Same sex marriage, yep or nah? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14839967
One Degree wrote:If you accept their rights as universal then you deny the rights of the opposition. There is no way around denying rights to someone unless you accept the inconvenience.


How does allowing same sex marriage deny any rights for the opposition?
#14839968
One Degree wrote:If I understand the gist of your post, it is inconvenient to allow different states to have different laws. Yes, it is.
The problem is wanting the 'convenience of consistency' over the 'fairness of inconsistency'. Selecting a 'pet minority' such as gays and making the argument about them hides the underlying real issue.
If you accept their rights as universal then you deny the rights of the opposition. There is no way around denying rights to someone unless you accept the inconvenience.
There is no end to the minorities who must eventually be argued over, so the insistence upon 'convenience' guarantees the 'inconvenience' of continual conflict.
The whole idea of 'minority rights' is a demand their rights be accepted as universal. Once you move the argument beyond 'pet minorities' then the absurdity should be clear to anyone. The opposition to any minority becomes the 'discriminated against'. There is no end to the conflict as long as everyone wants the convenience of being right everywhere.
The battle is over convenience, not rights.

I see now, your point relates back to your general tendency to make a virtue out of smaller groups and locality against the tyranny of others.
I;m guessing your sense of the word democracy already finds the nation state as undemocratic. Which would need unpacking in the way that it's plenty democratic in terms of liberal democracy, which in it's essence is a capitalist dictatorship.
Yeah, I think this relates to my many reiterations of hegemony stability theory where you only posit a negative conception that I believe leads to an infinite regress in which the extreme and likely logical conclusion of your outlook is based in abstract individualism in which no force imposes itself upon the individual. Though based on descriptions you do seem to hold some sense of local community have some moral basis on forcing a standard on others., I guess in it's directness.
But I think the issue is you seem to reject the nature of power in it's entirety rather than see such enforced standards as an inherent part of the social community at any scale. One can't have a sea of atomic individuals free to do purely as they please. And you would in fact find, that if conditions regressed to the point that local communities were an epitomizing force for people's lives away from mass society, that you'd simply be subject to the tyranny of the community.

But away from this notion, in a nation state there are federal laws and at present, the law sets a standard which is against many people having legal rights in many states still.
To which one could in such an contentless focus on such force within itself in negligence to the substance of such force, that there has been a tyranny imposed upon gays and their capacity to have legal rights that afford them the same ease of other married couples in matters of property and child custody and so forth.
You make the force within problematic and hold no concern for what the force employs. Which is why in some sense that it seems as if you have no opinions except on a sort of formalized set of views that you're attached to irregardless of their relation to reality I believe.
But I should probably refrain in the future from these interactions because I think we'll repeat distasteful interactions from which we are fundamentally opposed in our outlook. Your views remind me too much of that which I dislike in liberalism in it's broad sense. I'll simply accept you as you are in that you might be like many Americans that I have the sense of having a leave me a lone sentiment.

Regardless, Australia as a nation state has laws that are a standard to all within it.
And within that framework, I think Australia has been ready for same sex marriage so we can move on and don't have to listen to politicians stall time from other political matters. A case that it shouldn't be such a big deal, but because it's made into one, it clearly is (It is because it is because it isn't what it isn't haha).

Though I think you should perhaps look into Rae Langton who I think does well to work within a framework of liberalism but to show that it doesn't go nearly far enough. Because she doesn't focus purely on the capacity to speak, but that which actually undermines one's capacity to be heard, where if one values free speech, then one can justify certain interventions in order to actually create the conditions that allow a more substnative sense of free speech. Thus freedom can often require intervention rather than merely absence, and what it clearly focuses on is what creates the conditions to realize something. Which directs one's attention to the conditions people exist within, rather than abstract sentiments of people's choice from themselves without consideration of the forces acting upon them as real existing people.


