Gay colors?
A voluntary, non-binding plebiscite isn't a "vote", it's an opinion poll. How did we get into this mess in the first place? The government just upped and changed the Marriage Act in 2004. No plebiscite, no "vote", no nothing other than politicians unilaterally making a decision to actively discriminate against part of society.
We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.
We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.
I'd just like to say I am impressed with the contributions to this thread ( from most posters) and am enjoying the debate. I don't have too much to say on the subject but am enjoying the thread. Thanks to the mods for keeping it going.
Does anyone know any good gay forums, the reason I ask they might have a section on aviation?
Pprune seems to have moved away from flying into some sort of de facto gay sight.
Pprune seems to have moved away from flying into some sort of de facto gay sight.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A voluntary, non-binding plebiscite isn't a "vote", it's an opinion poll. How did we get into this mess in the first place? The government just upped and changed the Marriage Act in 2004. No plebiscite, no "vote", no nothing other than politicians unilaterally making a decision to actively discriminate against part of society.
We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.
We don't have plebiscites for far bigger issues so why for this particular issue? It makes absolutely no sense.
On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.
The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.
On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.
The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. In my opinion anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to fit her description. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. I accept that this is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.
Democracy.
Last edited by psycho joe; 26th Mar 2017 at 02:59.
Our parliament is meant to be a place in which there is a free exchange of ideas. Proposed legislation is meant to be hotly debated and passed or rejected based on its merits. For big ticket items, especially where parliament remains divided a smart parliament will take the issue to the people during an election. This is demanded by the electorate and assumed under our democracy.
On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.
The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.
On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.
The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to change. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. This is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.
Democracy.
On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.
The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.
On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.
The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to change. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. This is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.
Democracy.
By the logic of 'robust debate' and 'democracy' are you therefore of the opinion that Abraham Lincoln should not have pushed for the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery but should first have held a plebiscite to see if African Americans should be given the same rights as white Americans because to do so without a plebiscite would run the risk of doing something without community support??? It could just as easily be argued up until that time that African Americans not being slaves and having the same rights as white Americans could 'devalue' white American rights. Equality is equality, it doesn't need a damn plebiscite to affirm it's validity. People in opposite sex marriages will get over it, just as they did when inter-racial marriage was legalized. All the same arguments were made against that too.
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 26th Mar 2017 at 03:00. Reason: correct sentence
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I was editing for spelling and clarity as you cut and pasted.
The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.
Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.
The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.
Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.
Last edited by psycho joe; 26th Mar 2017 at 03:28.
Sorry I was editing for spelling and clarity as you cut and pasted.
The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.
Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.
The history of slavery in American history was horrific. It's unbelievable that you can casually show such contempt for human suffering by reducing this period of history to an argument for SSM. The gays of Australia are not slaves. Homosexuals are not kidnapped, transported to foreign lands, chained, sold, beaten and worked in the field. Reductio ad absurdism.
Debate in the American parliament around slavery was vigorous and whilst they didn't have a plebiscite, there was the matter of civil war.
You seem to have missed my point.
Abolishing slavery was about equality. Lincoln did not hold a plebiscite, because it was OBVIOUS it was about equality. The Civil War was not fought on the basis of slavery, that fact is obvious from just about any history book but rather on the subject of a State's right to determination without undue interference from a federal entity which the Southern States felt they had joined and could leave just as easily. Slavery was invoked by Lincoln (whom I admire by the way, so this isn't a comment on him) to turn the war into something worth fighting for, freedom and equality. These are different times and a different society. With the exception of what happened at Eureka which had a positive overall implications, we haven't tended to be a polity that picks up a gun every time we disagree with something.
The comparison was about equality. We are not a democracy and neither is the United States, we are 'representative democracies', we elect representatives to make the decisions for us, we expect them to conduct vigorous debate and concentrate the study and knowledge of the topic at hand to come up with the best solution. We do not elect them to ask us every time something is too difficult and we expect them to not have to debate at all when the subject is a matter of equality under the law. That is all SSM is, it's about equal rights to marriage by same sex couples.
