Beer Garden

[Maximus]

This is a question of whether or not to allow same sex couples the right to marry.

That’s the question on the ballot, that’s the “debate” we’ve endured for the last few weeks, months, years.

Neither the “yes” camp, nor the “no” camp are advocating for the legal right to marry to be removed altogether.

As for Rev’s barely coherent ranting, I haven’t a clue what he/she has or hasn’t been “advocating.” I tend to scroll past convoluted bluster.

Okay. So there's a lot going on in Rev's posts - I don't argue with that - but if you choose not to distil the information and understand the message, then that's a reflection on you, not him. As Bits said (and he/she is a 'yes' voter BTW), "I like to understand the opposite side of any argument."

Here's a genuine question for you, and I'm genuinely interested in the answer. Do you think that everyone who has voted 'no' is an intolerant, homophobic bigot (or similar)? Or do you think that some 'no' voters have other reasons for voting no (reasons with which you obviously disagree, and reasons that you perhaps think are fundamentally flawed) that aren't based on intolerance or homophobia or bigotry?

[Matt]

This is a question of whether or not to allow same sex couples the right to marry.

That’s the question on the ballot, that’s the “debate” we’ve endured for the last few weeks, months, years.

Neither the “yes” camp, nor the “no” camp are advocating for the legal right to marry to be removed altogether.

As for Rev’s barely coherent ranting, I haven’t a clue what he/she has or hasn’t been “advocating.” I tend to scroll past convoluted bluster.

Okay. So there's a lot going on in Rev's posts - I don't argue with that - but if you choose not to distil the information and understand the message, then that's a reflection on you, not him. As Bits said (and he/she is a 'yes' voter BTW), "I like to understand the opposite side of any argument."

Here's a genuine question for you, and I'm genuinely interested in the answer. Do you think that everyone who has voted 'no' is an intolerant, homophobic bigot (or similar)? Or do you think that some 'no' voters have other reasons for voting no (reasons with which you obviously disagree, and reasons that you perhaps think are fundamentally flawed) that aren't based on intolerance or homophobia or bigotry?

It is impossible to 'understand the message' when the message changes depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I've got no interest in taking the time to read ranting drivel punctuated with personal insults and lame as fuck full screen images.

As for your question - again, the question on the ballot was:
"Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?"

If someone opts to tick the 'no' box and go to the trouble of sticking it in the post, it's hard to conclude that their view is anything but intolerant of my relationship.
These people can throw in as many red herrings or excuses as they like - the crux of it is, that's the *one* question they've been asked to answer.
A change, to the marriage act, to allow people like me to marry our partners.
That's it.

I don't doubt many of these people aren't explicitly homophobic (or wouldn't consider themselves homophobic), but I can't reconcile that these people are in any way 'tolerant' when they've made a decision to vote to deny me the right to marry my partner.

Regardless of their motives, or the slippery-slope-argument du jour, they've been asked if I should get married, and they've answered 'no'.

[serca]

No one here has said you shouldn't be able to marry your partner. Or "consider" themselves homophobic. No need have a victim mentality and manipulate peoples opinions.

I think your the one being intolerant to the law of marriage as it stands. Your are asking a law with a lengthy history to amend its original intention and purpose to suit your own needs of equality.

Why wouldn't you push for your own laws? that is specifically for gender of the same sex to be legally married.

You keep saying it's a simple scenario. Correct it is this simple - Marriage under the existing law is legally recognised union between man and woman. Why do you want in on that specific legislation when its clearly between man and woman?

Why not have your own legally recognised union between same sex? That doesn't mean your not equal or can't be legally married.

[rev]

This is a question of whether or not to allow same sex couples the right to marry.

That’s the question on the ballot, that’s the “debate” we’ve endured for the last few weeks, months, years.

Neither the “yes” camp, nor the “no” camp are advocating for the legal right to marry to be removed altogether.

As for Rev’s barely coherent ranting, I haven’t a clue what he/she has or hasn’t been “advocating.” I tend to scroll past convoluted bluster.

