Would a Libertarian sleep with Tony and Julia?

Alex Greenwich, the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality, argues that libertarians who oppose state-sanctioned marriage should still support same-sex marriage proposals: 

Recently the NSW Upper House passed a motion calling on the federal government to amend the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. It passed with the support of seven Coalition MPs, who were a mix of conservatives, tradionalists, and libertarians all advocating for the reform from their individual standpoint and representing the views of their constituents.

What many found puzzling was that Liberal libertarian Peter Phelps voted against the motion on the basis that we should privatise marriage and thereby reduce government interference in personal life.

Brendan O'Neill took Phelp's case one step further in the Australian in April. He argued that legalising same-sex marriage would open the door to government interference in an area traditionally off limits to the state - interpersonal and family relationships. To him, same-sex marriage would be such a radical "re-shaping" of cultural institutions that properly exist outside state control that it would effectively be a state takeover of these institutions (an argument I find offensive because it assumes same-sex relationships are fundamentally irreconcilable with traditional ideas of family and marriage).

Their case against same-sex marriage was satirised by a Labor colleague of Mr Phelps during the NSW debate. He said, “there are those here who believe in small government, government so small it only fits into the bedrooms of same-sex couples”.

Of course there are more serious issues at stake than that. Peter Phelps and Brendan O’Neill’s vision of the state abolishing all its rules and regulations for personal relationships is a noble one. But it is so politically untenable that it's hard not to see another agenda at play here; the use of libertarian language to dodge a hard political choice.

Libertarians engaging in this debate should see same-sex marriage as a step towards removing unwanted state interference, not a step away.

Marriage equality ends a form of government regulation that infringes gay people's freedom of choice. It means the government can no longer infantalise us by telling us which kind of lifelong union is legitimate and which is not. It acknowledges not only the fact that same-sex and different-sex relationships are of the same quality and value, but that same-sex and different-sex attracted people are equally capable of the same important life choices. It gets the state out of our bedroom.

I feel this state interference very keenly. As someone who just got married in Argentina, I found that the moment my husband and I returned to Australia the government invited a third person into our marriage, itself.

Same-sex married couples in Australian, and there are lots of us, share our bed each night with Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott. As representatives of the Australian state they stand between us and the equal legal recognition of our commitment to a shared life.

Any person who values the reduction of government interference in daily lives and believes in freedom of conscience cannot support legislation that leaves red hair on our pillows and speedos by our bed.

But this issue is about more than the equal personal freedom of gay Australians. It is also about acknowledging that marriage is not what Phelps and others make it out to be.

Phelp’s argument essentially calls for a system whereby each couple gets to set their own rules, make their own contract, celebrate the marriage in a religious ceremony if allowed, or in a civil service of their choosing.

Such a system already exists, and it is marriage as we know it.

Despite the “white-picket-fence” ideal of Jim Wallace's ACL, no two married couples are the same and each couple is allowed to set their own rules. Some marry to have kids. Some rule it out from the beginning. Some couples stay together forever. Some divorce after a week. Some live together. Some live apart due to work commitments. In some marriages the wife is the breadwinner while in others it’s both or the husband.

This ability to frame marriage in a couple's own terms currently operates in Australian, that is, unless you want to marry someone of the same-sex.

It’s at this point that government interference kicks in and imposes restrictions on your relationship, and denies you access to the protection, recognition, and legal security of being married.

An excellent example is divorce. For gay Australians dissolution of a relationship is made more complicated by the fact that we cannot marry. Because we have no choice but to be de facto partners, we often find ourselves in a legal mess if our relationships end, inviting yet more intervention by the state to sort things out.

Phelps ends his argument for privatising marriage and before voting against marriage equality by saying “My own view is this: let us get the government out of marriage and allow individuals to make their own marriage contracts, as befits a modern, secular society that rejects statism and places the freedom of the individual as its fundamental objective.

We can achieve this now for same-sex couples by supporting, rather than opposing, legislation that kicks Julia and Tony out of beds of thousands of same-sex couples.
Alex Greenwich is the National Convener of Australian Marriage Equality and one of Samesame's 25 most influential gay and lesbian Australians. Alex recently married his partner Victor in Argentina, runs a banking recruitment firm, and graduated from UNSW with a Bachelor of arts in 2001. He will join The Hon. Peter Phelps MLC in “A Conversation about Marriage” to be held on Tuesday the 24^th of July in Sydney: Details here

Comments

[TerjeP]

1.

