Oceania ELECTION 04 - Who *will* win? (Official Discussion of 2004 Federal Election)

I found this on someone's LJ:

28 Reasons to ban gay marriage.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Marriage is valuable because it produces children, which is why we deny marriage rights to infertile couples and old people.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage, such as Britney Spears' 55-hour escapade, will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed.

5. Marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all: women are property, matches are arranged in childhood, blacks can't marry whites, Catholics can't marry Jews, divorce is illegal, and adultery is punishable by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because majority-elected legislatures have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why there is only one religion in America.

8. There is no separation between religious marriage and legal marriage, because there is no separation of church and state.

9. Devout, faithful Anglicans should never accept same-sex marriage, because it is an affront to the traditional family values upheld by Henry VIII and his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and his wife, Anne Boleyn, and his wife, Jane Seymour, and his wife, Anne of Cleves, and his wife, Catherine Howard, and his wife, Catherine Parr. They all knew the meaning of marriage and none of them lost their heads over the matter.

10. Married gay people will encourage others to be gay, in a way that unmarried gay people do not.

11. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because dogs have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

12. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to legislative change in general, which could possibly include the legalization of polygamy and incest. Because we don't know what comes next, we should never change our laws.

13. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

14. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like suburban malls and tupperware parties.

15. Legal marriage will inspire gays to mimic the straight traditions of spiritual commitment ceremonies and celebratory parties, which is currently impermissible for them to do and which they have never done before.

16. Marriage is designed to protect the well-being of children. Gay people do not need marriage because they never have children from prior relationships, artificial insemination or surrogacy, or adoption.

17. Civil unions are a good option because "separate but equal" institutions are always constitutional. In fact, compared with marriage, civil unions are so attractive that straight people are calling dibs on them.

18. A man should not be able to marry whomever a woman can marry, and a woman should not be able to marry whomever a man can marry, because in this country we do not believe in gender equality.

19. If gays marry, some of straight people's tax dollars would end up going to families whose structure they may find morally objectionable. Clearly, it is more just to continue taking gay people's tax dollars to support straight families, who are going to heaven regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

20. Gays should hold off on the marriage question until society is more accepting of them, because they are not part of society.

21. The people's voice must be heard on this issue. Therefore, we must have a referendum on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, because we can't think of any other way to discuss the issue.

22. Each state should decide for itself whethe

 

I've seen that before, I think in Carmen/MaidenLumpe's LJ.

Hawk, sure, it's an election year, but why did the ALP support it totally in the Senate?

E_S

 

The real question, no, I'll rephrase, the real observation is that the ALP has yet again jumped on the bandwagon:

A) Latham copies old Bill Clinton speeches

B) The British Labour Govt. comes up with a policy of not showing junk food ads during peak TV hours which kids watch... a few weeks later, the ALP tries to borrow this policy.

C) Late last year, early this year, the Homosexual marriage issue rears its head in the USA. Democrats in some liberal states adopt Gay Marriage, etc... ALP here jumps on the bandwagon.

Hmmm... does the ALP under the leadership of Latham ever come up with an original idea?

For the first time in a long time, I was originally inspired by the choice of Latham as leader of the ALP, however it did not last long at all! Remember when he was first elected leader, that he *guarunteed* that he would not be an opposition for the sake of opposition. Has that ever happened? No!

Every agenda and policy seems to be populist, and never a realist common sense agenda. Helps reinforce the notion of the loony-left.

 

Late last year, early this year, the Homosexual marriage issue rears its head in the USA. Democrats in some liberal states adopt Gay Marriage, etc... ALP here jumps on the bandwagon.

Actually, the ALP opposed gay marriage entirely.

E_S

 

I'm still waiting to hear one good reason for banning it that doesn't involve religion and the forcing of one groups beliefs on another.

 

Just don't hold your breath waiting.

I can understand simply not making it legal, based upon public will, but banning it I just do not understand.

You seem to be pretty in touch with the bigotry crowd, Gath, why do you think we banned gay marriage?

E_S

 

You seem to be pretty in touch with the bigotry crowd, Gath, why do you think we banned gay marriage?