The idea that your right to do something stops where my nose ends or what ever, is clearly an inadequate notion because one has to mediate conflicts and assert something. Not everyone can get what they want, and so the idea of being unrestricted and that any imposition is tyranny is nonsensical as it simply doesn't exist and never has. Even in primitive groups, because such individualists notions primarily arose from capitalism, not in the dependence of people which did have community override the individual every time because if one person stepped out of line it was significant threat to others.
#14839969
B0ycey wrote:How does allowing same sex marriage deny any rights for the opposition?


This has been argued many times. Like I said, it just detracts from the real issue.
20 years ago, even 'liberal' sitcoms made fun of gays. You want to pretend no one should have a right to an alternative opinion. You will offer the very modern reasoning based upon very recent laws passed by lobbyists.
This totally ignores people will believe what ever they want. They don't care about your arguments. You want what you want and they want what they want. The conflict is because neither side wants the inconvenience of only being 'right' in some locations. They demand being 'right' everywhere thus totally eliminating any compromise because it would be inconvenient.
This results in communities, who do not even have a selected 'pet minority' being forced to enact policies that have nothing to do with them. This generates resentment and an eventual backlash like we are seeing now. Our lack of tolerance guarantees continual conflict. Simply accepting some inconvenience, by not demanding our views be universal, would greatly reduce conflict.
#14839971
One Degree wrote:This has been argued many times. Like I said, it just detracts from the real issue.
20 years ago, even 'liberal' sitcoms made fun of gays. You want to pretend no one should have a right to an alternative opinion. You will offer the very modern reasoning based upon very recent laws passed by lobbyists.
This totally ignores people will believe what ever they want. They don't care about your arguments. You want what you want and they want what they want. The conflict is because neither side wants the inconvenience of only being 'right' in some locations. They demand being 'right' everywhere thus totally eliminating any compromise because it would be inconvenient.
This results in communities, who do not even have a selected 'pet minority' being forced to enact policies that have nothing to do with them. This generates resentment and an eventual backlash like we are seeing now. Our lack of tolerance guarantees continual conflict. Simply accepting some inconvenience, by not demanding our views be universal, would greatly reduce conflict.


I don't see how allowing same sex marriage prevents people being able to be opposed to same sex marriage. As long as Australia doesn't prevent a platform for an opposite view, in my opinion no rights have been violated.

Nonetheless Australia are having a vote on the subject. And this seems to me to be a very democratic way to decide a policy.
#14839974
It should not be allowed. This is not homophobia but a recognition of fact. Marriage is by definition the union of people from different genders with the utlimate purpose of producing children. Homosexuals should have equal rights, but there are some points on which there are just simple differences which need to be respected. A homosexual relationship is different to a hetereosexual relationship. They are not the same. Traditionally it was never possible for people of the same gender to marry each other. Polygamy was possible but it was always between man and woman. And for those who try to compare this to the oppression of Arican Americans, it is a false comparision because there was never same-sex marriage in the vast majority of the world. This same vast majority of the world also never practiced discrimination against black people. It is therefore a silly comparison.
#14839975
@Wellsy
You reduce my position to anarchism as an argument against my position. This is unfounded. I simply ask for a better balance of autonomy on a level that still allows for a productive community. I do not advocate I eliminate any of the problems faced by humans. I simply believe allowing the choices on a smaller level will result in a reduction of conflict in the short term, and greater chance of producing voluntary long term consensus through experimentation and copying what actually works rather than what is popular.
We already have over 200 autonomous areas and growing. I believe once the number reaches a 1000 plus we will have basically achieved what I advocate. Other than that, I advocate universal acceptance of some type of standardization of these autonomous areas that will eliminate border conflicts.
I believe there is no need for a government for more than a million people. 100,000 is probably ideal with current technology. 10,000 should be ideal in the near future. An autonomous community needs enough people to support a modern economy. Any population over that is unnecessarily restrictive and only needed for dominance of others.
The only purpose of government should be for the betterment of it's citizens. That is best accomplished with the minimum population that is reasonable based upon current standards.
I even view it on the extreme level of creating autonomous self sufficient communities on earth as an experiment for what we need for populating the universe. Why not practice here and now for what the future demands?
#14839986
Nope.

