Gillard cancels on ChristianLobby

www.samesame.com.au

About the Author

Matt Akersten

view my other 2314 articles

Thu 6th Sep, 2012 in Local News

56
5
1471

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has now pulled out of a keynote speaking appointment with the Australian Christian Lobby, following its leader 8Jim Wallace*’s widely-condemned statement yesterday unfavourably comparing the health of gay people to smokers.

At a debate in Tasmania yesterday, Wallace said that a homosexual “lifestyle” was more hazardous to health than smoking.

Gillard now acknowledges the ACL leader’s comments were “offensive.”

Shown on the promotional poster below, the PM was set to join Wallace on stage at the ACL’s Annual Conference in Canberra next month.

Gillard reacts in a statement today: “There are a range of deeply held views in the community on the issue of same-sex marriage but it is the responsibility of all parties in this debate to be respectful and responsible in any public comments they make.

“I believe yesterday’s comments by Jim Wallace were offensive.

“To compare the health effects of smoking cigarettes with the many struggles gay and lesbian Australians endure in contemporary society is heartless and wrong.

“Although everyone is entitled to their own view, these statements reiterated again today on behalf of ACL are totally unacceptable.

“In light of this, I believe my attendance at the conference would be inappropriate.”

Since the ACL continues to be vocal against marriage equality, same-sex marriage activists have been very concerned that the Prime Minister would address what they say is “an increasingly extremist, anti-gay group.”

Today they welcome her decision to pull out of the event. “We thank the Prime Minister for so strongly rejecting the extremism of the Australian Christian Lobby,” says Australian Marriage Equality’s Alex Greenwich.

“Australians continue to reject the tone used by the Australian Christian Lobby in this debate. It’s sad this organisation continues to misrepresent Christians and campaign on fear rather than facts.”

On the video below: Jim Wallace defends himself. Badly.

Comments

www.samesame.com.au

arrow left

Add Another | View all the comments in forum »

28860

Jason Baldwin

Jason Baldwin said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Nice one Julia, baby steps are better than no steps.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 6th Sep, 2012

PM Gillard has always supported GLBTIQ people and just because she hasn't put her cards on the table yet for marriage equality doesn't mean she's anti-equality or not accepting of GLBTIQ people.

She 'might' have the winning cards under the table and ready to play them when it's politically realistic to pass the marriage equality legislation or better still a complete revision and modernisation of relationship laws in Australia.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Forgive my ignorance here, but when people talk about the marriage laws being modernised, what are they generally referring to?

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Mostly just giving marriage laws a Facebook page, Twitter account and iPhone app.

Matt Akersten

Matt Akersten said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Here's the ACL's statement today:

%u201CIt is disappointing that the Prime Minister has acted so hastily on the basis of misreporting and false information from gay activists.%u201D

http://www.acl.org.au/2012/09/mr-pm%E2%80%99s-withdrawal-from-acl-conference-a-blow-to-constituency-win-for-aggressive-gay-activists/

Barrin

Barrin said on the 6th Sep, 2012

When people talk about marriage 'equality' what are they referring to?
Equality with whom?
Submissive Anglican women?

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=33009
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/men-and-women-are-different-and-so-should-be-their-marriage-vows-20120828-24yo6.html
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/the-submissive-wife/4244690

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 6th Sep, 2012

I see what you're getting at Barrin, but I would imagine the internal politics of every marriage is negotiated by a couple according to their moral beliefs/upbringing etc. I was asking about the discourse from a legislative p.o.v.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Well the law presently describes marriage as:

"The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

If equality means taking out 'a man and woman', what does that leave us with?

" A union to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"

Not very realistic. For me modernisation would be couples negotiating on their own terms without a prescribed government-issue one-size-fits-all licence.
Freedom to do something like that seems to have been overidden by misguided ideas about equality. :(

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Well the law presently describes marriage as:

"The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

If equality means taking out 'a man and woman', what does that leave us with?

