ACT Same-Sex Marriage Act in the High Court (2 Viewers)

[Crobat]

Imo religion has a role in the determination of laws in a democratic country if the large majority of civilians in that democracy follow those religious principles and if said principles don't outright discriminate against other people solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

i.e. for a majority Christian state like the Vatican City it would be reasonable to expect religion plays a major role in their laws etc. That's understandable since practically everyone there would agree to that.

But obviously if said state had a minority population of say Jews or Muslims or atheists and there were laws that actively discriminated against them, then that's not right.

From what I understand, the most followed religion in Australia is Christianity, with 61% (from the 2011 Census). Not all of said Christians are Catholic and not all of said Christians are necessarily particularly religious. As such i do not think it is unreasonable to expect religion in such a country should play little role in determining national policy and law if it was truly to reflect the democracy we live in.

Yeah, about 61% of the 75% of people who identify as religious in the country are Christians, and recent trends have shown that the % of Christians are steadily decreasing and the % of non-religious people are steadily increasing.

But yeah, laws generally should have limited interference with its subjects' personal lives and lifestyles, and since religions are a way of life, shouldn't play too much of a role.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

It's important to note that marriage of the kind desired by 'marriage equality' advocates can only exist with government. If government were to suddenly collapse and cease to exist, gays would still not have the right to marry, and yet there is no government restricting them from marrying. Then whence cometh the oppression? If a right does not exist in the absence of government, then how can government be responsible for the deprivation?

I think this is a really poor argument. It's not okay for a government to discriminate based on sexual preference just because the institution of marriage is dependent upon the existence of the government. Put it in another context:

The government decides that it wants to discriminate against black people. Anyone with dark skin is prohibited from attending a public school free of charge. If the government were to collapse no one would be able to access a free education, so is that okay? I mean, if a right does not exist in the absence of government, then how can government be responsible for the deprivation?

 

[Iwillget9995]

What's wrong with that? The point of 'debate' is to discredit other opinions.

This was just restating your argument before I refuted it.

verb (used with object), persecuted, persecuting.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

Don't talk like a pompous dickhead when you don't even know the meaning of rudimentary words

I was talking in abstraction about the difference between the right to be free from something, and the right to something. Also, it seems to fit the definition of people barred access from marriage due to their 'beliefs' (sexuality). Don't insult me.

What protected rights people should have is a contentious issue in the first place. You value gay marriage and think it should be protected, other people don't and think it shouldn't be protected. Why are your values any more valid than theirs?

Omg. Ok seriously you are just not getting it. Because my values don't infringe upon their liberties - their values do. If I value you stapling a sign to your back that says you are stupid, and you don't, your view is more valid, because it's your back, and my slight amusement shouldn't be privileged over your autonomy.




I said ultimately influences laws, as opposed to directly. Which it DOES, because the party is elected on the basis of an expectation to enact specific laws or some kind of laws that aim for a particular outcome. If voting had no influence on laws whatsoever then voting would be utterly meaningless.




muslims accuse anyone who isn't a muslim and talks about islam of being ignorant and unqualified to talk about it, but im sure they arent bigots.

ok, blatant generalisation, you're really not even trying at this point. thanks for saving me the effort of rebutting you.



Firstly, order is a state of being, not an institution.
The justice system is the very definition of an institution, mong. Order isn't a natural state, it's owned and enforced by police, the judiciary, laws implemented by the government. Don't be obtuse.

Secondly, the government has a monopoly on law and prohibits other law-making parties from operating within its jurisdiction.
Therefore its not a valid comparison.

Not at all - glad you brought this up! Because only the state can allow gay marriages to be legally officiated. Nothing else is 'allowed' as you put it - and since marriage is an intangible institution, it not being validated by the state is effectively the same as it being prohibited in any similar manner.

It's important to note that marriage of the kind desired by 'marriage equality' advocates can only exist with government. If government were to suddenly collapse and cease to exist, gays would still not have the right to marry, and yet there is no government restricting them from marrying. Then whence cometh the oppression? If a right does not exist in the absence of government, then how can government be responsible for the deprivation?


Omg. So stupid. Like seriously. You're obviously clever - can't you tell this is such shit?

The right to free health care does not exist in the absence of government.

The right to education does not exist in the absence of government.

The right to basic living (welfare) does not exist in the absence of government.

Yet the government has established these as rights. Denying them on the basis of any arbitrary factors (sexuality, religion, gender), would be deprivation.

