• 258
  • 29586
Image for Boy asks Gillard: How come you didn't let gay people get married?

Boy asks Gillard: How come youdidn't let gay people getmarried?

In a rare appearance since she was toppled from her Prime Ministership by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard faced a big question asked by a small boy.

At a Q&A style forum last night at Sydney Opera House, the kid needed a little boost to reach the microphone so he could ask his question: “How come you didn’t let gay people get married?”

The former PM initially laughed as the audience cheered the boy’s question.

“It’s a politician in the making there I think,” she smiled.

“I do understand that the position I took on gay marriage perplexed many people,” she then answered, “given who I am and so many of my beliefs.

“I’ve actually had lots of conversations with many of my old friends about this – some of them have got a different view than me.

“I do understand that the position I took on gay marriage perplexed many people.”

“But I’m a lot older than you, and when I went to university and started forming my political views of the world, we weren’t talking about gay marriage. As feminists, we were critiquing marriage.”

Getting into a white dress to symbolise virginity and getting ‘given away’ to a man by her father were traditions she found puzzling, she explained. “What on earth would I do that for?”

“I’m conscious that these views are dated and that the way people interpret marriage now is different,” she then reflected.

But: “I think marriage in our society could play its traditional role, and we could come up with other institutions which value partnerships, value love, value lifetime commitment.

“I have a valuable lifetime commitment and haven’t felt the need at any point to make that into a marriage.”

Gillard then stressed that for marriage equality to happen in this current parliament, a conscience vote needs to take place from all parties, so that every MP’s view is heard.

Watch Gillard’s reply to the little boy’s marriage equality question below.

You can see more footage from last night’s Julia Gillard talk here.

Then-PM Kevin Rudd’s outspoken support for marriage equality in the run-up to the 2013 election was in stark contrast to Gillard’s long-held view against it – and now the two men vying for future leadership of the Labor party are also speaking out in favour of Marriage Act reform.

Asked about it on the ABC’s Q&A last night, Anthony Albanese was the first to pledge his support, saying “whoever people love is a matter for them. When this is done, people will wonder what the fuss is about.”

Bill Shorten expressed similar sentiments. “Who you choose to love is your business,” he said. “I voted for marriage equality.”

He also called on the Liberals to allow a conscience vote on the issue when it next comes up in Parliament.

Albanese then added: “If you’re a supporter of the institution of marriage, it’s beyond me why you wouldn’t want more people to be part of it.”

Social

Comments

www.samesame.com.au arrow left
32652
Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Who are the non-religious anti-M.E. groups?

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 3rd Oct, 2013


Cirrus – you know Mama has no beef with you and does respect you but that aside she does feel the need to comment on this statement
Sue is no martyr to the cause and she certainly isn’t supporting OUR community. She is supporting those who agree with her. People who truly support the community would accept that others can have different opinions, and while they may not agree with them, they wouldn’t resort to ridicule, intimidation and threats.

You also mentioned people’s motivation for opposing or not supporting M.E. Why is that we are automatically assumed to have some clandestine motive? Bar Wench, Mr Ash and Mama are all long-time members of SameSame and have proven we are not clones or trolls. Mama does not know of the others relationship status but Mama has been in a relationship for nearly 8 years so the old “You don’t have anyone to love, that’s why you won’t support M.E. claim doesn’t apply. Previous posts over the years have shown we are not Christian fundamentalists. Unlike Sue who claims to not need or desire that people like her, normal people actually crave approval and acceptance from others – so why would we be making such an unpopular stance? To Mama being asked what her motive is for not supporting M.E. is kind of like being asked when did she choose to turn gay – in both cases it wasn’t a choice. Maybe it’s because of the way she was socialised, maybe its life experience, maybe it’s her work, maybe its Maybelline. Who knows? All Mama can say is that it’s just the way she sees things and that does not make her any less a member of the GLBTIQ community – it just makes her a member that has a differing opinion on one particular issue. Nothing insidious. Nothing sinister. Just a different way of seeing things

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

What practical benefits?
Doesn't bother me if married couples get benefits others don't, but I'm not the one saying marriage is equality.
You're perpetuating the fundamental contradiction.

I'm not getting drawn into a debate on the practical benefits in marriage equality. You've been opposing M.E. persistently for some time already (I've asked but can only guess why, since you're deflecting, as did MrAsh), and I'm sure that you're capable enough to be informed by now if you were really interested. As for your statements, well... I'm not sure whether I should bother clarifying - just read over them again and think a little more... Preferably do so next time before posting? :)

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



The UK has a much larger media industry, Australia will never have as vibrant a media industry as the UK. Therefore, the UK has more famous people gay or straight. The point is Australians are for marriage equality (the majority) at the same level as the UK, and definitely MUCH higher than for example when Canada passed equality in 2005. A referendum would be won now, I believe, and I WANT ONE FOR 2014!

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



News Limited has no reason to want to defeat marriage equality. Marriage equality is good for business if anything!