" A union to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"

Not very realistic. For me modernisation would be couples negotiating on their own terms without a prescribed government-issue one-size-fits-all licence.
Freedom to do something like that seems to have been overidden by misguided ideas about equality. :(

Obviously people don't literally mean "taking out the words 'a man and woman'" but mean taking out the fact that is can specifically and only be between 2 people of the opposite sex and open the door to same-sex couples.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Well the law presently describes marriage as:

"The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

If equality means taking out 'a man and woman', what does that leave us with?

" A union to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life"

Not very realistic. For me modernisation would be couples negotiating on their own terms without a prescribed government-issue one-size-fits-all licence.
Freedom to do something like that seems to have been overidden by misguided ideas about equality. :(

@Bar Wench, Barrin states my sentiments perfectly. I would also add the recognition of polyamorus relationships and other form of ethical relationships between consenting legal aged adults.

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 6th Sep, 2012

They didn't take anything out of the legal description of marriage in the countries where same-sex marriage is legal, they just added the other possible unions.

Legalising same-sex marriage is sooooo effing simple it's a disgrace a country like Australia is still wasting government time over this.

dougster

dougster said on the 6th Sep, 2012

PM Gillard has always supported GLBTIQ people and just because she hasn't put her cards on the table yet for marriage equality doesn't mean she's anti-equality or not accepting of GLBTIQ people.

She 'might' have the winning cards under the table and ready to play them when it's politically realistic to pass the marriage equality legislation or better still a complete revision and modernisation of relationship laws in Australia.

sorry ash. thought jules stated publicly she believed that marriage was tween a man & a woman. the fact that she agreed to go to this christian thing in the first place stinks a bit man. mayb she only backed out coz she was told how being aligned with these nutters wood hurt her politically. havent got anything against her though. just seems shes already put those cards on th table.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 6th Sep, 2012

PM Gillard has always supported GLBTIQ people and just because she hasn't put her cards on the table yet for marriage equality doesn't mean she's anti-equality or not accepting of GLBTIQ people.

She 'might' have the winning cards under the table and ready to play them when it's politically realistic to pass the marriage equality legislation or better still a complete revision and modernisation of relationship laws in Australia.

Good the PM is not going to deliver the key note speech at the ACL conference, although it would be good if she published her speech on the topic: "Building a nation OF character: Religious freedom in a secular democracy." - would like to hear what she has to say about that!

I have a big issue with people who only partially support GLBITQ rights - you can't be half pregnant - you either support equality or you don't - so just because Gillard has supported some of our GLBTIQ human rights demands (I am taking your word for it Ash that she has done so) but that she does not support other rights like gay marriage does not sit right with me. Personally, I find her stance unacceptable. I equate our human rights struggle with that of the civil rights struggle - imagine this: how about arguing to civil rights activists: you can have some of the equality but not all - no western leader in their right mind today would dare say that, let alone think it. It would not only be fundamentally unjust, as history has shown and we know who won that battle, but it would also be political suicide. So why does Gillard have a "half pregnant stance" on GLBITQ rights?

Obama was not for gay marriage initially but changed his mind. An evolution of opinion, a boldness to dare to change indicating perhaps his intellectualism and openess to considering change and superior arguments for the case for gay marriage. He is also a canny political animal and knows that public opinion is in his favour - I doubt the Democrats would have made gay marriage one of their campaign pillars if they thought it may lose them them the election. In Gillard's case, Australian public opinion is in favour, so why does she persist? She is not even religious. Me thinks she has painted herself into a corner with her stubborness and, with respect, her intellectual inferiority on the subject - her argument against gay marriage:

"I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn't need a marriage certificate associated with it. That's my life experience - so I'm speaking from that life experience. I’ve made my mind up. My view’s not changing. I believe what I believe."

Wow, no wonder she is struggling here - her intellectual capacities are as such that that is a solid argument?? I reckon a PM upgrade may be in order here - Australia, you deserve better! Gillard is entitled to her opinion but she is at risk of being left on the wrong side of history.

