Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » God bothering » Born again athiests » 98 names of shame

98 names of shame

Its called democracy Jeremy and it works. in any event you and the other pro Gay marriage activists should have known that this whole campaign was nothing more than a smokescreen to help distract the public from the incompetence of the Gillard government.
Cheers Comrades

Moved On

98 names on a list of shame that will embarrass not only all our descendants, but theirs in particular:

About exactly the reverse of how Australians, based on any recent polls on the issue, have asked their representatives to vote.

Shame to Ms Gillard, Mr Abbott, Mr Rudd – and my former local MP, Mike Symon, who repeatedly refused to meet with me to discuss marriage equality because he’s a gutless wonder who doesn’t deserve to hold the marginal seat he does.

Marriage equality will still happen within the next decade – it’s inevitable. The issue is simply not going away until there is full equality. There is no way now that people will settle for less. There is no victory for the discrimination side (short of Australia falling into a post-apocalyptic nightmarish theocratic state) that can last.

Enjoy your brief success in making gay people live under a couple…

View original post 12 more words

Advertisements

15 Comments

  1. I love how Jeremy doesn’t accord any legitimacy to the anti-gay marriage viewpoint. They who will “embarrass not only all our descendants, but theirs in particular:”

    Also, what’s so wrong with the local MP having more important things to do than set aside time to meet a constituent who wants to talk about gay marriage with him?

    I suspect that if every MP met every constituent who wanted a private audience, they would have time for little else.

  2. deknarf says:

    Gosh that’s drawing a rather long bow Iain — even for you. The gay marriaage/equality bit has been rumbling along for years, even pre-Gillard.

  3. Brian says:

    It was always doomed to defeat when Abbott refused a conscience vote. I have no idea why he did that, when it would have made more sense to let a conscience vote go through. I suspect the bill would still have been defeated, but the margin would probably have been a lot smaller. Anyway, I doubt it is the last we’ve heard of the issue.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    deknarf
    I agree that the issue has been around for years but I stand by my assertion that this latest iteration has been an exercise in what a magician would call “misdirection” and it has served the Gillard government rather well.
    Brian
    I agree with you when you suggest that the bill would still have been defeated with a conscience vote and I’m likewise certain that this won’t be the end of the matter either

  5. Berserker says:

    I’m glad it was defeated.

  6. GD says:

    I’m glad it was defeated.

    ditto

  7. Simon says:

    *SORRY ATTEMPT AT SATIRE ALERT*

    Apparently a text message has been circulating encouraging a protest of the decision this weekend by redecorating Hyde Park into a fairy wonderland. The general public are warned that their dress sense might be harshly criticised if passing through.

  8. GD says:

    98 names on a list of shame that will embarrass not only all our descendants

    I didn’t realise that homosexuals had descendants.

    Shame about that.

    Oh, that’s what Jezza means about ‘shame’.

    Now I get what he’s saying. 🙂

  9. Roll on election says:

    Kind of reminds me the Republic vote.

    Afterwards all the staunch Republicans ranted and raved saying that they weren’t going to give up and this was just the start of the fight etc.

    Similar things the Gay Marriage people have been saying in the last couple of days.

    How’s that Republic movement going now?

  10. Jeremy Sears did the right thing to broadcast the names of those Members of Parliament who voted this legislation down.

    Not supporting marriage equality means discriminating against the GLBTI people and implying that their relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships.

    Marriage has proven health benefits and these are currently being denied to same-sex couples. Married adults have been shown to have less physical and mental health problems, less disabilities, and were less likely to smoke or drink heavily; compared to adults who were cohabiting, single or separated.

    Research has proven that non-heterosexual persons have higher rates of mental illness and suicide, and this is significantly worsened by discrimination within society.

    Recent research has shown that the legalisation of same-sex marriage has had positive impacts on mental health of non-heterosexual persons living in those communities, and the same research has not shown any negative impact on heterosexual persons

    Some individuals are born with disorders of sex development, or intersex, and others experience gender identity disorder, or trans-sexualism. The current legal definition of marriage, based on gender, obviously prima facie fails the human rights of these Australian citizens

    The rates of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, are reduced amongst homosexual men in monogamous relationships. Therefore promoting long-term monogamous relationships – such as marriage in this population – will improve the physical health of the gay community.

    Over 30 years of medical research comparing children raised by same-sex couples with children raised by opposite-sex couples has not shown any significant difference in any outcome, including personality, peer-group relationships, self esteem, behavioural difficulties, academic success or any other measure of a child’s emotional, psychosocial or behavioural adjustment.

    I trust this information is of assistance to those readers of this blog who are small-minded on this issue.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Marriage has proven health benefits and these are currently being denied to same-sex couples. Married adults have been shown to have less physical and mental health problems, less disabilities, and were less likely to smoke or drink heavily; compared to adults who were cohabiting, single or separated.

    If “marriage” has any health benefits they do not derive from the word itself, but rather the committed nature of the relationship that it describes. So any same sex couple can(and I am sure do) enjoy precisely those benefits from their long term committed partnerships even if they can’t call them a marriage in law.

    I found the discussion of the issue towards the end of this panel of the issue consistent with may own thought on how this matter has played out.

  12. Nigel says:

    You say, “If “marriage” has any health benefits they do not derive from the word itself, but rather the committed nature of the relationship that it describes. So any same sex couple can(and I am sure do) enjoy precisely those benefits from their long term committed partnerships even if they can’t call them a marriage in law.’ So, then, the state – the Australian Government – should make sure that all long-term committed adult partnerships have the same protections in the law. Whatever it’s called, whatever word is used, the law should treat all adult relationships the same.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    As I have said before Nigel I favour a separate legal instrument for same sex couples(some form of civil unions)

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    Whatever it’s called, whatever word is used, the law should treat all adult relationships the same.

    That’s exactly what a seperate Act would achieve, Nigel. Sear’s wrong to condemn those MPs who voted against the amendment because it’s not a rejection of gay marriage per se, or discrimination, but a rejection of changing the current hetero Act. You have to acknowledge that a marriage between same sexes is not exactly the same as one between opposites. The current Act was set up to cover male & female unions and did not exclude gays as such – it just didn’t take them into account as there was no call to. Now that there is a call to recognise gay marriages too then what on earth is wrong with a seperate Act to cover their needs?

  15. Nigel says:

    Ray, re. ‘You have to acknowledge that a marriage between same sexes is not exactly the same as one between opposites’. I conclude – based on first-hand knowledge – that it’s exactly the same. It’s about commitment, companionship, intimacy, loyalty, family, and love.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: