Beer Garden

Anything goes here.. :) Now with Beer Garden for our smoking patrons.
Message
Author
User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2521 Post by Maximus » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:34 pm

Mono, we get all that. I think only the hard-core religious would argue that 'marriage' belongs exclusively to religion.

The point is that it's a potential compromise. I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)

My feeling (and, yes, it's just my personal impression) is that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people in the no camp. I reckon only a very small percentage of those voting no are doing so because they're actually homophobic, bigoted, etc, etc. Main reasons I have observed for voting no are 'my religion says no', 'I have a traditional view of marriage', 'I think children should have a mother and a father', etc. I don't think there are many people voting no because they object to same-sex couples having the same practical legal rights as hetero couples.

Surely being able to say you're 'married' would be the 'cream on top' in comparison to the 'cake' of your same-sex union being legally equivalent to a hetero union. Couldn't you live without the word 'marriage' if it meant the debate was settled peacefully amongst the vast majority of Australians...? (Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority. I reckon if the word 'marriage' was removed from the equation, this figure would probably get closer to 90% or higher.)
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 276 times
Been thanked: 389 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2522 Post by Llessur2002 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm


Maximus wrote:I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)
Because this is a comprise along the same lines as the historical segregation of black people on buses. I doubt anyone today would argue that it didn't really matter where they sat on the bus, as long as they got to ride the bus to the same destination as the white folks up front.

The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other. Allowing one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name is not equality.




User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5420
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 262 times
Contact:

Re: Beer Garden

#2523 Post by monotonehell » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:52 pm

Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm
Maximus wrote:I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)
Because this is a comprise along the same lines as the historical segregation of black people on buses. I doubt anyone today would argue that it didn't really matter where they sat on the bus, as long as they got to ride the bus to the same destination as the white folks up front.

The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other. Allowing one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name is not equality.
Additionally, the rights which are being denied (which vary state by state) are mostly to do with misunderstandings of what a civil union is. People are being denied access to their loved ones in hospitals for example because of the gatekeepers in the hospital not recognising that a civil union should afford the same rights as a marriage. If the same term was used universally, there would be less misunderstanding as to what it means.

BTW: Fact Check has a good article explaining some aspects of it. Civil unions are soooo close, except for some important things.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/factcheck/20 ... tt/8992846

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2524 Post by Nort » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:16 pm

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:34 pm
Mono, we get all that. I think only the hard-core religious would argue that 'marriage' belongs exclusively to religion.

The point is that it's a potential compromise. I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country. Calling the idea 'cute' is just condescending. Yes, I get that same-sex couples want the 'equality' of being able to say they're 'married', but surely the practical legal stuff is a gazillion times more important -- e.g. next of kin rights, etc, etc, etc. (I actually have no idea what legal rights same-sex couples currently don't have, but I've no doubt you'll educate me.)

My feeling (and, yes, it's just my personal impression) is that the word 'marriage' is the sticking point for a lot of people in the no camp. I reckon only a very small percentage of those voting no are doing so because they're actually homophobic, bigoted, etc, etc. Main reasons I have observed for voting no are 'my religion says no', 'I have a traditional view of marriage', 'I think children should have a mother and a father', etc. I don't think there are many people voting no because they object to same-sex couples having the same practical legal rights as hetero couples.

Surely being able to say you're 'married' would be the 'cream on top' in comparison to the 'cake' of your same-sex union being legally equivalent to a hetero union. Couldn't you live without the word 'marriage' if it meant the debate was settled peacefully amongst the vast majority of Australians...? (Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority. I reckon if the word 'marriage' was removed from the equation, this figure would probably get closer to 90% or higher.)
Problem with that is that the word itself isn't the problem, it's just really the only avenue the social conservatives have left to argue against.

Decades ago the same groups were against the legalization of homosexuality.

Then they were against any rights that "normalized" it.

Then they fought against civil unions because they considered anything that gave the same rights as marriage to non-married people as an outrage.

Now they are against marriage equality.