Regarding doing things in small steps: Carve out exceptions if there have to be for the Church (even though I find that unadulterated, legalised discrimination) - I am an atheist, so I personally don't give a toss about the church but I can well imagine there are members of our community that are Christian and would like to get married in a church) - if an exception carve out is what gets the law through, then I say go for it - as already said in another post sometimes "small steps" - it will just be a matter of time that that too will change within the Church.....there is such an inevitability about change! It is just a question of time.

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 6th Sep, 2012

They didn't take anything out of the legal description of marriage in the countries where same-sex marriage is legal, they just added the other possible unions.

Legalising same-sex marriage is sooooo effing simple it's a disgrace a country like Australia is still wasting government time over this.

Australia is the only english speaking, developed country that does not have a major party leader supporting gay marriage. Yikes :eek:

local_warming

local_warming said on the 6th Sep, 2012

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Good the PM is not going to deliver the key note speech at the ACL conference, although it would be good if she published her speech on the topic: "Building a nation OF character: Religious freedom in a secular democracy." - would like to hear what she has to say about that!

I have a big issue with people who only partially support GLBITQ rights - you can't be half pregnant - you either support equality or you don't - so just because Gillard has supported some of our GLBTIQ human rights demands (I am taking your word for it Ash that she has done so) but that she does not support other rights like gay marriage does not sit right with me. Personally, I find her stance unacceptable. I equate our human rights struggle with that of the civil rights struggle - imagine this: how about arguing to civil rights activists: you can have some of the equality but not all - no western leader in their right mind today would dare say that, let alone think it. It would not only be fundamentally unjust, as history has shown and we know who won that battle, but it would also be political suicide. So why does Gillard have a "half pregnant stance" on GLBITQ rights?

Obama was not for gay marriage initially but changed his mind. An evolution of opinion, a boldness to dare to change indicating perhaps his intellectualism and openess to considering change and superior arguments for the case for gay marriage. He is also a canny political animal and knows that public opinion is in his favour - I doubt the Democrats would have made gay marriage one of their campaign pillars if they thought it may lose them them the election. In Gillard's case, Australian public opinion is in favour, so why does she persist? She is not even religious. Me thinks she has painted herself into a corner with her stubborness and, with respect, her intellectual inferiority on the subject - her argument against gay marriage:

"I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn't need a marriage certificate associated with it. That's my life experience - so I'm speaking from that life experience. I’ve made my mind up. My view’s not changing. I believe what I believe."

Wow, no wonder she is struggling here - her intellectual capacities are as such that that is a solid argument?? I reckon a PM upgrade may be in order here - Australia, you deserve better! Gillard is entitled to her opinion but she is at risk of being left on the wrong side of history.

Regarding doing things in small steps: Carve out exceptions if there have to be for the Church (even though I find that unadulterated, legalised discrimination) - I am an atheist, so I personally don't give a toss about the church but I can well imagine there are members of our community that are Christian and would like to get married in a church) - if an exception carve out is what gets the law through, then I say go for it - as already said in another post sometimes "small steps" - it will just be a matter of time that that too will change within the Church.....there is such an inevitability about change! It is just a question of time.

People forget or are not aware that ALP platforms (policies) are decided by the ALP caucaus and ALP MP's have to vote as instructed by the party, unless a conscious vote is granted. Dissenters are dealt with heavily in the ALP. It's clear PM Gillard is following the party stance on the issue and it's not her own. Even former PM Rudd has stated Gillard was vocally pro marriage equality when she was in his cabinet. Yet being an ALP PM she has to follow what the caucaus wants. (http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8703/Gillard-traded-equality-for-power.htm)

As for the ACL they are a powerful and influential conservative lobby group in Australia and Howard, Rudd and Gillard have all kept cosy with them due to the power and influence they have. Yet I doubt the ACL will have any real clout in the future with how society is changing and the marriage equality issue is showing clearly how out of touch the ACL is with modern society.