I'm a commited libertarian and I whole heartedly agree. In particular I think the following is right on the money:-

... it's hard not to see another agenda at play here; the use of libertarian language to dodge a hard political choice.

We should support both same sex marriage whilst we have the marriage act and also support repeal of the marriage act. We should support the right of same sex couples to marry whilst opposing any compulsion on churches to be involved. To avoid a choice between A and B that is on the table on the basis that C would be even better, even though C is not currently on the table is juvenile.

[Janet H. Thompson]

2.

"An excellent example is divorce. For gay Australians dissolution of a relationship is made more complicated by the fact that we cannot marry."

Could you please expound upon this?

Thanks,
Janet

[Dr Peter Phelps MLC]

3.

Alex, you may wish to read what I actually said in Hansard before distorting it.

Alex: "What many found puzzling was that Liberal libertarian Peter Phelps voted against the motion on the basis that we should privatise marriage and thereby reduce government interference in personal life."

Peter: False. I rejected it because the Motion as written and preseneted to the House was ultra vires to the Constitution. Moreover, I considered it an impertinence for the State to purport to direct the deliberations of the Federal Parliament - remember when Marrickville Council tried to involve itself in foreign affairs?

Alex: "Their case against same-sex marriage was satirised by a Labor colleague of Mr Phelps during the NSW debate. He said, “there are those here who believe in small government, government so small it only fits into the bedrooms of same-sex couples”."

Peter: False. I have maintained my beliefs across all issues, as Alex would have known if he had bothered to research any of my other speeches. And I also find it ironic that he quotes a Hard Left Green - who never met a big government program they didn't like - to critique my freedom-loving credentials.

Alex: "Peter Phelps ... vision of the state abolishing all its rules and regulations for personal relationships is a noble one."

Peter: Thanks for that. But I feel a "but" coming on...

Alex: "But it is so politically untenable that it's hard not to see another agenda at play here; the use of libertarian language to dodge a hard political choice."

Peter: So let's not be visionary? Let's just muddle along with the ever-expanding arm of big government? And if you knew me, you would know that I do not dodge hard political choices.

Alex: "It means the government can no longer infantalise us by telling us which kind of lifelong union is legitimate and which is not."

Peter: Why do you (or, indeed, anyone) need government to tell you anything about your personal relationships?

Alex: "Phelp’s [sic] argument essentially calls for a system whereby each couple gets to set their own rules, make their own contract, celebrate the marriage in a religious ceremony if allowed, or in a civil service of their choosing."

Peter: Yes, which is NOT what you have now, thanks to the relative uniformity imposed by the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act.

Alex: "Such a system already exists, and it is marriage as we know it."

Peter: That's complete bullshit. Where in Australia can a marriage be entered into where the only way out is fault-based divorce? It can't. The Govt has created a one-size-fits-all response through the Family Law Act.

Summary: The Christian Right wants to use the coercive powwer of the State to refuse recognition to same-sex couples. The Gay Left wants to use the coercive power of the State to enforce recognition of same-sex couples.

Does anybody see a problem for true Libertarians here?

[Abraham]

4.

Janet,

Am I understanding you correctly?

In order to have an uncomplicated divorce it is neccesary for homosexuals to firstly be married? Or am I missing something?

If that is what is meant by this statement, it is utterly disingenuous.

[oldskool]

5.

EDITOR

this is a stupid article and well below the quality of articles one would expect to read at this site.

[Alex Greenwich]

6.

Hi Peter, I checked the hansard again and you said the following in relation to part a of the motion which related to supporting the issue:

" I do not support paragraph (a) because I believe that marriage should be privatised."

(http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20120524022?open&refNavID=HA8_1)

You then went on to oppose the next part of the motion calling on federal government to legislate based on "ultra vires to the Constitution".

I come from this issue from a different standpoint to you, as someone who feels the government invited themselves into my bedroom to legislate that because I am gay, I shouldn't be able to be married.

Of course, I don't need anyone's permission to be in a same-sex relationship or to love my partner, but there are GLBTI Aussies who aren't as supported by their families as me, and there is a serious negative emotional and mental health impact when you add to that the government telling you "should you hope to choose to marry the person you love, we will deny you that because of the sex of the person you love".