My reason for voting no is simple and it's the same reason I voted a resounding NO in the year 2000 Republic referendum way back then.... And fucken Malcolm Turnbull was the Liberal Party guy pushing the Yes vote back then too lol!

I don't want shit to change.

Australia isn't broken....

If it fucking ain't broke, don't fucking fix it.

There shouldn't have to be a vote at all, because this Country isn't broken.... There shouldn't be a vote in Parliament and the public shouldn't have to vote on this shit either.

I hope this goes down in flames so we don't have to hear about it again just like the whole "Republic" shit.

We kept the Queen as our leader when Mr Turnbull didn't want her, let's keep the Marriage laws the same too....

Simple reason, don't want the country to change in the manner being proposed.
#14839991
I am tired of reading One Degree's schtick about how communities should be allowed to oppress minorities. Funny how he ignores the majority when the minority is literally Nazis, in which case the majority are wrong.

There really is only one question to ask here:

Is Australia a liberal democracy?

If so, it should guarantee equality to all its citizens, in which case it should recognise same sex marriage.
#14839997
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am tired of reading One Degree's schtick about how communities should be allowed to oppress minorities. Funny how he ignores the majority when the minority is literally Nazis, in which case the majority are wrong.

There really is only one question to ask here:

Is Australia a liberal democracy?

If so, it should guarantee equality to all its citizens, in which case it should recognise same sex marriage.


You are tired of 'hearing my Schtick' because it exposes the illogic of your position. You don't like your view of the world being disputed. To bad, the world is starting to understand it is not right for anyone in the long run.
You have clearly demonstrated your willingness to deprive any opposition of their rights as long as you get what you want. Universal rights are totalitarian by definition and the very people meant to benefit will be harmed in the long run. Your success has exposed your extremism and that extremism is being rejected. Get use to it.
#14840004
One Degree wrote:You are tired of 'hearing my Schtick' because it exposes the illogic of your position. You don't like your view of the world being disputed. To bad, the world is starting to understand it is not right for anyone in the long run.


Actually you ignore my points and just yammer on about community.

Ignoring my points and changing the subject is not an argument.

You have clearly demonstrated your willingness to deprive any opposition of their rights as long as you get what you want.


Oh yeah, and this thing where you accuse other posters of being immoral is also boring and irrelevant.


Universal rights are totalitarian by definition and the very people meant to benefit will be harmed in the long run. Your success has exposed your extremism and that extremism is being rejected. Get use to it.


If rights are totalitarian, please give yours up. Oppression is freedom, according to you, so go ahead and give up your rights. Let us know how awesome it is!
#14840009
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually you ignore my points and just yammer on about community.

Ignoring my points and changing the subject is not an argument.



Oh yeah, and this thing where you accuse other posters of being immoral is also boring and irrelevant.




If rights are totalitarian, please give yours up. Oppression is freedom, according to you, so go ahead and give up your rights. Let us know how awesome it is!


I ignore your points that are irrelevant or intended to distract from the actual issue. This requires I ignore a lot.
Morality is irrelevant? See, this is why your view is being rejected.
Your last paragraph is just another deliberate misinterpretation of my comments. It clearly shows your contempt for honest discussion. Your only purpose is to win at any cost. :*(
#14840013
One Degree wrote:I ignore your points that are irrelevant or intended to distract from the actual issue. This requires I ignore a lot.


Right. The right to equal treatment under the law as an argument for equal accpetance of same sex marriages is somehow irrelevant to the discussion of government accpetance of same sex marriage.

Sure.

Morality is irrelevant? See, this is why your view is being rejected.


No, your accusations of me being immoral are irrelevant.

Your last paragraph is just another deliberate misinterpretation of my comments. It clearly shows your contempt for honest discussion. Your only purpose is to win at any cost. :*(


It's not my fault you do not write clearly and prefer bombastic and pompous phrases to clear ones.

Please note that your entire post ignores the topic.
#14840021
Pants-of-dog wrote:Right. The right to equal treatment under the law as an argument for equal accpetance of same sex marriages is somehow irrelevant to the discussion of government accpetance of same sex marriage.