 

[SylviaB]

I think this is a really poor argument. It's not okay for a government to discriminate based on sexual preference just because the institution of marriage is dependent upon the existence of the government.

I'm not saying that's why its okay to discriminate, I'm saying that this discrimination is not equivalent to people being actively prohibited from doing something.

I mean, if a right does not exist in the absence of government, then how can government be responsible for the deprivation?

because attending public school is not a liberty that people naturally have in the first place

 

[Iwillget9995]

I'm not saying that's why its okay to discriminate, I'm saying that this discrimination is not equivalent to people being actively prohibited from doing something.



because attending public school is not a liberty that people naturally have in the first place

I think you're operating in a vacuum from the responsibilities of nation states and the norms of government. Enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights is free-access public education, basic standard of living, etc.

There is no liberty that people 'naturally have'. Name one right that isn't contingent on something. Even free speech is contingent on you not fearing for your life for speaking out against corruption.

However, in a modern context, governments have certain obligations and expectations to afford rights to everyone. Because such rights are the norm - or base line - and not a discretionary luxury, a government not providing them constitutes deprivation.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

because attending public school is not a liberty that people naturally have in the first place

I'm not following this. You're saying that the reason equal access to education can't be compared to marriage equality because access to education is 'not a liberty that people naturally have in the first place'. Does this mean you're saying that we do have the freedom to marry whomever we choose 'naturally in the first place'?

Besides the right to a free basic education is a human right under international law. Which technically means its very definition is a right which everyone has 'naturally in the first place' just by virtue of their humanity. But whatever.

 

[SylviaB]

[]I was talking in abstraction about the difference between the right to be free from something, and the right to something. Also, it seems to fit the definition of people barred access from marriage due to their 'beliefs' (sexuality). Don't insult me.[/B]

No you weren't talking in abstraction because you said "should prioritise people's rights to be free from persecution over people's rights to have laws made in their favour i.e. they should prioritise the right for LGBT peoples to not be banned access to marriage, "

Do I need to explain to you what 'i.e.' means too?

[]Omg. Ok seriously you are just not getting it. Because my values don't infringe upon their liberties - their values do. If I value you stapling a sign to your back that says you are stupid, and you don't, your view is more valid, because it's your back, and my slight amusement shouldn't be privileged over your autonomy.[/B]

Right, but I'm disputing the notion that gay marriage is a liberty to begin with!

The justice system is the very definition of an institution, mong.

then fucking say justice system then

Order isn't a natural state, it's owned and enforced by police, the judiciary, laws implemented by the government. Don't be obtuse.

order has existed in stateless societies before, and the police and laws aim for order but are not order themselves and often fail to provide order which proves that they're two distinct things.

Not at all - glad you brought this up! Because only the state can allow gay marriages to be legally officiated. Nothing else is 'allowed' as you put it - and since marriage is an intangible institution, it not being validated by the state is effectively the same as it being prohibited in any similar manner.

The government fails to grant an innumerable number of rights, does that mean we are being persecuted? Deprived of our liberty?

Omg. So stupid. Like seriously. You're obviously clever - can't you tell this is such shit?

The right to free health care does not exist in the absence of government.

The right to education does not exist in the absence of government.

The right to basic living (welfare) does not exist in the absence of government.

Yet the government has established these as rights.
[/B]

Yes, which means that none of those things are liberties.

Denying them on the basis of any arbitrary factors (sexuality, religion, gender), would be deprivation.

Sex is not an arbitrary factor.

And like I said, I can conceive of any number of rights that the government does not grant us. Are we being deprived?

Ought the government provide us with every right that anyone could possibly think of?

What makes a lack of marriage rights a deprivation but not any other rights, like the right to free home delivered ice cream from the government?

 

[Iwillget9995]

Denying them on the basis of any arbitrary factors (sexuality, religion, gender), would be deprivation.

Sex is not an arbitrary factor.

And like I said, I can conceive of any number of rights that the government does not grant us. Are we being deprived?

Ought the government provide us with every right that anyone could possibly think of?

What makes a lack of marriage rights a deprivation but not any other rights, like the right to free home delivered ice cream from the government?

We have a small number of well considered rights that are protected under international law. Stop just throwing shit around.

A 'right' is called that because it has been deemed important enough to be a free entitlement to every individual.