To summarise, while still suupporting your visionary plan for privatised marriage, you can also support the government removing themselves from the role they currently play in preventing same-sex marriage

[TerjeP]

7.

Oldskool - interesting. I think it is one of the better articles.

[Alex Greenwich]

8.

Same-sex couples can marry overseas, be recognised as married in over 20 places, but can't get divorced here, or have their foreign divorce recognised here

[Riet JR]

9.

That's not what you said though...

"For gay Australians dissolution of a relationship is made more complicated by the fact that we cannot marry. Because we have no choice but to be de facto partners, we often find ourselves in a legal mess if our relationships end, inviting yet more intervention by the state to sort things out."

Please explain how not having to divorce makes things more complicated.

[Abraham]

10.

I admire freedom of speech as much as the next progressive type. It affords me the ability - for now - to debate and disagree and engage with all human beings, even the ones who hate me. Though I reject your argument, I firmly believe you have the right to make it. And you have the right to be heard. I also admire your courage for posting your thoughts on a blog one might not consider generally sympathetic to the homosexual 'marriage' issue. And that is why you and I must defend our right to freedom of speech to our last breath.

The problem I have with the whole 'marriage equality' debate is that the equality homosexuals are seeking remains a vaguely defined abstract to me? Unless homosexuals are genuinely classed as inferior human beings and citizens by some discriminatory legislation with inferior rights and protections such as Apartheid legislation discriminated and dehumanised black people in South Africa, I fail to see how the inability to 'marry' is relegating homosexuals to second class citizens? What equality before the law are you seeking that currently does not exist? How does the law afford you as a homosexual less legal rights and protections than any other citizen - or even non-citizens - of this country?

So why this rabid pursuit to conquer the last vestige of straightness, marriage? It can't be about love. Because love is expressed with or without the legal sanction of marriage. Aren't all relationships are afforded some legal rights and protections especially long term relationships by Australian law. Or is it about legal rights? Do laws not already exist affording any homosexual partner the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual partners?

Except for the ability to marry, you and I have equal rights and protections within our relationships afforded by the same legal system. We are equals. Perhaps it is a sense of inferiority that causes you to perceive a nonexistent prejudice or inequality. And if you perceive yourself as not being inferior, what would entering into marriage change then? Nothing is my guess.

I suspect this claim to legalise homosexual 'marriage' is motivated by ideology. Marriage has always been a conservative tradition. And as we all are aware of both conservatism and tradition is absolutely abhorred by the progressive class. Marriage has been a contract into which a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others enters, that allowed them to procreate and establish a family, and it afforded their offspring a level of safety and security in which to grow into adulthood.

Admittedly the moral decay we have witnessed over the last four decades within western civilisation has all but ensured the disintegration of the nuclear family. As a result moral relativism has infused our social fibre and we live in a free for all society where no boundaries are set and none exist. We have progressed from marriage being seen as a serious commitment to no-fault divorces; from children being conceived within the sanctity of marriage to multiple children with multiple partners; from taking responsibility for the children we conceive to the abortion of those we don't want. Social regression is tangible and the homosexual 'marriage' push is merely another facet of this social decay. Already we have agitators for polygamy demanding their 'equality'. How will society deny biological siblings from their desire to formulate their relationship - should one exist - by 'getting married'? Where do you Alex, draw the line in the sand bearing in mind you are a moral relativist rejecting all moral absolutes?

What has changed for you since you 'married' your 'husband'? Did you suddenly love him more? Did you suddenly decide to remain faithful to him? Did you suddenly commit to him 'until death do us part'? If all those commitments and feelings didn't exist prior to you 'marrying' him, having a piece of paper stating 'Marriage Certificate' won't change anything. Fact is, homosexuals can be and in fact is happy and equal to heterosexuals even without 'marriage'.

Yet I believe it burns them to think marriage signifies so much more than just saying 'I do.' It signifies the unification of man and woman to create life. It signifies a normal, traditional family unit. As much as homosexuals demand their right to become 'parents' their children will always be biologically part someone else. Their children's DNA will always represent at best only half of them. Their children can never be a product of both their DNA, only half. It is sad, but it is reality.