@CeeAy I'd like to remind you that when you talk about human rights you have to remember that freedom of belief and freedom of religion are main points of the UDHR (article 18 and article 19) . Also remember Human Rights are not clear cut and one persons human right can infringe on another persons human right. It's a hard thing to balance equally.

I believe that rights to freedom of sexuality and gender should be included in the UDHR.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 6th Sep, 2012

@CeeAy I'd like to remind you that when you talk about human rights you have to remember that freedom or belief and freedom of religion (article 18 and article 19) are main points of the UDHR. Also when you talk about Human Rights you have to realise they are not clear cut and one persons human right can infringe on another persons human right.

I believe that rights to freedom to express sexuality should be included in the UDHR.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

I agree: "rights to freedom to express sexuality should be included in the UDHR" - good point.

Freedom of religion of belief I fully support but where your freedom transgresses equality or freedom for one group versus another group - e.g. Heterosexual versus GLBITQ rights or white versus other ethnic colours (I grew up in South Africa where the Dutch Reformed Church (the church of the Afrikaner regime) could quote chapter and verse of the bible justifying apartheid) - then that right or belief should not trump the other group's rights, if as a result of that, equality is denied. That is why religion should be kept out of the equality issue – believe what you want – that is your freedom - you may be a nazi and a hater of jews – you are entitled to be so (however abhorrent we may find that) but as a result of your freedom of belief you are not entitled to act on that against a group e.g. planting a bomb at a synagogue or in the point in question denying marriage equality.

I have a huge problem where the church or religious groups start to meddle and retard law making - e.g. a legislative change like equal marriage rights, a change that is supported by the majority. Have your religion but don't impose it on me - don’t impose it on the majority. Lobby to have exceptions carved out in the law if you must but don’t shove your view down everyone’s throat just because it is a “religious” one. The majority don’t support it. We live in a secular democracy this is important.

Irene

Irene said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Gillard is an opportunist. She will say whatever she thinks will get her the most votes. She's against gay marriage to get the votes of the ACL and similar, but she realises she's offended the GLB community, so is doing this in an attempt to win us back.

Mac31

Mac31 said on the 6th Sep, 2012

I was having lunch with a friend of mine and he said that he believed that the reason that gay marriage could not be legalised comes down to laws, like say when there is a car accident and both the husband and wife are killed. For probate purposes, it is deemed that the wife died first, so the estate passes to the husband and then the husbands Will is the one they go with. I thought this was the most ridiculous thing I had heard and there must be a way to come up with who dies first in this accident type scenario. Maybe age? Surely this can't be right?

Spooky

Spooky said on the 6th Sep, 2012

"It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has acted so hastily on the basis of misreporting and false information from gay activists"
Unbelievable! Wallace now can't take responsibility for what he said and accuses us of "False information". Christianity is just a euphemism for "False information"!!!!

Zepol23

Zepol23 said on the 6th Sep, 2012

He's coming to speak at my university, im so ashamed

local_warming

local_warming said on the 6th Sep, 2012

Oral roberts university

Wonderland

Wonderland said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Here's a tip for you

http://newsthatmattersnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Bush-Shoe-Throw-Game.jpg

:D

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 7th Sep, 2012

I was having a similar conversation last night. I totally disagree that the male should be the default executive when it comes to a couple's assets, but realistically it does inevitably have to be one or the other. I was talking to a straight, married friend a while ago and explaining that sharing finances makes me quite uneasy when I'm in a relationship, regardless of how serious or committed the relationship is. He made an interesting point when he said that to him, that's what marriage is about, pledging to support somebody emotionally and financially. You are sharing your life together, you can't have it both ways. I tend to agree, even though that doesn't really match up with my experiences. To me, you are given the option of a pre-nup - but as a married couple you should be prepared to take the good with the bad as a couple.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Are you sure they're your sentiments Ash, not a statement that you've latched on to in order to bulk out a hollow platitude?

