Jump to content
AccessDenied

*sigh* ACL at it again...

Recommended Posts

And it turns out he is covering his own arse.

 

Julia Gillard has said she is no longer going to convene with the ACL because of there heartless attitude towards homosexuals. Source.

 

She accused ACL managing director Jim Wallace of offensive comments Wednesday when he compared gay marriage with the health risks of smoking. Mr Wallace repeated his comments in a statement today.

 

The Prime Minister has said she opposes gay marriage but today took the significant step of defending those who are agitating for law changes to allow it. In political terms the Prime Minister was ensuring she did not lose the influential gay vote in inner city areas.

 

"There is 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," the Prime Minister said today in a statement.

 

"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."

EDIT: HTML crap.

 

Hmm, read further (didn't see that there were two halves) and it seems that he is sticking to his guns, so i don't know if my above statement it correct, but I'm inclined to believe so.

Edited by ilyria109

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just for gay blokes or do these findings encompass gay chicks, too?

 

Edit: Nevermind. It seems the Bible doesn't care about lesbians.

Edited by i_am_banned2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tobacco is a choice, sexuality is not.

 

A better comparison would be comparing the life expectancy of gay people with something else that is not a choice, maybe race.

 

compare the life expectancy of an indigenous Australian, a gay person and a "normal" person.

 

It is more "dangerous" for an indigenous Australian to live within their culture,

maybe we should teach aboriginal kids the dangers of the indigenous lifestyle.

We want to avoid having aboriginals marrying and raising kids because we don't want them to influence children's delicate minds.

 

hrmm, why does this sound so familiar?

 

*no offence intended for any native Australian's I mealy use the comparison to point out the complete absurdity of trying to discriminate against someone by claiming that its in someones best interest to reject who they are and be forced to grow up and live pretending to be something that they are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the fuck WOULDN'T they turn to drugs or suicide with dickheads like you spouting off?

people turn to drugs because they are fun, everyone knows that gays get the best gear as well (srs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*no offence intended for any native Australian's I mealy use the comparison to point out the complete absurdity of trying to discriminate against someone by claiming that its in someones best interest to reject who they are and be forced to grow up and live pretending to be something that they are not.

Disclaimer win. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*no offence intended for any native Australian's I mealy use the comparison to point out the complete absurdity of trying to discriminate against someone by claiming that its in someones best interest to reject who they are and be forced to grow up and live pretending to be something that they are not.

Disclaimer win. :D

 

 

Why?

 

Are you telling me that all Aboriginals are doomed to a life of squalor and disease simply because of their genes? Or is it possible that like gays, Aboriginals have a CHOICE when it comes how to live their lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between 15-20% of people Australia wide take some form of drugs (non-medicinal).

 

Drug use Source.

"Illicit" drugs. Given the popularity of ethanol I thought that 20% looked a little low!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marriage is a legal institution, and shouldn't have any reference to religious requirements.

 

I was allowed to marry, despite being secular. Atheists can marry. Muslims can marry. The christian churches don't have any monopoly on the idea. They neither invented the core concept, carry out the legal paperwork, or write the rules. And therefore they should have as much say as any other group and not be pandered to.

 

Fuck, let's just make it a plebiscite and shut the fuck up about it. The christian groups are the ones opposed to even allowing a conscience vote in parliament about it. If the parliamentarians voting based on their conscience are going to pass it what does that tell you about what Australia thinks?

 

As a married person, I find it far more offensive that Australia recognises celebrity marriages. A very close friend of mine is gay and in a fantastic relationship, and if they wanted to formalise that at some future stage I don't think there should be an impediment to it. I don't accept the naturalistic fallacy as an argument. I don't accept the bible as an argument to block the secular concept of marriage. I don't accept history or tradition as an argument not to change and I don't accept the legal definition enshrined in Australian law as anything other than an artifact to be overturned.

 

As for the "higher suicide rates" etc, it's the same statistical lies (or perhaps I should say, lies-based-on-omission-of-proper-analysis) that I object to so strongly when used by Atheists to "prove" that christinans are morons.