In conclusion, my opposition to this issue would probably be perceived as the homophobic rant of a Neanderthal stuck in the Dark Ages. However, if my disagreement is perceived as such then so be it. My indifference towards the exceedingly delicate sensitivities of overly sensitive moral relativists with inferiority complexes shields me from having to chastise myself for being perceived as a cruel and prejudiced bigot. I have a right to an opinion as much as you have a right to object to my opinion. That is what moral relativism affords me, I cannot be judged by those who denounce moral absolutes.

[Nona Florat]

11.

It is puzzling that anyone who advocates keeping the state out of private life, would push same-sex "marriage".

Let us take our heads out of the sand, and observe what have been the consequences of SSM legislation overseas.

Freedom of speech abolished. Anyone who disagrees with the homosexualist agenda accused of so-called "hate speech crime".

School children subjected to compulsory indoctrination in homosexualist propaganda in violation of parental rights.

Every citizen compelled by law to participate in same-sex "weddings", including caterers, photographers, musicians, etc.
Those who decline are charged with a "crime of discrimination".

When I speak of the homosexualist agenda I refer to radical activists, not to homosexual persons. There is a big difference.

Same-sex couples are already free to celebrate their commitment on a social level, with the help of "gay friendly" caterers.

In a democracy we agree to disagree. Democratic tolerance is a two way street, based on reciprocity and mutual respect for worldviews that can never be reconciled.

We, who uphold the natural family, based on biological science, do not hate homosexuals or anyone else. It is defamatory to be accused of hatred.

Perhaps a homosexual, Richard Waghorne, says it best:

"Explaining that you oppose gay marriage as a gay man tends to get a baffled response at first. This is understandable given how quickly the debate on gay marriage can collapse into allegations of homophobia. The message, explicit or implicit, is often that being anti-gay marriage means being in some way anti-gay.

I have watched with growing irritation as principled opponents of gay marriage have put up with a stream of abuse for explaining their position. Public figures who try to do so routinely have to contend with the charge that they are bigoted or homophobic".

http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

[kraka]

12.

Abraham, well thought out post. Personally I don't really care if same sex couples are allowed to marry or not even though I think it should stay between a man and a woman.
Firstly, I don't care because there are far more important and pressing issues around at the moment that require attention-think homelessness,crime,attach on free speech etc
Secondly, as the no fault divorce laws showed, there will no doubt be a myriad of unintended consequences.Think kids involved in a divorce of same sex couples-seeing as how the mum is currently the preferred option (regardless of circumstances)in the system we have now-who gets them when you have two dads or two mums. What about the rights of the 50% biological parent not involved in the marriage etc etc
Thirdly,as you pointed out, the slippery slope to allowing polygamy WILL raise its head despite protestations by regressives like Turnbull. What next, will someone into beastiality want to marry his pet goat?
Marriage is a tradition dating back centuries and reserved between a man and a woman. It should stay that way.

[Richo]

13.

Let's be clear, same sex couples can get married, it is just that the state won't legally recognise it.

Same sex marriage advocates are not wanting Julia and Tony to get out of their beds, they want Julia and Tony to give them the big tick of approval.

Tony and Julia don't want to, but it doesn't mean they are interfering in a relationship.

Secondly, I don't agree with the author's assertion that de facto couples have a harder time legally. If that were true, the number of de facto couples would be stable or in decline.

In fact the number of defacto couples is increasing in number. According to the ABS, the number of defacto couples for young people has doubled since 1992.
Defacto couples have legal protections and are defined as couples.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/spw/customer/publications/resources/co576/co576-1203en.pdf

I am in a defacto relationship. I don’t have any plans to get married and my relationship with my partner would not be any more special if we were married.

Perhaps people should just get on with their lives.

[Sal]

14.

ha, this is unsatisfactory for a LGBT purist and with many errors for a conservative.

Middle road polemics, sounds smooth for someone new to the game, why dont you just do yourself a favor and acknowledge the real author of this article....Tim Wilson.

[sally]

15.

When you can have a drive thru marriage in Vegas, the institution of marriage isn't that special any-more.

Kd Lang.

Singer and Lover of Melbourne as the best city in the world!!

[sally]

16.

Tim Wilson

Who works for the ipa and had Mark Steyn as a guest.

That weird think tank...lol!!

The article makes sense then within that context Sal

[sally]

17.

The real question to be asked is...

You use the government as a "gay of convenience" to suit ones agenda really Alex and co.