As for that compromise idea, flip it around. How about they just start calling theirs "Special Religious Marriage" and leave the plain old "marriage" as the more general term. It's exactly the same argument.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2525 Post by SRW » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:34 pm
I don't understand why you or anyone else in the yes camp would be unwilling to even consider a potential compromise to what is turning out to be a very divisive issue for our country.
My reason would be that which I and others have stated above: anything other than the same treatment under law as others is not equallty.
Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority.
That is about as vast a majority as democracy can deliver. For comparison, that's higher than either party has ever scored 2PP in a federal election - even those considered landslides.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2818
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 158 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2526 Post by rev » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:11 pm

monotonehell wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:47 pm
rev wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 am
...I think changing the law or act so that legally it is called a civil union, and legalising ssm, without forcing religions to accept ssm, is the best solution. My religion can call it marriage if they want, gays can call it marriage if they want, but legally it’s all civil unions.
It takes the sting out of the debate and issue.
You seem to be under the impression that churches own marriage. Are you aware that a lot of people get married outside of religion? They are married in a building, park or similar non-church location by a non-religious celebrant. For example my cousin is legally married. She was married to her husband in Wellington Square, North Adelaide by a celebrant who has nothing to do with any religion and only registered herself as a celebrant for my cousin's wedding. Thousands of (opposite sex) couples have been married this way over decades.

SSM seeks to redefine marriage to include more people.

Your idea seeks to redefine marriage to exclude people.

Are you volunteering to be the spokesman to go to all these legally married people and tell them that their marriage is no longer a marriage but a civil union?

The church(es let's not pretend there is only one religion) do not own marriage. It is a legal construct which can be performed by a registered celebrant who can be any citizen whether they be a priest or not.
Really mono, you're going to ask that first question with a straight face?

How does changing things so legally it's recognized as a civil union, regardless of who is getting hitched, and where(church, park, beach, their back yard, wherever), exclude anyone?

What changing it to be legally recognized as a civil union by the state, and each group, or each couple, can call it whatever the hell they want to call it, would do is say that nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. Everyone is equal, in the eyes of the law and the state. People are free to call it marriage if they want, they can call it a civil union, or anything else they want.

Isn't this meant to be about the related legal rights, like next of kin, wills etc, for gays?

A very logical compromise that shuts up the extremes of both sides. But one side here is opposing something logical.

It's starting to sound like it's got nothing to do with equality, but everything to do with forcing a minority groups views/way of life, on everyone else, to spite others, particularly religious groups.

Equality only on their terms it seems.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2527 Post by Nort » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:13 pm

SRW wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm
Note: I don't consider a 66% yes vote - as the polls expect - to be a vast majority.
That is about as vast a majority as democracy can deliver. For comparison, that's higher than either party has ever scored 2PP in a federal election - even those considered landslides.
If those polls bear out then it's a 2:1 ratio, which yeah is about as big a lead as you ever could get in a democracy.

User avatar
SouthAussie94
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:03 pm
Location: Southern Suburbs
Has thanked: 220 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2528 Post by SouthAussie94 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:51 pm

rev wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:11 pm

A very logical compromise that shuts up the extremes of both sides. But one side here is opposing something logical.
Couldn't you make the same argument in regard to the No campaign?
"All we are is bags of bones pushing against a self imposed tide. Just be content with staying alive"

Views and opinions expressed are my own and don't necessarily reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2529 Post by Nort » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:03 pm

rev wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:11 pm
monotonehell wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:47 pm
rev wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 am
...I think changing the law or act so that legally it is called a civil union, and legalising ssm, without forcing religions to accept ssm, is the best solution. My religion can call it marriage if they want, gays can call it marriage if they want, but legally it’s all civil unions.
It takes the sting out of the debate and issue.
You seem to be under the impression that churches own marriage. Are you aware that a lot of people get married outside of religion? They are married in a building, park or similar non-church location by a non-religious celebrant. For example my cousin is legally married. She was married to her husband in Wellington Square, North Adelaide by a celebrant who has nothing to do with any religion and only registered herself as a celebrant for my cousin's wedding. Thousands of (opposite sex) couples have been married this way over decades.

SSM seeks to redefine marriage to include more people.

Your idea seeks to redefine marriage to exclude people.

Are you volunteering to be the spokesman to go to all these legally married people and tell them that their marriage is no longer a marriage but a civil union?

The church(es let's not pretend there is only one religion) do not own marriage. It is a legal construct which can be performed by a registered celebrant who can be any citizen whether they be a priest or not.
Really mono, you're going to ask that first question with a straight face?

How does changing things so legally it's recognized as a civil union, regardless of who is getting hitched, and where(church, park, beach, their back yard, wherever), exclude anyone?