 

[Iwillget9995]

I can't be bothered arguing with you. I'm right and you're wrong in my opinion, you obviously hold the opposite view. Society will legalise gay marriage within five years and you can complain and intellectualise over 'liberties' (whatever the fuck you mean by that, your nomenclature is horribly confusing) all you want, but the important thing to realise is that none of what either of us says here will have any impact whatsoever.

So really, you lose, cause gay marriage is going to be a right in a few years and you can't do shit about it.

 

[SylviaB]

I can't be bothered arguing with you.

then fuck off you little homo

 

[Iwillget9995]

then fuck off you little homo

It's cute you think that will in some way be hurtful

Enjoy your small life.

 

[Graney]

Because whilst there is a strong foundation of ethics (and tolerance, love, happiness, etc) in religious texts, there is also a strong foundation of discrimination. Laws govern the lives of everyone in the state, and I see no reason why those who do not follow the particular religion of our politicians to have to have their liberties subject to religiously-sourced discrimination and interference in their lives, especially when they are not also a follower of said religion.

My thoughts would be;
- all public policy is founded in discrimination, as we live in a world of limited resources, government discriminate whenever they prioritise one interest over another. So discrimination per se can't be said to be a bad thing, I infer you're saying discrimination should be utilitarian in nature, a test which you think religious decision making clearly fails but...
- Religious politicians would argue their decision making IS utilitarian in any given situation, it will promote the most good for the most people.
- you're characterising aspects you personally agree with as a valid 'strong foundation of ethics', while the parts you disagree with are 'discrimination', when it is all perceived as ethical by the religious person, and they can provide justification for why the alleged discrimination is ethical.

I expect them to do so when the risk of harm is minimal to society, and yet religiously forbidden.

The risk of harm to society from legalising gay marriage is perceived to be high.

It's fine if their personal ethical determination is influenced by their religious beliefs, but as a politician you are supposed to be a representative of society. Our society is multicultural and multi-faithful, so their personal religious beliefs shouldn't be interfering with the lives, liberties and beliefs of the subjects of their decision making.

- "as a politician you are supposed to be a representative of society" - as a lower house federal MP you are supposed to represent your electorate, as a senator you definitely should represent your state and not the whole of Australia. So if you're from a bumpkin electorate or state, like Katter or Lambie, certain minorities would compose a very small proportion of your representation, and conservative religious policies may in fact closely represent all but a small proportion of your society.
- legalising gay marriage is perceived to be harmful to the lives, liberties, and beliefs of society.

Laws are ethically limited to the narrow measurement of harm to society; their purpose is to maintain social order and well-being by prohibiting harmful actions. All I expect of politicians is that they use the basis of harm to society as the chief measurement of assessing ethical laws, rather than their religious beliefs.

I think Kevin Andrews sincerely believes that Gay marriage will disrupt the social order and cause harm to society. So by your assessment he is operating within an acceptably ethically limited scope.

 

[Maxwell]

then fuck off you little homo

Grow up. For somebody who is attempting to act mature, you're not doing very well.

And yes, gay marriage is not a 'right' in the first place. However, recall a time wherein Aboriginals were unable to marry, vote and were declared 'animals' and not citizens. Look how much times have changed. Look at how the Constitution has changed as a result. Laws, and indeed, the Constitution are reflective of public morality. Various media articles and polls have demonstrated that over 65% of people support gay marriage, and that this is rapidly increasing, whereas those that are anti-gay marriage are decreasing. In regards to your argument that X% of Australians are Christian, and, as a result, laws should reflect Christian values, is hilarious. Various documentaries by Richard Dawkins have highlighted that many people claim to be 'Christian' when surveyed so they seem like 'good' people, but in actuality, they do not actively practice the religion nor do they advocate a lot of the values expressed in the Bible. Furthermore, a lot of Christians I know actually support gay-marriage. How can laws encompass all of these 'Christian' values at once? Because, these people are 'Christian' too. Indeed, the law should not be influenced by religion whatsoever, but rather by the votes/opinions of the people, because, after all, we are a democracy. And these votes/opinions of people seem to think gay marriage is something homosexuals are entitled to; whether or not this is a 'right' of these individuals can be disputed, but remember people didn't really think that Aboriginals had the 'right' to marriage either, and that 'racial mixing' was wrong and immoral. Look at society now. The same can be applied to gay marriage as it is "Catching fire" [Katniss Everdeen] (yes I just did that). The case against gay marriage is ridiculous. "Gay marriage will tear the fabric of society!!!!!!!" Really? Look at countries that have legalised gay marriage. Are people marrying donkeys/cows? Nup. Has Satan risen up from Hell and destroyed everything? Nup. "HOMOSEXUALITY IS CONTAGIOUS OMFG." Really? There is no proof of this - people in countries where gay marriage is legalised don't seem to have rapidly increasing rates of homosexuals. If it is true, however, you might want to exit this forum as you could catch my homosexuality via the internet...