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



What a load of shit! So because they have a higher population then therefore they will have more gay folks on TV. Its got nothing to do with the size of the population - who gets the jobs depends on how high they rate with the general public. Furthermore explain this - Cathy Freeman won gold - sponsors were clambering to get her to endorse products. Matthew Mitcham won gold - struggled to get one sponsor. He was even advised prior to the games not to come out as it may hinder sponsorship deals.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



So you think there's more homophobia out there than I do, yet you don't mind the law discriminating against you and entrenching homophobia. Interesting attitude.

As for Freeman vs Mitcham - that happens all over the world I think. I'm sorry to inform you that getting more gay people on TV won't change that. Also, if Australia had as many gay TV personalities as the UK has, Australia would almost have only gay TV personalities. It's not just about population, Australia's media industry is small and weak!

At least we don't seem to have UK-tabloid-style transphobia here. That would be really scary. Yet that didn't stop the UK from having marriage equality.

Anyway, I can't think of any famous gay Kiwis, didn't stop NZ from getting equality did it? You are just unwilling to make marriage equality the #1 issue, let's face it! You are not willing to have the fight for equality, and it's SAD.

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Cirrus – you know Mama has no beef with you and does respect you but that aside she does feel the need to comment on this statement
Sue is no martyr to the cause and she certainly isn’t supporting OUR community. She is supporting those who agree with her. People who truly support the community would accept that others can have different opinions, and while they may not agree with them, they wouldn’t resort to ridicule, intimidation and threats.

You also mentioned people’s motivation for opposing or not supporting M.E. Why is that we are automatically assumed to have some clandestine motive? Bar Wench, Mr Ash and Mama are all long-time members of SameSame and have proven we are not clones or trolls. Mama does not know of the others relationship status but Mama has been in a relationship for nearly 8 years so the old “You don’t have anyone to love, that’s why you won’t support M.E. claim doesn’t apply. Previous posts over the years have shown we are not Christian fundamentalists. Unlike Sue who claims to not need or desire that people like her, normal people actually crave approval and acceptance from others – so why would we be making such an unpopular stance? To Mama being asked what her motive is for not supporting M.E. is kind of like being asked when did she choose to turn gay – in both cases it wasn’t a choice. Maybe it’s because of the way she was socialised, maybe its life experience, maybe it’s her work, maybe its Maybelline. Who knows? All Mama can say is that it’s just the way she sees things and that does not make her any less a member of the GLBTIQ community – it just makes her a member that has a differing opinion on one particular issue. Nothing insidious. Nothing sinister. Just a different way of seeing things

Hi Mama, it's been a while. :) I was just responding to MrAsh. The point was that there are obvious reasons why anyone on this site would support LGBT rights. I really don't want to get drawn into arguments about individual personalities. I don't have doubts about you, (apart from the anger). I appreciate that you've shown kindness and respect for me both when we've had similar views as well as when we've differed, and I haven't forgotten that you gave me emotional support when I really needed it :') . I'm really just trying to understand the reasons for this constant opposition to M.E. at SS, beyond the particular arguments repeatedly used in this debate. In your case, is it perhaps that you're offended that marriage is presented as something superior to your de-facto relationship? I could understand if that seems hurtful. Personally, when I find the right man, I'd just use the advantages of "marriage" for a relationship that would be much like yours. Why not just choose whichever is best? Who cares whether it's called "de-facto" or "marriage". When equality is inevitably achieved, we'll ALL be better off having that option, as well as by whatever good comes from the removal of legal discrimination which bears on us whether we marry or not.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Well, the issue at hand is whether it is called de-facto or marriage, isn't it? And if it isn't called marriage it isn't equality! Wake up!

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Cirrus 'equality' isn't a straight forward concept. It's riddled with complexities and contradictions and just because you've been granted 'equal' to the status quo, doesn't mean you are really equal.

Moreover, equal rights do not equate with genuine freedom. Despite formal legal equality between the sexes, women's earnings are still only four-fifths of men's. Over thirty years after the end of racially discriminatory statutes in the US, the segregation of black and white communities is greater than in the 1950s and the black underclass is just as locked out of economic success as it was prior to the start of the civil rights era.

These are lessons that we queers ignore at our peril. The same fate awaits us if we jump on the equality bandwagon. We will end up with equal rights, but within a fundamentally unjust society where the rules are skewed against sexual choice and self-determination.

Isn't it obvious? Equality for queers is a political deal that leads to social assimilation. As a condition of equal treatment, we homosexuals are expected to conform to the straight system, adopting its norms and aspirations. The end result is gay co-option and invisibilisation.

- Tatchell, Peter Campaigning for equality is short-sighted and inadequate. Queer emancipation involves much more than equal rights 2001

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/equality_not_enough/equality_is_not_enough.htm

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Sorry MrAsh, that's marriage equality. I of course wasn't suggesting that it'd solve all problems, just that it's a step forward and silly to oppose imo.

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

So you think there's more homophobia out there than I do, yet you don't mind the law discriminating against you and entrenching homophobia. Interesting attitude.