What changing it to be legally recognized as a civil union by the state, and each group, or each couple, can call it whatever the hell they want to call it, would do is say that nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. Everyone is equal, in the eyes of the law and the state. People are free to call it marriage if they want, they can call it a civil union, or anything else they want.

Isn't this meant to be about the related legal rights, like next of kin, wills etc, for gays?

A very logical compromise that shuts up the extremes of both sides. But one side here is opposing something logical.

It's starting to sound like it's got nothing to do with equality, but everything to do with forcing a minority groups views/way of life, on everyone else, to spite others, particularly religious groups.

Equality only on their terms it seems.
IT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DEBATE.

If you think that the state shouldn't be involved in marriage, then cool. Start petitions or a political party and lobby for that to the be the case.

Trying to mix it in with the marriage equality debate is just another attempt at misdirection.

There are many religions that have had views against marriage as practised by the state forever. Some think you shouldn't be able to get married between religions. Some think interracial marriage should be illegal. Some think divorce should be illegal, and others that it should be but that divorcees shouldn't be able to remarry. There are even some who think that people who aren't members of their religion shouldn't be able to legally marry at all.

To say that the current debate is the one that should result in throwing the whole thing out is to say that it is somehow different, that these religious objections are more valid.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2530 Post by SRW » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:18 pm

And again, why? If the end result is that everyone can call it whatever they want, why bother changing what it is legally called? The only thing that matters is that it is legally accessible to everyone, which is what we're trying to remedy. Being bothered by the semantics is beyond precious (not cute).

EDIT: I specifically meant to distance myself from the cute comment but inadvertently supported it by originally mistyping 'note' instead of 'not'... :shock:
Last edited by SRW on Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
Nathan
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2636
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:09 pm
Location: Bowden
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

Re: Beer Garden

#2531 Post by Nathan » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:33 pm

On a (slightly) lighter note, does anyone else enjoy the irony that the Anglican Church has donated campaign money to uphold the "traditional view of marriage"?

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2532 Post by Maximus » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm

Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
SRW wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm
My reason would be that which I and others have stated above: anything other than the same treatment under law as others is not equallty.
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm
The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other.
Equality under the law is exactly what the civil union idea seeks to do! And Llessur, your segregated bus example completely misses the point. I don't think either of you properly understand the civil union idea. It does not "allow one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name". Rather, it completely removes any legal definition of marriage whatsoever. Anyone could become legally joined in a civil union, and the law would make no mention of the words 'marry' or 'marriage'. You'd be free to use the word 'marriage' in any form of dictionary definition you like, but there would be no legal definition.

Yes, it's an unusual idea and there would be challenges to overcome. (If nothing else, we'd need to work out an adjectival form of 'civil union' -- we're civilly unioned!) But perhaps an outside the box idea is exactly what's needed to take the heat out of this debate and bring both sides closer together. If we need to get into the semantics of terminology to achieve a resolution, then why not. If you think that's 'beyond precious' or 'cute', then that's on you too, because you're arguing on the other side of it.

Anyhoo, I reckon I"m just about done here. If you can't understand the civil union idea, or choose not to, and have no bona fide intention of trying to bring both sides of the debate together, then that ain't my problem. I can't, however, see how it makes you any better than those in the no camp who you seek to criticise. The whole thing is moot, in any event, because the yes vote will carry and same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Australia. Then we can all find something else to disagree about. Hopefully respectfully and with an open mind.

[Shuz], I reckon the buttery popcorn is about to run out. Unless Rev wants to get going again...

PS: Mono, that's a useful Fact Check article and certainly by far the best I"ve seen in respect of that information. Gee, it's long-winded, though. And it makes the mistake of comparing same-sex de facto couples with hetero married couples. That conflates two separate issues, namely (1) the rights of de facto couples vs married couples and (2) the rights of same-sex couples vs hetero couples.

PPS: I don't buy the argument comparing the results of the postal survey to those of a general election. Elections are, by their nature, a combined vote on hundreds of issues, so it's reasonable to expect far more 'noise' and a closer vote. The postal survey is a binary vote on a singular issue, and on that basis I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a far higher majority could be achieved if the question was framed and phrased in the right way.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2533 Post by Nort » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:38 am

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm
Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
SRW wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:25 pm
My reason would be that which I and others have stated above: anything other than the same treatment under law as others is not equallty.
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm
The point is about equality. Giving all members of our society exactly the same rights as each other.
Equality under the law is exactly what the civil union idea seeks to do! And Llessur, your segregated bus example completely misses the point. I don't think either of you properly understand the civil union idea. It does not "allow one group to participate in marriage and another group only to participate in marriage by another name". Rather, it completely removes any legal definition of marriage whatsoever. Anyone could become legally joined in a civil union, and the law would make no mention of the words 'marry' or 'marriage'. You'd be free to use the word 'marriage' in any form of dictionary definition you like, but there would be no legal definition.