 

So sell me a real argument, somebody. Otherwise it's just denial, and further proof that religious bodies in Australia are so out of step that I imagine it's slightly embarrassing sometimes.

 

Director: As someone who promotes legalisation of some drugs (as I understand it) surely you see the parallels. Not allowing them to marry doesn't stop people becoming or being gay. Not allowing them to marry doesn't have any bearing on your own marriage. As I understand it, a lot of resistance can be overcome by not requiring churches to marry gay couples, but then I was under the impression churches don't have to marry any heterosexual couple that applies to them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too much oxygen being given to Wallace and the ACL here!

 

Given that he has been pointing to that statistic for almost a year now (naturally of course, in The Australian - behind a paywall I presume, so I'm relying on the Crikey link being accurate) I'm seeing it as more of an excuse for Julia to get out of an unpopular (I'm guessing that the focus groups don't like it?) speaking engagement - i.e. her presence would lose more votes than it would gain. Could be me being cynical - maybe there's a principle involved. Perhaps Ms Gillard had never heard of the ACL previously and had no idea what sort of group she would be addressing. Feel free to come up with your own humorous suggestions as to why, after months of being requested to re-think her implied support of a fringe group of neolithic bigots she finally seized on a repeat of an old claim to suddenly become deeply shocked and offended.

 

The comparison isn't original either. It gets used by his fellow American fundamentalists frequently. If you stop to think about it, it's meaningless in many ways. A really simple example would be - mortality where? I'd imagine that the mortality for Iranian gays would look pretty woeful compared with, say, gays in Switzerland. Mind you, mortality for smokers in China or Indonesia is also much worse than here.

 

My point? By giving the ACL oxygen - by being offended and arguing their claims, and otherwise taking them seriously - we aren't helping. One of the leading causes of premature gay deaths is suicide, linked with bullying and depression. Laughing at the ACL is more useful in combating this than debating them. They're ignorant, have (unlike gay people) made the choice to be ignorant, and therefore pointing at them, laughing at them and otherwise ignoring them (unless they get violent) is a valid response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

 

Are you telling me that all Aboriginals are doomed to a life of squalor and disease simply because of their genes? Or is it possible that like gays, Aboriginals have a CHOICE when it comes how to live their lives?

That's an odd statement IMHO.

 

Are you saying that being gay is like squalor and disease? That you simply decide you are going to do something about it, and change your sexuality?

Is this something that has worked for you, Director? Because personally (and maybe it's my conditioning) I'm not sure that I could ever appreciate the male form like I do the female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POTM

^ pretty much exactly what Julia Gillard needs to say in a speech to win back the countries respect.

 

considering she openly admits to being an atheist i would have thought she would have said that already, my bet is on she is saving that speech for next year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herpa derp..

 

Fuck, let's just make it a plebiscite and shut the fuck up about it. The christian groups are the ones opposed to even allowing a conscience vote in parliament about it. If the parliamentarians voting based on their conscience are going to pass it what does that tell you about what Australia thinks?

I agree. However successive waves of government have been fighting 'citizens initiated referendum type stuff'. I would support you in your struggle towards greater democracy as long as it was a change in the system so that anyone could launch a plebiscite and not just a special one of for gay marriage.

 

herpa herpa

 

Director: As someone who promotes legalisation of some drugs (as I understand it) surely you see the parallels.

No, not really. ;)

 

Not allowing them to marry doesn't stop people becoming or being gay. Not allowing them to marry doesn't have any bearing on your own marriage.

Have I made such arguments?

 

As I understand it, a lot of resistance can be overcome by not requiring churches to marry gay couples, but then I was under the impression churches don't have to marry any heterosexual couple that applies to them either.

Not sure what you mean if an agreement was made not to force Churches/Mosques/whatever to have to do something against their conscience as a mean of getting gay marriage across the line then you bet your bottom dollar that agreement would be challenged soon afterwards.

 

 

Why?

