How did Andrew Leigh vote on gay marriage?

And once again the argument goes around and around. Those who want it champion, those against it don’t.

Duffbowl said :

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

If they are visually recognised, it can be 100% certain that their vote was cast by them.

An iPhone and FaceTime with a screen in the chamber.

But then this is the Parliament, where they kept the Speaker computer free until 2007, then gave him a tiny 7″ screen, and finally in the last couple of years gave them a pair of proper screens.

Darkfalz said :

c_c said :

Certainly saying that someone using hard drugs won’t affect others speaks to someone who is incapable of exercising reason…And yet he reasons that a relationship between two people, just by the fact of who those people are, does affect him.

The logic fails at the most basic level.

You didn’t read between the lines very well there, did you? I was clearly saying that legalising hard drugs WOULD affect me and society, despite ostensibly having nothing to do with them myself.

c_c said :

Darkfalz on the other hand, like so many who do oppose it, comes across as very insecure about themselves, and intolerant of something that challenges either their conception of societal norms

Nice theory, but no. I am comfortable and confident in my beliefs, so much so that I’ll air them in public even amongst liberal (or at least pro gay marriage) friends and colleagues.

It was you who didn’t read between the lines.

I wasn’t questioning how confident you were in your beliefs, but how confident you are in yourself, as someone who is assumedly in a traditional relationship and identifies as hetero.

Seems to be that those who are secure about been straight and secure about their relationships don’t tend to be the ones opposing same-sex marriage. It’s those who aren’t that are.

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare

You’re really flailing if you have to dredge out the “malicious paternal parents vs benevolent adoptive/gay/single parent” argument. Kids have the best chance to do well with their committed, biological parents. They can do well in plenty of other circumstances, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that being raised by their mum and dad is the ideal and where possible, it is in the best interests to promote the model which is the most successful. It takes a mother and father to create a child, it is grossly arrogant to second guess nature and think that we can improve or replace that.

No matter how “good” two gay fathers are as parents, neither of them is a mother. The “quality of childcare” includes, amongst many other things, having positive male and female role models.

DrKoresh said :

And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

The fact you refer to something as “archaic” merely because it is “old fashioned”, ignoring how successful it was, is telling. Do you acknowledge perhaps the fact you yourself were not fortunate enough to have two committed parents may have coloured your opinions and even prejudices?

There are plenty of old fashioned notions that are cornerstones of society and I’m sure you yourself would agree with. Change for the sake of change is not always progress.

I am not trying to “mandate” anything, by the way. I am trying to protect an existing mandate, which was overwhelming upheld in both houses this week. It’s some interesting spin to try to make out that I am actively trying to deny people something rather than protect and uphold something that is already the case.

DrKoresh said :

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices.

There you go again.

If my position is “indefensible” why are you wasting time attacking it? It would be easier for you if anyone who isn’t for gay marriage would just keep their mouths shut, hey? Isn’t that really why you are so quick to drag out the “homophobic” and “bigoted” slurs?

For the record, and again I reiterate, I don’t hate anyone. I don’t consider desires people have wrong or evil. If they want to change them, particularly if they have the potential to cause harm to themselves or others, they should seek help. If not, and they find pleasure or satisfaction in acting upon them and it’s all consensual and not hurting anyone, I’m fine with that. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to object when I have to see it on prime time TV or ads, particularly if it only for the sake of political correctness or appeasement, or agree with abandoning laws and social norms which are beneficial for greater society in order to satisfy a vocal minority and make them feel more comfortable about what they do in bed.

Can you source any of this besides he part about it takes a man and women(at base level, now days) to conceive a child?

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

Holy crap, you really have no idea about the world, do you?
What about the married heterosexual couples who leave their children at home in squalor to play the pokies or are drug addicts not capable of caring for their kids?

DrKoresh said :

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare

You’re really flailing if you have to dredge out the “malicious paternal parents vs benevolent adoptive/gay/single parent” argument. Kids have the best chance to do well with their committed, biological parents. They can do well in plenty of other circumstances, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that being raised by their mum and dad is the ideal and where possible, it is in the best interests to promote the model which is the most successful. It takes a mother and father to create a child, it is grossly arrogant to second guess nature and think that we can improve or replace that.

No matter how “good” two gay fathers are as parents, neither of them is a mother. The “quality of childcare” includes, amongst many other things, having positive male and female role models.

DrKoresh said :

And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

The fact you refer to something as “archaic” merely because it is “old fashioned”, ignoring how successful it was, is telling. Do you acknowledge perhaps the fact you yourself were not fortunate enough to have two committed parents may have coloured your opinions and even prejudices?

There are plenty of old fashioned notions that are cornerstones of society and I’m sure you yourself would agree with. Change for the sake of change is not always progress.

I am not trying to “mandate” anything, by the way. I am trying to protect an existing mandate, which was overwhelming upheld in both houses this week. It’s some interesting spin to try to make out that I am actively trying to deny people something rather than protect and uphold something that is already the case.

DrKoresh said :

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices.

There you go again.

If my position is “indefensible” why are you wasting time attacking it? It would be easier for you if anyone who isn’t for gay marriage would just keep their mouths shut, hey? Isn’t that really why you are so quick to drag out the “homophobic” and “bigoted” slurs?

For the record, and again I reiterate, I don’t hate anyone. I don’t consider desires people have wrong or evil. If they want to change them, particularly if they have the potential to cause harm to themselves or others, they should seek help. If not, and they find pleasure or satisfaction in acting upon them and it’s all consensual and not hurting anyone, I’m fine with that. However, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to object when I have to see it on prime time TV or ads, particularly if it only for the sake of political correctness or appeasement, or agree with abandoning laws and social norms which are beneficial for greater society in order to satisfy a vocal minority and make them feel more comfortable about what they do in bed.

Darkfalz said :

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

(edit) Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat. (edit)

And what I think the rest of us are saying is, at some point, and it won’t be very far in the future, you’ll find that wasting words on fighting against gay marriage is as uphill and pointless a battle.

Popular opinion is against you and the world has changed. If you yelled “harlot” and “bastard” to women and children in the street or publically campaigned for some of your other causes, you would get exactly the same shaming response you’re complaining against now.

Darkfalz said :

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

You’re ignoring how damaging a mother-father family can be to their children. Gender plays no role in the quality of childcare, it’s dependent on the individuals raising the child and their ability to be loving caring parents. That capacity is not reduced because the child is being raised by two mothers or two fathers, there are plenty of PoS parents arse-ing up their children’s lives despite being married. And as a bastard myself, I take offense to your archaic idea of family, especially when you’re trying to mandate your idea of marriage as being what’s best for everyone.

Like I said earlier, your position is indefensible and you can waste as many paragraphs as you like trying to justify that position as being based on anything other than homophobic and bigoted prejudices. Never mind how arrogant it is to claim that your idea of a family unit is the correct one.

DrKoresh said :

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people.

It’s interesting you say that, because i believe it’s both (and more). In my opinion, the current definition of marriage is in society’s best interest. Maybe that means nothing to you, and that’s fine, but that has value to me. Frankly, I would like to go back to a time when children out of wedlock was frowned upon, not because I hate single parents, but again because a committed mother and father are best for children and society. I don’t think you can eliminate or substitute one without consequences. I’d like to go back to at-fault divorce, to combat the frivolity that some people enter (and exit) marriage with. Once these kinds of changes implemented though, in the interests of “choice and individual freedom”, getting them turned back is a completely uphill and probably pointless battle. So I don’t waste too many words on them despite seeing them as as damaging as gay marriage, which is the current threat.

In any case, if your implied reason for marriage is different to mine, how can you criticise my position on it?

c_c said :

Certainly saying that someone using hard drugs won’t affect others speaks to someone who is incapable of exercising reason…And yet he reasons that a relationship between two people, just by the fact of who those people are, does affect him.

The logic fails at the most basic level.

You didn’t read between the lines very well there, did you? I was clearly saying that legalising hard drugs WOULD affect me and society, despite ostensibly having nothing to do with them myself.

c_c said :

Darkfalz on the other hand, like so many who do oppose it, comes across as very insecure about themselves, and intolerant of something that challenges either their conception of societal norms

Nice theory, but no. I am comfortable and confident in my beliefs, so much so that I’ll air them in public even amongst liberal (or at least pro gay marriage) friends and colleagues.

LSWCHP said :

I didn’t say you were evil, just the views you’ve expressed on this topic. You might be the sweetest person in the whole wide world, but your ideas about gay people requiring therapy to fix them up, and not being granted the same rights as heterosexuals aren’t silly, they’re bad.

I never said “gay people” should get therapy to “fix them up”, I said that suicidal gay people should get therapy so they don’t kill themselves. I also believe that if people wish to offer or seek therapy that attempts to realign their sexuality they should be able to do so without being stigmatised.

Tell me, if a non-religious based organisation was offering this kind of therapy, with no coercion or promises, to people who wished to have the chance to live a normal, healthy life like the majority of society, would you be against it? Would you scream for boycott and attack them as bigots even though it doesn’t hurt you?

“Anything goes” marriage isn’t a right.

LSWCHP said :

There is no justification for gay people to be treated differently to straight people. Doing so is unjustified discrimination, and that’s inherently wrong.

Again, and ignoring the facts that gay couples have the same legal right as heterosexual defactos which is essential the same as married couples, it is not “discrimination”. It’s a refusal to acknowledge something which is not normal is normal.

I’m not a public figure, and not subject to a kneejerk media reaction misquoting and misattributing me, so whilst I believe this argument is not necessary I’m going to make it.

I acknowledge that aberrant sexuality exists. Whether the causes are genetic or based on childhood or adolescent experience, attraction to just about everything exists. This includes attraction to same sex, to children, to babies, to animals, to family members, to inanimate objects.

I don’t think you’re going to argue that heterosexuality is aberrant. I’ll spare you the birds and the bees talk, other than to say its demonstrably normal.

The rest are not natural and are varying degrees of harmful. These may range from inklings to overwhelming desires, but they are still not natural. And here’s where you fall into the trap. Because and only because “mutual adult consent” is possible with homosexuality, you try to separate that from the others and label it normal or natural, just subject to variation. But consent is a product of rational thought and societal acceptance, your attraction itself doesn’t know or care what is consensual and what isn’t. Now, surely you wouldn’t campaign for acceptance for attraction to children, like the NAMBLA and NAMGLA groups do?

I don’t hate any of these people. I feel sympathy that they have feelings that they cannot control and in many cases, do not want. But the answer is not tell them it’s okay and then to change society to accommodate them. I’m calling for less stigma on all of these things. Goodness knows how many paedophiles for example do not seek help because even admitting their feelings would illicit hatred and reaction from people. To seek to have one made “mainstream” and all the others kept “in the closet” is discrimination and hypocrisy.

If you are not hurting anyone with your homosexuality, that’s great. But you’re not going to convince me or a large swathe of the population your relationship has the social equivalence of that of a male/female marriage or nuclear family. Shaming people into (publicly) thinking otherwise, as seems to be par for the course now, is not changing people’s mind – only making them afraid to express how they feel. I’m quite happy to take the hits to be a voice for those people and others who think that the marriage definition is fine as it is.

For those trying to invoke the language of what is natural and what constitutes a normal family unity, two words:

Ducks

Divorce

Look them up

As for the whole ‘It ain’t natural’ line of arguement, you can take off your clothes, turn off your computer, stop using any form of transport other than your feet (no shoes, though, they ain’t natural either) and go live in the trees with the rest of the baboons.

Darkfalz said :

Resorting to calling someone “evil” is the sound of you losing the argument.

Darkfalz, your position is untenable and indefensible. I don’t think you’re evil, just supremely selfish and rather stupid, there is no scenario in which you can be anything but the loser (literally and figuratively) in this discussion.

Marriage is not about maintaining what you think is the normal family unit, it is about a celebration of love between two people. To say that another gay couple’s love isn’t as real as your hetero-sexual love because they happen to have the same genitals is appalling and childish. Rather than try to justify your bigotry and endeavours to step on the rights of others with bullshit about gay parents not being fit to raise children (which is what you implied, even if you didn’t phrase it so bluntly) you should come out of your hate closet and just admit it’s because you’re homophobic and don’t like gay people.

Darkfalz said :

LSWCHP said :

Unfortunately for you, and this may come as a bit of a shock, the majority of Australians (well, at least me :-)) appear to think your views fall into the “evil” category.

Resorting to calling someone “evil” is the sound of you losing the argument.