Yes, it's an unusual idea and there would be challenges to overcome. (If nothing else, we'd need to work out an adjectival form of 'civil union' -- we're civilly unioned!) But perhaps an outside the box idea is exactly what's needed to take the heat out of this debate and bring both sides closer together. If we need to get into the semantics of terminology to achieve a resolution, then why not. If you think that's 'beyond precious' or 'cute', then that's on you too, because you're arguing on the other side of it.

Anyhoo, I reckon I"m just about done here. If you can't understand the civil union idea, or choose not to, and have no bona fide intention of trying to bring both sides of the debate together, then that ain't my problem. I can't, however, see how it makes you any better than those in the no camp who you seek to criticise. The whole thing is moot, in any event, because the yes vote will carry and same-sex marriage will soon be legal in Australia. Then we can all find something else to disagree about. Hopefully respectfully and with an open mind.

[Shuz], I reckon the buttery popcorn is about to run out. Unless Rev wants to get going again...

PS: Mono, that's a useful Fact Check article and certainly by far the best I"ve seen in respect of that information. Gee, it's long-winded, though. And it makes the mistake of comparing same-sex de facto couples with hetero married couples. That conflates two separate issues, namely (1) the rights of de facto couples vs married couples and (2) the rights of same-sex couples vs hetero couples.

PPS: I don't buy the argument comparing the results of the postal survey to those of a general election. Elections are, by their nature, a combined vote on hundreds of issues, so it's reasonable to expect far more 'noise' and a closer vote. The postal survey is a binary vote on a singular issue, and on that basis I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a far higher majority could be achieved if the question was framed and phrased in the right way.
I for one can understand the civil union idea.

I don't agree with it for a variety of reasons, the primary one that secular civil marriage is already a separate thing to religious marriage, but I can understand the logic.

However the marriage equality case is fundamentally about the fact that our fellow Australians deserve the right to marry the partner they share a life and love with, and shouldn't have any different rights to those of the heterosexual population.

Right now the heterosexual population can get married, so that means marriage for them as well.

If you want to argue a case for civil secular legal marriage being renamed to civil unions then go for your life. However it's an entirely different argument from this one.

User avatar
SRW
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 1755
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Stepney
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2534 Post by SRW » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 am

Maximus wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:46 pm
Right-o. So, basically it's a no, no, no, no. I can't for the life of me see how it's a constructive contribution to a debate to be totally and completely inflexible and completely and utterly unwilling to even consider the merits of a conciliatory suggestion. Not to mention, such a closed minded attitude seems entirely against the spirit of what the yes camp is asking for in equality, respect and a fair go for all. Frankly, given the level of generally high intellect shown by many of the frequent posters round these parts, I'm surprised.
Not no; why? I and others have already stated that it ultimately doesn't matter what it's called so long as it's meeting the test of equal treatment of everyone under law. And I understand and respect the conciliatory impulse that drives you to suggest a 'compromise'. But if the end result is that everyone is going to call it marriage anyway I don't see the merits of undertaking wholesale reform over the minimal amendment of one sentence of one Act. Especially given I've seen no one convincingly argue why 'marriage' is exclusively in the hands of religion anyway. I think the 'compromise' then becomes about making religious groups feel good in false equivalence to groups seeking to end active discrimination. That doesn't seem a good way to make law to me.
Keep Adelaide Weird

User avatar
Maximus
Legendary Member!
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:05 pm
Location: The Bush Capital (Canberra)
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Beer Garden

#2535 Post by Maximus » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:43 pm

SRW wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:29 am
Not no; why? ...
Nort wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:38 am
I for one can understand the civil union idea. ...
And there we go. Positive and constructive engagement with an idea. That's what good debate is all about.

We got there in the end. Thank you.
It's = it is; its = everything else.
You're = you are; your = belongs to.
Than = comparative ("bigger than"); then = next.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest