[Decky]

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.

I take it that you believe that sterile people should not be able to get married then? Or the old? Or people who don't plan on having kids? It should be illegal for them to marry?

[SolarCross]

I take it that you believe that sterile people should not be able to get married then? Or the old? Or people who don't plan on having kids? It should be illegal for them to marry?

One does have to wonder why any of those people would seek marriage. What does it mean? It's like trying to get an MOT for a bicycle.

[B0ycey]

One does have to wonder why any of those people would seek marriage. What does it mean?

To celebrate their love perhaps? Do you need to marry to have children?

[SolarCross]

To celebrate their love perhaps? Do you need to marry to have children?

Well it's a legal commitment that defines clear defaults for inheritance, if you're not going to be making progeny then there isn't really a purpose for the legal commitment. That's why it came about, the celebration part is optional and focused around giving this project good feels and social recognition.

People can celebrate whatever they want without marrying.

Should pet owners and pets get married because they really like each other's company? How many people show their appreciation for their parents on Mother's Day or Father's Day by getting down on one knee and proposing?

I am a big fan of video games, should me and my PC get a church wedding or just go with a registry office?

[The Immortal Goon]

Decky already won this on page one.

If you're religious, your church probably doesn't recognize gay marriage anyway.

And really, religious people should probably just marry in their church and ignore the civic side of the argument anyway.

If you aren't religious, get your piece of paper from some window in an office and fuck away if you want. I don't know why anybody has to sit there and pass it by me first.

[foxdemon]

How does allowing same sex marriage marginalise anyone?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/same-sex-marriage-petition-against-doctor-pansy-lai-taken-down/8869260

Another example of the intolerance of the people on the 'yes' side.

The issue isn't so much that allowing same sex marriage marginalises anyone, rather it is the people who support same sex marriage who are trying to marginalise anyone who dares to oppose them.

This is the thing that worries me. I don't actually object to same sex marriage myself, but there is the matter of who has the power. These politically correct types are clearly authoritarian. Is is odd having to defend religious conservatives but I am forming the impression that the former are a bigger problem.

Note the doctor in the news article is Chinese Australia. We have an ethnically diverse community and many people are quite traditional and conservative. The people who are trying to intimidate the doctor are mostly Anglo-Saxon, often recent British migrants or their childern. Why should they impose their Western politically correct, supposedly left-wing, bourgeois values on everyone else? There is an issue of cultural superiorty here.

Australia benefits from conservative migrants like @Igor Antunov and I feel they have as much right to a say over Australia's future as these Anglo bubbleheads. After all, it's their country try too. In fact, we would be prudent to let the non-Anglo conservative have a little bit more of a say.

[Pants-of-dog]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/same-sex-marriage-petition-against-doctor-pansy-lai-taken-down/8869260

Another example of the intolerance of the people on the 'yes' side.

I did not see any. I saw an example of a woman who said something homohobic and people criticised her for it.

But I like how they shut down criticism of her. Because free speech apparently does not include criticisms of homophobia.

The issue isn't so much that allowing same sex marriage marginalises anyone,

Actually, that is exactly what you claimed.

rather it is the people who support same sex marriage who are trying to marginalise anyone who dares to oppose them.

By pointing out their homophobia? Your definition of marginalisation always seem to end up as "not being allowed to discrimagainst people without consequences for their actions".

This is the thing that worries me. I don't actually object to same sex marriage myself, but there is the matter of who has the power. These politically correct types are clearly authoritarian. Is is odd having to defend religious conservatives but I am forming the impression that the former are a bigger problem.

I have yet to see anything even remotely authoritarian about the people supporting gay marriage.

Pointing out the homophobia of others is not authoritarian.

Note the doctor in the news article is Chinese Australia. We have an ethnically diverse community and many people are quite traditional and conservative. The people who are trying to intimidate the doctor are mostly Anglo-Saxon, often recent British migrants or their childern. Why should they impose their Western politically correct, supposedly left-wing, bourgeois values on everyone else? There is an issue of cultural superiorty here.

...and now the people supporting equal rights are authoritarian and racist.

You are grasping at straws here.

Australia benefits from conservative migrants like @Igor Antunov and I feel they have as much right to a say over Australia's future as these Anglo bubbleheads. After all, it's their country try too. In fact, we would be prudent to let the non-Anglo conservative have a little bit more of a say.

I do not see how Australia benefits from peope like this. But these benefits cannot be so incredibly awesome that you should deprive minorities of their rights just becuase it hurts the feelings of these conservative immigrants.

[foxdemon]

I did not see any. I saw an example of a woman who said something homohobic and people criticised her for it.

But I like how they shut down criticism of her. Because free speech apparently does not include criticisms of homophobia.