I was not showing contempt for human suffering at all, I was drawing an analogy, I can post the dictionary definition if you like (since you think I cut and paste everything) or you can look it up.
Slavery was disgusting, vile and inhuman and so was the resulting inequality that it enforced. We are supposed to have learned from those historical mistakes and recognise inequality in all its forms, not just the ones we find comfortable.
Let's not forget, the bible was often held up as evidence for the righteousness of slavery as well. These are all facts, not contempt. I show contempt for a book that was written in such a way that it promotes inequality and discrimination and in such a way that it was able to be used to justify slavery, the KKK's actions and the fight against civil rights and now gay marriage.
I'll ask what I asked at the beginning of this unbelievably long thread again, what the hell has this got to do with aviation and why is this thread still going...
Last edited by AerialPerspective; 26th Mar 2017 at 05:35. Reason: added comma
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.You cut and pasted my post. That's what I was referring to.
2.Slavery in the US ended at the conclusion of the Civil war.
3.This is Australia and not the United States.
4.Australians determine the laws and culture of Australia.
5.The federal government went to the election pledging a plebiscite.
6.I couldn't care less how conversant you are with US law.
7.If I were a betting man I'd bet that neither do most Australians.
8.Arguing a link between slavery and SSM is sophism.
9.Why stop at slavery and not go the full reductio ad absurdium and liken marriage with the holocaust?
2.Slavery in the US ended at the conclusion of the Civil war.
3.This is Australia and not the United States.
4.Australians determine the laws and culture of Australia.
5.The federal government went to the election pledging a plebiscite.
6.I couldn't care less how conversant you are with US law.
7.If I were a betting man I'd bet that neither do most Australians.
8.Arguing a link between slavery and SSM is sophism.
9.Why stop at slavery and not go the full reductio ad absurdium and liken marriage with the holocaust?
Last edited by psycho joe; 26th Mar 2017 at 07:11.
No analogies.
When I was growing up homosexuals were considered fair game by many to assault, they could be (and were) imprisoned, were routinely vilified and discriminated against. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
You could kill one of them and have your crime reduced from murder to manslaughter if you claimed you felt threatened by their sexuality (that legislation was only stopped *this year* in Qld and *is still in force* in South Australia!). Why? Because they are homosexual and don't deserve to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Being outed as a homosexual was a legitimate cause for you to lose your job. Because you were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Fathers would throw their sons out of home and cut them off from family because they were homosexual.
Many police often refused to investigate violence against homosexuals, in some cases were actively involved in the violence. Because they were homosexual and didn't deserve the same treatment as heterosexuals.
It was not uncommon to hear people saying AIDs was a good thing as it would kill off homosexuals. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same right to life as heterosexuals.
The lack of acceptance or outright hostility they faced drove many to suicide. Because they were homosexual and felt rejected by society.
People were forcibly given 'treatments' including electro convulsive therapy to 'cure' them.
Or were told they were choosing to be homosexual as a selfish 'lifestyle choice'. (As if anyone can choose which sex they find attractive. I certainly couldn't decide to be sexually attracted to a gender I don't have that attraction for - it just wouldn't work! and if anyone would consider it 'selfish' to choose to be vilified, hated, assaulted and discriminated against).
This was not a century ago. This is recent history. It wasn't everyone who treated them like that but I certainly recall it being pretty common and not a situation particularly criticised until more recent times.
Is it as bad now as it was then? No. Does that mean everything is fine?
I still hear many people today say many of the same vile things about homosexuals today as were being said back then. There is still a stigma many fear or have to face for being homosexual. Because they are homosexual.
Children still agonise over their sexuality, fearing rejection and ostracism because they find they find who they are attracted to doesn't fit the common mold. They didn't chose to be like that, they just are. Bad luck. You got born wrong. Suffer...
I have never had to face any of that crap.
Meanwhile there are people saying homosexuals are out of line and are threatening the rights of others by wanting to have similar legal rights in their closest relationships as heterosexuals have or wanting to have their relationships to be accepted by society.
Any wonder there are some who feel a tad militant? Does that make over reaction right or acceptable? No but it certainly makes it understandable. Particularly when people claim homosexuals are infringing on heterosexuals rights.