Anyway. I know this might not make me very popular, but I take a more conservative view when it comes to marriage. I'm all for the terms being negotiated within a partnership, but as for legally validating polyamorous relationships, well I'm not sure that's a step in the right direction.

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Are you sure they're your sentiments Ash, not a statement that you've latched on to in order to bulk out a hollow platitude?

Anyway. I know this might not make me very popular, but I take a more conservative view when it comes to marriage. I'm all for the terms being negotiated within a partnership, but as for legally validating polyamorous relationships, well I'm not sure that's a step in the right direction.

Yes they are my sentiments. If you read through all my remarks on marriage equality you'll see I share the same opinion as Barrin. I get abused by pro marriage equality people because of it too.

Also there is so much hate and predjudice towards relationships which don't fit the hetero normative model.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 7th Sep, 2012

I'm all for the terms being negotiated within a partnership, but as for legally validating polyamorous relationships, well I'm not sure that's a step in the right direction.

See, you make that sound so reasonable. But replace polyamorous with homosexual and it's a bigoted, homophobic, hateful, discriminatory statement.
And no, I'm not making an argument for polyamory. Can't say I have an opinion either way on that. I'd ask why any relationship need legal validation and if one does then it only follows that others will say "What about us?"

ewok

ewok said on the 7th Sep, 2012

The ACL are a bunch of paedophiles.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Well that's true to an extent, but it's probably going to be a long while before polyamory is accepted in the mainstream enough for it to be legally sanctioned. I think gay marriage is more palatable in this political climate because it still adheres to the norm of two people wanting to make a pledge to one another. The slippery-slope arguments really begin when you start to move away from that model.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

The slippery slope arguments are ridiculous. We're not talking about polygamy we're talking about same-sex marriage.
It's the same as when people bring children in to the argument. We're not talking about gay adoption we're talking about same sex marriage.

You don't argue that a speed limit shouldn't be raised to 60 because that road is unsafe at 100.

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Twenty five or so years ago homosexual people were thrown into gaol.

Our political leaders said we CANNOT legalise homosexual acts. It will lead to a slippery slope.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Twenty five or so years ago homosexual people were thrown into gaol.

Our political leaders said we CANNOT legalise homosexual acts. It will lead to a slippery slope.

haha to their credit, they were right! :P

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 7th Sep, 2012

The slippery slope arguments are ridiculous. We're not talking about polygamy we're talking about same-sex marriage.
It's the same as when people bring children in to the argument. We're not talking about gay adoption we're talking about same sex marriage.

You don't argue that a speed limit shouldn't be raised to 60 because that road is unsafe at 100.

Yet your just buying into the same restrictive (and oppressive) heteronormative patterns, you're not changing anything or liberating anyone.

Human sexuality and relationships are diverse and consenting humans of legal age should be able to form any type of ethical relationship they want (e.g. polyamorus, platonic, polygamus etc...) freely and these should be legally recognised, without having to conform to a set model or standard of relationship defined by the state.

Society isn't going to break down because we recognise non-heteronormative non-Judeo/Christian relationships, because people are already in these types of relationships and you can consider it a violation of their human rights that they are not being treated equal and recognised under the law as well.

If we are going to have same sex couples recognised, let's really change relationship laws to reflect how people are truly living their lives.

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 7th Sep, 2012

I don't know. It's a bit pessimistic to say that every marriage is an oppressive and restrictive one. I think that statement says more about your attitude as an individual than the wider experience of a relationship between equals. And within those foundations there is the scope to negotiate all kinds of arrangements, whether they be sexual or otherwise. But even most polyamorous relationships take the primary partner model as their foundation, so I tend to think anything other than marriage as a two-person endeavour is going to be a long time coming.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Yet your just buying into the same restrictive (and oppressive) heteronormative patterns, you're not changing anything or liberating anyone.

Human sexuality and relationships are diverse and consenting humans of legal age should be able to form any type of ethical relationship they want (e.g. polyamorus, platonic, polygamus etc...) freely and these should be legally recognised, without having to conform to a set model or standard of relationship defined by the state.

