Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 59, 60, 61  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

KenH wrote:
...I would like to hear or read a real reason why we should exclude some people from being able to marry. I am yet to hear a reason other than I don't believe in it or it is against my religion.

Unfortunately, you won't hear anything else.

You'll hear contrived efforts to escape applying rights and principles consistently to others, and persecution tantrums at being duly dismissed for those contrivances.

The commitment to the foundational rights and principles we all rely on, and their fair application in society, is so weak that some are willing to damage a random minority group (a) for no good reason and/or (b) out of reactionary spite.

Many of these same malcontents are first to point the finger at nascent or sputtering rights struggles elsewhere in the world in an effort to assert cultural superiority. And yet, here they are, passive recipients of the toil, bloodshed, civic technology and wealth of prior centuries, actively denying the rights of fellow citizens without reason and often purely out of partisan spite.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Morrigu Capricorn



Joined: 11 Aug 2001


PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

hmmm
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Where the Mad Misogynist Monk and the extremist right wing rump get their campaign tactics on same sex marriage opposition:


...."One person who was not surprised by Tony Abbott's hoarse declaration of a general culture war at the doors of Parliament House on Wednesday morning was the American activist Evan Wolfson..."

"...He knows they cannot win on the merits of their argument," explains Wolfson, noting that Australians already overwhelmingly back gay marriage, "so they have to make the debate about something else." That's why Abbott announced that this was about political correctness and freedom of speech rather than gay marriage....."

Echoing Mandy's forecast:

...You can see it already if you care to dip your toe into online sewers, and elements of it have crept onto cable TV. On Tuesday night Bronwyn Bishop was on Sky News warning of bestiality and the killing of newborn babies.....

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-ripping-his-antigay-marriage-strategy-out-of-the-us-playbook-20170811-gxu2j2.html

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 9:28 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

A good opinion piece by David Marr on various Christian organisations' investment in this issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/09/abbotts-obstruction-of-gay-marriage-is-a-defence-of-privilege-and-the-power-of-shame-david-marr

Quote:
Tony Abbott stood at the doors of parliament on Wednesday morning and declared in the tones of a desert prophet: And I say to you if you dont like same-sex marriage, vote no. If youre worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no

That argument resonates with Australians. It scares politicians. We are a secular country. We dont want to worship, but we highly value the freedom of others to worship. This is a decent compact of a tolerant people.

No wonder the battle over equal marriage is represented by opponents of change as a great struggle for freedom. But what freedoms?

Archbishops of Sydney will not be forced to marry lesbians in their cathedrals. Keen young Pentecostal males however they might like to let off steam after a hard days speaking in tongues wont be forced to marry. No preacher will be prosecuted for reminding Australians of Gods wrath as set out so vividly in Genesis.

But Abbott and his mates arent talking freedom. Its time this was said absolutely clearly. Freedoms are something we can all enjoy. These people are talking about the rights of institutions. They want the church to have the power to dictate for all Australians the laws of marriage.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 10:39 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ Already quoted. If you're too busy trying to use a poor dancing analogy to equally blame neo nazis & those who protest against them when neo nazis just murdered through driving a car through those they oppose then I'm not surprised you missed it.

That sort of equivocation & relativism is unlike you. It takes two to murder? Perhaps the nazis were provoked?

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:58 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't be stupid, wpt - white supremacists' cars don't kill people; people kill people.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:22 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

watt price tully wrote:
^ Already quoted. If you're too busy trying to use a poor dancing analogy to equally blame neo nazis & those who protest against them when neo nazis just murdered through driving a car through those they oppose then I'm not surprised you missed it.

That sort of equivocation & relativism is unlike you. It takes two to murder? Perhaps the nazis were provoked?


Er, wrong thread, WPT? Neutral (But while we're here, it was the act of one person, not 'neo-nazis', and it was not the only act of violence that day. Please consider and then discuss in other thread...)

I thought that was a new article, apologies.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:15 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Abbott makes his pitch against same-sex marriage.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/tony-abbott-why-i-will-say-no-to-samesex-marriage/news-story/ff4e3556eb529d7816ffcefc1123f1cd

Tony Abbott wrote:
For me, voting no will not be a criticism of gay friends and family members; it wont be an assertion that theres only one right way to live your life or to express your love. Rather, it will be an affirmation that the things that matter should not lightly be changed and that marriage is different from other relationships.

Ask yourself what is the most decent and respectful thing to do: is it to endorse this change that the gay lobby is stridently insisting on or is it to question whether a few years agitation should unmake a concept of marriage that has stood for many centuries and has always been regarded as the rock on which society is built?

Ask yourself whats more likely to maintain respect for marriage and to reinforce the notions of constancy and selflessness that sustain all lasting relationships: an ongoing recognition that marriage is a union of one man with one woman, preferably for life and usually dedicated to children; or changing marriage so that it can mean any two people who love each other?

