Australia: Homosexual Marriage should not be decided by a popular vote
 |
| Gay Couple with child (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Australia: The ABC News presented both side to the Homosexual debate unfortunately the pro-homosexual marriage position presented by David Van Mill (Associate Professor in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Western Australia) presents a faulty and false argument.
Do we really need a plebiscite on same-sex marriage? The people who think so do at least get one thing right: marriage is a political matter.
Response: Marriage is not a political matter - the only interest Government has in marriage is for the propagation of children, healthy and educated to become tax payers and workers for the future. This is their interest alone with marriage.
This debate is not about whether or not same-sex marriages are compatible with any moral or religious beliefs. It is about how we should decide their legality: via Parliament or a plebiscite.
Response: Wrong marriage is all about moral and religious belief. Homosexuality was a criminal offense for centuries it was deemed to be sinful, wrong and abhorent. Nothing has changed. The Bible and Christians clearly believe the act of homosexuality is sinful and an offense against God. It is morally corrupt and has been for centuries.
It follows that any more general arguments claiming that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry because they are depraved, or because marriage is about procreation, or that same-sex couples already have legal status, or that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution are irrelevant to the question.
Response: Homosexual history clearly points to depravity and 1000's of one off, sexual encounters through bath houses and various other LGBT events. Some may point to heterosexual adultery but the numbers don't stack against homosexual activity. To deny this behaviour exists is fraudulent. It means the nature (not of all) of a homosexual marriage would be open to others with multiple relationships, it would be unstable. The evidence of this is the very first New Zealand homosexual couple who married divorced within six weeks. Homosexuals are using marriage as a tool for equality not for marriage.
We are simply assessing the best mechanism for deciding whether same-sex couples can get married. It is a matter of political philosophy, not theology.
We are simply assessing the best mechanism for deciding whether same-sex couples can get married. It is a matter of political philosophy, not theology.
Response: Homosexual marriage is first and foremost a theological problem because this is where historically and culturally where the prohibition of homosexual behaviour is outlined clearly as a degredating sinful behaviour. To ignore the theological basis is to not only dismiss history, culture and experience but to ignore large parts of the community who are against homosexual marriage on theological grounds. His point is false.
The first thing to note is that a plebiscite cannot "decide whether to legalise same-sex marriage". The people can express a preference (which some MPs have threatened to ignore) but only Parliament can change the law. In this sense the motion is false and has to be rejected. But if we ask instead whether holding a plebiscite is a good thing for guiding the votes of politicians, we might start by asking why we are having one at all. Is it because the Liberal Party has suddenly developed a deep longing for direct democracy? Or is it a stunt orchestrated by a desperate, and now deposed, prime minister?
The first thing to note is that a plebiscite cannot "decide whether to legalise same-sex marriage". The people can express a preference (which some MPs have threatened to ignore) but only Parliament can change the law. In this sense the motion is false and has to be rejected. But if we ask instead whether holding a plebiscite is a good thing for guiding the votes of politicians, we might start by asking why we are having one at all. Is it because the Liberal Party has suddenly developed a deep longing for direct democracy? Or is it a stunt orchestrated by a desperate, and now deposed, prime minister?
Response: Cynicism is of no value in this argument. The former PM realized this issue is a very divisive issue hence people should vote as compared to the US where a 4-5 vote made by unelected individuals imposed their moral view on all US citizens.
If the former, where is the list of other pressing issues the Liberal Party wants to place before the Australian public? If the latter, we need to question whether the plebiscite is serving the public interest or Liberal Party interests.
Response: Cynicism is of no value in this argument. Off topic.
If the former, where is the list of other pressing issues the Liberal Party wants to place before the Australian public? If the latter, we need to question whether the plebiscite is serving the public interest or Liberal Party interests.
Response: Cynicism is of no value in this argument. Off topic.
I will focus on the public interest and start with the price tag for a plebiscite. We know a parliamentary vote comes free of charge, whereas it will cost something like $150 million for the people to decide in a stand-alone plebiscite, as proposed. This fact alone should end the debate unless there is some extraordinary, compelling reason for a plebiscite. We should also note that if politicians had decided the matter it would have been settled months ago. So, if the word "should" in the above title means that a plebiscite is the most cost-effective and timely way of dealing with the issue, it is clear that the motion needs to be rejected.
Response: Homosexuals in parliament have great power, and non-homosexuals in Parliament (mainly Sydney area) are pushing hard to keep the vote within.
What the plebiscite demonstrates, by its very existence, is that same-sex couples do not enjoy the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples. If they did, there would be no need for a vote. This leads us to a second way that the "should" in the title can be understood. We need to decide, from a moral point of view, whether a plebiscite is appropriate. I think it is inappropriate because it undermines some of the most cherished traditions of our political system.
What the plebiscite demonstrates, by its very existence, is that same-sex couples do not enjoy the same civil rights as opposite-sex couples. If they did, there would be no need for a vote. This leads us to a second way that the "should" in the title can be understood. We need to decide, from a moral point of view, whether a plebiscite is appropriate. I think it is inappropriate because it undermines some of the most cherished traditions of our political system.
Response: What is the basis of human right for homosexuals, transgender, and others? Who nominates these rights. They simply cannot be asserted? The United Nations may make statements but they do not make them rights.
One of the core principles of Liberal democracy is that basic civil rights should not be decided by popular vote. The "liberal" part of the idea is expressed in things like constitutions, bills of rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers etc. and puts limits on what the collective can decide. This should not be a controversial idea for members of a party that goes by the name "Liberal".
Response: The author know the indigenous people were permitted to vote by a plebiscite. Homosexual marriage is not a Liberal Party problem. Last week a Labor Senator chose to resign becauase he can no longer support his Labor party forcing his vote to support immoral homosexual marriage.
One of the core principles of Liberal democracy is that basic civil rights should not be decided by popular vote. The "liberal" part of the idea is expressed in things like constitutions, bills of rights, the rule of law, the separation of powers etc. and puts limits on what the collective can decide. This should not be a controversial idea for members of a party that goes by the name "Liberal".
Response: The author know the indigenous people were permitted to vote by a plebiscite. Homosexual marriage is not a Liberal Party problem. Last week a Labor Senator chose to resign becauase he can no longer support his Labor party forcing his vote to support immoral homosexual marriage.
For those who think democracy should be opened up to allow voting on civil rights, it is worth remembering that your rights also come up for grabs.I doubt, however, that most people in opposite-sex relationships would think it appropriate for their right to marry (or any other right for that matter) to be decided by popular vote. But if it is inappropriate for these couples it is also inappropriate in the case of same-sex couples.
Response: Incorrect - false threat. Homosexuality is an immoral behaviour, deemed sinful by many Australians and people around the world. Homosexuality has neever been seen as a right. Homosexuality has always been seen as criminal behaviour. It was Labor governements who changed the law for their friends.
So we seem to be in a position where there are no good moral reasons for a popular vote on same-sex marriage. There is, however, one pragmatic reason to support a plebiscite. In the current climate a parliamentary vote could favour the status quo but a vote in favour of marriage equality in a plebiscite might force the government to do something that good liberals would do without compulsion. In a context where an illiberal Liberal Party holds power, a plebiscite could serve the liberal democratic cause. On this particular issue, it would seem, the Australian people are more properly liberal than those elected to represent them.
So we seem to be in a position where there are no good moral reasons for a popular vote on same-sex marriage. There is, however, one pragmatic reason to support a plebiscite. In the current climate a parliamentary vote could favour the status quo but a vote in favour of marriage equality in a plebiscite might force the government to do something that good liberals would do without compulsion. In a context where an illiberal Liberal Party holds power, a plebiscite could serve the liberal democratic cause. On this particular issue, it would seem, the Australian people are more properly liberal than those elected to represent them.
Response: There are many moral reasons to prohibit homosexual marriage - children would be the first. The Australian ABC (pro-homosexual) highlighted the wonder of a young homosexual couple caring for an adopted boy. The ABC reporter gushed platitudes and stomped on those who opposed this new family arragement. Police intervened later, only to find out the child was being sexually abused and both men fled the country. The ABC reporter tried to write a following piece justifying her new moral pro-homosexual worldview, only to find it blinded her to the evil of homosexual behaviour which is being ignored. It was also noted that actual homosexual sex acts are NOT shown on TV shows except short sickening kisses. It is well know in the media that showing full nudity of two gay men having sex with one placing his penis in the other anal passage would be a complete and utter turnoff.
But as a matter of principle it is a bad idea to have popular votes on civil rights. Parliamentarians in other liberal democracies have moved to change the law without feeling the need to have a plebiscite. Ireland held a referendum because the constitution had to be changed to allow same-sex marriage. There is no such requirement in Australia; we just need parliamentarians to do the right thing and change the law.
But as a matter of principle it is a bad idea to have popular votes on civil rights. Parliamentarians in other liberal democracies have moved to change the law without feeling the need to have a plebiscite. Ireland held a referendum because the constitution had to be changed to allow same-sex marriage. There is no such requirement in Australia; we just need parliamentarians to do the right thing and change the law.
Response: Homosexuality is not a civil right. It is a moral choice. Now Gender Fluidity is being preached which states it is a choice based on feelings. Homosexual marriage is a dangerous decision.
Related articles
Related articles