As for Freeman vs Mitcham - that happens all over the world I think. I'm sorry to inform you that getting more gay people on TV won't change that. Also, if Australia had as many gay TV personalities as the UK has, Australia would almost have only gay TV personalities. It's not just about population, Australia's media industry is small and weak!

At least we don't seem to have UK-tabloid-style transphobia here. That would be really scary. Yet that didn't stop the UK from having marriage equality.

Anyway, I can't think of any famous gay Kiwis, didn't stop NZ from getting equality did it? You are just unwilling to make marriage equality the #1 issue, let's face it! You are not willing to have the fight for equality, and it's SAD.

You are delusional. All hatred is based around fear - fear of the unknown, fear of change, fear of whatever but its all based on fear. Visibility of gay folks especially in high profile positions i.e.TV helps to demystify the GLBTIQ community therefore increasing acceptance from the straight community.

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



So its just about the name to you is it? You just want to be able to say you're married. That is by far the most pathetic reason for wanting M.E. Mama has ever heard

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Oh MrAsh, do you really think that's a reason to deny marriage to those of us who want it? You seem to be immersed in the anti-M.E. propaganda. Try stepping away from it for a while and see whether it still makes sense when you come back to it later. I'm tired, and I've had enough here. Goodnight.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



To you marriage equality is a step forward, yet it's still riddled with contradictions and complexities. It still espouses that marriages are superior to all other forms of relationships in our society. To me that is not equality, that's blatant elitism.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



You seem to be immersed in the pro-M.E. propaganda. Why don't you step away from it for a while and see whether it still makes sense when you come back to it later.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Every couple needs to be able to say that. This isn't the case in Australia at the moment, therefore we have no equality. It's as simple as this.

And whilst you may not think much of marriage, it is different for those of us from conservative backgrounds. I respect your choice to not get married, but it doesn't change that we don't have equality, and it is hurting some members of the community.

Mama Catastrophe

Mama Catastrophe said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Every couple needs to be able to say that. This isn't the case in Australia at the moment, therefore we have no equality. It's as simple as this.

And whilst you may not think much of marriage, it is different for those of us from conservative backgrounds. I respect your choice to not get married, but it doesn't change that we don't have equality, and it is hurting some members of the community.

1. Bullshit. Mamas been with her boyfriend for nearly 8 years and has never needed to say that she was married
2. Your conservative background is not Mamas concern
3. M.E. will not give us equality - haters gonna hate
4. Absolutely done with you lady. If theres one thing that Mama cannot stand on this planet is people who are so desperate to achieve celebrity status that they beg for folks to "like" thier fan pages - just like you have here on your profile page. As Mama said in a previous post - this little bit of crap you're posting here may generate some visits to your blog and one of your 4 facebook pages but you can guarantee Mama wont be helping you along the way

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

1. Bullshit. Mamas been with her boyfriend for nearly 8 years and has never needed to say that she was married
2. Your conservative background is not Mamas concern
3. M.E. will not give us equality - haters gonna hate
4. Absolutely done with you lady. If theres one thing that Mama cannot stand on this planet is people who are so desperate to achieve celebrity status that they beg for folks to "like" thier fan pages - just like you have here on your profile page. As Mama said in a previous post - this little bit of crap you're posting here may generate some visits to your blog and one of your 4 facebook pages but you can guarantee Mama wont be helping you along the way

1. You may not feel the need but many do. Can't you empathize?
2. Many LGBTI come from conservative backgrounds.
3. I am talking about equality in LAW. Discrimination is another thing - racial discrimination in law is long gone yet racism is alive and well. But we need equality in LAW.
4. My profile page (since changed) was generated from my facebook profile. The pages are for the singer-songwriter TaraElla, not myself (I am just a fan of hers). I also do not have any intention of promoting my stuff on here.

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



I'm too wide awake at this time of morning... that's the problem. I actually support marriage equality, and I agree that it does matter. The comment you quoted was referring to the option to re-define marriage as we wish. A lot of us have reservations about the traditional concept of marriage, and it's important to remember that it's up to the couple whether to follow every custom. I think that divorce should be de-stigmatised for example, but that's cultural, not legal. I clearly and repeatedly said that when equality is achieved, we will be better off with that option... so wake up yourself! :D

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Divorce is de-stigmatised in our secular society, it's only religion which frowns upon it. Also if you have reservations about the traditional concept of marriage, why are you wanting for same sex couples to be entitled to the same legislation which enshrines the traditional Judeao-Christian concept of marriage.

If you want real equality you'll be asking why society isn't demanding for relationship equality for all consensual forms of relationships and asking for the marriage act to be revised so it reflects modern secular society.

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Buddy we hear you going on about others acting like fundamentalists trying to shut down debate, yet you cry 'misogyny' at every turn, and then can't justify it. Two can play that game you homophobic twit, because the homophobes would just love some of the stuff you say, they say the same things themselves. I repeat to the mods, I believe this and possibly others here are trolls under false IDs.

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Heavens, you misandrist, maybe you think all gay men are misogynists, after all, we are attracted to men rather than women!