Marriage was changed 30 years ago when mixed race couples were allowed to participate legally. Did that ruin it?
Arguments were raised back then by racists against marriages between blacks and whites, using the exact same words as you and replacing the man and woman with races. They were wrong then, and you are wrong now,
A man is a man and a woman is a woman, and they were meant to go together.. Have you tried telling this to nature? There are plenty of species scientists have studied homosexual behaviour in. As far as gay couples raising children there are so many abandoned children out there that just need to be loved because their real parents either couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. There are going to be bad parents but you get that with male-female couples as well, kids raised by gay couples don’t lose any benefits and they’d be the first ones to tell you there is nothing wrong with their parents as well.

The whole “gay marriage is not important” argument is very easy to say when you’re not the one being discriminated against.

Thankfully it’s only a matter of time before people like you die out and the world regains some sense and stops discriminating against innocent people just because they were born a little differently.

Darkfalz said :

LSWCHP said :

Unfortunately for you, and this may come as a bit of a shock, the majority of Australians (well, at least me :-)) appear to think your views fall into the “evil” category.

Resorting to calling someone “evil” is the sound of you losing the argument.

I didn’t say you were evil, just the views you’ve expressed on this topic. You might be the sweetest person in the whole wide world, but your ideas about gay people requiring therapy to fix them up, and not being granted the same rights as heterosexuals aren’t silly, they’re bad.

There is no justification for gay people to be treated differently to straight people. Doing so is unjustified discrimination, and that’s inherently wrong. And I still believe that taken to the extremes that it often is, such discrimination really is evil and it results in incredibly poor outcomes for the people on the receiving end of it.

Darkfalz is exactly the reason the conservative zealots will assuredly lose the debate.

Certainly saying that someone using hard drugs won’t affect others speaks to someone who is incapable of exercising reason. Motorists and pedestrians struck by people driving while drugged, or people involved in assaults with drug users would no doubt agree, as would paramedics, police and everyone else involved in dealing with them, and the treasury who gets to see the bill for the fall out.

And yet he reasons that a relationship between two people, just by the fact of who those people are, does affect him.

The logic fails at the most basic level.

The reality is a lot of people who don’t oppose same-sex marriage, including myself, are tolerant, straight people not threatened by the behaviour of others that is not in anyway harmful.

Darkfalz on the other hand, like so many who do oppose it, comes across as very insecure about themselves, and intolerant of something that challenges either their conception of societal norms, or more likely challenges some deeper seeded conceptions and about themselves.

Darkfalz said :

LSWCHP said :

Unfortunately for you, and this may come as a bit of a shock, the majority of Australians (well, at least me :-)) appear to think your views fall into the “evil” category.

Resorting to calling someone “evil” is the sound of you losing the argument.

As is clearly showing that you are a brainwashed lack wit with no grasp on what family means or even what reality is.

LSWCHP said :

Unfortunately for you, and this may come as a bit of a shock, the majority of Australians (well, at least me :-)) appear to think your views fall into the “evil” category.

Resorting to calling someone “evil” is the sound of you losing the argument.

Deref said :

OK, anti marriage equality people: this issue directly affects no-one except gays. If you’re not gay, and it’s a fair bet that you’re not, it doesn’t affect you in any way, size, shape or form. So why do you oppose it?

More nonsense. It’s like saying I can’t take an anti-war position if I’m not planning to sign up for the army. It affects me, it affects the context of marriage and the kind of society I want to live in. Legalising hard drugs shouldn’t affect me either, because I still wouldn’t take them, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have ramifications.

I believe men and women, mothers and fathers, are unique and complimentary rather than disposable and interchangeable. The similarities gay couples may have to normal human pair bonding are primarily superficial and it’s never going to be the same as the relationship and bond that nature intended.

You can coax your debate in sentimental euphemisms like “marriage equality” or use “arguments” like “the only thing that matters is love” but it doesn’t change the fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and they were meant to go with each other. If you don’t believe me, ask your mum and dad how you got here.

No to “marriage equality”, yes to celebrating the unique and complimentary nature of men and women.

I dont want to turn this into a giant quoting box so LSWCHP – well said.

Darkfalz said :

stillflying said :

IMposter said :

Do you know how many people coming out as gay are still shunned by their family? Do you know how many young gay Australians try to commit suicide a year because they’re brought up in a world where half of society tells them theres something wrong with them?

See, I just don’t subscribe to this kind of thinking.

