Same sex marriage, yep or nah? - 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.
#14838984
I don't believe in state recognised marriage. If a man and a woman, two men, two women and man, two men and a toaster etc want to declare themselves married after a big party good for them. If they can pay a priest to turn up fine, if not fine.

The state does not give out friendship licenses and friendship "divorces", why should it when people are fucking? The legal contract is a legacy from a time when women were property and the father was essentially selling her to a new owner, marriage as a legal institution is not necessary now this is not true (well outside of right wing middle eastern places). Socially do what you like between consenting adults just don't ask the state to care about it.
#14838986
Civil unions from a legal standpoint do have much importance to the way shared assets are handled over time. Gays and lesbians have had that in Australia for years. This is just $400 million spent on a label. And I will vote no on that principle-waste of resource for stupid shit.
#14839011
I'll vote yes because the opposition to it is often based on utter shit.
Like in this OP make some vague association to same sex marriage and a sensationalist issue of some couple thought to pressure their kid into identifying as a girl.
And then you also make a point that out of principle you're voting no because of money wasted which sounds odd considering this whole thing would've been a lot cheaper if there wasn't an opposition to it, wasting everyone's time with this because bunch of wowsers don't feel okay about homosexuality. Might be useful to explain where these costs are coming from and whose responsible for amplifying them beyond it simply passing through parliament. Why we're going through this shit show on the taxpayers dollar.

Tirst no same sex marriage ad is a joke.
Anti same-sex marriage campaign airs: ‘School told my son he could wear a dress’
Image
Most attempts I've seen to posit some rational argument against same sex marriage itself rather than attempts to smear it via association with something else seem pretty weak. Which seems to be why have to resort to such vague associations that hold no clear relevance to same sex marriage.
To which I believe Martha Nussbaum's criticism of people's politics being driven by disgust being the expression of an irrational prejudice of those incapable of forming rational arguments.
And it's the case that there is a significant limitation of civil unions not present in legal marriage.
The limitation being, that the legality of one's relationship is only recognized within a state and not federally.

I simply can't see any direct argument against homosexuality itself, only indirect avenues which try and link certain things as essentially related or significant. Which often seem vague, irrelevant and of little consequence to the issue at hand. We're being held up by a dipshit coalition and those that lobbied them at the expense of the Australian public's money and time. Should've streamlined this shit through and got onto other political issues that are pressing on the lives of Australians, like the issue of housing affordability.
#14839018
I think the opposition to homosexuality is in it not being the normal choice of humans. Anything not chosen by the majority will naturally be rejected by the majority. This does not make either position wrong. Instead of rejecting the reasoning of the other, we should respect it. We are discussing choices, not some universal truth. Our decisions should allow for both sides to decide what is best.
#14839301
The problem I see is that the state needs to accomodate two opposing groups with mutually exclusive ideas. The solution is to find a way that can accomodate both groups without one of them being able to force their ideas on to everybody else.

My conscience tells me to abstain. If I vote 'yes' it means social progressives norms are dominant, if I vote 'no' then religious conservative norms are to be dominant. Neither is desirable.
#14839312
The status quo is contested. Both opposing camps are actively trying to change the status quo to their liking and marginalise the other camp. We don't have a stable solution that would let them do things their own way without trying to get rid of the other lot. As a result they are both trying to recruit the uncommitted majority to their cause. Thus I refuse to take sides.

What I want to see is for the state to be recognised as being above the competing agendas of rival factions. Both the social progressives and the religious conservatives have far too much influence within state institutions. And they both have no problem with using state power to impose their views on the broader society. Both are a menace to communal harmony as long as people continue to tolerate uncompromising special interest parties. It follows from this line of reasoning that the Greens and Family First should be tuffed out of parliament.

And I guess it is compromise that is really needed. Unfortunately those sort of people don't do well at finding an acceptable compromise. Maybe neither of the antagonists should get any say and those of us who are neutral should devise a solution?
#14839459
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does allowing same sex marriage marginalise anyone?



It has a direct impact on religious conservatives as laws and norms delegitimise and criminalise their values and behaviour. EG: if they refused to allow a same sex marriage in their congregation they would be subject to legal and social punishment. If they speak out against same sex marriage they will be ostracised.

Though I am not a big fan of religious conservatism, they should still be able to pursue their beliefs without undue interference. If the social progressive agenda becomes dominant, religious conservatives will be marginalised. The problem with this is that they will then tend toward radicalism, which is a situation it would be prudent to avoid.
#14839479
foxdemon wrote:It has a direct impact on religious conservatives as laws and norms delegitimise and criminalise their values and behaviour. EG: if they refused to allow a same sex marriage in their congregation they would be subject to legal and social punishment. If they speak out against same sex marriage they will be ostracised.


If their values or behaviour being "delegitimised" is homophobia, then is that really marginalisation? You seem to think that marginalisation is defined as not being able to oppress others.

And congregations are allowed to not perform same sex marriages. I do not think any state that has legalised same sex marriage has imposed this on any congregation.

Finally, being ostracised or otherwise having to deal with the consequences of your own bigotry is also not marginalisation.