Society isn't going to break down because we recognise non-heteronormative non-Judeo/Christian relationships, because people are already in these types of relationships and you can consider it a violation of their human rights that they are not being treated equal and recognised under the law as well.

If we are going to have same sex couples recognised, let's really change relationship laws to reflect how people are truly living their lives.

I agree 100% that adult humans should be able to enter in to any kind of relationship arrangements that they want, and if I was king of the universe I'd let them have those relationships recognised by their government.

I was saying that the slippery slope argument against same-sex marriage is silly as it is just fear mongering in the sense of "If two men can get married, what next? 3 men? 1 man and 2 women? A man and his goat?"

I actually began to type out my thoughts on polygamy vs homosexuality and the more I typed the more I sounded like a conservative talking about homosexuality vs heterosexuality. The phrase "lifestyle choice" was indeed included!

This has given me something to think about as I know that I myself have a somewhat complicated sexuality and already feel excluded from the mainstream.

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

I have a platonic friend who also has complicated sexuality.

I admire him a lot but I resolved not to enquire about his private life but he took me bushwalking last week along Kangaroo Creek with a group of seven of his mates. It was great day and they seemed like interesting blokes but all of them seemed to have odd, interesting complicated sexualities.

I'm not interested in putting labels on myself and I didn't want to put labels on them.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Sounds like a complicated situation! :P

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

^
I tell myself that I've retired from the Man-Chasing Merry-Go-Round. It's too exhausting!

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

What is men-chasing merry-go-round?

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

It's a metaphor signifying those men who spend most of their free time chasing and fantasizing about getting a man and —perhaps occasionally getting one and— then repeating the process over and 0ver and over.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Oh I see. That's certainly not my situation thankfully.

mark_

mark_ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Good. I like to think we are all special in our own way.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 7th Sep, 2012

It has to be said that even for a lot of broad-minded 'gay friendly' people that model is still a man and a woman.

To use another metaphor 'a line has to be drawn'. Moving that line from a man and a woman to include same sex couples is certainly a lot more palatable at the moment, but the line is still there to be challenged. Now if there was no line at all...? Rightly or wrongly, a society needs and wants its lines.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

To use another metaphor 'a line has to be drawn'. Moving that line from a man and a woman to include same sex couples is certainly a lot more palatable at the moment, but the line is still there to be challenged. Now if there was no line at all...? Rightly or wrongly, a society needs and wants its lines.

To use another metaphor, at one point in the US, African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. They paid the same fare, received the same service and got to where they were going just as quick as white people so what were they complaining about?

Although I guess that would be a moot point had the line not be moved to allow them on the buses in the first place...

Barrin

Barrin said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Twenty five or so years ago homosexual people were thrown into gaol.

Our political leaders said we CANNOT legalise homosexual acts. It will lead to a slippery slope.

Legalising same sex marriage some 30 years after decriminalising homosexuality sounds like a slow slope rather than a slippery one. Still, the comparison is there to be made.
Another 30 years for polygamy?
Sixty years for paedophilia to be sanctioned in one form or another?

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Legalising same sex marriage some 30 years after decriminalising homosexuality sounds like a slow slope rather than a slippery one. Still, the comparison is there to be made.
Another 30 years for polygamy?
Sixty years for paedophilia to be sanctioned in one form or another?

Do you think at that point that driving in a school zone will be only at 5 km per hour? The drinking age will be 45? We gave women the right to vote over 100 years ago, surely by now the slippery slope should have made it so that ONLY women can vote?

Barrin

Barrin said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Oh, don't cross-examine me, I'm just thinking out loud.

Never driven myself so I don't understand the politics of that. In the future either kids will drive themselves or schools will be redundant and all learning is done online.
Alcohol? Hard to predict. Its already had a chequered history.
Women only voting? To be honest, I'm not bothered by that. One thing's for sure, if only women voted now, both Gillard and Abbott would be totally fucked.