I think if people have feelings or desires which they know are unhealthy or unnatural, and those feelings are getting out of hand, they should work on them. This could be anything from having the hots for your cousin to wanting to kill your boss. This is why we have counsellors and therapists. What I wouldn’t expect is the world to change to accommodate me so I can feel better.

I don’t understand it at all frankly, especially since it only seems to apply to homosexuals or supposed “transgender” people but not to others with aberrant sexuality. The way I see it the “community” has shot themselves in the foot because there’s now real stigma in trying to seek help.

I wasn’t going to respond to this, because I thought “Why bother, what’s the point?”.

However, as Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. Unfortunately for you, and this may come as a bit of a shock, the majority of Australians (well, at least me :-)) appear to think your views fall into the “evil” category.

I don’t know if I qualify as good, but I don’t want evil to triumph, so here goes.

The straight scoop on this subject is that homosexuals aren’t heterosexuals who decide they want to get into a bit of naughtiness, along similar lines to killing their boss. They just feel attracted to people of the same sex, the way you presumably feel attracted to people of the opposite sex. Did you make a decision about your sexual orientation, or did it just happen to you? I’m assuming the latter, and that’s how it is for everybody, straight or gay. No choice, you just have to roll with whatever nature, nurture and other factors hand you.

So, homosexuality is no more “unnatural” than heterosexuality. They’re both provided by nature. Coercion or therapy or whatever won’t change that.

The best thing to do, the right thing to do, is acknowledge this fact, stay calm and carry on. Treating everybody equally and kindly and without discrimination costs nothing, and benefits everybody. Why don’t you give it a shot and see how it works out for you?

I say just eliminate marriage as a legal notion altogether.

It is, after all, just a construct of Christianity that was adopted by the state, probably at a time when the line between church and state was almost non existant.

Just go out and register your relationship with the government. If you want to have a religous marriage ceremony in the sight of whatever god(s) you like, that’s up to you, but that ceremony in itself should have no legal status whatsoever.

Christians get to keep their concept of marriage pure and unsullied, same sex couples can have a properly recognised relationship, and everyone should go home happy.

Yeah right…

stillflying said :

poetix said :

On another note, it is disgusting that a conscience vote wasn’t allowed by the Liberals on this issue. Strangely enough, I felt sorry for Malcolm Turnbull.

This. I barely see the point in the vote that did take place when it’s hardly a vote if people are forced to take one option. The only good I can see come from it is that it’s a step in the right direction, with steps we’ll get there.

Any MP can cross the floor for any vote, if their conscience tells them strongly enough to vote right. I think Turnbull is a coward.

poetix said :

On another note, it is disgusting that a conscience vote wasn’t allowed by the Liberals on this issue. Strangely enough, I felt sorry for Malcolm Turnbull.

This. I barely see the point in the vote that did take place when it’s hardly a vote if people are forced to take one option. The only good I can see come from it is that it’s a step in the right direction, with steps we’ll get there.

poetix said :

The opposition to gay marriage makes me wonder about how insecure some people are in their own relationships. As if other people’s love being acknowledged would somehow suck the special out of their lives. Feeble and sad.

On another note, it is disgusting that a conscience vote wasn’t allowed by the Liberals on this issue. Strangely enough, I felt sorry for Malcolm Turnbull.

I wonder more about their own comfortability with their sexuality.
I don’t remember where but I was reading but there is research findings that a good percentage of homophobes are attracted to the same sex.

The opposition to gay marriage makes me wonder about how insecure some people are in their own relationships. As if other people’s love being acknowledged would somehow suck the special out of their lives. Feeble and sad.

On another note, it is disgusting that a conscience vote wasn’t allowed by the Liberals on this issue. Strangely enough, I felt sorry for Malcolm Turnbull.

Deref said :

OK, anti marriage equality people: this issue directly affects no-one except gays. If you’re not gay, and it’s a fair bet that you’re not, it doesn’t affect you in any way, size, shape or form. So why do you oppose it?

Because bigots are as dumb as dog poo. Nothing else really to explain it besides that.

OK, anti marriage equality people: this issue directly affects no-one except gays. If you’re not gay, and it’s a fair bet that you’re not, it doesn’t affect you in any way, size, shape or form. So why do you oppose it?

stillflying said :

Gay marriage is important, there are other important things out there, but gay marriage is important.