Grow up and have a lovely day.

 

[Kiraken]

then fuck off you little homo

strong homophobe butthurt

 

[Crobat]

My thoughts would be;
- all public policy is founded in discrimination, as we live in a world of limited resources, government discriminate whenever they prioritise one interest over another. So discrimination per se can't be said to be a bad thing, I infer you're saying discrimination should be utilitarian in nature, a test which you think religious decision making clearly fails but...
- Religious politicians would argue their decision making IS utilitarian in any given situation, it will promote the most good for the most people.
- you're characterising aspects you personally agree with as a valid 'strong foundation of ethics', while the parts you disagree with are 'discrimination',

You will have to forgive me for more or less 'cherry-picking' the lessons and values I see in religion as ethical as they do not persecute or as they preach acceptance/tolerance/etc and others as discrimination/intolerance etc seeing as I come from a non-religious (and non-anti-religion) background and will naturally will only look onto these lessons from a more objective viewpoint than someone directly involved with religion.

when it is all perceived as ethical by the religious person, and they can provide justification for why the alleged discrimination is ethical.

I understand and appreciate this entirely from their point of view, but the over-arching point I am making is that not everyone lives under the same code of ethics or lifestyle practiced by the myriad of religions practiced in the world and should accordingly not be subjected to discrimination and/or exclusion on a legal level simply because certain members of the law making body possess those religious beliefs, having regard for the fact of course that the law making body is supposed to be secular.

The risk of harm to society from legalising gay marriage is perceived to be high.

I believe this is certainly where the main discussion regarding gay marriage should be had, as opposed to a discussion regarding religion in law or any other reason.

Given that the majority of people support gay marriage, even if it could be said the risk to society was high (of which there has been little to no reason, economic or other, beyond religious values that suggests it is), on a state level the majority is willing to accept that risk. I think it also shows that the majority do not perceive the risk to be high at all, and by extension to be existent at all, and so I don't think this statement can be true.

- "as a politician you are supposed to be a representative of society" - as a lower house federal MP you are supposed to represent your electorate, as a senator you definitely should represent your state and not the whole of Australia. So if you're from a bumpkin electorate or state, like Katter or Lambie, certain minorities would compose a very small proportion of your representation, and conservative religious policies may in fact closely represent all but a small proportion of your society.
- legalising gay marriage is perceived to be harmful to the lives, liberties, and beliefs of society.

This is actually a very good point I think many (including myself) look over when discussing political matters. Having said that, I think that even if the views expressed by your electorate are conservative and grounded in religious views, as a politician it should be their voice and not your own religious voice influencing your decision. That being said, if your electorate is opposed to something like gay marriage, then I think it is acceptable for you to be against gay marriage because the people you immediately represent have influenced your decision so, not because of your personal character.

I think Kevin Andrews sincerely believes that Gay marriage will disrupt the social order and cause harm to society. So by your assessment he is operating within an acceptably ethically limited scope.

I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But this is why I think the discussion should really be regarding whether any legitimate harm to society could be caused by gay marriage.

I (and many others) of course feel that little to no harm can come of gay marriage, and I think the resounding arguments coming from the opposition such as "it harms the child's development by denying them either a mother or father" and "it'll harm the institution of marriage" have had research which suggests that they are overwhelming unfounded and/or incorrect:

1. Beyond Hypocrisy to Absurdity: The Fortunes of Same-Sex Marriage.
2. Marriage is Best for Raising Children... That's Why We Need Marriage Equality.
3. Don't Believe the Hype: Kids With Same-Sex Parents Are Well Adjusted.
4. Kids From Same-Sex Families Fare As Well As Peers - or Better.
5. Children Raised by Same-Sex Couples Healthier, Study Finds.

On balance, I would say that law-makers have a responsibility to maintain the secular operation that the Legislature was created with and that they are failing that when it comes to same-sex marriage.