"Same-sex married couples in Australian, and there are lots of us, share our bed each night with Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott......"

I secretly think some libertarians would really love that idea namely Tony Abbott....

smirk

There are many flaws in this article that are too numerous to mention on this post..

Nice try guys but its a very shallow analysis

[helen]

18.

Abraham,
The real motive behind the whole marriage debate is that its been used to help further people's political careers and Alex has demonstrated that by running on the team Clover ticket for the Sydney Mayor gig.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that but its disingenuous for the gay lobby to say that the a.c.l's attack of that point doesn't ring true.

I also suspect that its been a nice Gay gravy train for many along the way.......

[Abraham]

19.

Helen,

What really annoys me beyond comprehension is the fact any opposition to the whole same-sex debate automatically condemns you as some homophobic bigot.

From a heterosexual, married, conservative, religious male of German-Dutch decent, I tick every single box that presumably offends some minority.

Women: Sexist
Gays: Homophobe
Conservative: Right winger
Religious: Bigot
White: Racist
Straight: see #2

Hell is there any minority I won't offend by voicing an opinion?

I've reached a point in my life where I could not care less. You call me a racist ... suck it up cupcake. You call me a homophobe ... cry me a river. You call me sexist ... get a life. You call me a bigot ... You get the point.

As for the gay lobby's insistence I accept sodomy as a natural act between two consenting adults just as nature apparently intended it to be well I reject their demand without as much as a grain of guilt. As a human being, born free and belonging to no one but myself, I am not compelled to accept anything from anyone. If that wins me a label, I'll wear it with pride. I'm done sucking up the pretentious sensitivities of opportunistic minorities.

To them I say "Grow a backbone and get a life ..."

[helen]

20.

Ok fair point........i dont agree with everything you say but its an interesting viewpoint and valid in some respect

cheers

[sally]

21.

Its quite disturbing to see the self entitled gay bourgeoisie get nasty with this issue...

It's a shame as they have been a great gay lobby thus far.

This could lose them many supporters along the way.

Alex don't go down that road, your'e too smart and sensible to do it with class and panache i hope!!

Best of luck with it all Mr Greenwich.

[sally]

22.

Furthermore , the thoughtless generalizations of Ancient Greece and homosexuality need to be improved.

It's more complex than that and respect should be given to the intellectual arguments of that historical context more in depth.

Best!!

[Gary Marshall]

23.

Not me. Or perhaps if I were ripping off the taxpayers of Australia!

Here's a little note on Fitzroy House. Old news, but good news.

Gary Marshall

@@@@

I will dissect Julia Gillard’s above comments later in the post because they beggar belief and raise more questions than they answer. But the part that would stand out at this point for anyone who has been following the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks matters over the past 10 months or so is the part where Julia Gillard whinges “to have false allegations in the media was distressing” which is exactly what Julia Gillard did to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange at the end of last year when she falsely said their actions were illegal.

In this post I will cover:

1. Julia Gillard’s part in ripping off the AWU for over $1,000,000

2. Julia Gillard’s hypocrisy in relation to her allegations of illegal conduct by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

3. Prima Facie Case to have Julia Gillard charged for breaching section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act “Conspiracy to bring false accusation” and section 137 of the 1995 Criminal Code “False or misleading information or documents”.

To appreciate how Julia Gillard’s answers she gave in the 2007 interview beggar belief it is important to have some knowledge of what happened when she helped Bruce Wilson steal from the AWU. A brief outline is below.

The way the scam worked is best set out in another article by Glenn Milne where it starts off:

“THE con used by Julia Gillard’s former lover to cream off possibly more than $1 million was simple and backed by standover tactics.

As union secretary, Bruce Morton Wilson would go on to construction sites and tell bosses they “needed” an industrial agreement which he would negotiate.

But there was a price – they would have to purchase hundreds of AWU membership tickets in exchange for the industrial peace guaranteed by the “agreement”.

However, when the employers made out the cheques – sometimes for more than $50,000 at a time – the money for memberships that never existed would go into phony AWU accounts that actually belonged to Wilson.” (Click here to read the full article)

The scam seems to have first started in Western Australia when Bruce Wilson was State Secretary of the AWU and he had already set up two bogus accounts to funnel the money through. He later moved to Victoria to become State Secretary for both Victoria and Western Australia.