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

The way I'm reading the last few posts is that you are questioned why you oppose marriage equality so vehemently and you are saying because it doesn't go far enough. Is that correct? You are not opposed to it but you would like more.

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

As an expat NZer, I would like to congratulate the united gay community there and the forward thinking society, the sky didn't cave in when you made your recent change, try telling the backward thinkers on the west island that, lol. And I'll expect the usual knee jerk immature reply to that.

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



I thought the same thing at first. It is easy to confuse them when they use the same arguments. It does beg the question why. What is there to gain?

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



Cheers Sue, I don't know you but you are spot on with your arguments. I query why queers feel they have to defend themselves on their own site. Ridiculous stuff. And one good thing about the election, Gillard Gonski.

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



To quote Gerry Rafferty: Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right...

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

I'm not sure which planet or country that Julia lives in, a father giving a dressed-in-a-white-gown daughter is still a common scene at weddings. Just fucking stop lying! You say you're a feminist who critiques marriage - why on earth didn't you stop marriage between a man and a woman? Abbott may not be very popular with his views on gay marriage but at least his don't sound inconsistent.

The audience was stupid too to clap after that white=virginity statement, totally bought what Julia just sold, trying to cover up. Why no gay marriage - oh because I don't agree with women being given away as a piece of meat.

This is a gimmick from Gillard, again. How on earth does the old patriarchal notion of marriage apply to a union of 2 women or 2 men? Stop the shite Gillard. As for feminism, worry instead about Miley and Britney in music vids, while One Direction stay clean cut and wholesome. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

It's a bit like that around here. I imagine that the fundo groups would have their own internal debates too. I do support debate but this hasn't really felt like debating. It feels like LGBTIQ members actively lobbying against M.E. and that is strange on so many levels. They are not lobbying for the issues they care about but against an issue that a large number of gays and lesbians care about.

Goldberry

Goldberry said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

I agree that marriage equality is not the be all and end all, but I don't turn into an own goal kicker, and actively argue against gay rights, whether that is the intention or perception. People are entitled to such views however odd, but don't be surprised if others also exercise their free speech on what is after all a pro gay forum.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



SS is a GLBT forum, and as far as I can see nobody here has said they oppose equality or marriage rights for our community. So in a respect pro-marriage people are preaching to the converted.

In the words of one of my favourite punk bands - 'Dissent's not treason but you talk like it's the same'.

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

I see a lot of parroting of fundo arguments. The atmosphere is toxic here at times. Some of the worst attacks I've seen were on the Cat Rose thread. These people attack with brutality those fighting for LGBTI rights. It is easy to mistake them for trolls especially with such a charged political atmosphere and the fundos on the defensive, but I've been repeatedly reassured they're not. They do the same job in any case.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 3rd Oct, 2013



And pray tell Sue, how do the disgusting lies you parrot about me maintain the serenity?

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

^I told you it is best that you and I don't engage each other in conversation because this contributes to the negative atmosphere of the forum. Everything I've said about you is the truth. And out of curiosity why do you wear a crucifix and constantly use religious undertones in your language? I have so many misgivings about you I can't fit them on a A4 page. But that doesn't really matter. As I said, each to their own. There is no reason why we both cannot peacefully coexist on this forum if we don't engage each other.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Not everyone sees the world in a binary way Sue. In my mind you are poorer for it. I would be perfectly happy to stay on topic and to not engage with your ranting, but unfortunately every reply you make to me is laced with a veiled threat or a sledge against my moral fortitude. If you keep going on like this I will relent and let everyone on this forum know about the depth of the irrational and unstable behaviour that led to us falling out. I guarantee you will not like the shoe being on the other foot. It has been going on for months now and I have well and truly had enough.

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

I have nothing to hide. You are free to discuss anything with anyone you like. If you lie, which I know from experience you are quite capable of doing, then that is a different problem.

But when you discuss the morality of others or the morally right thing to do generally, when I know your own behaviour is so dishonourable, it is hard not to say anything. It's the shameless hypocrisy that gets to me. Still, there are no veiled threats or anything of the sort. I am too busy to deal with you and have let all that go. Keep the money you promised to pay me back, just leave me alone won't you? F and her kid are seriously ill and I have a business to run all on my own while not feeling well myself. You and what happened months ago is the least of my concerns.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Well shut the fuck up about it and move on.

I stole nothing from you. You took it upon yourself to buy a non-refundable ticket to come down to stay at my house. You were acting crazy so I asked you not to. Do not make it sound like I emptied your bank accounts.

Sue

Sue said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Not quite. You invited me to come, then you canceled at the last moment and said you were sorry. You asked for my bank details to pay me back. The money never came. You acted with no honour. I did nothing wrong. I was nice to you and very willing to maintain a friendship. You have no reason to be disrespectful.

The right thing would have been to just refund my fare. You offered to do it yourself, what made you change your mind?

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 3rd Oct, 2013

Well it's clear that you and I have a very different take on what happened.