Thankfully, censoriousness towards gay people has long gone. I admire the courage of those who battled discrimination (and worse) to establish the equal rights and dignity of all people regardless of race, gender, religion or sexuality. I am grateful for the decency of gay friends (such as Christopher Pearson) who have deepened my understanding of the human condition.

But I am baffled by the claim that gay relationships are somehow diminished without the badge of marriage. Unmarried people are not lesser humans than married ones. Couples with children are not greater than those without. Same-sex partnerships are not lesser than opposite-sex ones. Theyre just different.

We Australians are an easygoing and open-hearted people. Our tendency is to take people as we find them and give them the benefit of the doubt. We hate injustice and yearn to help everyone whos doing it tough. But that doesnt make it right to acquiesce in every request or to accommodate every demand.

Of course, there has always been an honour in marriage beyond that of other relationships. By all means, lets find means to solemnise same-sex commitments and impose on them the demanding mutual obligations that spouses undertake; but I doubt thats what most activists have in mind. To them, I suspect, its about status rather than responsibilities.

The best claim for same-sex marriage is that it will reinforce stable and committed relationships.

In New Zealand, though, where civil unions have been allowed for more than a decade and same-sex marriage since 2013, the marriage rate has been in the same slow, steady decline as elsewhere in the West, so its hard to avoid the conclusion that broadening marriage weakens it. Given all the other pressures on us right now, is that what we really want?


Let's address the various points here. Working backwards: the fact that the marriage rate in New Zealand is still suffering "the same slow, steady decline" as it has before doesn't indicate that broadening marriage weakens it; it indicates that broadening marriage doesn't really change anything much at all. For the former to be the case, you'd need to at least have a change in the rate of decline. Abbott is not dumb, so he must understand he's making a basic logical error here, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that he's being disingenuous.

The claim that same-sex marriage advocates just want status without responsibilities is insulting and, typically, without evidence. It ignores the fact that many gay couples do take monogamy seriously and do intend to stay together for life.

Before that, he goes for the old Julia Gillard line of "unmarried couples' relationships are just as valuable as those of married couples". He's baffled by any assertion to the contrary, baffled! But if this is so, why is he so keen on preserving marriage as an exclusive institution at all? Clearly, there must be something special about it to want to exclude certain kinds of couples from accessing it.

All he can offer to that is the old line that "same-sex partnerships are not lesser than opposite-sex ones. Theyre just different." Different how? My relationship with my partner is very different to my parents' relationship and Tony's relationship with his wife; what is it about changing the gender of participants that somehow makes the concept of partnership fundamentally different?

Otherwise, he opens with a couple of non-sequiturs: "Ask yourself what is the most decent and respectful thing to do; ask yourself what's more likely to maintain respect for marriage". Rather than give us reasons why voting no fulfils either criteria, he simply presents each case even-handedly, of course. "This change that the gay lobby is stridently insisting on", he says; the Christian opposition, of course, is not being strident about this issue at all.

But the funniest line is the one at the beginning: "[Voting no] will be an affirmation that the things that matter should not lightly be changed." Nothing says "lightly" changing something like asking every citizen in the country to vote on it!

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Don't be stupid, wpt - white supremacists' cars don't kill people; people kill people.


Laughing

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:21 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Abbott is not dumb ...


Sez who?

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
partypie 



Joined: 01 Oct 2010


PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:49 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes I wonder if the way to create marriage equality is to abolish it!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko would agree with you, Partypie. His view is that marriage is a private arrangement between individual adult citizens and none of the state's business. Instead of expanding state-sanctioned marriage to include same sex couples, the state should simply but out of business that it had no right to meddle with in the first place.

Please don't fall of your chair when you read this, but on this issue I agree with Wokko 100%.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:28 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the only image of Tannin and I in agreement on something.

Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:37 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm all for the state abolishing marriage as a legal concept (which, in a way, the ALP and previous governments took a step towards by giving de facto couples equal rights) and it becoming merely a cultural ritual freely entered into. But for now, I think equality under law is of more immediate importance.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 2:54 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
I'm all for the state abolishing marriage as a legal concept (which, in a way, the ALP and previous governments took a step towards by giving de facto couples equal rights) and it becoming merely a cultural ritual freely entered into. But for now, I think equality under law is of more immediate importance.


Not a cultural ritual, a contract. Marriage for the masses at its core was 'invented' for the effective raising of children with a bread winning earner and a caregiver. For the wealthy it was about consolidation of wealth and familial alliance. Those reasons are still good, and legal rights of same sex couples should be enshrined, but contract law can quite effectively cover every aspect.

If someone wants to tell God about it, well that's up to them.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 59, 60, 61  Next
Page 22 of 61   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group