Okay. So there's a lot going on in Rev's posts - I don't argue with that - but if you choose not to distil the information and understand the message, then that's a reflection on you, not him. As Bits said (and he/she is a 'yes' voter BTW), "I like to understand the opposite side of any argument."

Here's a genuine question for you, and I'm genuinely interested in the answer. Do you think that everyone who has voted 'no' is an intolerant, homophobic bigot (or similar)? Or do you think that some 'no' voters have other reasons for voting no (reasons with which you obviously disagree, and reasons that you perhaps think are fundamentally flawed) that aren't based on intolerance or homophobia or bigotry?

It is impossible to 'understand the message' when the message changes depending on which way the wind is blowing.
I've got no interest in taking the time to read ranting drivel punctuated with personal insults and lame as fuck full screen images.

As for your question - again, the question on the ballot was:
"Should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?"

If someone opts to tick the 'no' box and go to the trouble of sticking it in the post, it's hard to conclude that their view is anything but intolerant of my relationship.
These people can throw in as many red herrings or excuses as they like - the crux of it is, that's the *one* question they've been asked to answer.
A change, to the marriage act, to allow people like me to marry our partners.
That's it.

I don't doubt many of these people aren't explicitly homophobic (or wouldn't consider themselves homophobic), but I can't reconcile that these people are in any way 'tolerant' when they've made a decision to vote to deny me the right to marry my partner.

Regardless of their motives, or the slippery-slope-argument du jour, they've been asked if I should get married, and they've answered 'no'.

Matt, in the slight chance you aren't being a cry baby like Ben and Nort, my posts were never meant to be coherent essays to win the Calibre Essay Prize.

[monotonehell]

No one here has said you shouldn't be able to marry your partner. Or "consider" themselves homophobic. No need have a victim mentality and manipulate peoples opinions.

I think your the one being intolerant to the law of marriage as it stands. Your are asking a law with a lengthy history to amend its original intention and purpose to suit your own needs of equality.

Why wouldn't you push for your own laws? that is specifically for gender of the same sex to be legally married.

You keep saying it's a simple scenario. Correct it is this simple - Marriage under the existing law is legally recognised union between man and woman. Why do you want in on that specific legislation when its clearly between man and woman?

Why not have your own legally recognised union between same sex? That doesn't mean your not equal or can't be legally married.

Yes people are intolerant of the law as it stands because it is written in an inequitable way. That's exactly why people want it changed. Laws can be changed, they are not written in stone. It was last changed in 2004 to add the words "between a man and a woman" because as it stood at the time, the states were enacting ssm and Howard didn't like that.

Understand that; if Howard and the federal parliament did not change the legislation a little over ten years ago we would not be having this survey because ssm would have most probably been enacted at state level nationally.

As for you second point; one law for one group of unions and another law for another group is not equality - that's apartheid. It's literally saying it's not the same.

[SRW]

No one here has said you shouldn't be able to marry your partner. Or "consider" themselves homophobic. No need have a victim mentality and manipulate peoples opinions.

I think your the one being intolerant to the law of marriage as it stands. Your are asking a law with a lengthy history to amend its original intention and purpose to suit your own needs of equality.

Why wouldn't you push for your own laws? that is specifically for gender of the same sex to be legally married.

You keep saying it's a simple scenario. Correct it is this simple - Marriage under the existing law is legally recognised union between man and woman. Why do you want in on that specific legislation when its clearly between man and woman?

Why not have your own legally recognised union between same sex? That doesn't mean your not equal or can't be legally married.

Are you very sure you've kept track with what's been said in this thread? Because the proposal that you've made above has been contested countless times.

I'm curious where you see the equality in one law for one group and another law for another group? As mono reiterated above: it's literally the oppposite.

And careful who you accuse of playing the victim - one could equally (pun intended) point at the polemics posted in defence of an unequal law as excercises in 'victim mentality'.

[serca]

Yeah i have followed and you say there has been countless counters to the opinion? I have only seen the 1 retort of equality countless times.