Yes I did offer to pay you back but you refused to allow me. Then you marinated on it, picked a fight and started sledging me before demanding that I pay you after all. Why would I give you the satisfaction? At this point I don't care if you lost three million dollars. I hate your guts.

Sue

Sue said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Actually, no we got into a fight after you refused to pay me back. That's why we had the fight. I remember sending you a message 'hun, did you get a chance to wire that money?' and just silence on the other end. So you offered to pay me back counting on me refusing, and when I said 'yes, all right' all of a sudden you changed your mind.

Regardless, the right thing would have been to pay me back. That would have been the fair thing to do in business and in a friendly relationship like ours if you wanted to maintain the friendship. You just threw away a friendship and your honour for as little as $300 bucks. Then you expect me to say nothing on the forums and engage you in conversation. I don't hate your guts, I just don't want to have any dealings with you anymore. I am disappointed by your lack of integrity. I would never do a thing like that. If I say I would do something you can consider it done. This is why it worries me that I've promised MLP not to talk to you and here I am talking to you. Let's stop this for MLPs sake.

mark_

mark_ said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Hmmm… I think this personal fight could be moved to the personal messages.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

^ Sue has bombarded me with PM's and text message, all the while still sledging me on the public forums. She is an attention seeker and wants to drag everyone else into her miserable existence. The mods have been asleep on this matter for months now.

And as for MLP, give it a fucking rest. Going back to my very first point on this thread, nobody needs to hide behind children to make a point that is entirely in their own interests.

Sue

Sue said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Actually no. I wanted to expose you on the public forum, but MLP asked me to stop so I stopped. Now it's you that keeps it going, not me. This happened on 20/8, then we had some more messaging about it on 26/08 and then on 01/09. You disabled your profile on here and came back as someone else. I think there has been no activity on this matter for about a month. Every now and then I get annoyed with you taking the high ground on an issue and I snap, but generally I have tried to stay out of any engagement with you.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

The projection in your posts astounds me. You have no bearing in reality Sue.

I disabled my profile because your relentless harrassment made it impossible for me to post. Also, the fact that you told me you were going to 'Track me down and teach me a lesson for my own good' was extremely alarming coming from an unstable person who's been known to brag about her gun licence.

mark_

mark_ said on the 4th Oct, 2013

^ Well in that case, how about taking this personal fight into a separate thread? Such as —

http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=678139#post678139

:)

zebra23

zebra23 said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Suggestion : Both of you could each pay half?

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

I would rather pay zero, thanks.

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Divorce is de-stigmatised in our secular society, it's only religion which frowns upon it. Also if you have reservations about the traditional concept of marriage, why are you wanting for same sex couples to be entitled to the same legislation which enshrines the traditional Judeao-Christian concept of marriage.

If you want real equality you'll be asking why society isn't demanding for relationship equality for all consensual forms of relationships and asking for the marriage act to be revised so it reflects modern secular society.

Re divorce, to some extent, yes I agree, although it's still widely regarded as a failed marriage - but that's an irrelevant side-issue. I was previously put off by traditional notions of marriage, but really it's just a legal union of two people, which can be re-defined and used as the couple chooses. If you want it to involve religion, tradition, or other type of relationship e.g. 'open', that's up to you. As for recognition of poly relationships, if that's what you want, go ahead and campaign for it. It's not something which should be used to attack those of us who are just demanding our own marriage rights as same-sex couples.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 4th Oct, 2013



I've always stated I'm not against marriage equality as such, what I'm against is the lack of critical debate about the issue and that it doesn't go far enough to focus on bring about equality and recognition of all consensual forms of adult human relationships.



http://www.beyondmarriage.org/

observer

observer said on the 4th Oct, 2013

I am absolutely horrified at personal attacks being directed in all directions.
It is very immature to say the least.

Marko

Marko said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Here I am stuck in the middle with you...


Lol seriously no one jumped on that? What is this? Spain in the 30s?

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Thanks for clearing that up, MrAsh. It's hard to tell who here actually is opposing marriage equality, e.g.:






It's striking that since I was last involved in a M.E. thread on SS, the views of those opposing the pro-M.E. position have become more extreme. When a majority of group members initially favour one side of an issue, communication and interaction usually move the group to a more extreme position - aka 'group polarization'.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

I am absolutely horrified at personal attacks being directed in all directions.
It is very immature to say the least.

As I have said before and will say again, what am I to do? Sit back and allow somebody to drag me through the mud while I sit here with my thumb up my ass? I have tried everything. Every single time Sue posts and references me it's to slander me or intimidate me into not posting. I may not be perfect but I own my faults, I recognise them. Everything I have said here on this thread (with the exception of the talk of what happened behind the scenes and believe me, you don't want to know), are things that Sue has said herself. I have asked her repeatedly on this very thread to stop with the slander, there is only so much I can take. The women in the LL are sick of hearing it, then she comes into this main board doing the very same thing.

observer

observer said on the 4th Oct, 2013

BW & Sue. I respect both of you for who you are as people. I have dealt with very, very different people in my life.
All i am saying, is that sometimes one should back off. I am not trying to tell either of you what you should or shouldn't do. It is personal choice.
Personally, i would just walk away and that wouldn't mean that i lost to someone else etc. Just be smarter ...