Sure.



No, your accusations of me being immoral are irrelevant.



It's not my fault you do not write clearly and prefer bombastic and pompous phrases to clear ones.

Please note that your entire post ignores the topic.


You are the one who made it about me, by mentioning my 'schtict'. Typical liberal ploy of attempting to invalidate another's opinion by using emotional laden words. You can't refute the logic, so you attack the messenger. You must have memorized Machiavelli. :lol:
A couple weeks ago, I would have supported gay marriage in my community. It's supporters, on the forum, are convincing me that would be a mistake.
#14840026
No one has an emotional reaction to the word "schtick". If you do, that's your problem.

You have no logic. You just whine about how the poor majority is being oppressed because they are not allowed to beat up gays or whatever. You do this about all minorities excpet Nazis, who seem to qualify for your support.

And if your position on gay marriage is about spiting people like me instead of actually thinking about the issue, a politics debate site is not for you.
#14840030
Pants-of-dog wrote:There really is only one question to ask here:


Is Australia Broken?

No.....

Then don't fix it.

Mind you that's also the correct answer to your question too.

Australia isn't a Liberal Democracy. It's a limited democracy, we have less freedom of speech(it is not a protected constitutional right) and we have a high degree of regulations and an extreamly high degree of gun control. We are not a liberal democracy. So the answer is still no.
#14840031
Pants-of-dog wrote:No one has an emotional reaction to the word "schtick". If you do, that's your problem.

You have no logic. You just whine about how the poor majority is being oppressed because they are not allowed to beat up gays or whatever. You do this about all minorities excpet Nazis, who seem to qualify for your support.

And if your position on gay marriage is about spiting people like me instead of actually thinking about the issue, a politics debate site is not for you.


I am well aware my posts interfere in the comfort you derived from debating everything from a fixed perspective. It was so easy to exchange posting nonsense from your perspective to oppose nonsense posted from the very same perspective. Pesky people like me say, "wait, the world does not need to be viewed that way." Your response is I should not be here. :?:
I am not spiting people by changing my view. It is just too many of them have made it clear they don't care about anything other than getting what they want. Such people can not be trusted and should not be encouraged by giving them what they want, because they will want more and don't care about what I want.
#14840035
colliric wrote:Is Australia Broken?

No.....

Then don't fix it.


This is a textbook example of privilege. As a hetero person, you see no problem with gays having less rights because you do not experience it. Your ignorance or refusal to see the problem does not mean there is no problem.

Mind you that's also the correct answer to your question too.

Australia isn't a Liberal Democracy. It's a limited democracy, we have less freedom of speech(it is not a protected constitutional right) and we have a high degree of regulations and an extreamly high degree of gun control. We are not a liberal democracy. So the answer is still no.


I get the impression that you do not know the definition of a liberal democracy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

    Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is also called western democracy. It is characterized by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

    A liberal democracy may take various constitutional forms: it may be a constitutional monarchy (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Japan, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom) or a republic (France, India, Ireland, the United States). It may have a parliamentary system (Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, the United Kingdom), a presidential system (Indonesia, the United States), or a semi-presidential system (France).

So, the answer to my question is "yes ".

---------------

One Degree wrote:I am well aware my posts interfere in the comfort you derived from debating everything from a fixed perspective. It was so easy to exchange posting nonsense from your perspective to oppose nonsense posted from the very same perspective. Pesky people like me say, "wait, the world does not need to be viewed that way." Your response is I should not be here. :?:
I am not spiting people by changing my view. It is just too many of them have made it clear they don't care about anything other than getting what they want. Such people can not be trusted and should not be encouraged by giving them what they want, because they will want more and don't care about what I want.


Yes, gay people do not care what you want when you refuse to acknowledge their equality and their rights.
#14840045
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a textbook example of privilege. As a hetero person, you see no problem with gays having less rights because you do not experience it. Your ignorance or refusal to see the problem does not mean there is no problem.


Ummm.