JarrodJ

JarrodJ said on the 7th Sep, 2012

Well if you wanna think out loud and not be asked about it you can do that without the use of your keyboard. The fact you've posted here means you wanted to share those thoughts.

You're implying that same-sex marriage may lead to polygamy and pedophilia becoming legal so I'd like to know more about why you think that way?

The thought of "Two adults of the same sex having their relationship recognised the same way every other couple is by the government" leading to "the government may allow adults to sexually abuse children" is a bit of a stretch for me.

It's kinda like saying "Two men getting married is legal? Next thing you know it'll be legal for two men to start a meth lab!"

CeeAy

CeeAy said on the 8th Sep, 2012

Aaah the “slippery slope” argument – by labeling topics as “slippery slopes”, the risk is it starts to limit & even suppress discussion and debate around a topic.

The “slippery slope” of gay rights….presupposes a negativity to start with: “If you decriminalise homosexuality then “they” will corrupt us and our children, “they” will want to marry and adopt … all downhill ….society will decay!” Is being homosexual and living a homosexual life really a slippery slope? Does society really think that criminalising homosexuality will stop homosexuality? We all know that that does & did not work.

What about polyandry, polygamy and polyamory? Same argument – it is between a bunch of consenting adults so why not? We are so preconditioned by what is “acceptable” in society that it is immediately shock horror when such subjects are brought up. A common reaction is: If “it” is allowed, more & more people may become gay, people will want to be part of polygamist relationships or polyandrous set ups. Come on, give us humans more credit. Has “gayness spread” since decriminalising homosexuality? Of course not - it probably is at no more than its normal level within society - more people are out but I doubt there are per se more gay or LBITQ people as a result – people are certainly more free to express how they feel and act on how they feel & publically live how they feel – how can that be a bad thing if it does not harm others? Some may be offended but that is life. What if some people may want to live polygamous, polyandrous or polyamorous lives - let them do it. How does it harm you or society?

What about pedophilia and bestiality? Would we now be on that “slippery slope” if we allowed polyandry, polygamy & polyamory to be legalised. Not really, as the big difference here is that a minor cannot fully and maturely consent until majority thus it is not permissible, so too can’t an animal consent – to allow the legalising of pedophilia & bestiality would violate the rights of those two groups.

The “slippery slope” argument was used against interracial marriage and women’s voting rights too. Recall the Suffragettes fight in the UK to get women the right to vote? There were huge arguments for years in Parliament against allowing such a move: “allowing women to vote in national elections would upset the balance of society, lead to role confusion, lead to moral decay and general societal break down…”. It would be a “slippery slope” as maybe “they” may want to even become Members of Parliament and maybe even one day a Minister – god forbid the Prime Minister!.... & then they got Maggie Thatcher :D Life has a great way of biting you in the arse!

There were some seriously jaw dropping arguments raised in the British Parliament against allowing women the national vote in around 1910 - like:

“Women are not capable of full citizenship, for the simple reason that they are not available for purposes of national and Imperial defence. All government rests ultimately on force, to which women, owing to physical, moral and social reasons, are not capable of contributing.”

“Women already have the municipal vote where these councils deal with questions such as housing, education, care of children…which are more in a woman’s sphere. Parliament, however, has to deal mainly with the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and questions of peace and war, which lie outside the legitimate sphere of a women’s influence.

Yip things changed and society evolved – let’s face it, one man’s “slippery slope” is often another wo(man)’s “uphill battle”.

Barrin

Barrin said on the 8th Sep, 2012

Well if you wanna think out loud and not be asked about it you can do that without the use of your keyboard. The fact you've posted here means you wanted to share those thoughts.

You're implying that same-sex marriage may lead to polygamy and pedophilia becoming legal so I'd like to know more about why you think that way?

I don't mind being asked about anything. I did respond to your points about kids driving to school, alcohol and only women voting.

