world

Australian parliament rejects same-sex marriage

31 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

31 Comments
Login to comment

I'm not even sure why this getting married to animals argument still even holds water with some people. My mother used it on me when I was younger, so I grew up thinking that gay marriage would put an end to civil order as we know it. It's dead simple to me now. A goat, a young child, a toaster, whatever you say that these immoral people will fight to marry, cannot give informed consent. A dog cannot sign a legal document. A young child is not of age to agree to that sort of thing. A toaster is a toaster.

Two men, who are both of age and willingly consenting, should be able to get married. Same goes for two women. Seems pretty damn easy to me.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

pity - I thought Australia was a bit more progressive than that....

1 ( +7 / -6 )

and he is in the liberal party...the doublespeak of politics continues..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

On a "religious" standpoint well, ok, reject it if you want. On a civil standpoint, the government must not interfere. I hope this will change with the new generation but I'm not holding my breath...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

“There are even some creepy people out there… (who) say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”

Almost exactly the same words that stupid, old, unfunny fool Kitano Takeshi said a while back.

At least this bigot has the balls to resign after making such a pathetic remark.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I'm very surprised, I thought Australia to be so progressive ... God, let the gays get married why souldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Disgusting Oz.. I expect more from you.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

just need to have a sex change before tying the knot!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Disgusting Oz.. I expect more from you.

It was a parliamentary vote, not a national vote. And being disgusted in nearly any government these days is a given. You can be sure if it was a national vote the win (or loss) would be very very close.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

In these troubled times seems so much energy spent/wasted on this type of issue that is of limited social relevance. what % of population isn Australia is gay? As opposed to those living under the breadline or suffering real hardship.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Probie wrote: "Almost exactly the same words that stupid, old, unfunny fool Kitano Takeshi said a while back."

Actually no. What Bernardi said was far more stupid, and it exposes his shallow understanding of what a marriage is. Takeshi compared gay marriage with marriage to an animal. Bernardi compared gay marriage to sex with an animal. Not the same thing. Apparently, Bernardi thinks marriage is all about sex and its one and the same. I guess he does not realize that lots of married couples, gay and hetero, never or rarely have sex. And I guess his brain is too shallow to understand that while marriage may or may not include sex, its about much much more and more important things, such as love, family, stability and raising children.

But hey, the argument is very much in line with so many of those with low IQ, as they can't think past the only equation simple enough for them to understand; marriage equals sex. So really, the bestiality argument is no surprise when its all a dummy has to work with.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A vote of conscience huh? I don't think so. That would have been a vote of logic, foresight and fairness. Gay marriage cannot and will not hurt anybody or any society. Therefore, denial of the right of two consenting people to marry is simply unconscionable.

The House of Representatives voted down the bill to legalize marriage between same sex couples

This may be incorrect, because I don't think its illegal for same sex couples to marry. The vote was to officialize and recognize such marriages or not. But if a same sex couple gets married in a church and calls each other spouse, I doubt they will be hauled off to prison. Correct me if I am wrong.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am wondering why so many people in many countries want to have the illusion that something that originally was not meant as marriage, now is declared marriage. It is confusing only. There is nothing bad with this decision of the Australians.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Labor Senator Penny Wong, who has a baby with her female partner

Isnt that supposed to read, whose partner has a baby? And this is exactly why Australians and the parliament dont endorse this proposal; would you like to HAVE to teach your children that homosexuality is normal? Would you like to be raised by a homosexual couple? Would you like to have to mentally deal with why your paternal father or mother isnt raising you? Like being adopted, you can be gracious to those who raised you, but a sense of identity and loss, or disownment wouldnt it somehow exist? WHile I can appreciate that there is no such thing as the perfect parents, adding more complications to children, which endorsing marriage for homosexuals would eventually lead to, is not what I think most homosexuals themselves would have as an agenda either. About this Australia has made a good move imo.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

illsayit wrote "would you like to HAVE to teach your children that homosexuality is normal?"