If the law of unity has the same privileges and legislations then hows that not equal? What is wrong with being gay and having a gay marriage law? Nothing! I think people get confused with someone being different to that of equality. There really is absolutely nothing wrong with being different. Minorities or groups take exception to being called different even when there is absolutely no ill intent and when it suites them.

This whole equal rights bullshit is pride driven, pathetic and again political correctness gone mad. It seems the push for equal rights confuses the true nature of the agenda.

If gays for instant don't want to be recognised as being "DIFFERENT" rather being "EQUAL" why do they hold massive events like Mardi gras to specifically celebrate homosexuality? They are highlighting their difference and celebrating it? And so they should! But they are not celebrating the love and unity of two humans? I can't remember a massive community public event for heterosexuals specifically highlighting and celebrating their sexuality?

Why are there specific bars that the gay and general community label as gay night clubs? Cant recall any heterosexual night clubs

I have seen plenty of advertisement of "Gay Pride" proudly publicised by the gay community and again rightfully so. Yet I have not seen heterosexual pride promoted anywhere?

Or the need for a $75,000 gay rainbow walk in light square? If we are all equal shouldn't it be simply a unity of a human love walk ??? What happened to the heterosexual gay walk?

So it seems that gay people can celebrate and publicise their differences and then call for equal rights when ever it suites them whilst taking insult to being labeled as different

Kind of all reminds me of that footage of a feminist who slaps a man in his face then says "what are you going to do hit a woman"? It's all very hypocritical

So continue celebrating and advocating your differences which in turn actual fuels the inequality then scream equality when you want it.

Fact is if the marriage law is amended (which i think it will by majority vote) then it isn't going to change the fact that gay people feel different because they are. Being different is not a bad thing and yes it should be celebrated and not frowned upon.

[Plasmatron]

I just realised it was my 10 year anniversary on this forum two months ago. Can't believe it's already been that long! Thanks for all the info about developments in Adelaide, and allowing me to contribute to this field of interest.

[monotonehell]

Yeah i have followed and you say there has been countless counters to the opinion? I have only seen the 1 retort of equality countless times.

If the law of unity has the same privileges and legislations then hows that not equal? What is wrong with being gay and having a gay marriage law? Nothing! I think people get confused with someone being different to that of equality. There really is absolutely nothing wrong with being different. Minorities or groups take exception to being called different even when there is absolutely no ill intent and when it suites them.

This whole equal rights bullshit is pride driven, pathetic and again political correctness gone mad. It seems the push for equal rights confuses the true nature of the agenda.

If gays for instant don't want to be recognised as being "DIFFERENT" rather being "EQUAL" why do they hold massive events like Mardi gras to specifically celebrate homosexuality? They are highlighting their difference and celebrating it? And so they should! But they are not celebrating the love and unity of two humans? I can't remember a massive community public event for heterosexuals specifically highlighting and celebrating their sexuality?

Why are there specific bars that the gay and general community label as gay night clubs? Cant recall any heterosexual night clubs

I have seen plenty of advertisement of "Gay Pride" proudly publicised by the gay community and again rightfully so. Yet I have not seen heterosexual pride promoted anywhere?

Or the need for a $75,000 gay rainbow walk in light square? If we are all equal shouldn't it be simply a unity of a human love walk ??? What happened to the heterosexual gay walk?

So it seems that gay people can celebrate and publicise their differences and then call for equal rights when ever it suites them whilst taking insult to being labeled as different

Kind of all reminds me of that footage of a feminist who slaps a man in his face then says "what are you going to do hit a woman"? It's all very hypocritical

So continue celebrating and advocating your differences which in turn actual fuels the inequality then scream equality when you want it.

Fact is if the marriage law is amended (which i think it will by majority vote) then it isn't going to change the fact that gay people feel different because they are. Being different is not a bad thing and yes it should be celebrated and not frowned upon.

As soon as anyone says something along the lines of "where's the heterosexual pride march?" you can be sure that they have a huge misunderstanding of the situation.

There's nothing wrong with being straight. Everyone gets told that 365 days of the year. The straight pride day is everyday. The heterosexual walk is every walk.

