How is this going to play out?

[Inside Shoulder]

Oh, I would just love to meet & talk to Tony Abbott. I can see it now, he says tell me about yourself, I say I'm a lesbian bastard daughter raised by a single mother & grandparents, from a working class Irish catholic background. I imagine from Tony's beliefs that he would figure I'm actually capable of transforming into a monster like from Aliens with acid blood - if only, that would be awesome.

Is that what you say when someone asks you to tell them about yourself? is that usually the end of the conversation?

Perhaps you could try it with Gillard, she's opposed to same sex marriage and she doesn't have a theological basis, so that must be pure personal prejudice.

The child in question is not adopted as the law presently stands. The father is known. One of the couple is unrelated. So there are actually 3 people with rights in respect of the child, all of which have different bases. Custody is usually awarded jointly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[AngrySeahorse]

Is that what you say when someone asks you to tell them about yourself? is that usually the end of the conversation?

Perhaps you could try it with Gillard, she's opposed to same sex marriage and she doesn't have a theological basis, so that must be pure personal prejudice.

The child in question is not adopted as the law presently stands. The father is known. One of the couple is unrelated. So there are actually 3 people with rights in respect of the child, all of which have different bases. Custody is usually awarded jointly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know of several same-sex (female) couples who have kids (not children brought in from a prior r/ship but children they had in their r/ship -IVF), the biological father is normally a close friend who does it no strings attached. There are in fact very few problems, in reality. If anything must change it would be the law, it would be ridiculous for the same-sex couple to break up to then throw some of the responsibility onto the biological father if he went into the arrangement wanting to be the donor only. Which is the case in most cases. In addition, one partner isn't always non-biological, surrogacy is also possible, you can have a person defined as the 'birth mother'.

I may be wrong but I think you're making the assumption that just because all 3 people are linked to a child by rights that they'll act on that in the event of a divorce, separation, etc. Now, there is every chance a same-sex female couple may pick the wrong sort of person to be donor & may make life difficult for them but that is very rare. Sure, it won't stop the media reporting it to get everyone freaked out & scared though. You can also trust the conservatives to get a hold of said news reports to do their usual Maud Flanders "Think of the children" outrage speech. What they don't report is the majority of these families do not have such issues & that male donors are (from what I've seen) incredibly selfless & extremely unlikely to try & gain any kind of custody from the same-sex parents. I suppose it doesn't get much air time as its not dramatic enough. This subject was covered in one of my Psych courses last year & my views are backed up certainly from what I was taught there. The point is the issue is more the law than the actual same-sex family.

I'm just voicing the view of people looking from the point of view from the street rather than from a desk or just from what is written in law & the possible scenarios. I look to a same-sex couple, paying more for IVF, working hard to provide a stable home & good education for their son with carefully sort out male role models to have in his life. Then I look to the likes of Abbott & others sitting around discussing same-sex marriage & family (in addition to single parents like my dear mother) like we are all a huge apocalyptic problem for society. Now, take a look at my neighbours, they are in heterosexual relationships, they are drunks or drugged up to the eye balls, they abuse each other - there are children in the middle of all of it whose welfare doesn't seem to get noticed by them. No family is perfect (& I'm not saying all heterosexual families are like that) but these families are at the level of scum given the environment in which they raise their children. No one talks about their blight on society & they are free to breed & divorce/separate as they please.

I'm going to have a Matt Burke moment here so excuse me but unless you are a second class citizen, as I am, you would have no idea what it feels like to be regarded as lower than scum by society (or at least parts of it or have politicians project that point of view on a national scale).

The fact that Abbott stands by his opinions does little to make up for the fact that he is a retard. I was a fan of Gillard in the beginning but no longer. I'm not really a fan of any politician now but then again I'm incredibility jaded when it comes to politics.

The part in bold that you're referring to......was a joke. My bad, I should have known political discussion sucks the sense of humour out of most people. It certainly has done a number on me. Yikes, no more contribution here from me. Need more smiles, back to the Rugby forum I go.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I have seen all sorts of scenarios involving same sex couples with children who, self evidently, are related to only one the people in the couple and yet were conceived during the currency of the relationship. I have seen disputes in which the unrelated partner wants nothing to do with the child, wants equal access or wants custody. I have seen sperm donors who want a relationship with the child, want no relationship or who are indifferent.

In essence these attitudes are the same as you see with heterosexual couples but with some additional complications - most of those complications can be alleviated by a properly considered piece of legislation. The problems will still arise but they can be dealt with in more certainty.

