immoral.
Dunno Bennet, not everyone base their morals of the same views as you.
cheers
Originally posted by pcaspianAlas, not everybody sees it my way.
Originally posted by bbarr
[b]Good luck explaining anything to those bigots. The only reason I'd write them a letter is if I needed somone lynched, a practice for which they seem to have preternatural facility.
Hehe, slightly harse words don't ya think ? I mean, according to their views, your ethics sees nothing wrong with killing pre 6 mo ...[text shortened]... oral.
Dunno Bennet, not everyone base their morals of the same views as you.
cheers
[/b]