An outlook from the Netherlands.

[il padrone]

The Dutch transport reversal and bicycle/pedestrian revolution was led by the public support first - politicians followed.

Howard's gun controls had public support behind it (despite the campaigning efforts of the gun lobby) - politicians followed.

The NBN has public support - politicians have confused it

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality. Eventually, when the oil prices begin to spike, human-powered transport will gain mass public support. When ?? Who knows

[TheShadow]

The Dutch transport reversal and bicycle/pedestrian revolution was led by the public support first - politicians followed.

Howard's gun controls had public support behind it (despite the campaigning efforts of the gun lobby) - politicians followed.

The NBN has public support - politicians have confused it

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality. Eventually, when the oil prices begin to spike, human-powered transport will gain mass public support. When ?? Who knows

I'm not discussing homosexuality, NBN and Australian cycling infrastructure in the same paragraph, but I can safely talk about the eventual oil price spike.... I'm expecting some kind of zombie apocalypse to break out when that happens. People won't start walking or cycling. No. Initially, they'll go out cruising in their motor vehicles looking for 'The Guzz-oline' tanker or depot, MadMax style; much as they do now on Sundays. Then, once it sinks in that there is none left, they'll start breaking into nearby houses for food and fuel. They will eat dogs and cats, shortly followed by the outbreak of cannibalism. Only the very skinny and fast will survive (domestic animals and cyclists), relying on stockpiles of performance energy drinks to fuel their bicycle sprints away from ravenous mobs. Eventually, all of humanity that will remain will be a few isolated pockets of gender-non-specific cyclists with VO2 Maxes of above 60, congregating at a few working NBN nodes, observing the demise of civilization as documented by self-driving solar-powered Google Earth cars.

[il padrone]

Did not happen this way in Europe in 1973.

[trailgumby]

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality.

Except that it's not marriage.

Find another word.

[warthog1]

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality.

Except that it's not marriage.

Find another word.

marriage
ˈmarɪdʒ/Submit
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

There has been formal separation of church and state for centuries.
I would see our legislative process remain objective.

[il padrone]

Except that it's not marriage.

Tell that to the Dutch, the Canadians, the Belgians. the Spanish, the Argentinians, the Irish, the French, the Portugese, the British, the Icelandics, even the Yanks.........



In Australia the only major distinction is a word (though there are some galling legal technicalities that hit at the rights of same-sex non-married partners).

[TheShadow]

Did not happen this way in Europe in 1973.

Please excuse my self-indulgent, surrealist rant. I didn't mean to dampen your optimistic thread vibe. Hopefully, something like the Dutch cycling conversion in '73 would happen here also.

I think it's only fair to point out, however, that the human disinclination to physical effort and exercise can be a very strong one. I've experienced it myself from time to time. I can't help but wonder if when the petroleum runs out, people will simply demand electric cars. Getting interested and excited about being in good shape and healthy requires a cultural change that such attributes can be a part of anyone's life at any age, not just for professional athletes.

[DavidS]

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality.

Except that it's not marriage.

Find another word.

While personally I would like to see the archaic institution of swapping women as pieces of property (that's why fathers give away daughters, it is a property transaction) commonly known as marriage, abolished altogether, I see no reason why same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry if they so desire.

We all have our own opinions etc but we should also have the same rights. If marriage is available to heterosexual couples there is no reason why it shouldn't be available to homosexual couples. In the same way I find it abhorrent that marriage was denied to mixed race couples in some states of the USA until 1967. Is there a problem with mixed race marriages too from those who oppose marriage equality? Should we go back to the days when married women in France couldn't work without the permission of their husband (abolished in 1965, or 1977 in West Germany). As for the religious connection, marriage has only been a sacrament in Christianity since 1184, that's 1184 years after Christ. Not that Christianity has a religious monopoly on the institution, many other religions and even non religious groups recognise marriage.

But, back to the real topic. Oil prices, congestion, climate change, I could go on, there are so many reasons why the age of the car is going to have to end. We have many choices but we need to ensure that the future of transport is one where society and community benefit and cycling offers a compelling transport solution, especially in cities, for a fair proportion of the population.

DS

Shadow, since I am a fan of surrealism I really liked your rant

[trailgumby]

What this experiment in social engineering fails to appreciate is the unique differences between male and female, and how these differences and their complementarity work to create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.

Life-long union between male and female is unique, and different from a facsimile between two people of the same sex.

At its crudest, a "family" unit comprised of two individuals of the same sex can not bring about in an organic fashion the creation of a next generation to nuture, let alone do it as well a child's genetic mother and father parenting attentively.

The simple fact that one or more parents who are not the genetic parent of the child they are rearing brings forward that child's age of puberty early is just one signpost among many that manufacturing this situation distorts healthy family dynamics. Giving the seal of approval to an arrangement that guarantees these distortions is not in any child's best interest, and therefore not in the best interest of future generations.

Calling their union "marriage" denigrates the special and critical place that heterosexual marriage has in the organic continuation of a healthy society.

[warthog1]

At its crudest, a "family" unit comprised of two individuals of the same sex can not bring about in an organic fashion the creation of a next generation to nuture, let alone do it as well a child's genetic mother and father parenting attentively.

What do we do with orphaned children then?

The simple fact that one or more parents who are not the genetic parent of the child they are rearing brings forward that child's age of puberty early is just one signpost among many that manufacturing this situation distorts healthy family dynamics. Giving the seal of approval to an arrangement that guarantees these distortions is not in any child's best interest, and therefore not in the best interest of future generations.

I went to research this and then thought, what a toxic nonsensical reason to deny a person the right to legally marry the person they love regardless of gender. It is also applicable to those in hetero relationships with a step-parent.
Are the children provided with a safe loving and secure environment in which to grow? The answer is yes
There are studies around linking children of same-sex couples to better outcomes than those of hetero couples.

Calling their union "marriage" denigrates the special and critical place that heterosexual marriage has in the organic continuation of a healthy society.

It does that only in the minds of those with that opinion.
The rights and opportunities of hetero couples are not affected one iota.

[DavidS]

I've never understood people who want everyone else to live according to their beliefs. You may have beliefs which make certain lifestyle choices disagreeable, that's your choice. Why do you wish to impose your beliefs on others?

DS

[trailgumby]

What do we do with orphaned children then?

Care for them the very best we can. But we don't set that situation up as being "good" or "normal", do we?

I went to research this and then thought, what a toxic nonsensical reason to deny a person the right to legally marry the person they love regardless of gender.

There's the thing you're blind to. It's not just about the couple involved. It's a much wider and deeper matter than that. Don't worry, you're not alone. Individualist Western society is along for the ride.

It is also applicable to those in hetero relationships with a step-parent.

Indeed it is. That is where the research was conducted. The amount of pain, destruction, unhappiness an brokenness from the failure of the relationships that preceded this point is massive. An unintended consequence of the no-fault divorce laws introduced in the 1970 that started us on the path to devaluing marriage as we do today.

There are studies around linking children of same-sex couples to better outcomes than those of hetero couples.

Indeed there are. Pity they don't compare apples with apples. I said "attentive" parenting for a reason.

Calling their union "marriage" denigrates the special and critical place that heterosexual marriage has in the organic continuation of a healthy society.

It does that only in the minds of those with that opinion. The rights and opportunities of hetero couples are not affected one iota.

It reduces the relationship that is the foundation of our ongoing society to being just about the two people involved. Is that all you think marriage is about? Really? What a short term and narrow view.

Edited: for clarity of comment attribution.

[human909]

Sorry il padrone, but I have to giggle a little here (in the politest way possible). You tactfully took a step back when i prodded the ant nest. Next minute you accidentally kicked open the hornets nest!

Note to mods - I did not start this thread with any intent to descend into the mire of politics

The next great political step forward due to public support will probably be marriage equality.

I don't see the problem with a healthy and friendly discussion on this topic but I would expect the mods do. My comments:

The writing is on the wall. If I was a right-wing christian Liberal part member I would have gotten out in front of the entire issue last government. Drop the word marriage from all government nomenclature, call it a civil union and leave the marriage word for whomever chooses to use it. Some nations have taken this route.

[warthog1]

^^.

I'll reply to the fundamentalist nonsense from others later.
Watching LeTour

[trailgumby]

I've never understood people who want everyone else to live according to their beliefs. You may have beliefs which make certain lifestyle choices disagreeable, that's your choice. Why do you wish to impose your beliefs on others?

DS

Is that directed at me or the gay lobby?

The casting of reasoned dissent as "homophobia" and moves to force conscientious objectors to violate their considered views (such as a recent prosecution in the US of a bakery declining to put a pro-gay marriage message they disagreed with on a wedding cake for a gay couple) with anti-discrimination laws seems to indicate that at least one side of the debate is happy to force their views on others.

My question for you is this: Why are you confusing arguing merit with a desire to force views? Forcing a view on someone is a fruitless exercise. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I wish to persuade.

We have laws against things that are bad for society. For example, do not steal.

Is arguing that is a good law that should be kept disriminatory against kleptomaniacs? Yes, it is. Do I find it disagreeable when people with a different view behave accordingly? Most definitely I do.

Is it forcing a moral view on other people? Should we relax it on that basis? Tell me, please.

[il padrone]

At its crudest, a "family" unit comprised of two individuals of the same sex can not bring about in an organic fashion the creation of a next generation to nuture, let alone do it as well a child's genetic mother and father parenting attentively.

So you are going back to the outlook on marriage as solely to bring forth a new generation of offspring? So thus any marriage that does not issue forth children is thus not fulfilled? Should be cancelled?

Of course we all know full well that in our society today this purpose for marriage is less and less relevant, if it ever really was the purpose. Broaden the horizons just a little please.

[human909]

The casting of reasoned dissent as "homophobia" and moves to force conscientious objectors to violate their considered views (such as a recent prosecution in the US of a bakery declining to put a pro-gay marriage message they disagreed with on a wedding cake for a gay couple) with anti-discrimination laws seems to indicate that at least one side of the debate is happy to force their views on others.

This is actually quite a deep and interesting issue in the broader sense. I'm deliberately avoiding the hornets and trying to stick to the broader philosophy. The freedom of performing commercial or other transactions with whom you choose to.

What if the US bakery had refused:
-A pro-cycling message on a wedding cake?
-A pro-Sharia Law message?
-A pro-Klu Klux Klan message?

What is acceptable? I think refusing the last example society (and probably the law) would deem it perfectly acceptable. The first probably not illegal but is grossly discriminatory. Refusal of the middle could get complicated and likely illegal base on discrimination based on religion?

[trailgumby]

So you are going back to the outlook on marriage as solely to bring forth a new generation of offspring?

Not solely at all. There are plenty of other grounds on which to argue the case, such as the unique complementarity of male and female bonded together as one. And there are plenty of other purposes for marriage as well, such as companionship, the completing of one another, and so-on.

However, I am surprised by your comment. Are you really saying that the conceiving and raising of healthy children to form the next generation is not important, nor a relevant function of marriage? Have I understood you correctly?

[human909]

Trailgumby. I'm deliberately trying to walk on eggshells here. I have no desire to argue with your views. Though I will take philosophical stances on some comments.

However, I am surprised by your comment. Are you really saying that the conceiving and raising of healthy children to form the next generation is not important, nor a relevant function of marriage? Have I understood you correctly?

It is the modern world and we have plenty of freedoms (except for MHLs ). The function of marriage or a civil union is what the two parties want it to be. How could it be anything else in a free society?

Thankfully for the continuation of the species, heterosexual couples still have biological urges to bring the next generation into to this world. Great!

For those that don't make that choice heterosexual or otherwise. Great for them too!

[warthog1]

Meh I'm not married my kids are healthy happy and doing well at school.
We love them, provide for them and care for them.
To me marriage is not at all important.
If 2 people want to get married however why shouldn't they be allowed to.
I'm against discrimination.

[human909]

If 2 people want to get married however why shouldn't they be allowed to.
I'm against discrimination.

What if 3 people wanted to get married? I'm just curious. (And maybe now trying to stir things a little. )


There is certainly some truth to Trailgumby's portrayal of marriage. The reality is the entire concept of a strong union between two loving partners is one born out of biological instincts and societal needs about raising kids.

Though there are plenty of legacy biological instincts and legacy societal needs that are destructive forces in modern society too. Such that alone does not isn't a justification for the continuation of such things.

[il padrone]

However, I am surprised by your comment. Are you really saying that the conceiving and raising of healthy children to form the next generation is not important, nor a relevant function of marriage? Have I understood you correctly?

Yes, you misunderstand me.

In the modern world marriage fulfills many roles. One of them is to raise children. Plenty of unmarried couples do (and always have) raised healthy children; even many single parents as well.

Most gay couples who want to marry, want this for other reasons than raising children - reasons like societal recognition, ability to have partner-rights in health/hospital decisions (especially relevant at times of severe injury or near-to-death events), for security of inheritance rights and so on. It is my understanding that in many situation still, gay partners are under-entitled in a range of social and legal situations. This alone is enough to justify the change to the Marriage Act, which BTW the Federal Government is free to do with a simple bill passed through parliament, not some costly and divisive plebiscite.

Marriage is whatever the partners choosing to marry and share their lives wish it to be for.

I am married and have raised two happy, healthy children to adulthood. I am not threatened by the concept of gay marriage.

One sister has married and has two children. Another sister has two children, raised out of wedlock. A third sister has three children, born out of wedlock; they have since married. My brother is married, yet they have no children; they do love their nieces and nephews very much.

[trailgumby]

Meh I'm not married my kids are healthy happy and doing well at school.
We love them, provide for them and care for them.

I disagree.

If you have a lifelong commitment to each other you are married. I believe the latin term is de facto. As opposed to de jure. Although, the laws have been updated to reflect that and provide support for vulnerable parties, so de facto is pretty much the same as de jure these days.

So I think our legal system disagrees with you as well

[warthog1]

Care for them the very best we can. But we don't set that situation up as being "good" or "normal", do we?

We don't make judgements, or impose our sense of moralism on them. The situation is what it is. That is all.

There's the thing you're blind to. It's not just about the couple involved. It's a much wider and deeper matter than that. Don't worry, you're not alone. Individualist Western society is along for the ride.

It is about personal freedom, equal rights and freedom from discrimination. Inalienable basic human rights in any civilised free and fair society. I wonder what alternative you would propose to modern Western society.

Indeed it is. That is where the research was conducted. The amount of pain, destruction, unhappiness an brokenness from the failure of the relationships that preceded this point is massive. An unintended consequence of the no-fault divorce laws introduced in the 1970 that started us on the path to devaluing marriage as we do today.

Are you arguing people should be forced to remain in a loveless union?
That isn't positive for anyone, children included.

Indeed there are. Pity they don't compare apples with apples. I said "attentive" parenting for a reason.

Being hetero is no guarantee of anything, including parental responsibility. There are some very bad apples amongst hetero married couples when it comes to parenting.

It reduces the relationship that is the foundation of our ongoing society to being just about the two people involved. Is that all you think marriage is about? Really? What a short term and narrow view.

It is in no way shape or form the foundation of our ongoing society. It is simply a feature.
I think you are pointing out the splinter in another's eye whilst ignoring the log in your own, by calling others' views narrow on this matter.

[DavidS]

Is that directed at me or the gay lobby?

It is directed at you, and you know it. Unlike you the gay lobby do not want everyone else follow their lifestyle choice, they are quite happy for you to live your life as you wish. Those who oppose marriage equality do wish to impose their beliefs on others by denying them the right to equal treatment.

The casting of reasoned dissent as "homophobia" and moves to force conscientious objectors to violate their considered views (such as a recent prosecution in the US of a bakery declining to put a pro-gay marriage message they disagreed with on a wedding cake for a gay couple) with anti-discrimination laws seems to indicate that at least one side of the debate is happy to force their views on others.

Quite the opposite. Ask a gay baker to make a marriage cake for a heterosexual couple and you will be given a quote, not a refusal. It is clear who is trying to impose their views here, very clear.

My question for you is this: Why are you confusing arguing merit with a desire to force views? Forcing a view on someone is a fruitless exercise. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

No, the forcing is coming from the side which wishes to deny one section of the community the same rights as the rest of the community.

I wish to persuade.

No, you wish to discriminate, I wish to remove discrimination.

We have laws against things that are bad for society. For example, do not steal.

Is arguing that is a good law that should be kept disriminatory against kleptomaniacs? Yes, it is. Do I find it disagreeable when people with a different view behave accordingly? Most definitely I do.

Comparing gays to kleptomaniacs, that is revealing.

You make a statement that we make laws against things that are bad for society in an argument against marriage equality. If you think equality for gay people is bad for society then I again ask the question: why do you think others should live by your beliefs, they are your beliefs and you are free to live by them, others can live by their beliefs. I don't get this obsession with trying to force your moral views on others.

Is it forcing a moral view on other people? Should we relax it on that basis? Tell me, please.

See above, you are arguing that your morals should be forced on others and want the law to enforce your particular beliefs, I am arguing that people should be able to live by their own morals and have the same rights as everyone else.

DS