I didn't realise Coopers supported the Australian Bible Society

[Morrie]

I agree that it was a huge waste of money' date=' because they already knew the majority of the public was in favor of it beforehand anyway. I'm curious as to what these supposed negative impacts will be though.

 

Ironically, all the no voters are people who it won't affect in any way at all. [/quote']

 

I agree that the government would have known that it was a forgone conclusion in favour of a yes vote. In my opinion the government pushed the plebiscite because they were too gutless to upset some of the churches in Australia and also to appease some of the religious zealots in their ranks. Yes, they pissed up against the wall more than $100M of hard earned taxpayers money to fund their own gutlessness. Now they can stand before the churches and other religious zealots and say ....well we have to vote it in now, the electorate has spoken.

[Hairy]

It was never necessary to involve the nation as a whole in the debate as to the legitimacy of whether gay & lesbian couples should have the right to marry or not' date=' as it is NOT a concern of the [u']entire[/u] nation.

 

Lusty.

I can’t believe I am saying this () but I agree with Lusty.

 

Politics and religion should be separate. All the vote did was create divisiveness in the community whereas the Government should have just said that, as a country, we shouldn’t discriminate and then legislated it.

[King Ruddager]

Unfortunately I think this government needed some form of justification to go against many of its strongest backers.

 

And yes, religion in government was the main reason I started this thread.

[porschemad911]

What a lot of people don't realise is that this will have far reaching repercussions in the future beyond just legitimising marriage' date=' & not all will be positive for all people.[/quote']

Lusty, you are on the money with this. I voted 'No' after doing quite a bit of research into the experiences of people in countries that had previously legalized same-sex marriage. Marriage is just the beginning and I personally believe many children in future generations will suffer for not having both a father and a mother as same-sex family units are further normalized. Yes, you can argue that the majority of heterosexual relationships are far from the ideal in terms of the children's well-being, however I believe we should always legislate towards the ideal, never towards a compromise. But our society is on a slippery slope downhill in many ways, so what can you do.

 

I only hope that the bill which is eventually passed has more protections than overseas legislation offers for a) those who do not believe that by definition marriage includes same-sex unions and b) those who do not want to have their children's gender and sexuality confused before they are mature enough to handle it (eg the current 'Safe Schools' program)

 

John

[Beerlust]

Ironically' date=' all the no voters are people who it won't affect in any way at all. [/quote']

I feel you will be wrong about this.

I'm curious as to what these supposed negative impacts will be though.

Nothing has been carved in stone as yet or been legislated' date=' but there is discussion on quite a number of areas. An example is about how couples [u']may[/u] eventually be categorised as a whole as to not discriminate.

On the surface that sounds fine, but when you create scenarios where biological parents & non-biological parents have equal rights to an infant or child, I feel you have a serious problem, both morally & legally.

 

That door is now open.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

[ChristinaS1]

What a lot of people don't realise is that this will have far reaching repercussions in the future beyond just legitimising marriage' date=' & not all will be positive for all people.[/quote']

Lusty, you are on the money with this. I voted 'No' after doing quite a bit of research into the experiences of people in countries that had previously legalized same-sex marriage. Marriage is just the beginning and I personally believe many children in future generations will suffer for not having both a father and a mother as same-sex family units are further normalized. Yes, you can argue that the majority of heterosexual relationships are far from the ideal in terms of the children's well-being, however I believe we should always legislate towards the ideal, never towards a compromise. But our society is on a slippery slope downhill in many ways, so what can you do.

 

I only hope that the bill which is eventually passed has more protections than overseas legislation offers for a) those who do not believe that by definition marriage includes same-sex unions and b) those who do not want to have their children's gender and sexuality confused before they are mature enough to handle it (eg the current 'Safe Schools' program)

 

John

 

Hi John,

 

You mention, "the current 'Safe Schools' program." Are you referring to a program in Australia? Is it some kind of anti-bullying program? Can you please describe it? Thanks.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[Otto Von Blotto]

Same sex couples can already adopt and/or conceive children in Australia, so I'm not sure how allowing them to be married changes anything in that regard.