When I was growing up homosexuals were considered fair game by many to assault, they could be (and were) imprisoned, were routinely vilified and discriminated against. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
You could kill one of them and have your crime reduced from murder to manslaughter if you claimed you felt threatened by their sexuality (that legislation was only stopped *this year* in Qld and *is still in force* in South Australia!). Why? Because they are homosexual and don't deserve to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Being outed as a homosexual was a legitimate cause for you to lose your job. Because you were homosexual and didn't have the same rights as heterosexuals.
Fathers would throw their sons out of home and cut them off from family because they were homosexual.
Many police often refused to investigate violence against homosexuals, in some cases were actively involved in the violence. Because they were homosexual and didn't deserve the same treatment as heterosexuals.
It was not uncommon to hear people saying AIDs was a good thing as it would kill off homosexuals. Because they were homosexual and didn't have the same right to life as heterosexuals.
The lack of acceptance or outright hostility they faced drove many to suicide. Because they were homosexual and felt rejected by society.
People were forcibly given 'treatments' including electro convulsive therapy to 'cure' them.
Or were told they were choosing to be homosexual as a selfish 'lifestyle choice'. (As if anyone can choose which sex they find attractive. I certainly couldn't decide to be sexually attracted to a gender I don't have that attraction for - it just wouldn't work! and if anyone would consider it 'selfish' to choose to be vilified, hated, assaulted and discriminated against).
This was not a century ago. This is recent history. It wasn't everyone who treated them like that but I certainly recall it being pretty common and not a situation particularly criticised until more recent times.
Is it as bad now as it was then? No. Does that mean everything is fine?
I still hear many people today say many of the same vile things about homosexuals today as were being said back then. There is still a stigma many fear or have to face for being homosexual. Because they are homosexual.
Children still agonise over their sexuality, fearing rejection and ostracism because they find they find who they are attracted to doesn't fit the common mold. They didn't chose to be like that, they just are. Bad luck. You got born wrong. Suffer...
I have never had to face any of that crap.
Meanwhile there are people saying homosexuals are out of line and are threatening the rights of others by wanting to have similar legal rights in their closest relationships as heterosexuals have or wanting to have their relationships to be accepted by society.
Any wonder there are some who feel a tad militant? Does that make over reaction right or acceptable? No but it certainly makes it understandable. Particularly when people claim homosexuals are infringing on heterosexuals rights.
Psyco Joe,
Why do you keep saying 'this is Australia not America ' as if that is a valid argument? It simply indicates a closed mind an a cheap attempt to shut down a valid argumentative point.
The country might be different, but the basis of the argument is the same.
Inequity is inequity in any country.
Why do you keep saying 'this is Australia not America ' as if that is a valid argument? It simply indicates a closed mind an a cheap attempt to shut down a valid argumentative point.
The country might be different, but the basis of the argument is the same.
Inequity is inequity in any country.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allthecool
I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people. That has nothing to do with the USA.
If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you.
Yes marriage is exclusive.
As a man I can't join a women's club. If I get the the definition of a "women's club" changed to include men, then it's no longer a women's club. It's now something else. It's not inequality. And it's not the same thing as slavery. You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like.
Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.
I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people. That has nothing to do with the USA.
If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you.
Yes marriage is exclusive.
As a man I can't join a women's club. If I get the the definition of a "women's club" changed to include men, then it's no longer a women's club. It's now something else. It's not inequality. And it's not the same thing as slavery. You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like.
Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.
Last edited by psycho joe; 26th Mar 2017 at 09:28.
Psych joe, it looks like you have googled logical fallacies. Unfortunately, your statements calling out those fallacies have generally been incorrect, and you are not immune from using a few yourself.
For example:
This is an example of what is known as ‘loaded language’. The CEO is not ‘forcing’ anything. He is adding to the political debate, just as you are here. As I have stated previously, this is a right that is provided by the Australian Constitution. A plebiscite is not the same as a ‘vote’, as it is non-binding. Election ‘promise’? Binding or non-binding? Yes, I agree they did take that policy to the election, however, like all policies, they have to be able to get the legislation through the Parliament.