*Makes a sound that resembles someone putting their hand on a hotplate...*

 

The other thing I want to know, is how does Gath know most of Australia don't want it? I don't remember taking part in a survey or referendum...

I just can't work out if you don't want anything to do with gay culture/community whatever they call it this week, is how it can affect you if you have nothing to do with it?

 

Maybe Oxford St is too close to Darwin for comfort

 

Hawk, sure, it's an election year, but why did the ALP support it totally in the Senate?

Well, they wouldn't want to lose the conservative vote either, would they?

I'm not some hardcore ALP supporter, I just think they'd do a better job than the Libs (and let's face it, when it comes to anything but economics, it's not too difficult). If the Liberal party, Howard in particular, grew some moral values then I'd probably change my vote.

 

You seem to be pretty in touch with the bigotry crowd, Gath, why do you think we banned gay marriage?

Haha... I hope you all realise that from this forum, I have developed a tough skin, can't take the insults at will... and most of all, DO have a sense of humour!

Just find it amusing when I post something that you all don't agree with, or don't take the time to sit down and read the post through logically and objectively, you bring out the pitch forks... RACIST! HOMOPHOBE! Just who *then* is doing the lynching!

 

Actually... I am still a little dumbfounded, and I can't put 2 and 2 together.

I still don't know how supporting patriotism, doing a hard days work, and endorsing the notion of contributing to society = being a bigot?!

 

I was actually,as you damn well now, referring to your remarks on MSN about indigenous people. I paid Hawk the courtesy of forwarding them to him when he was still an RSA; and I think that denying you are a racist constitutes a ToS violation whereby a user agrees not to post knowingly false information.

It's neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion, and possibly it was out of line for me to say it, but you cannot pretend you are not a racist, nor cry victim. I know otherwise, and will not tolerate any denials.

E_S

 

I'm not some hardcore ALP supporter, I just think they'd do a better job than the Libs (and let's face it, when it comes to anything but economics, it's not too difficult). If the Liberal party, Howard in particular, grew some moral values then I'd probably change my vote.

Oh, I wasn't implying you were; what I was more or less saying is that the reason both the LNP and ALP opposed it is because they know that Australians are fundamentally conservative; I mean, we've had what 6 or 7 changes in government (party wise, not in terms of the actual PM) since Federation? In an election year, most Aussies who are politically aware may not give a damn about much but gay marriage isn't in that "much" category. So in a sense, the ALP was really being politically astute or making an easy choice, depending on your personal levels of cynicism at the time.

Alls I can say it I can't wait for Malcolm Turnbull to emerge as a Liberal leader!

And as for Johnny and his morals; he certainly does have some, though at the moment parts of them may appear, admittedly, suspect.

E_S

 

I still don't know how supporting patriotism, doing a hard days work, and endorsing the notion of contributing to society = being a bigot?!

Well, in some places it would be deemed being a bigot. Just as in some places you are deemed as being racist and homophobic...
And there is nothing wrong with doing a 'hard days work', or 'supporting patriotism,' but some of the stuff you come up with very easily translates into racist slurs, or homophobic comments.
re: my comments versus yours in the 'General Hypocracy' thread: http://boards.theforce.net/Oceania_Regional_Discussion/b10033/12368954/p14

Now, not being personal, but you said that your half brother was gay. How would you feel if he wanted to get married to another man? Would you have any qualms, or would you support him in his decision and see that he, just like anyone else, should have the freedom to get married and belong in a legally binding relationship if he so chooses?

Just our of interest, because I know what I would choose...

 

Gath, furthering what I have said, I just want to add that many people on these boards find what you say offensive, including myself. I can understand this, as I find many views of yours to be racist and homophobic.
And I find your sudden turn to agree with Ender_Sai laughable, because before your ban, if I remember correctly, you were always at his throat.

You criticise people for not sitting down and giving what you say thought, but in reality what you say is largely subjective, and one sided. In reality, you leave little to think about, except perhaps for views and opinions that are so one-sided and narrow-minded (at large) that it appears that it is in fact you who has not sat down and thought about the issues, opinions and claims that you raise.

Now, I respect the fact that we all have our views and opinions on these boards, so I'm just letting you know mine.