Though I am not a big fan of religious conservatism, they should still be able to pursue their beliefs without undue interference. If the social progressive agenda becomes dominant, religious conservatives will be marginalised. The problem with this is that they will then tend toward radicalism, which is a situation it would be prudent to avoid.


Again, they are not being marginalised. They can still believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and they can still not have or perform same sex marriages. They can even go around saying it, though they will have to deal with accusations of bigotry if they say bigoted things. They can do all this without undue interference. The inly time we will interfere is when they try to stop others from enjoying their rights.
#14839869
This is just sad:

http://archive.is/je6pd

FreeTV Australia, the industry group which represents the commercial free-to-air networks, earlier this week informed Dads4Kids that its annual Father’s Day ad, this year featuring a father singing his daughter a lullaby, would not be broadcast as it “likely contained political matter”.
According to The Weekend Australian, which first reported the story, FreeTV’s lawyers told the group that the ad had been “brought to our attention by the networks as potentially containing political matter”, with legal advice recommending the ad be changed to include a political “authorisation tag”.


BTW, when is this gay ass non-binding likely to be ignored vote for gay marriage?
#14839873
Pants-of-dog wrote:If their values or behaviour being "delegitimised" is homophobia, then is that really marginalisation? You seem to think that marginalisation is defined as not being able to oppress others.

And congregations are allowed to not perform same sex marriages. I do not think any state that has legalised same sex marriage has imposed this on any congregation.

Finally, being ostracised or otherwise having to deal with the consequences of your own bigotry is also not marginalisation.



Again, they are not being marginalised. They can still believe that same sex marriage is wrong, and they can still not have or perform same sex marriages. They can even go around saying it, though they will have to deal with accusations of bigotry if they say bigoted things. They can do all this without undue interference. The inly time we will interfere is when they try to stop others from enjoying their rights.


It seems there are concerns within the religious community that they will face legally enforced discrimination.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/same-sex-marriage-is-more-complex-than-yes-campaign-admits/8804466


I think your use of terms such as 'homophobia' and 'bigot' well illustrates exactly what they are worried about. I am sure we agree that the religious conservatives have no right to impose their religious views on others but it seems we disagree about whether social progressives have a right to impose their views on others.


The salient example of forcing values onto the community is the Safe Schools program, which is regarded as controversial. Even LGBTI critics are punished for not towing the pollitically correct line.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/catherine-mcgregor-sacked-for-safe-schools-criticism/news-story/310298ea0dc3c06fda7cb6fc6dbae69d

So what we can see here is that there is another agenda behind preventing bullying in schools. And that agenda is about forcing beliefs on others.

Sorry, POD, but many people just don't trust social progressives anymore.
#14839886
foxdemon wrote:It seems there are concerns within the religious community that they will face legally enforced discrimination.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-15/same-sex-marriage-is-more-complex-than-yes-campaign-admits/8804466


Australia votes on these issues? Do Australians also vote one whether blacks can marry? Or Jews? This is like that old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting on supper. But let us set aside the debate as to whether or not the majority should be allowed to decide if minorities have rights, and answer your concern.

Yes, I am sure some people are concerned that they will no longer be allowed to discriminate against LGBT people whenever they want. If they own a bakery, to use the often cited example, they may be forced to bake a wedding cake for Adam and Steve.

Please note that even if this comes to pass and bakeries are forced to do such things, the entire extent of this "discrimination" that oppresses bakeries is to limit the bakery's ability to discriminate. That is it.

Mind you, since bakeries do not have immortal souls, it makes no sense to worry about the bakery's spiritual beliefs.

I think your use of terms such as 'homophobia' and 'bigot' well illustrates exactly what they are worried about. I am sure we agree that the religious conservatives have no right to impose their religious views on others but it seems we disagree about whether social progressives have a right to impose their views on others.


If you think that I am imposing my views by pointing out bigotry, then the only way for me not to impose my views would be to be silent whenever people are homophobic or show bigotry. This would not only be a limit to my free speech, but it would also protect discrimination from criticism. This would be affording special privileges (in terms of free speech) to bigoted views, as any otther view is open to criticism.

The salient example of forcing values onto the community is the Safe Schools program, which is regarded as controversial. Even LGBTI critics are punished for not towing the pollitically correct line.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/catherine-mcgregor-sacked-for-safe-schools-criticism/news-story/310298ea0dc3c06fda7cb6fc6dbae69d


Your link directs me to a paywall. Apparently Rupert Murdoch thinks I should pay money to read his opinion on the program.

So what we can see here is that there is another agenda behind preventing bullying in schools. And that agenda is about forcing beliefs on others.


Actually, we cannot see anything like that, due to the paywall. Which belief is being forced on others?

Sorry, POD, but many people just don't trust social progressives anymore.


Lol. When was this magical time when everyone trusted us?

I remember championing LGBT rights about thirty years ago in the Canadian midwest. People would literally try to beat us up just because we refused to be homophobic.

Trust us... :lol:
#14839898
Pants of dog......

This maybe over simplistic but marriage equality already exists in Australia.