[Morrie]

I think the NO campaign would have exploited any detriment to societies in other countries where SSM is now the norm if they could have found any examples. After all they used some pretty weak and limp excuses in their reasoning for a NO vote, but I did not hear one argument put up by them of examples of the detriment to society in other countries where it has been legalised.

[Beerlust]

Be under no illusions, the amount of people that voted 'NO' was in a small percentage because a fair whack of heterosexual people could really care less whether gay & lesbian partners should be allowed to marry or not. Being that it was an anonymous postal vote many didn't even bother to vote at all such was their care factor. I have spoken with many in my neck of the woods, & they didn't even bother.

 

A little under 8 million voted 'YES', a little under 5 million voted 'NO', & according to the current electoral role figures, that leaves approx. 4 million people that didn't vote at all.

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[ChristinaS1]

Be under no illusions' date=' the amount of people that voted 'NO' was in a small percentage because a fair whack of heterosexual people could really care less whether gay & lesbian partners should be allowed to marry or not. Being that it was an anonymous postal vote many didn't even bother to vote at all such was their care factor. I have spoken with many in my neck of the woods, & they didn't even bother.

 

A little under 8 million voted 'YES', a little under 5 million voted 'NO', & according to the current electoral role figures, that leaves approx. 4 million people that didn't vote at all. [img']wink[/img]

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

Hi Lusty. Not sure if I understand you correctly. You seem to be saying that the vote was a lot closer than it appears because those who didn't vote would have voted "No." Is that what you mean?

 

Even if all 4 million non-voters are straight, you can't assume anything based their sexual orientation. Since it is very unlikely that 61.6% of Australian voters are homosexual, obviously a lot of straight people voted "Yes."

 

Media reports 79.5% of eligible voters voted. When it comes to democracy, that is an impressive number.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[porschemad911]

You mention' date=' "the current 'Safe Schools' program." Are you referring to a program in Australia? Is it some kind of anti-bullying program? Can you please describe it? Thanks.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.[/quote']

Hi Christina,

 

'Safe Schools' is a radical program that has been introduced into many Australian public schools, and has been cleverly named to prevent criticism and obfuscate its real intent. It teaches students that heterosexuality is not the norm, encourages students to explore sexual and gender diversity and includes graphic descriptions of age-inappropriate sexual material.

 

I understand that there are many people, including children, who struggle with sexual and gender identity, but I think individual support and counselling tailored to that person's situation and needs is a far better solution than further sexualizing the landscape of many young children in the name of 'safety'.

 

I hope I don't cause any offense, but I personally am against this program.

 

John

[ben 10]

This forum is really not the place for most of this.

[Beerlust]

Hi Lusty. Not sure if I understand you correctly. You seem to be saying that the vote was a lot closer than it appears because those who didn't vote would have voted "No." Is that what you mean?

That's reaching a fair bit Christina. Nowhere in my statement did I say that. What I did state however were facts.

Even if all 4 million non-voters are straight' date=' you can't assume anything based their sexual orientation. Since it is very unlikely that 61.6% of Australian voters are homosexual, obviously a lot of straight people voted "Yes."

 

Media reports 79.5% of eligible voters voted. When it comes to democracy, that is an impressive number.[/quote']

Let's put some of these numbers into some real factual reality shall we. 7,817,247 people voted 'Yes' of a possible 16,655,856 Australians that were eligible. That's 46.9% of the population that voted 'Yes' (not 61.6%). By the same token, 4,873,987 voted 'No' & that is 29.2% (not 38.1%). That leaves 23.9% unknown.

 

46.9% is hardly high praise for endorsement of anything (IMHO).

 

I also agree with much of what John has said in his past two posts.

This forum is really not the place for most of this.

It's in the "Everything Else" section Ben' date=' so I think it's OK. [img']wink[/img]

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

[ChristinaS1]

Hi Lusty. Not sure if I understand you correctly. You seem to be saying that the vote was a lot closer than it appears because those who didn't vote would have voted "No." Is that what you mean?