Straight couples can hold hands in public without much care. Gay couples have to second guess their safety for even such a simple display of affection as holding hands.

Gay people will stop being outrageously in your face when there is equality.

Gay Pride is a protest, not a celebration.

[monotonehell]

I just realised it was my 10 year anniversary on this forum two months ago. Can't believe it's already been that long! Thanks for all the info about developments in Adelaide, and allowing me to contribute to this field of interest.

[[Shuz]]

The ignorance of some people absolutely baffles me.

Serca, you really need to think before you post.

Straight people have the luxury of being themselves and who they are every day, without fear of insult, assault or discrimination.

Gay people do not have this same luxury. This thread is living proof of that; that we are even having this discussion about equal rights for gay people, by default acknowledges that gay people do not enjoy the same equal rights as straight people.

[Nort]

The ignorance of some people absolutely baffles me.

Serca, you really need to think before you post.

Straight people have the luxury of being themselves and who they are every day, without fear of insult, assault or discrimination.

Gay people do not have this same luxury. This thread is living proof of that; that we are even having this discussion about equal rights for gay people, by default acknowledges that gay people do not enjoy the same equal rights as straight people.

Exactly.

Also worth pointing out that if you are someone annoyed that LGBTQ people have created their own events and spaces, then supporting equality is the best way to stop that. As homosexuality has become more accepted in society there has been a trend where gay bars are closing down or struggling to stay open because they are increasingly seen as unnecessary.

[Maximus]

If someone opts to tick the 'no' box and go to the trouble of sticking it in the post, it's hard to conclude that their view is anything but intolerant of my relationship.
These people can throw in as many red herrings or excuses as they like - the crux of it is, that's the *one* question they've been asked to answer.
A change, to the marriage act, to allow people like me to marry our partners.
That's it.

I don't doubt many of these people aren't explicitly homophobic (or wouldn't consider themselves homophobic), but I can't reconcile that these people are in any way 'tolerant' when they've made a decision to vote to deny me the right to marry my partner.

Regardless of their motives, or the slippery-slope-argument du jour, they've been asked if I should get married, and they've answered 'no'.

Thank you, Matt. I don't agree with your reasoning, but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

This clearly isn't an issue of 'evidence' or 'facts'. It's an emotive and personal discussion, and wherever you stand on the issue, I think it's right to try to understand all perspectives.

[serca]

Yeah yeah ok of wise one Shuz, cos its only gay people being discriminated and insulted . No one judges people living out at Elizabeth or other low social economic areas ? I have an Asian wife and we have been insulted as a couple and she has been insulted as an asian quiet a few times in recent years. Should we have a parade for multi racial couples or should the Elizabethians hold parades of equality. People throw insults at them regulary for what reason exactly being dealt an unfortunate hand in life.

What I am saying you Nort :S is that throwing these gay prides and bar and mardi gras in your face actually creates a further divide IMO. Which I'm entitled to . I never said it annoyed me that they hold these events ???? did I?

Remember Adam Goodes he threw in peoples face the racist card so hard people turned on him for it and it actually created a further divide. I am saying stop labelling yourself so publicly as gay and maybe those who are uneducated enough to be intolerant won't be as dumb

I feel the same about indigenous round in the football . Why have it yeah sure it is good to celebrate indigenous culture and AFL but shouldn't every round be indigenous or multicultural or womans round . Why do they only get one round and the rest is what ? assumed to be straight white aussie mans round. Cant you see this point ? I think Gays being able to marry will have the same social impact as the government saying Sorry to the indigenous - NOTHING!! I personally think there are better ways to educate the fools who have an issue with someone being gay or aboriginal and better governance around these issues....

[rev]

The ignorance of some people absolutely baffles me.

Serca, you really need to think before you post.

Straight people have the luxury of being themselves and who they are every day, without fear of insult, assault or discrimination.

Gay people do not have this same luxury. This thread is living proof of that; that we are even having this discussion about equal rights for gay people, by default acknowledges that gay people do not enjoy the same equal rights as straight people.

Again, take your some of the advice you like to dish out to others, and think before you post.