Actually, that is exactly what you claimed.



By pointing out their homophobia? Your definition of marginalisation always seem to end up as "not being allowed to discrimagainst people without consequences for their actions".

Homophobia = not supporting gay marriage? Is that your position?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/8871118

It seems even a gay dude can be homophobic then. In fact some have labelled him as such. Do you honestly think he is trying to discriminate against anyone?


Bare in mind the doctor on the previous article wasn't just critised but physically threatened and also an attempt was made to end her career. Is that OK?

I have yet to see anything even remotely authoritarian about the people supporting gay marriage.

Pointing out the homophobia of others is not authoritarian.

But using fear to suppress an opposing political opinion is a feature of the authoritarian mindset.

...and now the people supporting equal rights are authoritarian and racist.

You are grasping at straws here.

No, not a mere straw. This is the heart of the matter. It is about power, who gets to judge and who gets to be judged. It seems even LGBTI people of high status are objecting to the tone of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-05/both-sides-of-same-sex-marriage-debate-worry-alan-joyce/8875760


The problem with the politically correct is that they appropriate good causes to legitimate their attempts to assert hegemony over the culture. In Australia it is predominately the Anglo-Saxon professional class bourgeois who try to do this as it is in their class interests to do so. There is the other side, of course. I've been ignoring them on this thread, but they would like to do the same if they had enough power.

It is a shame the LGBTI people in the community have to be caught in the middle of these sort of power struggles. But that is what happens when power groups play zero sum games.

I do not see how Australia benefits from peope like this. But these benefits cannot be so incredibly awesome that you should deprive minorities of their rights just becuase it hurts the feelings of these conservative immigrants.

Not sure what you mean by not benefiting from well educated but conservative migrants. They bring important skills and tend to support a stable society so the government views them as the more desirable type of immigrant. Given the lack of water on this continent, one must wonder whether any sizeable immigration is advisable in a country that can't support a human ge population. But given they are now settled in Australia, then they are entitled to opinions on public debates.

As to the idea of depriving people of rights or hurting peoples feelings, that is a long debate about two complex issues. We will debate about them in future, I am sure.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homophobia = not supporting gay marriage? Is that your position?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/8871118

It seems even a gay dude can be homophobic then. In fact some have labelled him as such. Do you honestly think he is trying to discriminate against anyone?

Yes, gay people can be homophobic, and if you are axtively campaigning to keep gay people from having thensame rights as everyone else, then yes, you are discriminating against gay people.

We can split hairs and talk about homophobia and whether or not it is different from banning gay marriage, but if you are actively trying to marginalise gay people through unequal laws, then the effect of your actions is homophobic even if you are not.

Bare in mind the doctor on the previous article wasn't just critised but physically threatened and also an attempt was made to end her career. Is that OK?

Yes, and that was used as an excuse to silence any and all criticism of her position. Gay people actually get beat up and killed and actually lose their jobs. Can we use that to justify silencing all homophobes and religious people who oppose gay marriage?

But using fear to suppress an opposing political opinion is a feature of the authoritarian mindset.

And pointing out how someone is being homophobic is not about using fear. It is also not about suppressing politcal opinions.

No, not a mere straw. This is the heart of the matter. It is about power, who gets to judge and who gets to be judged. It seems even LGBTI people of high status are objecting to the tone of the debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-05/both-sides-of-same-sex-marriage-debate-worry-alan-joyce/8875760

The problem with the politically correct is that they appropriate good causes to legitimate their attempts to assert hegemony over the culture. In Australia it is predominately the Anglo-Saxon professional class bourgeois who try to do this as it is in their class interests to do so. There is the other side, of course. I've been ignoring them on this thread, but they would like to do the same if they had enough power.

It is a shame the LGBTI people in the community have to be caught in the middle of these sort of power struggles. But that is what happens when power groups play zero sum games.

Yes, you are grasping at straws when you claim that the gay marriage people are being racist by imposing their white liberal ideas on homophobes of colour.

Or classist, as you are now claiming as well.

Not sure what you mean by not benefiting from well educated but conservative migrants. They bring important skills and tend to support a stable society so the government views them as the more desirable type of immigrant. Given the lack of water on this continent, one must wonder whether any sizeable immigration is advisable in a country that can't support a human ge population. But given they are now settled in Australia, then they are entitled to opinions on public debates.

This seems like an unimportant tangent.

As to the idea of depriving people of rights or hurting peoples feelings, that is a long debate about two complex issues. We will debate about them in future, I am sure.

Well, if I have to choose between depriving people of rights and making conservatives happy, or giving people the same rights as everyone else and making conservatives sad, I will invariably support the latter.