True, but it’s not as important as basic services, like health and education.

If people had the same apparant passion for the boring but critical stuff, I suspect things would be a lot better.

stillflying said :

IMposter said :

Do you know how many people coming out as gay are still shunned by their family? Do you know how many young gay Australians try to commit suicide a year because they’re brought up in a world where half of society tells them theres something wrong with them?

See, I just don’t subscribe to this kind of thinking.

I think if people have feelings or desires which they know are unhealthy or unnatural, and those feelings are getting out of hand, they should work on them. This could be anything from having the hots for your cousin to wanting to kill your boss. This is why we have counsellors and therapists. What I wouldn’t expect is the world to change to accommodate me so I can feel better.

I don’t understand it at all frankly, especially since it only seems to apply to homosexuals or supposed “transgender” people but not to others with aberrant sexuality. The way I see it the “community” has shot themselves in the foot because there’s now real stigma in trying to seek help.

IMposter said :

The gay marriage issue is a selfish issue – let’s shut up about it and get our polies talking about things that matter like eduacation, health care etc

That’s a selfish thing to say in itself. It’s fine for you to say that it’s not important, but to some people their rights ARE important. It’s fundamentally wrong that two consenting adults aren’t allowed to marry each other. A lot of the community cares about this, and the injustice done to them. Society is saying that they’re not worth it, and that society refusing to acknowledge them and their partners. Do you know how many people coming out as gay are still shunned by their family? Do you know how many young gay Australians try to commit suicide a year because they’re brought up in a world where half of society tells them theres something wrong with them?

Gay marriage is important, there are other important things out there, but gay marriage is important.

The gay marriage issue is a selfish issue – let’s shut up about it and get our polies talking about things that matter like eduacation, health care etc

Darkfalz said :

Mysteryman said :

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

Boy, isn’t that’s optimistic. The smear and intimidation and suppression of opinion will continue until this aggressive and manipulative group get what they want. Because we suffer the disease of cultural Marxism (otherwise known as political correctness), the primary goal of which is to weaken society by undermining the family, they’ll eventually win, but there is value in delaying it as long as possible.

So…ahhhh…let me get this straight. T

There’s a bunch of gay people out there and they are aggressive and manipulative.They are exploiting a disease that we all suffer from. This disease is called Cultural Marxism,.

This Cultural Marxism disease is also known as Political Correctness, and like all diseases it has a primary goal, which in this case is weakening society by undermining the family.

Because we suffer this Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness disease, those gay folks will eventually win, but we should struggle against them, just because such a struggle would be valuable.

Honestly, I can’t make any sense of that at all. What on earth is Cultural Marxism? I don’t understand what sort of disease it is. I don’t know why CM is actually political correctness. I don’t know why CM and PC have the goal (if concepts can have goals ) of undermining our families and society And I don’t understand why, if they are going to win, we should struggle pointlessly against them.

I’m serious. It doesn’t make sense.

Darkfalz said :

Mysteryman said :

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

Boy, isn’t that’s optimistic. The smear and intimidation and suppression of opinion will continue until this aggressive and manipulative group get what they want. Because we suffer the disease of cultural Marxism (otherwise known as political correctness), the primary goal of which is to weaken society by undermining the family, they’ll eventually win, but there is value in delaying it as long as possible.

Based on this post I think it might be an idea for ACT Young Labor to avoid having any camps or picnics in isolated locations for the foreseeable future.

Darkfalz said :

Mysteryman said :

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

Boy, isn’t that’s optimistic. The smear and intimidation and suppression of opinion will continue until this aggressive and manipulative group get what they want. Because we suffer the disease of cultural Marxism (otherwise known as political correctness), the primary goal of which is to weaken society by undermining the family, they’ll eventually win, but there is value in delaying it as long as possible.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of family.

Darkfalz said :

The nuclear family was the basis of most societies since the dawn of civilisation. They didn’t just decide it was the model when the bible appeared. The bonds between father, mother and child don’t have anything to do with religion.

Nor does it have anything to do with marriage, and certainly not ‘other peoples’ marriages.. what’s your point?

So now we have to put up with ten more years of them whinging.
Should have given them what they wanted.
It’s a LOGICAL extension to what has already occurred with other discrimination laws. Hello!!!!
The Godbotherers should realise that it won’t be compulsory and they don’t have to take part.
Euthanasia, anyone?