 

Are you telling me that all Aboriginals are doomed to a life of squalor and disease simply because of their genes? Or is it possible that like gays, Aboriginals have a CHOICE when it comes how to live their lives?

That's an odd statement IMHO.

 

Are you saying that being gay is like squalor and disease? That you simply decide you are going to do something about it, and change your sexuality?

Is this something that has worked for you, Director? Because personally (and maybe it's my conditioning) I'm not sure that I could ever appreciate the male form like I do the female.

 

How about you have another read of what I said?

 

The comments in the OP were about lifestyle and disease not sexual orientation per se. A gay person can choose to live a responsible sexual life...or not. It's that choice that Wallace was on about.

 

 

POTM

^ pretty much exactly what Julia Gillard needs to say in a speech to win back the countries respect.

 

 

I said the Mrs last year that the next election will be won or lost on the gay marriage issue. :)

As important as that seems to be for some people it's be a pretty sad election, given all the problems that we have as a country, if that was the main issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. However successive waves of government have been fighting 'citizens initiated referendum type stuff'. I would support you in your struggle towards greater democracy as long as it was a change in the system so that anyone could launch a plebiscite and not just a special one of for gay marriage.

 

No, not really. ;)

 

Have I made such arguments?

So you are in favour of passing gay marriage, if the population of Australia wants it?

I'm in favour of plebiscites, but I don't want Australia to be governed by plebiscites generally. I don't think "anyone" should be able to call one. They are expensive, and on financial matters tend to end in bad decisions (look at california prop 65 for an example).

 

As I understand it, a lot of resistance can be overcome by not requiring churches to marry gay couples, but then I was under the impression churches don't have to marry any heterosexual couple that applies to them either.

Not sure what you mean if an agreement was made not to force Churches/Mosques/whatever to have to do something against their conscience as a mean of getting gay marriage across the line then you bet your bottom dollar that agreement would be challenged soon afterwards.

If churches can choose which couples they want to marry now, among heterosexual couples then how can they be in trouble under anti-discrimination laws for not marrying couples who don't adhere to their religious beliefs.

There doesn't need to be an agreement, churches just need to be up front about who they will and won't marry. If churches will marry any heterosexual couple that applies, then how can they deny gay couples?

 

How about you have another read of what I said?

 

The comments in the OP were about lifestyle and disease not sexual orientation per se. A gay person can choose to live a responsible sexual life...or not. It's that choice that Wallace was on about.

If I'm reading what you said correctly, then my understanding is that you aren't opposed to gay marriage because you recognise that gay people make choices in life like everybody else, and can live in a moral, sustainable fashion.

Either that, or it's a cheap dig at homosexuality being a choice? Why don't you clarify for me?

 

I said the Mrs last year that the next election will be won or lost on the gay marriage issue. :)

As important as that seems to be for some people it's be a pretty sad election, given all the problems that we have as a country, if that was the main issue.

Obviously discrimination is more important for people discriminated against than others, D.

It's going to be a big issue, because the population is divided, and there has been no action because some groups have worked hard to suppress change, while most of society has been quiet on the issue while generally supporting change. It's getting to a point, where people who support change are not only the majority, but might change their vote because of it. Personally, it's become an issue I'm invested in. And just like the introduction of votes for women, I'd be proud if Australia stood up and did something about it.

 

And for the record D, if you are going to truncate someone else's post because it's not argument it's fluff, you can do a lot better than replacing it with herps and derps. It's pretty disrespectful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. However successive waves of government have been fighting 'citizens initiated referendum type stuff'. I would support you in your struggle towards greater democracy as long as it was a change in the system so that anyone could launch a plebiscite and not just a special one of for gay marriage.

 

No, not really. ;)

 

Have I made such arguments?

So you are in favour of passing gay marriage, if the population of Australia wants it?

NO, but if it's been agreed on by the majority then I'll live with it. The will of the people is far more palatable than the will of some politician who just trying to get votes.

 

I'm in favour of plebiscites, but I don't want Australia to be governed by plebiscites generally. I don't think "anyone" should be able to call one. They are expensive, and on financial matters tend to end in bad decisions (look at california prop 65 for an example).