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

I have tried Observer. I honestly have. I hate all this carry-on.

Sue

Sue said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Honestly? Why don't you just wire the money and then not engage me in conversations and that will be the end of it? What's so hard about that? That's what I would do if I were you. It also happens to be the right thing.

Didn't this topic get moved to another thread?

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

There will never be 'an end to it' Sue, that's not how you work. You just keep kicking away trying to wear everyone down.

Sue

Sue said on the 4th Oct, 2013

You have my word that if you give me my money back you won't hear a peep from me about this and I won't engage you in conversation about anything else. I am very annoyed about this.:(

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Sue, get it through your skull, I am not paying you money so that you can walk away from this feeling as though the way you have carried on is somehow justified. You have said and done things that are simply unforgivable and as I said, I hate you for it. I do not want to talk about this any more, so lets just leave it at that.

Marko

Marko said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Honestly I don't see what this money situation has to do with what Gillard said. Sounds like a private matter that's better placed elsewhere.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 4th Oct, 2013



That's because the marriage equality debate has turned into a black and white stance. Either you are for m.e.. or you're against m.e.!

IMO this has left no room for real critical debate and analysis of marriage equality. What I can see happen when marriage equality is legislated, all other forms of discrimination which affect GLBTIQ and heterosexuals in non-heternormative relationship types will be ignored and discrimination will still occur.

Also I do find it worrying that other areas of GLBTIQ discrimination and inequality, including HIV/AIDS are being largely ignored and sidelined since marriage equality is now seen as the most important issue for GLBTIQ people and it's not considered just one of many issues affecting GLBTIQ people.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 4th Oct, 2013


It's striking that since I was last involved in a M.E. thread on SS, the views of those opposing the pro-M.E. position have become more extreme.

Maybe it only seems extreme because you spend too much time around gay people agreeing with each other. Step outside of the gay ghetto.
Honestly, there's only four of us. Me, MrAsh, Bar Wench and Mama. Four people. What an outrage that a gay forum gives us an equal voice.

Try this for extreme: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13630#.Uk5lNtmuP_I

mark_

mark_ said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Gays used to be hip and edge-y

http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=1582144&t=w

And now they're very bourgeois.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

^ Ooh, I would very much like her phone number!

Marko

Marko said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Lol B dubs, seems like you and I are reverse types! :] I reckon we'd get along! Bring on MG 2014!!!!

Cirrus

Cirrus said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Maybe it only seems extreme because you spend too much time around gay people agreeing with each other. Step outside of the gay ghetto.
Honestly, there's only four of us. Me, MrAsh, Bar Wench and Mama. Four people. What an outrage that a gay forum gives us an equal voice.

Try this for extreme: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13630#.Uk5lNtmuP_I

Yes, 'group polarization' happens on both sides - I won't argue with that. Maybe I should have avoided the word 'extreme' to be more diplomatic - no value judgements intended. I was just giving a textbook definition of the phenomenon. I don't have a grudge against anyone on SS, and it's a 'straw man' to accuse me of opposing anyone's right to express contrary opinions. I was mostly puzzled why some here so predictably oppose anything pro-M.E. I do however think it's a problem that some of the newbies to SS have been treated a bit harshly. They're needed for the survival of the site and should be received with more hospitality.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't agree that divorce should be any further destigmatised than it is right now - it is already too readily accepted as a way to get a better life. Divorce causes broken families and children pay the price. (I know gay couples often don't have children, but if you want to join to institution you play by the rules, and if you want equality you don't ask for special treatment from society, so you have to act as though you have children just to uphold the institution.)

Victims of domestic violence or the adultery of their partner who seek divorce should receive our total sympathy and understanding. There should be absolutely no shame in that. But two people who drift away from each other because of a lack of sexual attraction or romance, and end up filing for divorce? They never respected the institution of marriage in the first place! These people, and there are plenty out there, trust me, well deserve to have a stigma attached to their divorce, I strongly believe. It would strengthen marriage to uphold the idea that this is unacceptable, much like Britney Spears's and Kim Kardashian's short marriages and 'open marriages' (what an oxymoron).

We (not speaking for all of you but speaking for me and my friends, you are welcome to join if you wish) are the new generation of LGBTI, and we support family values. This is how we will win over the public to get marriage equality and equality in family rights. Therefore, we will uphold the institution of marriage and show our support for a healthy marriage culture.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Sorry, but I disagree with this. Marriage is a lifelong union of two people, to the exclusion of all others. If you don't like the permanence or the exclusivity of marriage then don't get one. However, I and many other people think these are the very best features of marriage.

Divorce obviously means that marriage did not last for life, and is therefore a failed marriage, by definition. This shouldn't make people who divorce feel bad though, as long as they have no clear fault in it (i.e. they did not cheat, they did not abuse their spouse). Failure in life is a common thing anyway - like Labor just failed to win the election, and there's no avoiding that reality.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Well have you read The Australian "newspaper" recently?