[Igor Antunov]

I actually laughed at this;

[Pants-of-dog]

So the Australian referendum on same sex marriage is non-binding.

What is the point of it? It seems like a lot of money is being spent on something that, at most, will tell the government what they already know from polls.

It seems more like a way of wasting time before the inevitable legalisation of same sex marriage.

[Igor Antunov]

Just politicians lining their pockets with tax payer cash. $400 million to print a few million single sided sheets of paper.

[colliric]

So the Australian referendum on same sex marriage is non-binding.

What is the point of it? It seems like a lot of money is being spent on something that, at most, will tell the government what they already know from polls.

It seems more like a way of wasting time before the inevitable legalisation of same sex marriage.

This was to ensure Malcolm Turnbull could use the Mandate dictates it excuse and save his Right-Centre party leadership from being ripped away from him. After all he supports Gay Marriage while the party he leads traditionally opposes it.

He needed to do it. He had no choice(to remain PM). It's the right thing to do to protect your hide in politics. I admire him for doing this.

Plus he "needs" this... His "side" publically lost the last time we had a similar national vote on "Getting rid of Elizabeth" in 2000. It was something that must still embarrass him to this day. Seriously it totally looks like he's going for "1 all".... Lol.

[Pants-of-dog]

So we agree that this is an expensive way to do nothing useful.

He should have just waited for someone to challenge the law in court and then not bothered to defend it.

[Albert]

Strictly logically speaking marriage is a creation of a new family, hence children have to come about. If a couple can not produce children then logic will dictate they are technically not married. With that said they can adopt other children and with that they can form a full family.

With gay people it does not make sense, for you need a mother and a father for a full functioning family structure, as women provide elements that men can not, and vise versa man provide elements to family life that women can not.

So I have to say, for the benefit of children to fulfill their proper upbringing, "gay marriage" should be outlawed.

[Pants-of-dog]

Strictly logically speaking marriage is a creation of a new family, hence children have to come about. If a couple can not produce children then logic will dictate they are technically not married. With that said they can adopt other children and with that they can form a full family.

This is not how marriage is defined, nor is it how marriage was traditionally defined.

Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage?

With gay people it does not make sense, for you need a mother and a father for a full functioning family structure, as women provide elements that men can not, and vise versa man provide elements to family life that women can not.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

So I have to say, for the benefit of children "gay marriage" should be outlawed.

It is not legal in Australia. How are they going to outlaw something that is already outlawed?

[Albert]

This is not how marriage is defined, nor is it how marriage was traditionally defined.

Why are you trying to change the definition of marriage?

What do you mean, how was it defined before, and how do you define it?

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Are you saying you do not need a father or a mother, for full healthy child's upbringing?

[colliric]

So we agree that this is an expensive way to do nothing useful.

He should have just waited for someone to challenge the law in court and then not bothered to defend it.

It is always useful to give people a democratic vote.

In the 2000 if we hadn't gone to vote over "Booting QE2" it's likely the opinion of the majority would have been trashed because polling showed prior to that vote a stong support for the Republican vote. Ironically Turnbull would have benefited from it because he was the biggest "Yes" personality in that campaign. The polling was inaccurate. Australians loved Buckingham Palace and made it known with a massive "No" result. It was also attributed accurately to the fact Turnbull's side proposed a stupid dogshit "parliament elects the President" model.

Polls are not always accurate. Sometimes votes like this ARE NEEDED to check if polling is accurate. Turnbull learnt that in 2000 no doubt.

[Albert]

Good, the Royal family is awesome. Kudos for the Australians.

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you mean, how was it defined before, and how do you define it?

If you do not know how marriage has been traditionally defined and how it is defined now, why are you making claims about how it is defined?

So, why should we accept your definition as better?

Are you saying you do not need a father or a mother, for full healthy child's upbringing?

Please provide evidence for your claim that "you need a mother and a father for a full functioning family structure, as women provide elements that men can not, and vise versa man provide elements to family life that women can not".

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

It is always useful to give people a democratic vote.

I can think of times when it is not.

Like that old joke about two wolves and a sheep voting on supper.

In the 2000 if we hadn't gone to vote over "Booting QE2" it's likely the opinion of the majority would have been trashed because polling showed prior to that vote a stong support for the Republican vote. Ironically Turnbull would have benefited from it because he was the biggest "Yes" personality in that campaign. The polling was inaccurate. Australians loved Buckingham Palace and made it known with a massive "No" result. It was also attributed accurately to the fact Turnbull's side proposed a stupid dogshit "parliament elects the President" model.

Polls are not always accurate. Sometimes votes like this ARE NEEDED to check if polling is accurate. Turnbull learnt that in 2000 no doubt.

Sure. I do not care about the royal family.