If that worked there would be no loopholes at this stage of history.
People always find loopholes and as time goes by with various things (pornography, acceptance of drugs, acceptance of abortion, euthanasia etc) people become desensitised and push for more and it sees, get it.
Worked? Of course it works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, and it never will be.
The view that society should be either progressing ever in a positive way, or is sliding into chaos is not supported by evidence, imho.
But all laws require updating, improvment and change, and the landscape upon which they are placed is also changing.
Marriage Equality Around the World
We were nowhere near last amongst the nations.
80% of eligible Australians voted in the plebiscite and 61.6% voted yes and 38.4% voted no.
No, you're quite right, and my turn of phrase was pretty poor, so apologies.
What I meant was 'One of the last Western democracies'. That's an entirely different thing and you were right to call me on it.
My point...poorly presented as it was...was that much more religious countries, including Ireland and the USA were able to move on this before us, for no apparent reason.
It is a good thing that Christians like myself voted yes.
I
wholeheartedly agree. Marriage equality does nothing for me, and changes my decision in life in no way. Access to abortion is much the same...I still get to make my own choices.
Allowing all humans the same freedom doesn't force me to make immoral decisions, and is something I see as a human rights issue.
A 10% swing and it would not have got through.
The whole thing was pandering to a vocal minority and the vote was pretty close really.
In some ways I agree. A 10% swing and it wouldn't have gotten through. Despite the vote being in a non-binding plebiscite, a No vote would have killed marriage equality here for the short to mid-term. There was no need for the plebiscite at all. Polling consistently showed the majority of adults were for it. It didn't contravene our constitution. Why the plebiscite, at a substantial cost. Why not a plebiscite on whether we want the monarchy as our head of state? Or whether we want the religious discrimination bill, so hurriedly put to parliament?
The pandering I was talking about wasn't around the LGBTQIA+ community...we should be checking fair treatment of minorities as part of a healthy and functioning democracy. And it wasn't a knock on Christianity. It was aimed at those groups who pressured for either no marriage equality or that it couldn't be achieved without a plebiscite.
It was a needed reform to ensure justice in society imo but personally I think it would have been better to not change what "marriage" meant, but to just have a different word for gay unions and have the same laws around it. How simple that would have been and with no hoo har from religious groups probably and none of the unwanted debate that was meant to cause harm to people and which could have been avoided but for the demand by gays that they wanted "marriage" and nothing else, which they called "less".
What is marriage, in your opinion, and in what ways does this change diminish it?
So anyway, now gays have what many of them demanded and there is positive reinforcement for gays and religious groups are the ones who are prejudiced against in some ways it seems and now religious groups are bigots for teaching what their religious have taught for years and are breaking the law by praying for people who ask for prayer or by negatively counselling them and not positively affirming their choice of what sex they are. (something else which could have also been done in a more sane way than allowing people to just choose a sex and be whatever they choose with subsequent changes to passports etc)
I hope nobody is getting the impression that I am bigoted against gay people, that would be a wrong impression imo.
I think there are a couple of things you've touched on there, so I'll try to be clear.
I think your earlier point, about the importance of Christians who voted yes out of support for the freedom of choice others should be afforded, whilst seeing certain choices as sub-optimal for religious reasons are treading a fine line...and a principled one. I fully respect that position, and it was one some of my closest friends took.
I'm not sure what positive reinforcement for gays means, really. People are gay, or they're not (largely). Allowing them freedom of choice and expression might make it seem like there are more gay people, but that is due to them not having to hide.
Are religious people bigots if they see gay people as less? Well...yes. just as I'd be a bigot if I saw Christians as less. I understand completely that many religious people don't see this as a personal choice, but instead the wisdom or dogma of their religion. But if that religion suggested that blacks were less than whites...something some religions have done in the past...then that would be racist, regardless of the belief being couched in religion or not.
I do understand that many people see this as a situation outside their own personal choice, and that they can love the sinner but hate the sin. Ultimately I think it's hard to make such a distinction in a meaningful way.
I've had friends who are quite conservative Christians who tried explaining to me that they loved me, despite the belief that I'd end up in Hell due to my atheism. I tried to impress on them that I understood that was their honestly held belief, so I wasn't telling them not to believe it. It was just hard for me to understand how they could worship that being as an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being, whilst also believing he'd cast me to Hell.
(Obviously that only applies to specific Christian beliefs, and by no means applies to all...or even most...Christians)
And yes Morrison should have done something about religious discrimination
Assuming that's correct...which is a stretch for me...I'd still suggest the legislation he was originally trying to push through was terrible, resulted from advocacy from the religious right, and wasn't afforded anything close to the sort of scrutiny, dragging of heels, or if needless plebiscites that marriage equality was.