That's reaching a fair bit Christina. Nowhere in my statement did I say that. What I did state however were facts.

Even if all 4 million non-voters are straight' date=' you can't assume anything based their sexual orientation. Since it is very unlikely that 61.6% of Australian voters are homosexual, obviously a lot of straight people voted "Yes."

 

Media reports 79.5% of eligible voters voted. When it comes to democracy, that is an impressive number.[/quote']

Let's put some of these numbers into some real factual reality shall we. 7,817,247 people voted 'Yes' of a possible 16,655,856 Australians that were eligible. That's 46.9% of the population that voted 'Yes' (not 61.6%). By the same token, 4,873,987 voted 'No' & that is 29.2% (not 38.1%). That leaves 23.9% unknown.

 

46.9% is hardly high praise for endorsement of anything (IMHO).

 

I also agree with much of what John has said in his past two posts.

This forum is really not the place for most of this.

It's in the "Everything Else" section Ben' date=' so I think it's OK. [img']wink[/img]

 

Cheers,

 

Lusty.

 

Actually, in a democracy the only voters that count are the ones who vote. Voters who don't vote don't figure into the equation my friend.

 

What is clear is that among the Australians who cared enough to vote, a wide majority are in favour of legalizing SSM.

 

I think I will bow out of this thread now.

 

Happy brewing Lusty.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.

[Morrie]

I think if the vote would have been compulsory then the YES vote would have been much higher as I think that most of the eligible voters who did not vote were not against equal rights marriage.

[Graculus]

You mention' date=' "the current 'Safe Schools' program." Are you referring to a program in Australia? Is it some kind of anti-bullying program? Can you please describe it? Thanks.

 

Cheers,

 

Christina.[/quote']

Hi Christina,

 

'Safe Schools' is a radical program that has been introduced into many Australian public schools, and has been cleverly named to prevent criticism and obfuscate its real intent. It teaches students that heterosexuality is not the norm, encourages students to explore sexual and gender diversity and includes graphic descriptions of age-inappropriate sexual material.

 

I understand that there are many people, including children, who struggle with sexual and gender identity, but I think individual support and counselling tailored to that person's situation and needs is a far better solution than further sexualizing the landscape of many young children in the name of 'safety'.

 

I hope I don't cause any offense, but I personally am against this program.

 

John

 

Sorry John but I don't believe that's true from what I've been told about it.

At least that's what my kids tell me, but what would teenagers know?

If you search for that information you'll find that that's what religious groups

and the Murdoch empire would have you believe.

 

I must admit I don't know that much about the program so I'm happy for you to correct me.

Furthermore I agree that if students need counselling on these issues it should be tailored to their individual needs. Kids these days have enough pressure with school work without all the other crap.

[Beervis]

There's plenty of reasons people don't vote too, everything from I forgot to didn't get a survey form - that happened to my mate's brother and he didn't get around to getting a replacement.

 

It's my understanding that the more 'challenging' aspects of safe schools had been removed from the program. And in any case it hasn't been rolled out in most schools across the country.

 

I've worked in a few LGBT rights organisations, including with uni students/young people - and I can tell you there is a definite need for something at a school level. It doesn't need to be hours of lectures about the ins and outs of brain chemistry and how hormones work, but some sort of bullying program is needed. It's really about normalisation, I think public schools have a responsibility to make sure that everyone feels included in the community. That includes disabled people and people from different religions and so on as well. Anyone who's not well understood by the mainstream of society. If we don't expose kids to difference then they'll become closed minded and tribal and stick to what they know and that's where prejudice comes from.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about religious parents pulling their kids out of those classes. I suppose that's ok, I mean I would want the right to keep my kids out of things I didn't agree with. It's complicated I guess - you can't hide from reality but we also don't want a world where parents have no rights.

 

 

 

[King Ruddager]

... when you create scenarios where biological parents & non-biological parents have equal rights to an infant or child' date=' I feel you have a serious problem, both morally & legally.

 

That door is now open.[/quote']

 

I've known people who have adopted babies, I've known people who seriously considered surrogacy and I know a single woman who has had two donor-sperm babies.