I'm not purporting to know what its like to be a 2nd class citizen.

I have my reservations about Abbott. I am an atheist and I squirm every time the issue of religion arises in Australian public life: while we are not as bad as the US we have some of the puritan response to things that the bible supposedly doesn't approve of. I think it is a concern over this, the vote of the so-called bible belt, that motivates Gillard's opposition to something that she can have no possible personal or theological interest in. In my view that is pure politics and its hollow and its disgraceful. If she were a leader she'd take the vote loss on the chin and legalise same sex marriages.

I am therefore of a different theological view to Abbott and there is a tendency towards pious lecturing by him that i don't like: but at least he has the courage of his convictions.

I see his sister's "coming out" as a potential turning point: this is a man who believes what he believes. He is entitled to that. He has feet of clay - he acknowledges his failing, as he sees it, of having thought he conceived out of wedlock. His concern at that time was not for the hypocrisy it clearly shows but for the welfare of the child he thought was his. So too his concern on this issue his concern is for his sister's wellbeing - albeit that he cannot (or even merely will not) change his theological position to accommodate her circumstances. That only shows the depth of his conviction - one I think is illogical - but its not illegal.

These things, which are ripples in the fabric of his life, mark him as human. He deals with them in an apparently compassionate way. He arguably is closer to many of these issues than anyone in federal politics.

The real problem is that the party who should be all for change are utterly devoid of the gumption necessary to bring it about. People should stop blaming Abbott.

There is a short article in this week's New Yorker magazine celebrating the first year of state income tax returns that can be lodged as same sex couples in NY. Its very interesting.....its not all upside by all accounts! Some same sex couples have found themselves in a higher tax bracket.

 

[fatprop]

Is that what you say when someone asks you to tell them about yourself? is that usually the end of the conversation?

Perhaps you could try it with Gillard, she's opposed to same sex marriage and she doesn't have a theological basis, so that must be pure personal prejudice.

The child in question is not adopted as the law presently stands. The father is known. One of the couple is unrelated. So there are actually 3 people with rights in respect of the child, all of which have different bases. Custody is usually awarded jointly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nah, it is a purely a focus group basis.

Step away from the computer, and the inner city, and into some of the broader, less tolerant electorates; and it ain't as easy a question

All you have to do is look at the California voting on the matter, a very liberal state right? Well they couldn't carry the decision and have resorted to activist judges so they can ignore the democratic decision.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

However liberal you think California is the whole country is weirdly puritanical in particular ways in particular places. I would assume nothing about anything. I mean they thought the Governator was a good idea...they produced Ronald Reagan....

 

[fatprop]

However liberal you think California is the whole country is weirdly puritanical in particular ways in particular places. I would assume nothing about anything. I mean they thought the Governator was a good idea...they produced Ronald Reagan....

Think Bob Katter's Australian Party, left leaning protectionists but socially conservative (my absolute opposite politically) and "we" also voted in Joh & Pauline. The US studies since the Californian election have shown they lost the Latin American & Black vote on the matter who are socially conservative but democrat voters

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't deny our capacity to produce weirdo conservatives......
I just think the USA throws em up all over the shop

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

I don't deny our capacity to produce weirdo conservatives......
I just think the USA throws em up all over the shop

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

per capita I reckon we match them

 

[Scotty]

He troubles me - but there are plenty of "believers" in powerful positions.......what is the corner into which he has painted himself?
You have to remember that he has known of his sister's sexual orientation for longer than he has been opposition leader.

I'm not religious, so would prefer a non-religious leader, however if the choice was between the following:

1. An atheist that still goes to church for political reasons or,
2. A Christian that holds to his beliefs and attends church

I would rather the more honest person. If you can't be honest to yourself, how can you be honest to the Australian people?

 

[Scotty]

I disagree with most of Abbott's social opinions but respect his dogged commitment to his position. At least you know where he stands.

The opposite is watching Gillard being smacked about for wavering in the wind on most positions totally dependent on the latest opinion poll.

Just saw this after I posted. Pretty much sums up what I just said!

 

[Scotty]

How are climate change and the mining tax not moral issues?

Well some have said that climate change is the greatest moral issue of our time. And then decided to do an about face and do nothing about it. Some helped that about face, thus leading to an overthrow of this person's leadership for ultimately their own gain, only to then re-instate the doing something about climate change when it was required of them to form government.

I don't think (despite their comments) that the Labor party believe it is 'moral' issue. They certainly have turned it into a political one though!