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Sure the UK has a larger media industry, but there is simply no reason why the two 24hr TV news channels Skynews AU or ABC News 24 can't even dedicate two minutes of airtime to a GLBTI news story such as a pride festival, or an anti-gay attack etc.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 4th Oct, 2013



Total BS, Many people are homophobic simply because they don't understand what it's like to be GLBTI, they think all gay men have limp wrists etc. So having more openly GLBTI people on TV will help educate and show the general heterosexual public that we gay men are not all flight attendants or hair dressers as an example. There absolutely no doubt in my mind that having more GLBTI on TV will reduce discrimination.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 4th Oct, 2013



I have seen coverage of both sides from The Australian and other News Limited papers. I don't see an intent to block marriage equality there at all. Even Fairfax carried some anti-equality articles, even though on the whole I feel they are supportive.

TaraElla

TaraElla said on the 4th Oct, 2013



It's about quality not quantity. After all, you wouldn't think an episode of Jerry Springer featuring a gay person would have the same impact as an episode of Glee? They would likely have an opposite effect, actually!

In the UK, I have seen a lot of sensationalist, borderline transphobic reporting in tabloids. Nobody would argue any of those articles were good for the T community, right? It really isn't something Australia wants to import, right? Also, you wouldn't think having an Australian version of Little Britain, for example, would help either?

On the other hand, Big Brother Australia has been doing a good job, for example. Just in these two years they have shown a variety of gay and lesbian people, of people generally approving marriage equality, and of how gay people are actually family friendly people rather than people having an anti-family gay agenda. This is more important than just showing some gay character on screen.

Also, considering that gay people make up only 2% of the population, and a lot of the older (over 50) gays are permanently closeted - I don't think gay people are underrepresented in Australian TV at all. (e.g. Big Brother certainly has well over 2%! Statistics say they should only have one gay person every 3 or so years on average).

Barrin

Barrin said on the 4th Oct, 2013


I was mostly puzzled why some here so predictably oppose anything pro-M.E. I do however think it's a problem that some of the newbies to SS have been treated a bit harshly. They're needed for the survival of the site and should be received with more hospitality.

I'm puzzled by newbies who parachute in, throw a few barbs on a single issue and are never seen again. I'm all for welcoming new members but often they're their own worst enemies. And you can't rule out that some of them aren't new at all, just clones looking to stir.

Back to topic. Someone bumped this thread recently http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=1223
It was 2007, but contrast the relaxed, almost indifferent tone to the impatience and indignation now.
Civil unions? Same rights but without marriage? Raise those options now and you'll be put back in your place. And not by me, MrAsh, Bar Wench or Mama.
How did this change come about? I say it's the media campaign. Well connected lobbyists who know how to get traction in the media with an agenda ensuring that 'marriage' and 'equality' are always said together. Always! Thus a constituency who a mere six years ago were rational and objective are now smug and self-righteous. Attitude can't change the law.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 4th Oct, 2013

I'm puzzled by newbies who parachute in, throw a few barbs on a single issue and are never seen again. I'm all for welcoming new members but often they're their own worst enemies. And you can't rule out that some of them aren't new at all, just clones looking to stir.

Back to topic. Someone bumped this thread recently http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=1223
It was 2007, but contrast the relaxed, almost indifferent tone to the impatience and indignation now.
Civil unions? Same rights but without marriage? Raise those options now and you'll be put back in your place. And not by me, MrAsh, Bar Wench or Mama.
How did this change come about? I say it's the media campaign. Well connected lobbyists who know how to get traction in the media with an agenda ensuring that 'marriage' and 'equality' are always said together. Always! Thus a constituency who a mere six years ago were rational and objective are now smug and self-righteous. Attitude can't change the law.

Barrin, this short article may be of interest to you.



http://dailyxtra.com/toronto/ideas/abandon-equality

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 4th Oct, 2013



I believe that News Limited does have an anti-gay agenda, and I find Fairfax a lot more balanced in there reporting.

mark_

mark_ said on the 4th Oct, 2013



But CB, you also believe in Satan, don't you?

I assume you have a background in the cult of Catholicism. They believe in Original Sin, Mysticism, miracles.

They can't cope with life so they created a mythical benificent god and a mythical malevolent devil.

Murdoch is NOT satan. I know you want to believe it so you can direct all your anger and frustrations in your life to a partiular place.

I ignore unpleasant things around me and I think you could also. You don't have to purchase Mr Murdoch stuff.

If you think Murdoch is a satanic influence on the dumb Australians you could campaign against the draconian laws which force dumb Australians from making donkey votes.

zebra23

zebra23 said on the 4th Oct, 2013

The ignorant manipulated by the powerful to harm the most vulnerable

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 4th Oct, 2013

Turkeys voting for Christmas?

@Barrin. That Spiked article was brilliant. I sometimes have trouble naming what it is that makes me feel so uncomfortable about this whole marriage debate. That put my anxiety into words. The conservatism in this way of thinking is so disturbing to me.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 5th Oct, 2013

Barrin, this short article may be of interest to you.



http://dailyxtra.com/toronto/ideas/abandon-equality

Thank you. I liked the last sentence:

"...let’s not forget that equality-seeking is a tool for achieving social justice, but its logic is limited and won’t — on its own — lead to a just society."

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 5th Oct, 2013


@Barrin. That Spiked article was brilliant. I sometimes have trouble naming what it is that makes me feel so uncomfortable about this whole marriage debate. That put my anxiety into words. The conservatism in this way of thinking is so disturbing to me.

Thanks Barrin for the article, it summed up a lot of my concerns about the current use of the word 'equality' and as Bar Wench has noted the conservatism around the thinking and logic of the same sex marriage debate is disturbing.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 5th Oct, 2013

But CB, you also believe in Satan, don't you?

I assume you have a background in the cult of Catholicism. They believe in Original Sin, Mysticism, miracles.

They can't cope with life so they created a mythical benificent god and a mythical malevolent devil.

Murdoch is NOT satan. I know you want to believe it so you can direct all your anger and frustrations in your life to a partiular place.

I ignore unpleasant things around me and I think you could also. You don't have to purchase Mr Murdoch stuff.

If you think Murdoch is a satanic influence on the dumb Australians you could campaign against the draconian laws which force dumb Australians from making donkey votes.

Dumb people believe what they read in the News Limited newspapers, and as I've said previously you can guarantee the News Limited will start an anti-gay marriage campaign the very second a referendum is announced on the issue.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 5th Oct, 2013



Dumb people automatically believe anything they read in any newspaper! Smart people use critical thinking to ascertain the truth of what they are reading.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 5th Oct, 2013



Well its going to be virtually impossible to achieve marriage equality if News Limited decide to launch a national campaign against gay marriage.

zebra23

zebra23 said on the 5th Oct, 2013

News Ltd...champions at distorting the truth.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 5th Oct, 2013



I doubt they will, since marriage equality has now been marketed as a trendy cause and it's a money spinner. It's sensational and celebrity driven enough for Rupert Murdoch to want to keep the issue in his press and it will also help keep his dirty divorce from Wendy Deng off the front page of many newspapers and magazines.

Marko

Marko said on the 5th Oct, 2013



This is true, Murdoch's always been a businessman first and foremost, if it makes him money he'll go for it.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 5th Oct, 2013



COPIED FROM: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-world-according-to-rupert-408937.html
Rupert Murdoch: As for gay marriage: "I believe it is wrong. I'm considered homophobic and crazy about these things and old fashioned. But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation."

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 5th Oct, 2013



As soon as a referendum is announced News Limited will do everything in its power to derail gay marriage I believe. Read more: http://gawker.com/189396/rupert-murdoch-wants-to-save-you-from-the-gays

Marko

Marko said on the 5th Oct, 2013



In the event of a referendum I believe they'll go with whatever their government wants. Which unfortunately happens to be a LNP government, although this isn't surprising. However there is a chance that they'll play it neutral, especially after their involvement in the last election was made rather aware through social networking. They'll probably want to downplay their actual influence of the government.

TheOldie

TheOldie said on the 5th Oct, 2013

COPIED FROM: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-world-according-to-rupert-408937.html
Rupert Murdoch: As for gay marriage: "I believe it is wrong. I'm considered homophobic and crazy about these things and old fashioned. But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation."

Murdoch is just a silly old cunt with old fashioned/outdated ideas. Still he is no poster boy for marriage. Whats this one nbr 3 ?
yes fundamental to our civilization to have 1,2,3,4 wives.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 5th Oct, 2013

COPIED FROM: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-world-according-to-rupert-408937.html
Rupert Murdoch: As for gay marriage: "I believe it is wrong. I'm considered homophobic and crazy about these things and old fashioned. But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation."


At this time Rupert Murdoch is in the proceedings of a bitter divorce from his third wife Wendy Deng and he would be very foolish to go against marriage equality on the basis of morality, considering there apparently is some real dirty laundry which can come out about his marriage to Deng and there is also a lot of anger with the public in relation to the recent scandals involving his media companies.

coast_boy_21

coast_boy_21 said on the 5th Oct, 2013



Rupert Murdoch = http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite

Marko

Marko said on the 6th Oct, 2013



If I was joking I'm sure I could make it ten times more funnier than that. For example, I could tell you the next time the cops come knocking on your door telling you to open up, you could say to them, 'Not with that attitude'. See? much funnier.

HonestRain

HonestRain said on the 9th Oct, 2013

I can not believe that we were the first country to let women vote and then now we are SO far behind SO many other countries...

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 9th Oct, 2013



Have you ever done research on Women's suffrage? Have you heard of New Zealand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_New_Zealand

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage

wysi

wysi said last month on 15th

bump.

well, why did Gillard not allow SSM?

There are 157 more comments. View them all