You brought this up.

Spoiler: show
I AM IN FACT BISEXUAL. Don't assume things about what you don't know


This is not about rights to me. It is purely about my desire not to see this country change significantly in the manner proposed. I voted NO for the exact same reason in the year 2000. I simply do not like seeing Australia change(for better or worse), I love the country as it is. Not as it should be. I do not want to see any major change to a country that is already the best in the world. This is why I voted NO to getting rid of Queen Elizabeth and why I will also vote NO to this vote. Malcolm Turnbull happens once again by fate to be the face of the "Conservative Yes Vote", and once again I am opposed to him in the belief Australia can be changed "for the better". So there is a degree of deja vu. Australia already is Better!

I get the impression that you do not know the definition of a liberal democracy.


http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529 ... austr.aspx

I get the impression that you do not understand there is a difference between an on paper liberal democracy and a practical one.

The Prime Ministers role in Australia isn't even protected by the constitution. In fact it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. It is technically an indulgence of the Governor General, who technically "delegates power" to the political party in government which is then split into various roles including the leadership PM role. This is why Gough was successfully turfed... His technical legal boss sacked him, despite the fact his party had been democratically elected.

If Australia was a practical Liberal Democracy then Freedom Of Speech as a right would be protected more strongly legally(as in the United States), but as the article showed it just plain isn't in the Constitution and neither is the Prime Minister's job.

In reality Australia has been a limited highly regulated big government democracy since it's inception.
#14840055
colliric wrote:Ummm.

You brought this up.

Spoiler: show
I AM IN FACT BISEXUAL. Don't assume things about what you don't know



Okay. Then you have another reason for refusing to see how this means that the majority has more rights than LGBT people.

This is not about rights to me. It is purely about my desire not to see this country change significantly in the manner proposed. I voted NO for the exact same reason in the year 2000. I simply do not like seeing Australia change(for better or worse), I love the country as it is. Not as it should be. I do not want to see any major change to a country that is already the best in the world. This is why I voted NO to getting rid of Queen Elizabeth and why I will also vote NO to this vote. Malcolm Turnbull happens once again by fate to be the face of the "Conservative Yes Vote", and once again I am opposed to him in the belief Australia can be changed "for the better". So there is a degree of deja vu. Australia already is Better!


Okay, so you are happy with a flagrant lack of rights for a minority because you have this mythical belief about how things should never change.

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529 ... austr.aspx

I get the impression that you do not understand there is a difference between an on paper liberal democracy and a practical one.

The Prime Ministers role in Australia isn't even protected by the constitution. In fact it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. It is technically an indulgence of the Governor General, who technically "delegates power" to the political party in government which is then split into various roles including the leadership PM role. This is why Gough was successfully turfed... His technical legal boss sacked him, despite the fact his party had been democratically elected.


Yes, I also live in a Commonwealth country. I do not need the Westminster parliamentary system described to me.

This does not change the fact that Australia is a liberal democracy.

If Australia was a practical Liberal Democracy then Freedom Of Speech as a right would be protected more strongly legally(as in the United States), but as the article showed it just plain isn't in the Constitution and neither is the Prime Minister's job.

In reality Australia has been a limited highly regulated big government democracy since it's inception.


Yes, this is exactly like every other country in the world in that it is imperfect and does not always perfectly attain its own ideals. Like how it holds a referendum about minority rights.

This still does not magically make Australia not a liberal democracy.
#14840079
Wellsy wrote:I;m guessing your sense of the word democracy already finds the nation state as undemocratic. Which would need unpacking in the way that it's plenty democratic in terms of liberal democracy, which in it's essence is a capitalist dictatorship.

No its not a capitalist dictatorship. This is a Marxist lie. It is the Marxists that want to introduce dictatorship. Communists created absolute monarchies such as Stalin and Mao, these were more akin to the Pharoes. They made our dark age English monarchs look positively egalitarian and just.

But rather than worrying about Gay marriage, lets condemn leaders like Castro that sent homosexuals to prison into the late twentieth century.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]