It is difficult to take your argument about wanting a democratic process seriously when you have stated that if the Marriage Act is changed to allow same sex marriage, you would not accept anything other than your view of marriage as a real marriage. Your argument here is a classic example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
While the magnitude of the issue is different, the species is not. Both issues are about the denial of human rights. Discussion on this subject has taken place previously in this thread. However, I note response to that discussion was
, so I felt you may well have missed the point entirely.
As has been clearly stated previously, the definition of marriage is stated in the Act. If the Act is changed to include same sex couples, then marriage it will be.
In Australia, the separation of powers has the legislature make legislation and the judiciary interpret. So, as I stated in previous posts, the definition of marriage prior to the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act was a common law definition. That is, it was determined by the courts. Since society was changing, and so was the definition, Howard inserted the definition into the Act to stop the socially accepted definition becoming fact.
So this is a new requirement (changing the goalposts fallacy)? I would expect that if Parliament decided to change the definition, the words would be discussed and decided as you described in post #403. If you are asking for a suggestion, I would propose changing the definition from:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
To something like:
Marriage means the union two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
For example:
I've made the point about a CEO trying to force an elected government to abandon a vote that was promised to the people.
It is difficult to take your argument about wanting a democratic process seriously when you have stated that if the Marriage Act is changed to allow same sex marriage, you would not accept anything other than your view of marriage as a real marriage. Your argument here is a classic example of the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
If you honestly believe that changing the meaning of marriage is the same thing as freeing African slaves, then there is no rational discussion to be had with you
This is Australia
You can't use "inequality" to change the definition of every word that you don't like
On the question of Howard changing the Marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society.
Apart from angry rhetoric and use of the word "inequality", the revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life
To something like:
Marriage means the union two people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
As the issue is about Qantas and the feelings (of outrage to support) for the pro Sydney Mardi Gras and associated pro same sex marriage policy, it is appropriate to discuss it in this forum.
While on the subject of advice, those who are AIPA members may wish to read (or review) the article on responsibilities while posting on social media. Others may wish to google responsibilities of using social media and serious misconduct. This is not aimed at anyone in particular, just friendly advice.
psycho, a conscience vote means not tied to a party line. The member could vote according to their personal beliefs or they could vote according to what they think the voters in their their electorate want.
The definition of marriage was changed by legislation to reflect the presumed values of the majority of society in 2004. All assumption (your words), no plebiscite. Why are you demanding one now? Societal values change and 2004 set the precedent for altering the definition of marriage legislatively. Why not spend a shed load less on an extensive opinion poll and use those results?
Debate has been stifled and howled down? Really? Some proof from Hansard please.
The definition of marriage was changed by legislation to reflect the presumed values of the majority of society in 2004. All assumption (your words), no plebiscite. Why are you demanding one now? Societal values change and 2004 set the precedent for altering the definition of marriage legislatively. Why not spend a shed load less on an extensive opinion poll and use those results?
Debate has been stifled and howled down? Really? Some proof from Hansard please.
We do not elect them to ask us every time
So why are those who want SSM now asking the government to break an election commitment?
Why not direct their anger against those who voted against the plebiscite?
Why did these CEO's direct their letter at the Government instead of the Opposition?
Why have none of the posts on this forum directed their calls to the Opposition to allow the plebiscite?
Is it just a blatant political ploy by the Opposition to prolong the debate and drag it out to the next election hoping that they could make political gain on the back of SSM?
It could have all been done and dusted by now and Qantas would not have felt the need to paint the aircraft and we would not be seeing this thread.
The definition of marriage was changed by legislation to reflect the presumed values of the majority of society in 2004.
I don't recall there being extensive research announced to demonstrate majority support of exclusively opposite-sex marriage. Are you aware of any from 2004? I do however recall the legislation being changed in haste to block state same-sex legislation.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 26th Mar 2017 at 15:16.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think psycho joe has googled logical fallacies at all but has assumed that because reductio ad absurdium (sic) contains 'absurd' then it must be a false form of reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum (note the correct spelling) is not a logical fallacy but a valid form of argument used by mathematicians (aka proof by contradiction) and philosophers going back to the ancient Greeks.