Marriage Equality in Australia

Forum rules
Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at http://wikipeebia.com/forum
The Erect Vessel
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Not la la land

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by The Erect Vessel » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:07 am

That is very deep Beloved BA... very deep. The thing is you are quite right, but you see, you have to understand that we see everything through a 2 Timothy 2 perspective you would have to agree.
Gee, does that make you cringe!

Apologies - just couldn't resist as our past among peebs warps all simplicity as to the basic issue you quite rightly explain.

The fact is we are all skewed when it comes to equal rights and in the words of our brother George Orwell...“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

I have a good friend who is gay, and desperately wants to be married to his partner, and what gives me the right to 'judge' - let 'em be and if they get married what harm is it going to do to me?

Well constructed argument Mr BA... you can move up to the front row if you can get the mic off Fisherman

User avatar
Balaam's Ass
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:23 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by Balaam's Ass » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:28 am

I still hear good advice ringing in my ears: If you don't agree with same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Simple.

The Erect Vessel
Posts: 505
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Not la la land

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by The Erect Vessel » Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:44 am

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The Questioner
Posts: 933
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:23 am

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by The Questioner » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:51 am

Having a view that as marriage is wrong is, IMO, a legitimate point of view. However, to then say it should not be allowed is, despite the claims of those who disagree with it, imposing my views on others.

You cannot both claim to be pro-other people's right to views and vote against s-s marriage at the same time. The act of banning it means one side is imposing its views.

The rights of those who object are only infringed if s-s marriage is imposed on them. People are free to marry heterosexually.

Meanwhile, I will condemn homosexuality as loudly and frequently as Jesus Christ did.

Ian McKay
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by Ian McKay » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:27 pm

Research at Stanford University by Michal Kosinski and Yilun Wang has shown that their computer can infer sexual orientation by analysing photos of people’s faces. The researchers suggest the software does this by picking up on subtle differences in facial structure.

The researchers’ program, details of which are soon to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, relied on 130,741 images of 36,630 men and 170,360 images of 38,593 women downloaded from a popular American dating Website.

When shown one photo each of a gay and straight man, both chosen at random, the model distinguished between them correctly 81% of the time. When shown five photos of each man, it attributed sexuality correctly 91% of the time. The model performed worse with women, telling gay and straight apart with 71% accuracy after looking at one photo, and 83% accuracy after five. In both cases the computer performed far better than humans in making this distinction.

Dr Kosinski and Mr Wang offer a possible explanation for their model’s performance. As fetuses develop in the womb, they are exposed to various levels of hormones, in particular testosterone. These are known to play a role in developing facial structures, and may similarly be involved in determining sexuality.

The program was found to pay most attention to the nose, eyes, eyebrows, cheeks, hairline and chin for determining male sexuality; the nose, mouth corners, hair and neckline were more important for women.

This research provides further support for the belief that a person’s sexual orientation is in some way constitutional, probably innate, not simply a lifestyle choice as some people emphatically assert. It thus reinforces the same conclusion previously drawn from genetic studies and from anatomical studies of the brain.

Humbled
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:14 am

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by Humbled » Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:34 pm

Coalition for Marriage.

See c4m.org.uk

PeterF

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by PeterF » Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:38 am

The Questioner wrote:Having a view that as marriage is wrong is, IMO, a legitimate point of view. However, to then say it should not be allowed is, despite the claims of those who disagree with it, imposing my views on others.

You cannot both claim to be pro-other people's right to views and vote against s-s marriage at the same time. The act of banning it means one side is imposing its views.

The rights of those who object are only infringed if s-s marriage is imposed on them. People are free to marry heterosexually.

Meanwhile, I will condemn homosexuality as loudly and frequently as Jesus Christ did.
IMPOSING VIEWS is what is annoying me. Even our national football league has changed their logo with 'VOTE YES' along with our major airline, banks, supermarkets etc and if you comment adversely or don't publicly support the YES [to marriage 'equality'] you are presumed to be against it, if you put a logo on your business 'VOTE NO', if you make any comment in the NO flavour, then all hell breaks loose, you are likely to be sacked from your job, and if a professional person likely to be reported as 'unfit' to your registration board.

Religious freedom may be protected but if you are no a church or religious institution, such as a baker, a photographer, private school you cannot exercise the right to either express or prefer your views.

Peter Flinn
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:26 am

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by Peter Flinn » Sat Dec 16, 2017 5:23 am

When I made my last contribution to this debate well over a year ago, I said it would be my last. I apologise for going back on my word: in fact this one will be my last.

Since that time, the Australian Government was unsuccessful in obtaining Parliamentary approval to hold a plebiscite, so instead it commissioned the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a voluntary postal survey on the marriage issue.

The results of the survey were released about a month ago. Of those who participated in the survey, nationally 62% voted in favour and 38% against the re-definition of marriage.

Subsequently, a Private Member's Bill was passed in both the Senate and House of Representatives, reflecting the result of the survey. This was despite several attempted amendments to the Bill to provide adequate protections for freedom of speech and freedom of religion relevant to this issue. All amendments were thrown out, and in the House of Reps the Bill was passed with a large majority, with only four MPs voting against it and another ten or so abstaining.

There were scenes of euphoria in the Parliament, on the floor of the House as well as in the public gallery, which was crammed full of supporters for the change.

I am surprised that none of that euphoria has so far found its way into this thread, given the enthusiasm for this momentous change which was obvious from some participants in the earlier rather feisty debate. Australia has now followed several other western countries down this track. Needless to say, I was devastated with the result.

After much agonising, I submitted an article on this issue to our local newspaper, the Hamilton Spectator, and it appeared in today's edition. I have attached it for information.
Attachments
Spec 16-12-17.jpg

fisherman
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by fisherman » Sat Dec 16, 2017 4:26 pm

I believe the term 'homophobia' is incorrect as the definition of 'phobia' suggests 'fear' irrational or otherwise ...to not agree with ,openly embrace it ,or even understand something does not automatically mean I am afraid of it. I don't happen to like 'rap' music,but does that warrent me being singled out and denounced as 'rapaphobic'?

One point I am adamant on is nobody should not be harassed of,picked on, or discriminated against because of their race,religeon or sexual orientation.When vandals spray painted 'fag' on my neighbours stone wall,I went over and helped him scrub it off..

Struth
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: Marriage Equality in Australia

Post by Struth » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:01 pm

I voted yes, Peter, in memory of a much-loved cousin, booted out and alienated from his family for decades. :(

Post Reply