If internet forums like this existed 30 years ago you might be asking me..... "You're implying that decriminalising homosexuality may lead to same sex marriage becoming legal so I'd like to know more about why you think that way?"

Given that I was 24 in 1984 (and yes, I did indulge in criminal activity) I may well have made such a speculation about marriage. With confidence. Would I have been wrong then? Am I wrong now? Or is it all just thinking out loud?

mark_

mark_ said on the 8th Sep, 2012

:confused: I get confused when people do the Reductio ad Absurdum in reverse.

That was a different 'we'. I shudder to think who 'we' and our masters will be in 3012.

.

mark_

mark_ said on the 8th Sep, 2012

We have polygamy already. We are embracing and assisting it with Centrelink acting on our behalf. Centrelink is our biggest care-giver and they are doing their best to help and protect each and every one of us.

The following article mentions of the requests for polyamourous religious ceremonies happening every week. This man says a proper marriage is the decent way to honour and respect our women: it's a compliment to the original partner [to] go into it again.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1036308313972_2002/11/05/nat_islamicleader.jpg

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html

This article says Centrelink —acting on our behalf— is investigating up to 20 cases of multiple relationships, including polygamy, in the past two years.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560

And here's the tabloid TV version with Henk Jongen talking on our behalf at 7.12 in the clip—
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqcwmBbCsR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HwAVIpz-Ko

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 8th Sep, 2012

We have polygamy already. We are embracing and assisting it with Centrelink acting on our behalf. Centrelink is our biggest care-giver and they are doing their best to help and protect each and every one of us.

The following article mentions of the requests for polyamourous religious ceremonies happening every week. This man says a proper marriage is the decent way to honour and respect our women: it's a compliment to the original partner [to] go into it again.

...

Here are a few more links...

http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/overview/479/Polygamy

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1654425/No-three-way-odd-things-going-on-polygamist-says

MrAsh

MrAsh said on the 8th Sep, 2012

I'm not stating that the relationship of every marriage is oppressive and restrictive. I am saying the laws that define and govern relationships are oppressive and restrictive.

People should be allowed to negotiate their own ethical and legal relationship contracts and not have a one size fits all law to define what their relationship is about.

As for polyamorous relationships basing the relationship on a couple foundation, that statement would be disputed by those living mulitple partner relationships.

local_warming

local_warming said on the 8th Sep, 2012

at one point in the US, African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. They paid the same fare, received the same service and got to where they were going just as quick as white people so what were they complaining about?

Those basics make it sound alot nicer than it actually was, by omitting the central tenet of the law, was that if more white people got on board, then those seated blacks must vacate their seats for them. This kept happening until rosa parks took a stand which precipitated the montgomery bus boycott

Bar Wench

Bar Wench said on the 8th Sep, 2012

I'm not stating that the relationship of every marriage is oppressive and restrictive. I am saying the laws that define and govern relationships are oppressive and restrictive.

People should be allowed to negotiate their own ethical and legal relationship contracts and not have a one size fits all law to define what their relationship is about.

As for polyamorous relationships basing the relationship on a couple foundation, that statement would be disputed by those living mulitple partner relationships.

1) Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I still maintain that anything other than marriage as a contract between two people is a political minefield in this particular society. For the (largely) conservative mainstream, anything other than manogamy is seen as either cheating or exploitative, and there are a whole bunch of emotions and ethics that have to be challenged before the average person even considers it a valid personal choice. Of course, like homosexuality, this may change in the future but we're not there yet, and we should be looking at the issue in isolation from gay marriage at any rate.

2) Given that the two-person model is still going to be the basis for marriage, I don't really understand how anyone other than those with multiple partners will really be prevented from negotiating the terms and conditions of their relationships once marriage is gender neutral?

3) You say that as though I have no experience in the matter. I beg to differ. With the exception of one, each of the many polyamorous relationships I have witnessed have taken the form of the primary partner model. Of course there are may ways polyamory can be negotiated but anecdotally I would say this form seems the most successful.