Liberal Party Debating Policy re same sex marriage

[Calebark]

Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.

Religious schools still receive funding from a secular government. They can teach SSM.

[Bri MT]

Of course we shouldn't ignore the minority (especially in this case when it was actually pretty large - 38.4%, I read). Both sides' views should be taken into account. I'm part of the minority too, and I'm certainly not advocating for the government to completely ignore my views. May I ask what your opinion on SSM is?

Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.

"Kids shouldn't be forced to learn about [marraige]." ??
It's also not legalised yet, that process still needs to occur in parliament.

[Deonyi]

I'm not sure any schools even really discuss marriage as a subject right now. When would it come up? They seem to all use vague PC words like 'in a relationship' or 'partners'. I am of course disappointed in the result, but I suppose each to his own and most seem to be against me.

[peterpiper]

Of course we shouldn't ignore the minority (especially in this case when it was actually pretty large - 38.4%, I read). Both sides' views should be taken into account. I'm part of the minority too, and I'm certainly not advocating for the government to completely ignore my views. May I ask what your opinion on SSM is?

Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.

But schools should teach what Australia says about marriage, and if SSM is legalised, it should be taught as exactly as SSM defines marriage because it's a fact...it's like schools teaching kids how women have no rights because in the past they didn't, when they do in society today - whether or not they agree with it as a matter of principle. Contraception is freely available as well as taught (well, taught as part of a topic of sex-ed) at some catholic schools. Some catholic schools don't even touch the subject of sex-ed (marginally but putting very little emphasis on it anyway). Principally, Catholicism doesn't agree with the use of it, but it's there anyway. It's legal and Australia says it's fine to be used, so it should be taught that way. It also doesn't prevent Catholic schools with providing alternative views for its controversial material. So their freedom of speech isn't restricted. In fact, contrarily, I think it opens a lot of room for debate.

Also, personally I don't think parents/families always know what's best for their kids. Parents can't shelter them from what is at large what is the legal definition of marriage (if SSM is legalised): and what's the harm in them knowing that the term is as what it is? Even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs?


ALSO *RANT* Why do people have so little faith in the critical minds of kids in general? Not all kids are that impressionable that their opinions are fodder of hostile opinions fed through singularly and only by educators with malicious intent. The whole argument your putting it as sounds like a re-enactment of hitler's youth. Like do you really think SSM endangers people to such an extent that it could be viewed so divisive a topic that it should not be taught because it is something akin to anti-religion propaganda??

[vox nihili]

I am disappointed in the outcome...however, I accept that it was a democratic vote. In that sense I am glad Australia has had it's say, and it would be wrong to create laws based on the minority . However it does not mean that I am glad of the outcome, but I am not surprised either - I think we all had a pretty good idea it was going to be legalised (or at least, everyone around me did).

I hope this doesn't impact on free speech like it has on America and Canada, although it very likely will. I am not at all opposed to gay marriage, but I am opposed to the repercussions that may arise as a result of the ruling.

Hope most of you were happy though!

One could make the very reasonable argument that allowing an anachronistic definition of marriage grounded in Christian thought is tantamount to "creating laws based on the minority", given that Christians are now a minority religion. It could also be said that changing the Marriage Act, something we now know with certainty is supported by the majority, is quite the opposite of creating laws based on the minority.

[geminii]

One could make the very reasonable argument that allowing an anachronistic definition of marriage grounded in Christian thought is tantamount to "creating laws based on the minority", given that Christians are now a minority religion. It could also be said that changing the Marriage Act, something we now know with certainty is supported by the majority, is quite the opposite of creating laws based on the minority.

And this is exactly what my post said - those opposing same sex marriage are the minority, so it should be legalised, because that is what the majority wants. So we pretty much agree, vox.

[peterpiper]

And this is exactly what my post said - those opposing same sex marriage are the minority, so it should be legalised, because that is what the majority wants. So we pretty much agree, vox.

Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.

[vox nihili]

Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.

Likewise, I interpreted it the same way. My apologies mate!

[geminii]

Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.

Likewise, I interpreted it the same way. My apologies mate!

That's all right guys! I was confused why you disagreed with what I said! Sorry, should have been clearer

[keltingmeith]

Tbh, I don't think this is as much a victory as people like to believe.