Of course, you'd have to get x number of signatures then your proposal would make it on to the yearly ballot.

 

As I understand it, a lot of resistance can be overcome by not requiring churches to marry gay couples, but then I was under the impression churches don't have to marry any heterosexual couple that applies to them either.

Not sure what you mean if an agreement was made not to force Churches/Mosques/whatever to have to do something against their conscience as a mean of getting gay marriage across the line then you bet your bottom dollar that agreement would be challenged soon afterwards.

If churches can choose which couples they want to marry now, among heterosexual couples then how can they be in trouble under anti-discrimination laws for not marrying couples who don't adhere to their religious beliefs.

There doesn't need to be an agreement, churches just need to be up front about who they will and won't marry. If churches will marry any heterosexual couple that applies, then how can they deny gay couples?

What? Did you think about that question before you asked it?

 

How about you have another read of what I said?

 

The comments in the OP were about lifestyle and disease not sexual orientation per se. A gay person can choose to live a responsible sexual life...or not. It's that choice that Wallace was on about.

If I'm reading what you said correctly, then my understanding is that you aren't opposed to gay marriage because you recognise that gay people make choices in life like everybody else, and can live in a moral, sustainable fashion.

Either that, or it's a cheap dig at homosexuality being a choice? Why don't you clarify for me?

The first one.

 

I said the Mrs last year that the next election will be won or lost on the gay marriage issue. :)

As important as that seems to be for some people it's be a pretty sad election, given all the problems that we have as a country, if that was the main issue.

Obviously discrimination is more important for people discriminated against than others, D.

It's going to be a big issue, because the population is divided, and there has been no action because some groups have worked hard to suppress change, while most of society has been quiet on the issue while generally supporting change. It's getting to a point, where people who support change are not only the majority, but might change their vote because of it. Personally, it's become an issue I'm invested in. And just like the introduction of votes for women, I'd be proud if Australia stood up and did something about it.

Except, like Many many other things Australia will not get say in it. Jules will make the election promises that she believes will get her the most votes, just as she promosed to support traditional marriage up until recently...then changed her mind because of the current climate. FWIW it will happen sooner or later.

 

And for the record D, if you are going to truncate someone else's post because it's not argument it's fluff, you can do a lot better than replacing it with herps and derps. It's pretty disrespectful.

Call 'em as I see 'em, I can replace herpa-derp with 'rant if you like? I saw the herpa derp as you simply having a vent, which is fair enough so there was nothing there to comment on...and it didn't want to just cut stuff out as though I was ignoring it. :)

Edited by Director

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gay veteran + Romney = awkward

 

http://www.upworthy.com/mitt-romney-accide...ness-ensues?g=3

 

The Australian military recognise same sex de facto relationships with full entitlements, me and a mate a few years back tried to set one up so we could get free flights across the country to "see each other". They ended up asking us to prove we where gay and to kiss each other, not sure if that qualifies as a legal order or not but we couldn't go through with it. Ended up doing extra duties for ages for wasting everyone's time

Edited by xnatex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it this way.

 

If you are against gay marriage because you don't want gay people to be happy, then you're an asshole.

It's really that simple.

 

The anti-gay marriage argument has no really strong logic behind it other than straight people aren't comfortable with gay marriage because they feel it somehow fucks up the significance of straight marriage.

 

The thing is they cant put their finger on exactly why it does, it just feels like it does. And I CAN understand this argument. Because I feel a little bit that way myself (total honesty here).

 

I don't want gay people to be unhappy because I'm not a cunt, but I don't feel 100% comfortable with two grooms on a wedding cake.

 

Maybe Gay people need to invent a ceremony that is a uniquely gay institution but gives them all the same rights as straight people in a marriage? Like why copy a straight institution when a strong tenet of gay culture seems to be non conformity and creativity ( I might be stereotyping a bit here).

 

for a gay person to feel what its like to be in a straight persons (who's not 100% on gay marriage) shoes I'd give you this example.