 

I totally realise and admit that I was being subjective. Having grown up my entire life in VIC, and being totally ambivilant like the majority of people in regards to Aboriginal issues and problems plaguing their society (education, health, employment, crime, substance abuse, etc...), I was highly shocked and appalled when it was thrust in my face... that is why I suppose emotion took control in my statements, and I was VERY frustrated that other people could not see my point of view... which was further excacerbated by the fact that I knew that nearly everyone had not been exposed to their culture on a day to day basis. I was just trying to convey my thoughts and opinions, but I do agree that it was too emotive.

I consider myself a realist, not a racist.

I don't hate people because of the colour of their skin. Full stop. I am currently in a relationship with a girl named Amber, but before that, I was extremely attracted to a fellow work colleague. Her name is Shyan, and she is Sri-Lankan, so obviously has black skin. So obviously, I don't dislike people for the colour of their skin. I have never felt that way.

Again "I consider myself a realist, not a racist." I can explain that comment further, but at another time, and this is not the appropriate thread for it.

And in regards to the comments made to Ender_Sai via MSN, well, yes, I admit that happened, but those comments were made out of sheer frustration, high charged emotion, and influenced by alcohol.

And in regards to your question about Mark, my half-brother, no, that still does not effect my views of homosexual Marriage. REMEMBER, I said I wasn't against Civil Unions at all, just the institution of Marriage, as that has always been and should be between a Man and a Woman. Oh, and I found out the other day by the way, that Mark has 9 months to live... cancer.

 

".... being totally ambivilant like the majority of people in regards to Aboriginal issues..."

You really need to stop making generalisations whereby you assume that your opinion is shared by the majority of the nation. If you have statistical proof or some form of support to your sweeping claim, post it and help your arguement. Otherwise speak for yourself and nobody else.

 

Sure, point taken. Ok, I will rephrase. Out of the 10,000's of people that I have personally come into contact with in my life during the 25+ years in Victoria, no one that I have coversed with has known how the Aborigine's of the far north (ie: NT) live. I am not saying that derogatorily, but as a matter of fact, in regards to health, education and employment conditions. And the factors that cause this; ie: Governmental policies, and apathy.

 

I don't dislike people for the colour of their skin. I have never felt that way

I hope you're right because the comments you made certainly contradict your assertions. If you've forgotten them, I haven't.

E_S

 

I find it hard to believe Gath.
How many of those tens of thousands of people did you discuss Aboriginal affairs with?

I think it's one of the most insidious things about the Australian nation, that everyone knows that Aboriginals suffer from terrible living conditions, have next to no medical care or basic amenities provided for their communities, their mortality rate in most demographics is over 3 times that of corresponding white figures and have little hope for a better future for their children.

Everyone knows this but nobody talks about it, nobody disagree's or voices an opinion against it because the Government gives them money, ATSIC can't spend it properly, it's not white Australia or the Governments fault, we've done all we can and it reaches a point where you have to look at where the real problem is. Right?

Blaming these people is a quick absolution on white Australia's conscience, where the truth is actually that there's not enough money allotted to begin with.

 

All I'll say is that I am not entirely blaming the Aborigine's, largely the fault is with Governmental policy. All I will conclude is that poeple need to take responsibility for themselves. I am just tired of the neo-segregation in this country.

Anyway, enough of that before we all get frustrated... back on topic!

In the coming election, what kind of role do you think the smaller parties will play? Ie: The Greens, Democracts, the Alliance that Meg Lees created, etc...

Do you think that the minor parties will:

A) Gain Seats
B) Loose Seats
C) Remain the same.

I think either B or C. Why? This seems like it will be one of the closest elections fought in years, and I believe that the electorate will come to realise that their vote is more important and invaluable than ever, and will use it on one of the two main parties.

Thoughts?

 

Well there is no way the ALP can form government this election; they simply won't win enough of the seats to form a majority. Which means a Coalition; either a sensible ones, with the Democrats or they can sell their soul to Satan and join with Bob "I'm not a lumberjack but I still think I'm OK" Brown.

E_S

 

But the Greens don't have any members in the House of Reps, do they?

 

they have one in Reps at the moment which they won in a bi-election. I wouldnt rule out them retaining it or gaining more at the next election.