By this time Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson were in a sexual relationship and Julia Gillard should have stopped representing the AWU as there was a clear conflict of interest.

@@@@@@

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/08/07/australian-prime-minister-julia-gillards-criminal-history-and-her-hypocris-with-wikileaks-and-julian-assange/

and

http://nominister.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/this-story-has-legs-and-its-running.html

[dandy andy]

24.

The liberals dont have much respect for institutions per se except the institution of
marriage

why then do homcons seek assistance from govts to change the marriage act??

But out of the govts life and get married in other countries where and marriage is allowed and stop whinging

glbtiq rights in Australia are the best in the world

thats an institution thing called the law

hypocricy and selfishness has no boundaries

lordy how precious are we!!

;)

[dandy andy]

25.

garry

peta credlin is married to a liberal

trace the history of those political relationships if u want to go down that ridiculous
argument

incestous arrangements with the liberals are akin to a british drama series

oh come on!!

;)

[dandy andy]

26.

furthermore if tim wilson wrote this piece and is the product of a free market education then you need to get your money back
from your private school sir
its crap mate

[dandy andy]

27.

abraham

what would you do if your son was gay?

[Abraham]

28.

What do you mean by what would I do? I'll surely not compromise on my principle belief if that's what you are asking.

[dandy andy]

29.

Would you accept and support him as a gay man and support his right to get married if thats his choice??

;)

[Anton]

30.

We should support more state interference to reduce state interference?

[jen]

31.

If the libretarians who dont want compromise with their private marriage arrangements go through a very nasty divorce
Thats when the gay marriage debate gets really interesting

I would hate to be married to a partner like that with no compromise

Best of luck with that get a good lawyer chums!!!

;)

[jen]

32.

huh???

wtf?

;)

[Abraham]

33.

No. I won't support his 'right' to get married.

[Abraham]

34.

Why would I compromise on a core principle? Because he is my son? I won't even compromise on a core principle for my wife. That is why it's called a principle. It's not negotiable merely because of some special relationship. That would be weak.

What does that make me? Anything but unprincipled.

[jen]

35.

Abraham

Dont you think that would cause distress to your son ??

Suicide is high amongst gay youth and that is why so many are fighting for that right

[Abraham]

36.

Distress is a subjective emotion. Some people experiences distress from experiences other people consider insignificant. Fact remains, you cannot compromise on your principles merely because it might cause someone distress. Once you compromise your principles you become a relativist.

Our society is in terminal decay because of moral relativism. Morality has been sacrificed in the name of tolerance.

Sometimes in life, you just have to say enough is enough.

[jen]

37.

Thats the point exactly

Why compromise when it causes distress or even death

The Asylum solution that because of PRINCIPLES
has resulted in children dying at sea

ho hum let the gay kid die eh??

ugh

[kraka]

38.

Jen those children drowned because of the so called humanitarian principles of the left.

[jen]

39.

Principles that are not ready for ANY compromise from both sides are dangerous

Thanks Kraka

[Abraham]

40.

Firstly your post is an incoherent rant. What point are you attempting to make? As I previously stated, distress is a subjective emotional state. Each individual reacts different to external stimuli and thus respond different. Notwithstanding the fact my actions could cause distress, it still is not reason enough for me to compromise on any principle.

Secondly, children dying at sea is the result of the current government's immigration policy. Full stop. Their responsibility, not the Coalition's. Although the drownings are a terrible tragedy, they have not been caused by the actions of anyone other than Labor and their Green bedfellows. Sorry but your attempt at evoking some sort of guilt is misguide and futile. I would refer you to 'personal responsibility'. Every man or woman boarding a boat bound for Australia fully understand the risk they take. If they are intelligent enough to contact our meet and greet service a.k.a. Royal Australian Navy, they are intelligent enough to understand the risk and also their personal accountability.

Lastly, your statement "ho hum let the gay kid die eh??" I find reprehensible. But having said that, suicide is the ultimate expression of personal choice. Every single person committing suicide does so because they made a conscious choice to end their life. People end their life for various reasons. Sad fact is all those people had options other than death, yet they chose death. If ever I had a child who was homosexual and he or she chose to end their life it would be truly sad but at the end it would remain their choice.

[Janet Thompson]

41.

Abraham, the quotation marks indicated that it was a quote from the article. Alex, I would appreciate a response when you get time.