 

[Scotty]

I'm going to have a Matt Burke moment here so excuse me but unless you are a second class citizen, as I am, you would have no idea what it feels like to be regarded as lower than scum by society (or at least parts of it or have politicians project that point of view on a national scale).

AS,

For what it is worth, provided you either work or are looking for work (unless you have serious barriers to working) and you don't do anything that harms others, then you are most certainly a first class citizen to me.

Everyone that contributes positively to society deserves respect, and I expect that you'd be very surprised by positive view that most politicians, not to mention wider society, would hold you in.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not religious, so would prefer a non-religious leader, however if the choice was between the following:

1. An atheist that still goes to church for political reasons or,
2. A Christian that holds to his beliefs and attends church

I would rather the more honest person. If you can't be honest to yourself, how can you be honest to the Australian people?

Like does not express the extent to which I identify with this post.

 

[fatprop]

This guy gets the long bow award

'Gay marriage could green light polygamy'

http://www.news.com.au/national/gay...ion-of-polygamy/story-e6frfkvr-1226376677646#

• AAP
• May 31, 2012 1:30PM

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
THE NSW upper house has voted in favour of a motion calling on the Federal Government to allow gay marriage.
Greens MP (Moana Pasifika) Cate Faehrmann introduced a private members' motion last week for the Commonwealth Marriage Act to be amended, with MPs from both major parties split on the issue.
The Legislative Council voted 22 to 16 in favour of the motion.
Coalition MPs, including National Trevor Kahn, previously expressed support for move that calls on the Federal Government to allow gay marriage.

But Liberal Matthew Mason-Cox today said same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy.

"Indeed, if one was to take the notion of equality of marriage to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to stand in the way of polygamist marriages, or other variants," he told the chamber today.

"This is the so-called slippery slope in this debate which has manifested itself overseas in some jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been allowed."

Labor MP (Moana Pasifika) Helen Westwood, who is in a lesbian relationship, spoke in favour of the motion.

"This is a human rights issue and I believe very strongly the laws that discriminate against one group of Australians should amended," she said.

Christian Democrats MP (Moana Pasifika) Fred Nile, who strongly opposes gay marriage, has previously spoken against the motion, and moved an amendment noting how the European Court of Human Rights did not consider gay marriage to be an inherent right.

Premier Barry O'Farrell refused to confirm whether he backed the motion.

"It's an issue for the upper house, should it come to the lower house I'll make my views clear then," he said in Sydney.

The Premier has allowed Coalition MPs a conscience vote on the issue, unlike Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

Mr O'Farrell dismissed suggestions the motion, if passed, may put pressure on Mr Abbott to allow a conscience vote when the Bill comes before federal parliament.

"I think Tony Abbott is the person least affected by pressure that I know," he said.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/gay-marriage-could-lead-legalisation-of-polygamy/story-e6frfkvr-1226376677646#ixzz1wQ7mk1OA​

 

[en_force_er]

This guy gets the long bow award

That's funny. That being said would polygamy really be that bad? I mean it's obviously awful in some other countries but that's tends to not be the multiple marriges but more the treatment of women etc.

An interesting but utterly pointless discussion.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

He's saying that because same sex marriage leads to polygamy (because not allowing polygamous marriages would basically be discrimination as there is no good reason not to allow it), we need to draw the line at a man/women monogamy.

But the exact same can be said about same sex marriage. There is no good reason to deny them the right, therefore the current monogamous man/women arrangement logically leads to same sex marriage, and eventually polygamy.

Making marriage the government's business in the first place logically leads to polygamy, not same sex marriage. How come it's perfectly OK to draw a descriminative line in one case, but not another? (answer: it's not, and it's a really basic error of logic you wouldn't expect to see from educated people).

I don't understand why these politicians don't just come out and say they don't want to change the marriage act because they personally don't believe it's acceptable and they are of the opinion the entire country should be ruled by their personal emotional reaction to every issue, rather than what is best for everyone.

 

[Blue]

Is that what you say when someone asks you to tell them about yourself? is that usually the end of the conversation?

Perhaps you could try it with Gillard, she's opposed to same sex marriage and she doesn't have a theological basis, so that must be pure personal prejudice.

The child in question is not adopted as the law presently stands. The father is known. One of the couple is unrelated. So there are actually 3 people with rights in respect of the child, all of which have different bases. Custody is usually awarded jointly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Simpler than that really. Just walk up to Gillard and say "Hi, I have an opinion."


That will end the conversation. She doesn't like that much at all, among many, many other things.