May I first state that I am FOR gay and lesbians being able to be married. I am heterosexual and do not have any gay friends, my partner is homophobic as are most of my friends (as I now live in Australia and this seems to be the way here, not being unfair just stating what I have been subjected to) but I am indifferent. I used to run weddings for a living in the UK and I ran a number of gay/lesbian weddings and had lots of fun in doing so, If it is legal for any human adult to love/live with/sleep with any other human adult then what difference does it make if that partnership has a piece of paper to go along with it? (from a heterosexuals point of view) Anyone should be able to celebrate their love for anyone else and more to the point – who has the right to state that anyone should not? What does it matter to anyone else’s lives anyway? It will change nothing in the lives of a heterosexual couple if the gay couple down the road now have rings on their fingers instead of not having them the previous week…

However… there a some points made in this discussion that I cant help disagree with – for example – ‘MINORITY RIGHTS SHOULD NEVER BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE’

How can this be a sound statement? If this statement were correct then the world would be in turmoil!!! Think of the minority situations that this could apply to – Murderers, Rapists, Thievery etc etc, If the government were corrupt or biased in a particular country and majority votes meant nothing then laws could be passed on a daily basis that conflict with the general publics interest (as sadly is the case in lots of parts of the world) and who of you would agree that the statement is sound then?

Think about how much the world can/would change if every minority decision was agreed/disagreed to by a select few rather than the majority. We disbanded Royals running their countries for this very reason did we not? The human race decided all those years ago that the countries should be ran by a person or persons that the public voted for rather than a king or queen that’s only claim to leadership was birthright. We have evolved enormously to points where we forget that we are still a race of animals trying to get along in the world, if the opinions of the minority were more important or even as important as the majority opinion then how would a herd of animals progress?

A majority vote in my opinion is not only the fair and decent way to do things but a fantastic thing and should never be discarded from any decision, be it minority or not. If the majority is against a decision then it is up to the people fighting the cause of the minority to change that opinion. Otherwise how is it fair for a minority cause to be accepted possibly against the majority of peoples opinions, making the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE UNHAPPY OR DISGRUNTLED? I do not think this is fair practise.

Angry Exile – male, straight, married and completely indifferent to anyone else’s domestic situation.

Thankyou,
Deanna

That’s actually a pretty piss-poor position to take.

So how, specifically, do you propose minority rights should be dealt with? Let’s take the “gay marriage” issue as an example. How do you propose a vote on this would take place? Who would be eligible to vote? Who would not be eligible? How would you define a “minority”?

Time for some details from you rather than general, high level, motherhood statements.

“The majority should never be able to vote on the rights for a minority”

We do not seek minority rights – we seek the same rights as every other Australian – the vote would be to grant homosexuals the same rights as every other Australian.

Gay marriage has never been legal in Australia. If it is to become legal, then it should be put to the people to vote on it.

Howard did not outlaw gay marriage, he simply clarified the existing laws. If he had an agenda, then so what? No offence, but don’t you?

He didn’t ban gay marriage. For a start it was never lawful and so it could hardly be banned. He simply clarified the existing law so that its intention could not be open to interpretation.

James – When Howard banned gay marriage was there a public referendum to do so ?

Those jurisdictions would have had to introduce that legislation in those jurisdictions correctly or the legislation would have been invalidated by the courts in those jurisdictions.

Someone has inferred that the governments that legalised gay marriage did not put the issue to a public vote, thereby denying citizens in those jurisdictions who opposed gay marriage the opportunity of voting against the legalisation of gay marriage.

In Australia the issue of the legalisation of gay marriage has not been put to a vote of citizens.

I am in favour of the legalisation of gay marriage so I have been denied the opportunity of demonstrating my support for the legalisation of gay marriage by voting for that proposal in a referendum.