SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Australians have voted 61.6% to approve of same-sex marriage, and the Turnbull-led government has said it would aim to pass legislation by Christmas:
Australians decisively support same-sex marriage
Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic poll. The non-binding postal vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said. Jubilant supporters have been celebrating in public spaces, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing.
A bill to change the law was introduced into the Senate late on Wednesday. It will now be debated for amendments. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his government would aim to pass legislation in parliament by Christmas. "[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," Mr Turnbull said after the result was announced. "They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love."
The issue only went to a voluntary postal vote after a long and bitter debate about amending Australia's Marriage Act. The result on Wednesday brings an end to what was at times a heated campaign. The vote itself had been criticised by same-sex marriage supporters, many of whom said it was unnecessary when parliament could debate the issue directly.
Related: (U.S.) Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
One in Three People Globally Think Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Shire on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:23AM (23 children)
I don't think the term "overwhelmingly" means what they think it means. 61% is not overwhelming, it's 11% over a deadlock.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:40AM (10 children)
Why should one group be able to dictate to another group, especially on something as personal as marriage?
This is just one more example that reveals Democracy to be a silly way to organize society.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:47AM
And how else do you propose to work it out? Dictatorships of various sorts rely on smaller group sizes, sometimes even allowing one insane / evil person to commit genocide. I'll take the slow and steady path towards cultural evolution over the fast and often painful one. The chance of getting a benevolent and enlightened dictator are slim to none.
I'm guessing you go for the libertarian stance of let people do whatever they want, but we still have limitations that must be agreed upon somehow. As usual these questions / issues will not be answered except by some "series of contracts" or whatever.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:39AM (5 children)
It ain't "marriage", stupid. You can do whatever the hell you want to do, just don't expect normies to recognize you as normal. Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity. It ain't about silly feel good bullshit. Civil union, OK. Partnership, OK. Cohabitation license, OK. What gays have is not marriage. Gay pride, right? WTF do gays even want to appear "normal" when it comes to their relationships? They aren't "normal", they take pride in not being "normal", then they demand to be defined as "normal". Talk about psychotic . . .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 18 2017, @04:14AM
Except when it's not about that. You're speaking of some historical reasons for marriage, not what it is or is about today. But even if we accept your reasons at face value, we still have inheritance which applies (or more accurately, should apply) to same sex marriages just as it does to heterosexual marriages.
Most people in the world want to appear normal. Why should we expect most gay couples to be different?
(Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Saturday November 18 2017, @10:42AM (1 child)
Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity
Our happily married gay friends have two children, so that seems to match your requirement.
Othe other hand our happily married straight friends don't want children. I guess they should divorce?
(Score: 1) by evilcam on Monday November 20 2017, @04:23AM
I fall into this second bucket; I'll let the OP you explain to my wife that we have to have a divorce or children... And deal with the repercussions...
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday November 18 2017, @04:17PM
If gay people want the same level of mother-in-law as straight folks, who am I to stand in their way?
Silliness aside, is it that important to you that they can't marry? I'm of the opinion that there's far too much prurient interest in what consenting adults get up to inside their own homes and while there are exceptions - the politician waxing lyrical about his faith and family while philandering with all and sundry, for example - I have to say that in general, I neither know nor care about the sexuality of others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:22PM
And this is why the biggest threat to my hetero but childless marriage is all the people claiming to be defending the sanctity of marriage.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Saturday November 18 2017, @04:47AM
When referring to the rights extended to people, it should never be a democracy. As long as no one is harmed, minority groups should be afforded every reasonable protection.
This should allow people to choose their own sexual preferences, their own religion, etc. As repugnant as their ideas are, this should even apply to groups like the white supremacists. (of course non-violent actions only.)
By not doing this we stifle freedom. While the US is predominately christian when it comes to religion, that would not be allowed in the rest of the world where Christianity is a minority. (And Christianity would have never been allowed to exist if democracy said no, back when it was created.) Blacks would never have been allowed to vote if no one cared of the rights of the minority. People who desire a same sex marriage should have the same right as everyone else. And no one would be legalizing marijuana. While some of these ideas are acceptable to most people now, that has not always been the case for any of the items I mentioned.
We do not have freedom at all if the majority gets to pick and choose what we are allowed to believe in.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:12PM
When gays marry it's not your personal marriage is it? Are you one of those closet gays? From what I see the closet gays are often the ones objecting the most to gays.