Let me explain

Last time I checked there was no law prohibiting any Australian from getting married as long as they choose a partner of the opposite gender so from this perspective we already have equality. All Aussies can get married, This is based on current definitions of marriage. What we are being asked to vote on isn't "equality" but redefinition which I think should be legislated.

My concern is that the constant throwing out of terms such as bigot and homophobe and distinct lack of reasoned debate from the 'yes' side will turn masses of the population against them thus causing a Brexit like protest vote.

Also, the experience of the Bishop of Hobart makes the no lobby particularly nervous of their free speech being impinged by any legislation.

just my take


FS
#14839904
flighless seagull wrote:Pants of dog......

This maybe over simplistic but marriage equality already exists in Australia.

Let me explain

Last time I checked there was no law prohibiting any Australian from getting married as long as they choose a partner of the opposite gender so from this perspective we already have equality. All Aussies can get married, This is based on current definitions of marriage. What we are being asked to vote on isn't "equality" but redefinition which I think should be legislated.


That makes no sense. It is like saying that institutional racism is equal because both blacks and whites can oppress blacks.

Marriage rights are not conferred on individuals. They are conferred on couples. If hetero couples get these rights, then same sex couples should too.

My concern is that the constant throwing out of terms such as bigot and homophobe and distinct lack of reasoned debate from the 'yes' side will turn masses of the population against them thus causing a Brexit like protest vote.


I think that the majority should not be allowed to vote on whether or not minorities have equal rights.

Anyway, what words would you like people to use when describing homophobia and bigotry?

Also, the experience of the Bishop of Hobart makes the no lobby particularly nervous of their free speech being impinged by any legislation.

just my take

FS


What happened to this perosn?
#14839951
Minorities should not have equal rights in a democracy. The whole idea of a democracy is the minority does not get to decide.
Pursuing minority rights and democracy is a contradiction. Just more absurdity from minorities who want their view to be forced on the majority. This is not democracy.
Minority rights should be achieved by becoming the majority through local autonomy. The only problem is no one is content until everyone accepts their view. This guarantees continual conflict. People are stupid, self righteous, and not happy until everyone accepts their 'superior' view. Idiots.
#14839956
One Degree wrote:Minorities should not have equal rights in a democracy. The whole idea of a democracy is the minority does not get to decide.
Pursuing minority rights and democracy is a contradiction. Just more absurdity from minorities who want their view to be forced on the majority. This is not democracy.
Minority rights should be achieved by becoming the majority through local autonomy. The only problem is no one is content until everyone accepts their view. This guarantees continual conflict. People are stupid, self righteous, and not happy until everyone accepts their 'superior' view. Idiots.

I don't see the contradiction.
It seems perfectly consistent that a majority can want something that effects a minority group.
I think you need to make more explicit what the contradiction is perhaps by detailing it because I don't see one.
But then you've written what sounds like the demographic one belongs to makes up what they'll vote for, as if this has favor purely among gays and they've somehow pushed a law purely through their own capacity without help from non-gays

And I don't get this, everyone has to accept the law sort of thing, when there is hardly any perfect agreement on many things that become standards of one's country. When ever one make a standard it is quite often that it's not in agreement with many. The more value laden something is, the less likely there is a substantive universality to it.
I mean, what would your moderate reconciliation of gay marriage on a federal level or civil unions on a state level be? The law doesn't really like fuzzy boundaries, its often attempted to be defined by strict geographical lines and best attempt to give a interpretative certainty to things so that a law isn't over reaching beyond what it was intended for.
I mean, the tendency towards gay marriage on a federal level seems to have been a reflection that the majority shifted towards this relative to attitudes of the past. The coalition government is currently wasting time and money on a meaningless plebiscite, we all have to go out and vote on something that has no legal significance. And at it's most significant will merely be something to debate over how much or how little Australians support same sex marriage or not.
#14839962
Wellsy wrote:I don't see the contradiction.
It seems perfectly consistent that a majority can want something that effects a minority group.
I think you need to make more explicit what the contradiction is perhaps by detailing it because I don't see one.
But then you've written what sounds like the demographic one belongs to makes up what they'll vote for, as if this has favor purely among gays and they've somehow pushed a law purely through their own capacity without help from non-gays

And I don't get this, everyone has to accept the law sort of thing, when there is hardly any perfect agreement on many things that become standards of one's country. When ever one make a standard it is quite often that it's not in agreement with many. The more value laden something is, the less likely there is a substantive universality to it.
I mean, what would your moderate reconciliation of gay marriage on a federal level or civil unions on a state level be? The law doesn't really like fuzzy boundaries, its often attempted to be defined by strict geographical lines and best attempt to give a interpretative certainty to things so that a law isn't over reaching beyond what it was intended for.
I mean, the tendency towards gay marriage on a federal level seems to have been a reflection that the majority shifted towards this relative to attitudes of the past. The coalition government is currently wasting time and money on a meaningless plebiscite, we all have to go out and vote on something that has no legal significance. And at it's most significant will merely be something to debate over how much or how little Australians support same sex marriage or not.


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.

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]

https://twitter.com/huwaidaarraf/status/1773389663[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

What wat0n is trying to distract from: https://tw[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/1773436787622[…]