Australia living in the dark ages

[Booma]

The situation is complex in Oz because some laws vary from state to state but, at the moment, same-sex couples are still often discriminated against in areas like superannuation, pensions, tax concessions, carer's leave (sick partner), Medicare and PBS safety net, death benefits, access to aged care...... even occasionally being treated differently by hospital staff when their partner is critically ill or dying.

 

thank you. its nice to have someone answer the question instead of just ignore it or get angry that i asked.

[Parley]

I don't think there are any of the issues that Skani brought up.

They're used to be but these have all been dealt with.

[Diane]

I don't think there are any of the issues that Skani brought up.

They're used to be but these have all been dealt with.

 

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

As an example: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/south-australia-refuses-to-recognise-marriage-of-uk-man-who-died-on-adelaide-honeymoon/news-story/457d283f1f0946b767f70602e0ec3442

[Parley]

Australia doesn't have Gay marriage. That is obvious Diane.

 

That is separate to things like superannuation benefits raised by Skani which have been addressed years ago.

[Booma]

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

As an example: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/south-australia-refuses-to-recognise-marriage-of-uk-man-who-died-on-adelaide-honeymoon/news-story/457d283f1f0946b767f70602e0ec3442

 

 

do you also support plural marriage & equal rights for people in those marriages?

[Booma]

That is an interesting argument actually. Objectively, it is just another form of relationship that can be recognised by the state or not. The marriage equality debate goes to whether gay marriage fits with Australian values. Most people in Australia would agree that it does (I'm guessing) but most people in Australia would vote against plural marriage because it doesn't fit with Australian values. Ultimately, that is what is in question and that is not objective, even though your friend makes a reasonable argument.

 

 

its odd that plural marriage wouldnt be accepted. it seems more closely related to conventional marriage than homosexual marriage. the more i thought about it over the night the more sense it makes to make it legal.

[Parley]

Well Booma you are right that exactly the same arguments can be made about legalising plural marriage as gay marriage.

[akiralx]

its odd that plural marriage wouldnt be accepted. it seems more closely related to conventional marriage than homosexual marriage. the more i thought about it over the night the more sense it makes to make it legal.

 

How on earth is 'plural marriage' more closely related to conventional marriage than marriage equality? The last two are two people marrying, the first is more than two.

[Booma]

How on earth is 'plural marriage' more closely related to conventional marriage than marriage equality? The last two are two people marrying, the first is more than two.

 

i was thinking along the lines that in plural marriage between men and women they can procreate naturally the same as marriage between one man and one woman whereas homosexual couples cant procreate on their own. so from that view plural marriage is more closely aligned. either way though i am starting to think that if people believe in marriage equality then that should include all forms of marriage.

[robfromdublin]

I stand by my previous comments. It is an interesting and reasonable objective argument, but the question is not which is more closely aligned to traditional marriage using logic. The question is which of gay marriage and plural marriage more closely aligns with Australian values. I would expect gay marriage is much more closely aligned with Australian values than plural marriage.

[Skani]

now you are being silly.

 

If you studied the history of Malcolm Turnbull you would know that his actions since becoming leader are very different to his philosophy beforehand - and he's markedly compromised his beliefs to maintain his position. And they've said quite openly the results of the plebiscite won't be binding. So we are spending millions - at a time when we are continually being told the country is strapped for cash - on something which may produce no change at all....and will create a mess of divisiveness and discrimination along the way.

[Parley]

It will only produce no change if the people vote for no change.

[Skani]

I don't think there are any of the issues that Skani brought up.

They're used to be but these have all been dealt with.

 

They have not all been dealt with. Some organisations have dealt with them - but they are issues which are impacted by a whole raft of Commonwealth and State laws and attitudes and not all treat same sex and heterosexual couples equally.

[Skani]

It will only produce no change if the people vote for no change.

 

 

This was Abetz in January - and nothing has changed since then:

 

Coalition senator Eric Abetz claims he and other Liberal MPs do not have to respect the plebiscite’s result, and may not vote to legalise same-sex marriage even if the Australian people vote “yes”.Fellow Liberal senator Cory Bernardi declared he would never vote to legalise same-sex marriage – as has Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie.

...

A plebiscite does not bind MPs in any future vote on a piece of legislation.

 

[Skani]

my view is that they want to hi-jack marriage and use it as some sort of weapon in their quest.

 

How can they "hijack" marriage? Hijacking would mean preventing heterosexual marriage and forcing everyone into a same sex marriage. That ain't going to happen.

 

... in their quest

 

In their quest for what?

[Parley]

This was Abetz in January - and nothing has changed since then:

 

You could say the same about any plebiscite or referendum such as Brexit.

 

But the reality is if the people vote for something the parliament will adopt it.

If you vote against what your constituents want you won't last long in politics.

[Skani]

You could say the same about any plebiscite or referendum such as Brexit.

 

 

 

In Australian law a referendum and plebiscite are quite distinct legally - this from the Parliamentary Education Office:

 

[h=4]If a referendum is successful, the change must be implemented.[/h][h=3]Plebiscite[/h]In Australia, Unlike a referendum, the decision reached in a plebiscite does not have any legal force.

[robfromdublin]

I think this is a fine example of how neither major party in Australia actually gives a toss about governing properly. They have managed to turn something which is uncontroversial and has been widely adopted in the western world into a point-scoring contest. They are not even on either side of the issue, they are arguing over whether a vote is necessary or not, and not on the topic itself. If it came to it both parties would vote in favour, although some far-right members of the LNP would grumble about it. And yet somehow there's a massive debate between the two

[Parley]

Skani, I know you just take this stance because it is Liberal policy.

If it was reversed and Labor wanted to do the plebiscite you would be an enthusiastic supporter.

[robfromdublin]

If you vote against what your constituents want you won't last long in politics.

 

That's the whole problem. Australia will vote in favour, but some constituencies will vote against. MPs will then be faced with voting in line with their constituents wishes OR in line with the party's/Australia's wishes. So which way should an MP vote in such an instance?

[Parley]

Don't be so sure Australia will vote in favour.

That is why we need a plebiscite.

[Keith and Linda]

How can they "hijack" marriage? Hijacking would mean preventing heterosexual marriage and forcing everyone into a same sex marriage. That ain't going to happen.

 

 

 

In their quest for what?

 

Marriage has always, and in my opinion, should always remain between a man and a woman, therefore two people of the same sex cannot be married. However they can and should have, as is their quest, all the same rights and privileges of a married couple, but this union needs to be called by a different name and leave marriage to those that have and will get married in the belief that it is between a man and a woman.

[Guest241083]

.........and that's where the problem is...!

.........the name.....

.........married couple have entitlements.....

..........would those couples called by a different name have the same entitlement....?

..........not so far.....

[Parley]

They did in the UK have civil partnerships but they insisted on hijacking marriage as you said Keith.

[Keith and Linda]

.........and that's where the problem is...!

.........the name.....

.........married couple have entitlements.....

..........would those couples called by a different name have the same entitlement....?

..........not so far.....

 

And as form filling goes....................are you Single, married, de facto and now ??????????? easy really.

I have already opined regarding entitlements but incase you missed it, then Yes!