Yes, SSM won the vote. However, it didn't hold a total majority - when you take into account how many people actually voted, only 49% are vocally for SSM. This holds true for several electorates, as well, including the infamous Menzies. A good argument, and hopefully the way many see it, is quite simply if the 20% that didn't vote cared enough to change the law, they would've voted. Unfortunately, this is still fuel many can use for the fire against us in the LGBTQIA+ community.

Not to sound defeatist or anything - this is a step forward past the step back that the whole vote was. But, there's still a long way to go, so hopefully people don't see this as a chance to let up. Even after the bill passes (because, let's be real, it's almost political suicide for most of the MPs to not vote for a SSM bill, unless it's as atrocious as the Patterson bill), there'll be hell to pay.

[vox nihili]

That's all right guys! I was confused why you disagreed with what I said! Sorry, should have been clearer

I thought it was an unusual statement given how  reasonable you had otherwise been should have thought about it a bit more, but always love a bit of controversy :p

Tbh, I don't think this is as much a victory as people like to believe.

Yes, SSM won the vote. However, it didn't hold a total majority - when you take into account how many people actually voted, only 49% are vocally for SSM. This holds true for several electorates, as well, including the infamous Menzies. A good argument, and hopefully the way many see it, is quite simply if the 20% that didn't vote cared enough to change the law, they would've voted. Unfortunately, this is still fuel many can use for the fire against us in the LGBTQIA+ community.

Not to sound defeatist or anything - this is a step forward past the step back that the whole vote was. But, there's still a long way to go, so hopefully people don't see this as a chance to let up. Even after the bill passes (because, let's be real, it's almost political suicide for most of the MPs to not vote for a SSM bill, unless it's as atrocious as the Patterson bill), there'll be hell to pay.

I think you’re spot on about the politics here. Some will argue, as you rightly say, that because not everyone voted and technically only 49% of the electorate voted yes then blah blah there’s not support. I do think, by and large, those views won’t penetrate. It’s too much a technical argument and one which people inherently know is fishy.

It also doesn’t really stack up. The turnout for this plebiscite, for a voluntary election, was nothing short of incredible. There are few democracies in the world that could boast a turnout as strong as this. In Ireland, it was nearly 20 percentage points lower. Indeed, if we compare it to the election we just had in Geelong for our council—which is mandatory by the way—the turnout was almost as high.
There will always be people who won’t vote. They can’t be arsed. Maybe they disagreed with the plebiscite (some still will have boycotted). The idea that they would vote 20:1 against gay marriage though and thus not ensure a total majority is insane. The reality is, given the demographics of those who didn’t vote, it would more likely have bolstered the result had they voted.

[K888]

Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of this whole process was not the fact that SSM got over 60% support (that was to be expected), or even that the level of support in Tony Abbott's own seat was over 75%. Rather, it was the fact that the most anti-SSM electorates were all in Western Sydney and held by Labor MPs. There has always been a tension within the Labor base between the inner city, middle-class 'progressive' side of the party and the outer suburban, working class (and often migrant) 'socially conservative' constituencies. This vote highlights this very chasm. 74% of voters in the electorate of Blaxland (Paul Keating's old seat) opposed reform, which I find to be an utterly remarkable result. How the ALP attempts to bring together these two very different constituencies at election time will be very interesting to see. Also on a side note, I now appreciate why politicians pay so much attention to the views of Western Sydney focus groups! 

Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).

[vox nihili]

Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).

Yeah 100% this. It’s the same in the two that voted no in Victoria. One in the NW suburbs of Melbourne, out Broady way, and the other in the east, near Springvale and Dandenong.

It’s definitely a big challenge for Labor, as you’ve said above. Having to reconcile socially progressive views with a critical part of your constituency that is extremely conservative is a challenge. That’s a large part of the reason that Labor was so late to the table in supporting SSM, remembering of course that the first PM to do so was Rudd mark II, after Gillard and Rudd before her were opposed.

Also interesting about those seats is that they have a lot of high profile Labor members. Think Tony Burke, Chris Bowen, Jason Clare, Ed Husic... all big no votes.


Edit: Werriwa also posted a huge no vote, which is the seat that Gough Whitman once held, arguably Australia’s most left-wing PM of the modern era.
It was also later held by Mark Latham but we won’t discuss that

[EEEEEEP]

Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).

It's true.

Many migrant areas in NSW that were labour areas voted no.





All of those red areas .. Migrant areas with many overseas people ( or high percentages of people born overseas) .
..

Here is the result for VIC.


..

[Natasha.97]

WOOHOO!!!