Cheers,
Janet

[jen]

42.

Mental illness isnt a choice that leads to suicide?

You would allow your child to die as a result of that choice and not intervene to help

Thats repugnant and mean

Hey thats their choiçe Abraham or not?

Principles are principles in and out of politics!!

[Abraham]

43.

You would allow your child to die as a result of that choice and not intervene to help

What do you mean 'You would allow your child to die ...'?

AND

Please clarify '... that choice ...' What 'choice' are you talking about?

[Abraham]

44.

Janet,

It is in reference to what jen said in post #37. I failed to understand the context or point of jen's statement "ho hum let the gay kid die eh??"

Regards,

Abe

[kraka]

45.

Why should the libs compromise-their principles, unlike the lefts, WORKED-people stopped drowning and their were no children in detention in Australia

[jen]

46.

http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/21882/pn/1/p/0/?KSID=617331aec26b7d6a55515f324f188604

Read the above please and then we shall continue ok??

;)

[Abraham]

47.

What happened to the girl is truly tragic. But how do you prevent human beings from being cruel towards each other? You can't. How could that girl have been protected from the torment she had to endure? What punishment would have ensured her tormentors cease their daily attacks on her? Legislation? Lawsuits? Punitive damages? I would venture a guess that nothing would have prevented her misery and agony.

Why? Because some human beings are just evil. They feast on the misery of the weak. Denying the wicked nature of human beings is naive. Dr Philip Zimbardo penned a book titled "The Lucifer Effect - How good people turn evil" ALL human beings are capable, given the circumstances to commit the most incredible acts of cruelty on their fellow human beings.

How do you propose similar incidents are to be avoided?

[jen]

48.

Choice =suicide

Within that context how do you prevent that suicide because of their identity

Harsh police interventions and eduçation

Was that their choice to suicide?

Was that the fault of the gay individual

Pretend your'e the father in that scenario
;)

[jen]

49.

http://www.headspace.org.au/is-it-just-me/find-information/sexuality-and-gender-identity

Programmes like this help and are great!!

[helen]

50.

Wow!

That Rolling Stone article is amazing and well written

Göodness me

;)

[Abraham]

51.

Suicide by implication is a choice. An incorrect choice but a choice nonetheless. I disagree with 'harsh police intervention'. Where do you then draw the line once the State is tasked with policing cases such as the one you linked to?

Human emotions are so completely and utterly subjective that how do you criminalise emotions or reactions to emotions? Can you imagine how many innocent remarks, gestures or conversations, can be misinterpreted, misconstrued or misrepresented and ultimately lead to 'harsh police intervention'?

With personal liberty comes a responsibility to conduct one self with honour and treat your fellow human beings with respect. We ought to encourage respect for each other and discourage State intervention. The State ought not become the nanny.

[helen]

52.

With all due respect to Jen Australian conservatives arent like their us counterparts

;)

[Anton]

53.

The "gay marriage" debate is complete bullshit. Anyone wishing to be classed as an adult has the personal responsibility to control their emotions and "desires":

• Any man that cannot control their urge to have sex with children is a paedophile
• Any man that cannot control their urge to have sex with an unwilling woman is a rapist
• Any man that cannot control their urge to have sex with men is a sodomist.
While sodomy may not be a crime anymore, it should not be the norm.

[jen]

54.

Dont use that nanny state argument with this scenario

Teachers are also held responsible and if there are problems

They are part of that nanny state idea i suppose

Thats a ridiculous assertion to not include police with criminal açtivity

Maybe its ok to allow rape at institutions when crimes occur as its too nanny state??

[mad]

55.

Anton

please stop the tea party rant idiocy

We dont go down that route on this thread

Next time engage in bogan talk ok at home

email to alex and co

no wonder the director left menzies house

or else piss off

[Anton]

56.

Am I paying for your education?

[Anton]

57.

How could anyone possibly argue with that?

[jen]

58.

Thanks

O:-)

[helen]

59.

The gay lobby have adopted a very nasty and arrogant streak

Attacking The Salvos for an outdated paragraph in their manuel ten years is extreme

Thats what lobbying does to the yuppie crowd on ego trips the size of everest

Get a life darlings!

[helen]

60.

Furthermore if i see one more bloody celebrity jump on the bandwagon and say

some simplistic trendy slogan

i will support equality et al

i will scream!!!!!!