My answer to all your questions is a whopping DOES NOT COMPUTE! It does not matter what I want! Facts are facts. Things are what they are. People choose to teach their children what is going on or leave them to wallow in ignorance. Such as it is, I bet most people who would answer no to your questions also fail to teach their children much about heterosexual sex and relationships, and leave them to grow up as ignorant as Senator Bernardi who thinks sex=marriage=children and that is really all a marriage is.

sojherdeI wrote: am wondering why so many people in many countries want to have the illusion that something that originally was not meant as marriage, now is declared marriage.

Times change! Things get redefined! Often its progress. For example, "citizen" used to be defined as land owning, white males only. I know change and progress can give some people serious brain hurt, but you know what? I don't care!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@ victoria maude:If the question of marriage is simply a question of consenting adults, why is polygamy or polyandry still considered illegal? it should be stricken off the books!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well, heck, isn't marriage between a man and a woman?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

and he is in the liberal party...the doublespeak of politics continues..

I can understand your confusion.

The Australian Liberal Party is actually the conservative party. Not like the American conservative party, nothing like that, but more like the UK Tories.

If the question of marriage is simply a question of consenting adults, why is polygamy or polyandry still considered illegal?

Fair call, add incest to the list too.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

lol!! Yes! Make gays suffer like the rest of us MARRIED folk! Not so much fun after that honeymoon!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ Pontepilate My opinion on polygamy and polyandry is still not formed, as I'm open to hearing more from both sides about it. My main concern with it is that it seems that in a lot of sects, many young girls are pressured or forced into polygamous marriages, which violates the consent condition. As much as I would never personally enter into a polyamourous marriage, if everyone is legally consenting, I don't see why not. Just cause it wouldn't make me happy doesn't mean it doesn't make someone else happy. I don't know enough about the polygamous lifestyle to make an accurate judgement.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Victoria; What is there to know? If two people can get married (regardless of gender), then logically 3 people can as well. Or more.

Don't assume that all such situations consist of one man with multiple wives. It could just as easily be 5 gay women who all want to marry each other and live as a family. Surely their brand of love is just as valid, and just as deserving of respect, as two women (or two men, or one man and one woman).

Like another poster said, "times change".

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Liberal? Need I mention LDP for how the definition of liberal can be warped. It's like how a country with the word 'democratic' in its official title is NEVER democratic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Good. Now if only the 50 states of the U.S. would come to such sensabilities.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This isn't surprising. Australia is America's little brother. They won't allow gay marriage until America gives the thumbs up. Give it another five years when gay marriage becomes the norm in America. Australia will follow.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Guess the Aussies are more conservative than they let on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guess the Aussies are more conservative than they let on.

Good. White heterosexuality needs a champion.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

the quicker they find a cure/treatment for homosexuality the better off the human race will be. if nature intended for same sex humans to bond it would have made us hermaphrodites.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's only a matter of time....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@ Vast Right Wing Conspirator - I suppose that the main social/economic concerns lying in multiple-person marriages are the matters like divorce, adoption, division of assets upon death, etc. Not to mention that in polygamous relationships like those in the LDS, the men are greatly favored in it while the women are at a disadvantage. For me, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract, and polygamous relationships would certainly complicate that contract and all the legalities held therein. If they're willing to undertake the costs that come along with that, then let them have at it. It might be a cultural taboo, but I stand by what I said about all consenting adults deserving the same rights as other consenting adults.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pontepilate wrote "If the question of marriage is simply a question of consenting adults, why is polygamy or polyandry still considered illegal? it should be stricken off the books!!!"

Bingo! Don't be scared of freedom! If allowed and properly regulated, there would probably be even fewer polygamous marriages than homosexual ones! In other words, hardly anything will change!

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator wrote "Don't assume that all such situations consist of one man with multiple wives. "

Bingo again! Yes, I can see the 5 lesbian marriage you speak of right now! One for every country that allows it! Can you imagine how much impact one such couple would have on the country? I sure can't! Heck, I am having trouble believing even one group of 5 lesbians would choose to form such a marriage! But I guess if one were predisposed to think of homosexuals in a certain derogatory way, a way purely of their own hateful imaginings, it would be easy to imagine dozens!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing that makes me wonder about the Honorable Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi's remarks was 'how he tends to get 'consent' from the animal and which language he would be using'. I hope not Italian.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites