They’ve voted to allow same-sex marriage. Now maybe some of the homophobes will flee the country.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
They’ve voted to allow same-sex marriage. Now maybe some of the homophobes will flee the country.
Great. Now they’ll send more Ken Ham-types our way.
I cannot believe that the USA has marriage equality and Australia does not.
Good on ya, Aussies!
It was expected, but there were some fears of a ‘Brexit’ type result. All good. Progress.
Mind you, our Prime Minister made this ostensibly triumphant yet cringe-worthy speech.
(If a public opinion survey is the way to craft legislation, why then is this so novel and unique? I know I never had a formal specific say in whether to privatise public assets or whether to allow refugees to find a new life here — or, basically any other piece of legislation)
Raucous Indignation @2, heh.
I don’t like accepting that the USA (war on drugs!) has in some states legalised marijuana yet we in Oz are still foolishly criminalising it.
(USA! USA!)
Are you sure you used the correct word, there? Are homophobes poisonous or venomous, or both?
The law still has to get though parliement and the hard right homophobes in the government are framing it to protect “religious freedoms”. Thats code for licensing their deeply entrenched hatred for all things fair and just.
Don’t worry, we’re not about to run short of poisonous critters.
By the way, can you guys spare us some antifa supersoldiers?
Garydargan:
framing it to protect “religious freedoms”. Thats code for licensing their deeply entrenched hatred for all things fair and just.
We have the same exact thing in Ustates. It’s always about christians, and it’s always about legislating their fear and hate.
Caine:
“It’s always about christians, and it’s always about legislating their fear and hate.”
That’s an incredibly narrow-sighted viewpoint, very Western-centric. Islamic governments are not well known as defenders of liberal democracy.
Some classic Whataboutery there, Dave Grain.
Lofty: fuck off. What, islam has a special place in our atheist hearts, that we can’t criticize it? Fuck that too. Here you go: judaism also has many followers who hate gays. I don’t know enough about sikhism, hinduism, or any other ism to say the same or different.
My comment was NOT about hating on islam, rather it was pointing out that the previous commenter was hating on christianity in a way which can be very counterproductive in the US, as it leads to a turtling, defensive mentality among christians. Let them know we ridicule all religions, and we will fight against homophobia in any of them
Regarding Christianists’ labeling of privileges as freedoms, here is another piece from yesterday in Australia’s national broadcaster: Same-sex marriage: James Paterson’s bill has ‘no prospect’ of passing, Malcolm Turnbull says.
Pullquote:
(Of course, they’re politicians. What is said and what is done are not necessarily congruent)
Invoking Islam when talking about opponents of gay marriage in the US and Australia is not a genuine attempt at conversation. It’s like Ann Coulter’s invocation of JFK’s affair when discussing Roger Moore: a blatant attempt to distract the conversation to something irrelevant.
So bless your heart, Dave.
Sorry, that should have been Roy Moore. Not sure how I ended up with Roger Moore.
microraptor:
“Invoking Islam when talking about opponents of gay marriage in the US and Australia is not a genuine attempt at conversation. ”
That is a ridiculous statement, and shows you have no idea about the Australian population. I can’t be arsed educating you on that, so go away and have a look before you come back with such nonsense.
Dave Grain:
Well, yes. Kinda hard to talk about Australian politics without making it “Western-centric”.
You do realise that this is about the situation here, not about the situation there, right?
(Also, as has been noted, your comment reeks of “dear Muslima”)
Again, your “Others do it too, but even worse” is technically a criticism of Islam, but mainly is an excuse for Christianism. Nobody has claimed that Christians are the worst, but I can assure you that the overwhelming opposition to equality came from Christians, not Muslims.
Here in Oz, it’s about Biblical values (ahem), not Koranic ones. Those are deprecated.
It wasn’t Muslims in other countries that campaigned against it, it was local Christians specifically.
Not hating on christianity, rather calling out the specific lobby which opposes equality in Australia.
As for your (implicit) claim that Christians would be more reasonable if they faced no criticism, well. Look at history.
(Also, WTF does the USA have to do with this? I did not respond to the survey with the USA in mind. You imagine anyone did?)
—
Of course, I’m getting to be an old fart and well remember the situation regarding homosexuality but a few decades ago. Google “Dr. George Duncan”, for example.
John Morales:
“WTF does the USA have to do with this? I did not respond to the survey with the USA in mind. You imagine anyone did?”
Mea most definitely NOT culpa on this one. I refer you to Caine at #9:
“We have the same exact thing in Ustates. It’s always about christians, and it’s always about legislating their fear and hate.”
Dave, again, yes. Caine did say that. And you know what? The USA is also “very Western-centric” — almost eponymously so. And the conservatives there appeal specifically to Christian ideology, not to Islamic ideology*.
But you did not address Caine, you addressed Lofty (who is also Australian).
Point being, both USA and Oz are “Christian” countries, not “Islamic” countries. So the criticism towards that ideology is pertinent, unlike criticism towards Islam.
—
Let’s stay on topic, if we can.
—
* Obviusly, since both are Abrahamic perversions, they have many similarities. BTW, historically, Islam was more progressive and less strict than Christianity, believe it or not.
To be fair, Xianity is now sufficiently fragmented that there are islands of relative sanity on this issue.
e.g. http://www.christiansforequality.com.au/
Kudos to them for that.
62% of people voted yes. 78% of people voted. That means 52% of our population either specifically didnt want same sex marriage or couldnt be bothered to put an X on a piece of paper, put it in a prepaid envelope and put in a post box. Only 48% of us think that same sex couples are fully people. I feel sick.
Another australian speaking — Dave Grain, you are really off-base. Both here and in the US, the major political opponents of same-sex marriage have been conservative christian politicians / media blatherers.
Islamist homophobia has little to do with the political struggle in Oz. Muslims make up less than 3% of the australian population (and the hardcore islamist portion would be an even smaller fraction), so their vote share in this plebisicite was trivial.
The only fair objection that you could have made of Caine’s comment is that it criticised all christians when there are plenty of liberal christians who voted for marriage equality. But that’s not what you did.
Koshka:
Misleading claim, because it equivocates between the population at large and eligible voters. Actual facts: very nearly 80% of eligible voters voted, and of that subset of the Australian population, 62% voted yes. For whatever reasons (some very good, some not-so-much so) some are disenfranchised.
Ahem. 7.82M “yes”, 4.87M “no”, therefore (7.82 + 4.87) = 12.69 million voters, yet the population of Australia is a bit under 25 million people.
Anyway. 4.87 out of 12.69 is around 38%, not 48%.
—
No dispute that we’re still rather conservative, but let’s be factual.
(In passing, I imagine that were younger voters to have been enfranchised here, the proportion of the ‘yes’ vote would have been greater)
[can’t resist]
Just as well we don’t have an electoral college system whereby the raw majority is immaterial, eh?
chrislawson #22,
I would suggest that more atheists voted no than muslims. I also think that our culture of toxic masculinity has more effect than religion on how people voted.
Koshka:
Not only would you suggest that under unspecified conditions, you actually did suggest that, implicitly (but unequivocally)*.
More to the point, you are also misleading since atheists >> muslims in Oz.
(You want to typify a difference between groupings as characteristic of those groupings, you should use comparative measurements, not absolute ones)
—
* Yeah, that particular rhetorical technique only works on rubes.
Or so I would say, were I to say it.
John Morales #23
I was refering to eligible voters.
In an effort to satisfy your request to be factual;
61.6% voted yes. 79.5% eligible voters votes. 61.6% of 79.5% is 49.0%.
I was wrong by 1%. I am now 1% less sick.
John Morales #26,
I was not trying to typify a difference between groupings. I was attempting to point out that I think that atheists have more of an effect on the No vote than muslims. My concern is the amount of people who voted Yes. I am dissapointed it is low and think that this will be used to water down marriage laws.
I apologise for my poor communication.
Koshka, technically, you should be 1% more sick given your new number is that much higher than your previousa.
Let’s say there are 1000 people eligible.
61.6% of that is 616 people, 79.5% of that is 795 people.
You seriously contend that 616 people represents 49% of 795 people?
If this survey had been conducted under “referendum” conditions (needs a majority in each state, plus a majority of states) it would have passed. Unfortunately, the Marriage Act isn’t part of the constitution, so we weren’t actually given the option of having a referendum about it. Which is a pity – the last time we had a referendum on whether one group of Australians deserved equal rights to the rest of us, it passed overwhelmingly too (the 1967 referendum regarding Indigenous Australian citizenship).
As someone on Twitter put it: the Australian people tend to be fairly egalitarian, but we’re let down by our politicians.
Koshka, Thanks for #28, that makes a lot of sense. I concur.
@Koshka, I’m with ya on every point. @John Morales The numbers are confusing, but Koshka is on the money. The 61.6% figure given as a yes vote is of those that voted. Breaks down this way Aust population>eligible voters>those that did vote.; %61.6 refers to that last. %48 refers to middle. But in absolute raw number terms, they are the same.
Of those that voted, the yes got a pretty crushing win. But of those who could have voted, only %48 voted yes. The rest were no or did not vote.
Dave Grain
Back atcha, my good sir.
I as an atheist am perfectly happy to criticize Muslims when they are the subject of scrutiny. As has been ably pointed out by others before me, the subject here is predominately about the hate that conservative xtians have for gay people getting marriage equality, amongst other things. Muslims doing outrageous things are very much in the minority here in the Land Down Under.
indianajones:
Hm, I’ve never doubted my numeracy, but perhaps I’ve been fooling myself.
Just referred back to the ABC site ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/live-blog-same-sex-marriage-survey-results-ssm/9134066 ) and the figures there are still as per my #23 — that is to say, “7.82M “yes”, 4.87M “no””.
I also wonder how you can seriously contend that 7.82 is only 48% of 12.69. The very site notes it’s a 62% yes preference. Where am I (and the Australian Bureau of Statistics) going wrong?
—
I guess I’ll leave it here, since I’m hogging comments.
It’s also of value to see how the voters in each district voted, gives you some idea where the conservatives hang out.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-15/same-sex-marriage-results-ssm/9145636
That’s some weapons grade victim blaming you got there.
I mean, if people had always nicely said “Merry Christmas” and let them teach creationism in school, they wouldn’t have gone so far to elect a sexual predator and a Christian fundamentalist.
[sorry, not trying to spam, but I feel I should do one more]
I apologise. So, 79.5% eligible voter turnout and 12.69 M voted, therefore the eligible population was 15.96m, and therefore 7.82M ‘yes’ votes is indeed around 49% of the eligible population. It follows that 51% either did not care to vote, or voted against.
Anyway. Good day for social progress here.
It’s also funny how this “turning of the other cheek” is always exclusively expected of Christianity’s victims, never of Christians.
John Morales
I don’t think you need worry about multiple posts.
yay for Oz!!!
(probably)
chigau, ta. Thus encouraged, one more:
I could have written #37 equally validly by saying “So, 79.5% eligible voter turnout and 12.69 M voted, therefore the eligible population was 15.96M, and therefore 4.87M ‘no’ votes is around 31% of the eligible population. It follows that 69% either did not care to vote, or voted for.”
(Same data, same conclusion — a clear majority. So, the half-full half-empty conundrum is not applicable here)
Silentbob @ 8
Supervillains* are usually smarter than most people.
Milo Y. and Drumpf would more correctly be called “infravillains”
(*as pointed out by Martin Rundkvist at aardvarchaeology)
— — — —
We could use a gene driver to give invasive toxic cane toads a gene that reduces their fitness… -like an instinct to jump down the throats of bigots. And people who look like Turnbull.
Wow, this news is such a relief! Maybe I haven’t read the news correctly, but I had the impression that a majority was against same-sex marriage. Very convincing outcome.
Re: 62% of people voted yes. 78% of people voted. These are very convincing numbers. I am quite happy with them.
Koshka take comfort from the fact that most of those who didn’t vote didn’t feel strongly enough against to make sure their voice was heard, they aren’t against gay marriage, they probably just don’t care much either way. In this context not caring is way way better than being against and is progress.
Dave Grain, #16
Isn’t the Muslim population of Australia around 3%? What is the religious makeup of the opposition to same-sex marriage there?
It seems like you can’t be arsed educating yourself. It’ll be doubly embarrassing if you live in Australia.
Re . blaming Australia for loons that have moved to USA, please remember that those mentioned below are home-grown.
Ed Brayton heroically keeps an eye on far-right media outlets so the rest of us don’t have to. Here are a few headlines at his “Dispatches from the Culture Wars”:
Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes: Lesbians Have Children to Have Slaves
Liz Crokin: The Movie Wizard of Oz Makes Kids Sex Slaves,
Wayne Root: ‘Moore Did Nothing Wrong Because Obama and Hillary Clinton are Gay,
Australia has plenty of despicable creeps but for sheer anti-reality, Alex Jones et al reign supreme.
….but Jeff Sessions believes in diversity. He has given six different versions of explaining the involvement with Russi. Attaboy.
“Russia”.
You mean “venomous”.
John Morales:
Slightly over 48% of eligible voters voted yes, 31% voted no, 20% did not vote.
For the vote to flip you have to imagine that the 20% would have voted no, had they voted, in a proportion of about 10:1.
That’s a rare proportion in any free vote.
Muslims did not invest 10 millions AUD in the “No” campaign.
Muslims did not decide that such a demeaning survey was necessary for political expediency.
Muslims did not discuss in Australian TV whether LGBT+ people are worthy humans or not.
Most of us are not citizens of Islamic-majority countries and we don’t have any power to influence what happens there.
We do have a *duty* to influence what happens in the place we live, and in the place we live Muslims are a persecuted minority with little power.
Further, I wouldn’t dwell too much on the numbers involved.
This was NOT a “vote”, but a non-binding *survey*.
The usual safety procedures one would expect for an actual vote were not in place, so I’d take the numbers with a grain of salt.
Still, good on ya ‘Straya.