We get it ok no need to feed the ego monster as a cashed up bogan some of you are

[Janet H. Thompson]

61.

Alex, could you please expound upon the following:

"An excellent example is divorce. For gay Australians dissolution of a relationship is made more complicated by the fact that we cannot marry."

Abraham, I was the second commenter on this comment thread, and early on you attributed what was in quotes to me. It's actually in Alex's article, and I want to understand exactly how this works.

Thanks,
Janet

[Abraham]

62.

My apologies for the confusion. Your post I referred to only appeared further down and I incorrectly assumed it to be relevant to one of my later posts.

Ragards,

Abe.

PS: Don't hold your breath waiting for a response. Except for Geoff Crocker few contributors ever 'debate' their contributions.

[sam]

63.

http://www.rightpulse.com/archives/3979

Tim Wilsons argument analysed by the right wing

including gay divorce (brief note)

[sam]

64.

http://www.doublehearsay.com/2012/same-sex-divorce-case-legally-straightforward-politically-exploited-95

The divorce dilemma from a Canadian perspective Janet

Hope that helps!

[sam]

65.

anton re mad

you mean state or private school??

lol

[jen]

66.

GORE VIDAL

There is no such thing as homösexual or heterosexual plerson but homo or heterosexual açts

Most people are a mixture of impulses if not açtiöns

[Anton]

67.

Hopefully state. The mere thought of mad being a genetically linked dependant..

[sam]

68.

Anton

lol!!!

one never ceases to amaze...,

[sam]

69.

This article is all over the place

The points are valid and fair but clarification is required with gay divorce

[jean]

70.

Alex

Its delightful to see a new generation to emerge as leaders

Have a heart of gold with a vision for a better future!!

Best of luck to you and your gorgeous partner

[sean]

71.

We want real leaders who can negotiate and are great collabarators

WHO LISTEN

Not show ponies please

[Abraham]

72.

Yes.

2013 cannot come soon enough. A new breed of leadership will God willing, steer this great country back towards the sanity and liberty upon which its foundations rested and resulted in this amazing country being the port of call for generations of immigrants and fortune hunters.

The next generation of leaders will attempt to rid us of the tyranny of political correctness which impedes our freedom of express and our ability to speak freely as free born citizens.

I'm with you Jean, hail the new generation of leaders.

[taken from Matilda]

73.

I guess what we have under Abbott and Howard before him is a conservative party rather than a liberal party. Small ‘l’ Liberals like former Premier Dick Hamer and former Senator Chris Puplick (who is gay) were prepared to support the rights of gays (up to a point).

That said, Abbott, Howard etc bang on about the need to free up markets - especially the labour market - and not impose undue restrictions on businesses or force people to join trade unions.

In other words, they want people to be free to engage in the capitalist system but neglect or oppose outright some of the most personal and basic freedoms.

The same-sex marriage issue really highlights contradictions in Liberal Party philosophy like no other issue. And not too many Liberals even promoted decriminalisation of homosexuality in this country.

Also just about every authoritarian regime in recent history had or has anti-gay laws. How can you support the overthrow of such regimes but tolerate anti-gay legislation at home? Somehow many conservatives still try to square that circle.

[Anthony]

74.

Why can't ALL marriage be left to individuals and their religious institutions to define and argue about?

Ask the people who advocate government-imposed and controlled homosexual 2-person marriage, whether they are in favour of government-imposed and controlled 2+ person marriage (with some taxpayer funding to boot) ...

We shouldn't discriminate, after all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9433441/Immigrants-with-multiple-wives-will-get-more-benefits-officials-admit.html

[sean]

75.

Anthony???

What about gay divorce and the legal requirements there??

See above articles

[sean]

76.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823210

Thats leadership!!

[jean]

77.

Thanks Abraham

We agree and thats great!!

;)

[homösthyarra]

78.

No one has answered the question in this heading?

Yes homcons would sleep with tony

of course they would!!

Julia not really according to some shes a muppet

smirk

[homösthyarra]

79.

The above post is akin to a first year uni student rant

However the title and author of this article has the maturity to matçh it

I have doubts its Mr Alex Greenwich who wrote it also

#just saying

[jean]

80.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/02/gay-lesbian-islamophobia?cat=commentisfree&type=article

Abraham this article is a gem!!!

Gay and raçìst eh???