 

Imagine that they passed a law where it was discriminatory to not have at least 50% straight performers in the gay and lesbian mardi gras.

 

You'd be all like Its the mardi gras, it's a gay institution!!!!

 

And we'd be all like , "well straight people form a big spectator population so should be equally represented".

 

And you'd be all like "fuck having straight people in the mardi gras"

 

In this case politically correctness and logic would be against you yet you'd still be like "fuck all this shit"

 

 

/my two cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If somebody needs a bit of paper from the government to make them 'happy' or feel accepted then they're in for a BIG disappointment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tobacco is a choice, sexuality is not.

I disagree. We dont know if there is genetic pre-disposition to nicotine addiction.

 

Also, id argue, that even if sexual orientation is genetic (i have personally not seen any evidence for it, but i dont deny it, i just dont know) There is still a free will choice. be it Hetrosexual, A-sexual, Xenosexual etc..

 

It is like saying...well he steals because he is a Kleptomaniac by nature, he has no choice. (he has a pre-disposition, but dosnt have to steal)

 

IF we started applying this logic to all things we would have a pretty crazy society living by the idea of determinism and gene driven decisions.

Edited by te0p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tobacco is a choice, sexuality is not.

I disagree. We dont know if there is genetic pre-disposition to nicotine addiction.

 

You don't know - nobody else cares for your idiotic analogy.

 

Also, id argue, that even if sexual orientation is genetic (i have personally not seen any evidence for it, but i dont deny it, i just dont know) There is still a free will choice. be it Hetrosexual, A-sexual, Xenosexual etc..

Stop lying. You know for a fact that it's not genetic because your god doesn't make mistakes.

 

It is like saying...well he steals because he is a Kleptomaniac by nature, he has no choice. (he has a pre-disposition, but dosnt have to steal)

 

IF we started applying this logic to all things we would have a pretty crazy society living by the idea of determinism and gene driven decisions.

What a crazy world that would be, where any two people could officially declare love for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they need is a legally acknowledged civil ceremony like civil celebrants or some public servant functionary in the states so that they have the same super, power of attorney, will etc., as everyone else.

 

Yep, that goes for divorce proceedings as well.

Edited by Elfarch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tobacco is a choice, sexuality is not.

I disagree. We dont know if there is genetic pre-disposition to nicotine addiction.

 

You don't know - nobody else cares for your idiotic analogy.

 

Also, id argue, that even if sexual orientation is genetic (i have personally not seen any evidence for it, but i dont deny it, i just dont know) There is still a free will choice. be it Hetrosexual, A-sexual, Xenosexual etc..

Stop lying. You know for a fact that it's not genetic because your god doesn't make mistakes.

 

It is like saying...well he steals because he is a Kleptomaniac by nature, he has no choice. (he has a pre-disposition, but dosnt have to steal)

 

IF we started applying this logic to all things we would have a pretty crazy society living by the idea of determinism and gene driven decisions.

What a crazy world that would be, where any two people could officially declare love for each other.

 

Theres nothing wrong with the anaolgy, only problem is that you dont comprehend it.

I didnt claim that it was not genetic, im showing the failure of someone basing their argument that any "act" is unavoidable due to someones genetics, is completely fallacious.

And i would add that not all homosxuality is based in genetics. Some people simply like to experiment.

No one is stopping 2 people from declaring there love for each other, just depends if you associate love strictly with sex, or a broader term of love. or like Director said, " a piece of paper"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Gay people need to invent a ceremony that is a uniquely gay institution but gives them all the same rights as straight people in a marriage? Like why copy a straight institution when a strong tenet of gay culture seems to be non conformity and creativity ( I might be stereotyping a bit here).

 

/my two cents

The above sort of defeats the whole intent of what the gays are trying to achieve, I think. They don't wish to be " Different "... they wish for the same rights as the hetro's.

 

It's not so much that it's a "straight institution ", but more that the hetro's have been the only ones allowed to use the institution.

 

As to the " non conformity ", FFS gays have been around as long as hetro's have. I think that should lend itself well to the argument for allowing them to marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×