Mysteryman said :

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

Boy, isn’t that’s optimistic. The smear and intimidation and suppression of opinion will continue until this aggressive and manipulative group get what they want. Because we suffer the disease of cultural Marxism (otherwise known as political correctness), the primary goal of which is to weaken society by undermining the family, they’ll eventually win, but there is value in delaying it as long as possible.

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage?

I don’t like Gillard at all but you seem to be under the impression people’s opinions are always based only upon immediate self interest, and that because Gillard is an unmarried atheist she couldn’t possibly believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. By your same logic, married non-gays with no gay family members couldn’t possibly be for SSM marriage, but some obviously are. She came from parents who were married for over 50 years and only separated by death, perhaps that model is important to her?

The nuclear family was the basis of most societies since the dawn of civilisation. They didn’t just decide it was the model when the bible appeared. The bonds between father, mother and child don’t have anything to do with religion.

if they allowed remote voting we wouldn’t need politicians

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

If they are visually recognised, it can be 100% certain that their vote was cast by them.

Until a remote system can be established that is 100% infallible, this is the best system. Before this descends into an argument about biometrics, etc., remember this: each system is only as secure as the users allow it to be. Anyone here password share at work, on any one of the accounts you have access to?

Besides, let the buggers work for their money.

johnboy said :

Well for a start if they were allowed remote voting the whips would have the gadgets under lock and key.

This way there’s a remote chance we might see a conscience vote one day.

It’s important to have hope.

I don’t think remote voting is likely any time in the foreseeable future.

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

The problem with the gay marriage vote in parliament is that it leaves the issue festering and unable to be taken off the political agenda because gay issues are like that. They hang around and won’t go away and there is a very powerful lobby ensuring that the issue is unresolved until it finally gets approved by the parliament.

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

From what I understand, the woman made an election promise, and kept it. Presumably her electorate was aware of this promise before they elected her.

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

Totally agree – I simply do not understand why they cannot put in an advance vote or phone in their vote or something similar. Utterly daft.

Damn quotation marks. -_- I blame the fact I’m forced to use internet explorer at work.

Darkfalz said :

Spykler said :

. It is also being frequently misreported, as he in no way compared homosexuality itself to bestiality, only the fallacious argument that “love” need be the only requirement for a marriage.

He compared love between two consenting adults to something abusive and disgusting. A dog doesn’t give consent. A dog doesn’t understand. There is a very clear difference between love in a relationship and “love” from an abusive controlling standpoint. To compare the two is only encouraging prejudice and misunderstanding about people who are gay.

He’s an idiot for thinking such a thing let alone being stupid enough to say it. Good riddence.

Darkfalz said :

I wrote him a letter expressing my opposition to gay marriage. I got a scripted reply that he supports it, even though he doesn’t say why. So I wrote him another one and haven’t heard back since.

I expected a reasoned response from our politicians to the fact that most Australians (what was it, 64% IIRC) support marriage equality – IOW their support for it. Are you equally annoyed about that?

Spykler said :

Plus, he never hogged out on the dwindling supply of sausages, he had one with onions, whereas others were going back for 4 and 5.

Probably because with his generous salary free sausages aren’t as appealing to him as many of his base.

I wrote him a letter expressing my opposition to gay marriage. I got a scripted reply that he supports it, even though he doesn’t say why. So I wrote him another one and haven’t heard back since.

It was pretty disgusting to see people making remarks such as “shame” or “shameful” in regards to this vote, which was defeated easily by more than 2 to 1. John Hogg (Labor) summed up pretty well the tactics of the majority of these SSM advocates “I utterly reject the offensive language of some of those supporting the bill that people who share my views are discriminatory or homophobic. This is absolutely nonsense of the first order and is a desperate resort to try and isolate those who don’t share their views.”

This is what happened to Bernardi essentially. Yes, he was dumb enough to try a line of argument that has been successfully made taboo, but it should not cost him his entire political career because of it. He should have been able to express his opinion freely and then faced the polls at the next election. It is also being frequently misreported, as he in no way compared homosexuality itself to bestiality, only the fallacious argument that “love” need be the only requirement for a marriage. The trap is falling into religious based or “slippery slope” arguments – completely unnecessary, because the intrinsic value of the nuclear family is more than enough to defend the existing definition of marriage.