 

The door has been open for a long time.

[MarkC]

I’m a classic liberal/conservative who believes that change is only desirable when it clearly is an improvement (I’m sick of unintended consequences) and that the role of the state should be limited to maintaining the basic fabric of society. So I’m a big fan of SSM, because it treats all loving couples equally, and recognises that sexuality is no one else’s business.

The best parents are loving parents. I’ve seen plenty of dysfunctional straight couples who are doing irreparable harm to their children, and gays who are great, so clearly we straights don’t have a monopoly on good parenting.

As a lapsed Roman Catholic (but still a great fan of passion and mystery) I’m in favour of religious toterance, but totally against religious bigotry.

In the meantime, I’ve started brewing a Coopers amber ale for my forthcoming birthday. Hopefully the SSM legislation will be passed before then, so it will be a double celebration of life, liberty and happiness.

[Me Old Mate]

I think all marriage is gay.

 

I appreciate why homosexualists of a certain stripe might feel like it is important to join the marriage club, but it also means joining the divorce club, statistically speaking.

 

I couldn't care less how people want to live, but in no previous civilization that condoned gayness (ancient Greece, Rome, etc.) did people consider gay unions to be "marriage" - even Emperors and the like didn't call their gay lovers their husband or wife, they didn't feel the need to do the "me-too" thing.

 

I think it is a politically motivated distraction to make the present government look popular when it is just as crap as the last half a dozen morons have been. None of the actually vital issues (environment, farming crisis, mining exploitation, wealth inequality, banksterism, racism, anti-intellectualism, Assange still a political refugee despite two UN rulings in his favour, and annexation by the USA) are being addressed by either "side" of politics because there is only one side left, on both "sides".

 

It also still discriminates against bisexuals (why just one life partner if your natural inclination is more/less sophisticated than that?) and single people - why should anyone in a relationship get more advantages than they already enjoy by being in a relationship when single people have a much less secure outlook as it is? They should be banning all marriage, not making different types. ( Edit: I don't actually mean this, it's rhetorical. I don't mean they should ban marriage, I mean, they should just go "hey, maybe true equality means you don't even have to be married at all to enjoy equality" )

 

I don't see why the state has any business approving or disapproving any form of private relationship. it is not their place. It's our place to approve or disapprove of the government, not the other way around.

 

As far as Cooper's and the Bible Society goes, it's ironic. Bible Societies were behind the Temperance movement, which was anti-grog. On the other hand, Jesus turned water into wine, not the other way around, so perhaps he was a kind of yeast. And maybe there is a value in having a foot in enemy turf. I guess companies can do whatever they like, but it's hard to see how such a quintessentially pagan substance as beer could be approvingly associated with a creed that has spent most of the last two millennia expunging paganism, ecstatic activities, and closing pubs. Then again, who cares - Coopers makes some of the best products we have, and I like the way they do things.

[Beerlust]

SSM, no problem at all from where I sit.

...I've known people who seriously considered surrogacy and I know a single woman who has had two donor-sperm babies.

 

The door has been open for a long time.

I have a very big problem with this. Best I leave my comments at that.

 

Lusty.

 

[King Ruddager]

Points for consistency!

[Morrie]

I’m a classic liberal/conservative who believes that change is only desirable when it clearly is an improvement (I’m sick of unintended consequences) and that the role of the state should be limited to maintaining the basic fabric of society. So I’m a big fan of SSM' date=' because it treats all loving couples equally, and recognises that sexuality is no one else’s business.

The best parents are loving parents. I’ve seen plenty of dysfunctional straight couples who are doing irreparable harm to their children, and gays who are great, so clearly we straights don’t have a monopoly on good parenting.

As a lapsed Roman Catholic (but still a great fan of passion and mystery) I’m in favour of religious toterance, but totally against religious bigotry.

In the meantime, I’ve started brewing a Coopers amber ale for my forthcoming birthday. Hopefully the SSM legislation will be passed before then, so it will be a double celebration of life, liberty and happiness.[/quote']

 

I don't think I'm a classic liberal/conservative,.... but I like the way you think.