Gay debate (redux)

A

Asguard

Kiss my dark side
Valued Senior Member
There was a upper house member (Ian Hunter) who happens to be gay who gave an interview this morning on ABC adelaide's morning show this morning.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/sa/2009/01/891-mornings-re.html

click on the thursday one and open it in either media player or real player and forward it to the 24 min mark (till around 27min mark). Its a very interesting artical from someone who IS a member of parliment.

The debate in the soap box was interesting and unfortunatly very sad from some of the callers (the against side i mean, in the amount of bigotry against gays, women and other things)

The story will only be there until next thursday unfortunatly
 
anyway here is a more lasting story on him i found by googling him name.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25651109-5006301,00.html

notice that even on a right wing leaning tabloid the poll (which normally seems to go to the right no matter what the issue is) is currently sitting at:

"Close Poll Results
Thanks for voting, here are the results so far:

Should marriage be limited to hetrosexual couples?

Yes 40% 435 votes
No 56% 611 votes
undecided 3% 33 votes"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We had a comedian and musician run as an independent for Governor of Texas by the name of Kinky Friedman.

I really wish he had won. When asked what his stance on gay marriage was....he pulled the cigar from his mouth and said "I'm all for it...I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us." :)
 
mac because this is a state pollie im honestly not sure how the upper house is voted for (i simply cant rember) but if its like the senate (ie you vote for a set number of seats for the state rather than one person for the electrote like the lower house) and i have the chance to vote for him he will be reciving a 1 on my vote card no matter where the labor party puts him. Even if he was a libral i would be putting him first, we need more MP's willing to challange the parties on these sorts of issues
 
Honestly I don't see how homosexuality is even a matter of the state or of the law.
 
its not, however relationships and marrage ARE. For instance you are involved in a car acident and are in a drug induced coma in ICU. People need to make decisions on your treatment in your best interests so who should it be?

The courts?
The doctors themselves?
or the people who you love and who love you and whom you have possably discussed your desires to

Orleander has stated before that in a persistant vegitative state she would want the works done to keep her alive, personally i would want to be let die. We are both brought in to hospital from the same crash, how would the doctors or the courts know that when faced with the same probablility they should let me die and try to save her?

Im sure Orleanders husband could tell them her desires and PB DEFINITLY could about me

Now until recently in Australia even Defacto same sex couples were NOT concidered to be next of kin even after changes which gave that right and responcability to Hetrosexual Defactos. If you had previously been married or worse were just seperated your FORMER partner could be concidered to be your next of Kin even if that was 20 or more years ago (that was pre a law which past LAST YEAR)

Now lets say you have children to a drug adict when you were 18 and still trying to find yourself before you came out as homosexual. You took an action in the family court to get sole cutody of that child. You and you new homosexual partner have raised that child (lets say its 12 years latter) and the mother hasnt even SEEN the child, they have been living on the streets or whatever and the child conciders you and your male partner to be its parents. You and the child are in a car acident Under CURRENT australian law your male partner can NOT make medical decisions for that child as his\her guardian. They would have to take it to the courts or try to find the mother to do it even if she was found lying in a ditch dead or compleatly intoxicated through drugs. If you died then you WOULD NOT be granted custody it would revert to the mother, if she was found dead or unfit the child becomes a ward of the state and you would be UNABLE to adopt that child because of your sexuality.

Then there are issues around being able to be placed in the same room as your partner in a nursing home when you age which is a RIGHT for married couples but was not a right for defactos of either gender (i THINK) but definitly same sex couples until the changes in federal law last year.

there are other finantial things like the same sex partner of a soldier killed in war wasnt able to recive a gold or platnum card, war widows pention ect, they wernt concidered to be partners for tax and social securities purposes ect ect.

Like it or not marriage is a STATE contract and there for it should be free to anyone who wishes to use it and is legally able to consent (before we get the barron max's of the world claiming that they want to marry there goat ANIMALS CANT CONSENT)
 
Last edited:
I'm with Asguard. It's a matter of legal rights. It's not up for discussion. We need gay marriage for the sake of the legal rights of gay couples.
 
Yes I know I'm for gay marriage but I don't think the state ought to even meddle at all in the affairs of the citizens. At all. In anything.
 
Nose i know your anti goverment but thats not the issue for debate here. For the sake of this debate at least will you just accept we have a goverment, marriage is a legal contract given by the state which confers certain rights and responcabilities and that these rights and responcabilities are granted to one group of people and not another
 
What’s the big deal about gays, give them rights like the rest of us, or do they need their own water fountains and restrooms too? I mean there is nothing wrong with being gay or having gay sex if that is your thing.
 
Debating whether homosexuality is wrong or not is pointless, it's voluntary and consensual and for that reason alone it ought to be legal (gay marriage)
 
ok here is one which should test your surport norse, should same sex couples have access to a) IVF b) surrgocy and c) adoption?
 
Yes because that's all voluntary too. As long as it is being paid for privately (voluntarily) then it's fine, and as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
 
ok, now concidering that IVF is paid for as part of medicare for hetrosexual couples should same sex couples have access to that as well?
 
I suppose if it is already there yes, because that's a different issue (neither hetero or homo should use taxpayer dollars for this, however that's a separate issue it doesn't matter if they are gay)
 
i honestly dont know, i doubt it but that COULD be the case *shrug* Either way what difference would it make concidering that same sex couples are legally PREVENTED from getting married.

Actually now i think about it i belive there was a single women who sued the goverment and won the right to access IVF on medicare. They had to create a new catigory of "infertile" for that reason. I belive it was called socially infertile or something like it
 
Asguard said:
i honestly dont know, i doubt it but that COULD be the case *shrug* Either way what difference would it make concidering that same sex couples are legally PREVENTED from getting married....
Click to expand...

and that's what they do. They give it to married couples and tell gay couples they can't because they aren't married and then they make it so they can't get married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top