We need something to stop more of these scurrilous bills being put to the vote every couple of months Once every 3 years should be plenty. It was worth it this time to watch Albanese pontificate on it with the usual “discrimination” talk even while then making exception for Gillard’s own beliefs against it, although it doesn’t seem to apply to anyone in the coalition who is against it because “they don’t get it”. So Gillard gets it, but still doesn’t want them to have the right to marry? Hilarious. And Bandt saying he wouldn’t vote in favour of civil unions, demonstrating that it has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with forced social equivalence.

LSWCHP said :

I’ve seen Mr Leigh in public a couple of times. He strikes me as a decent, intelligent and witty man.

His brief and forthright comment on this adds to my positive impression of him.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Labor apparatchik. I just like the cut of his jib.

Agreed, met Andrew at a BBQ two years ago and was immediately impressed by him, a real gentleman and intelligent to boot. Plus, he never hogged out on the dwindling supply of sausages, he had one with onions, whereas others were going back for 4 and 5.

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

I’ve seen Mr Leigh in public a couple of times. He strikes me as a decent, intelligent and witty man.

His brief and forthright comment on this adds to my positive impression of him.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Labor apparatchik. I just like the cut of his jib.

SnapperJack said :

Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld.

Of course he’d say that. He’s a political lobbyist, and his interest is best served by making as many people as possible think he is as influential as possible.

I would be interested to see the numbers of Christian voters in rural Qld who were influenced by this dude, versus the the numbers of everybody else in the entire country who regard him and his crew as a joke and laugh him to scorn.

The fact is that he’s a fundamentalist nutbag running an outfit composed of fundamentalist nutbags and which represents only a tiny, tiny minority of fundamentalist nutbags.

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

You may be right. We’ll see wat the next election whether supporters of marriage equality outnumber the Christian right. Of course there’s no choice between the two major parties, so the only option will be minor parties and independents.

SnapperJack said :

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

So let me get this right – you say that the Labor Party (and, ostensibly the libs) are controlled by the right-wing Christian lobby (with which I agree); then you say it’s controlled by the left and the Greens. That does sound a little like having your cake and eating it too.

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

The problem with the gay marriage vote in parliament is that it leaves the issue festering and unable to be taken off the political agenda because gay issues are like that. They hang around and won’t go away and there is a very powerful lobby ensuring that the issue is unresolved until it finally gets approved by the parliament.

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

This vote thing was an absolute bulls*** joke and a slap in the face.

It’s not a vote if you’re forced to vote one way because of your party, when they’re not representing the views of their regions. It’s absolutely correct that majority of the Australian public either want gay marriage or don’t care if it comes in because they’re truly not effected by it, it’s just getting the policitians to pull their thumbs out of their ass.

Happy both the ACT members would have voted yes had they been available.

LouiseMCrossman said :

Hi guys, I work for Andrew and we have had lots of queries about this over the last day. Andrew’s wife gave birth to their third son Zachary Leigh yesterday afternoon. Pairs aren’t granted for conscience votes but Andrew would have voted yes if he’d been there.

Thanks Louise – great news on both fronts!

Damn heteros, keeping all the babies and marriage to themselves. Why can’t everyone else be unhappy too?!

Mr Leigh has now posted this statement:

http://www.andrewleigh.com/blog/?p=3349

Congratulations to Mr and Mrs Leigh on their new arrival!

Andrew has spoken publicly in support of marriage equality. Had his wife not been in labour, I imagine he would have been there voting ‘yes’.

ToastFliesRED said :

Did he seek/was he given a pair I wonder

It would have mattered anyway. Everyone knew the bill was going to be rejected convincingly.

Hi guys, I work for Andrew and we have had lots of queries about this over the last day. Andrew’s wife gave birth to their third son Zachary Leigh yesterday afternoon. Pairs aren’t granted for conscience votes but Andrew would have voted yes if he’d been there.

Did he seek/was he given a pair I wonder

Tronno said :

I believe, from his Twitter feed, his wife was giving birth. Seems a reasonable excuse to me.

I heard it was human-staffy cross. Turns out Bernadi was right all along.

I believe, from his Twitter feed, his wife was giving birth. Seems a reasonable excuse to me.