So using your logic when gays want to marry it's their personal thing so why should a bunch of strangers be allowed to dictate to them whether or not they should be allowed to marry?
Logically if you really want fewer gays in the world you'd actually encourage more gays to marry gays- that means less of them reproduce. A few would still reproduce, but far fewer than if they were closet gays in "traditional marriages".
While there might be some merit in having creating a similar legal arrangement for gays that's called something else other than marriage, letting marriage include gay marriage is about the simplest way to achieve most stuff. e.g. instead of changing many lines of legal code, you change fewer lines.
As a straight guy I don't see what the big fuss is about, why not just let them marry? I'm more concerned about Australia trying to reintroduce the TPP. That's when a bunch of strangers dictate what you can or cannot do.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday November 19 2017, @12:05AM
In future history books
1. Gay rights movements were about technocratic control over human reproduction.
2. Bureaucratic obstacles to civil unions were needed as an objective problem for gays to overcome
3. Redefinition of the term marriage was instrumental to the development of newspeak more than a needed step for gay rights laws
4. People in that time were particularly stupid, also they were still carbon based like animals. Ew.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:10AM (5 children)
You could just about say that white people or non-immigrants supported it overwhelmingly. Other people were quite opposed.
Immigration from non-white places, and the descendants that result, could someday overturn this decision.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:07AM (4 children)
Wtf? This is Australia - race had nothing to do with it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:10AM
Welcome to internet trolls, or possibly someone really that unhinged. Can't fucking tell these days.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:43AM (1 child)
Hello stupid. Apparently you believe that Australia is one vast pool of homogeneity. Did you not understand that there were black people on that continent before any white man ever arrived? And, did you not understand that hordes of immigrants are trying to get into Australia today - primarily Asians?
Obviously, you're out of touch with both history, and current events. That is common amongst basement dwelling geeks. Try to get out more. Maybe even meet a person of the opposite sex. There are a few who won't run gibbering in fear when they meet a basement dweller.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @05:38AM
Best of your chances go with paraplegics and/or intellectually retarded.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:57AM
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/samesex-marriage-survey-the-yes-and-no-city-20171117-gznh5t.html [smh.com.au]
issues: Chinese immigrants. Muslim immigrants. Lower income areas. Lower education areas.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:24AM (1 child)
61% mans there were nearly 2 votes in favor for every one against. Over 60% is referred to as a super-majority for a reason, it's often incredibly hard to get that many votes on something.
So, yes, 61% is an overwhelming majority.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:36PM
Actually, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority [wikipedia.org] It all depends on where you are from what you mean by "supermajority". In the US, a supermajority requires 66% in favor. A majority of 65.5% won't pass an amendment. The EU gets kinda complicated - it requires 15 of the 18 members states, AND 260 of the total 352 voting weights, AND at least 313.6 million people represented by the states that vote in favour. The Rome Statute may only be amended by a seven-eighths majority of participating states. I don't know where you are from, but I don't recognize 60% as a "supermajority". That would merely be a strong majority - and no, I wouldn't call that a "landslide" either.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday November 18 2017, @10:40AM
Yet the UK is throwing away its economy on a 52-48 vote.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Monday November 20 2017, @12:20AM
If you look at this article, showing each district set out and explained, it pretty much does support the "overwhelmingly" statement.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/same-sex-marriage-support-map-vote-compass/8788978 [abc.net.au]
It might be 60ish % overall, but there are very few districts where the "No" vote was the majority (No meaning that gay couples should not be allowed to marry).
(Score: 1) by evilcam on Monday November 20 2017, @04:33AM
It was 61.6% (7.82 million responses) in favour, 38.4% (4.87 million responses) against; so 1.6 times more people in favour than opposed. More than this though, only 17 electorates out of 151 returned a No vote and every state returned a yes yote overall.
Given that we elected our government on a 50.36/49.64% split (two-party preferred) I'd can't rationalise how that could not be considered "overwhelming" support.
(Score: 1) by mmarujo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @02:58PM
Sort of, percentage measures are funny that way.
On one hand 61% is only 11% more than 50%, it doesn't seem a lot.
On the other hand if you compare 61% vs 39% than that does seem "overwhelmingly"