Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Gay colors?

Old 26th Mar 2017, 20:11
  #421 (permalink)  
 
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
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.
This illistrates the revisionist dilemma. For every definition of marriage there is exclusion. By the arguments used here exclusion equates to "inequality" (which equates to slavery.)

It stands to reason that the only definition that would be acceptable is one that has no boundaries, whereby the definition of marriage is anything to anyone at any time to the exclusion of none.

Or no marriage at all.
psycho joe is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2017, 21:32
  #422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 429
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
Firstly, the exclusion being talked about is exclusion from legal rights in relationships because of gender. It is not an argument to remove 'any exclusivity' to anything - that is a straw man.

Secondly, we all use analogies to try and see commonalities in issues so we apply common principles. Marriage and slavery are not the same thing but can, as analogies, illustrate how society has changed its attitudes over time (as can universal sufferage, child labour laws, indigenous recognition, separation of church and state etc are all things that can be used to compare how society values have changed and to illustrate common ways to approach new issues). There needs to be care to make sure we don't push analogies too far or apply them inappropriately but I can see why looking at them helps build a better idea of how to approach issues.

Thirdly, I can sympathise with people who hold deeply held convictions about social issues that differ from their employers and feel they are being forced to support a social issue they disagree with.

This thread has two things going on and that clouds the arguments.

a. what happens when an employee has a moral objection to a social issue that their employer is promoting?

b. is SSM something that should be recognised in Oz?

(for me question a is answered: really not sure and b: yes)
jonkster is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2017, 21:50
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Not at all Psych Joe.

The argument about not allowing same sex marriage is that it denies a section of the community a human right. That exclusion is a decision that someone else has made to deny them the opportunity of entering into a marriage.

The definition of marriage that I offered was simply a minimalist change to the existing definition that removes the words man and woman and replaces with people. The 'exclusion' referred to in the definition is a reference to the type of relationship between the people. It is entered into voluntarily, therefore there is no human rights issue and cannot be equated to slavery. The term 'voluntarily entered into' also carries with it the requirement for the parties to have the capacity to provide that consent. This removes the false argument that it is a slippery slope to anyone marrying anything.

And yes, there are other sections of the Marriage Act and criminal code that prevent certain people from entering into such a relationship. That is not inconsistent with a rights based approach.

Last edited by theheadmaster; 26th Mar 2017 at 22:09.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2017, 23:06
  #424 (permalink)  
 
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
Denied a "human right".... The last bastion of the scoundrel, like pulling the race card. The Alamo (for US reference) of the argument fall back position.

So there you have it folks - Traditional marriage is a crime against humanity.

22 pages of round and around the mulberry bush. Every twist and turn that could be argued has been. In some cases multiple times. All to get to this point.

It's been fun.

Last edited by psycho joe; 26th Mar 2017 at 23:30.
psycho joe is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2017, 23:43
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by psycho joe
Denied a "human right".... The last bastion of the scoundrel, like pulling the race card. The Alamo (for US reference) of the argument fall back position.

So there you have it folks - Traditional marriage is a crime against humanity.

22 pages of round and around the mulberry bush. Every twist and turn that could be argued has been. In some cases multiple times. All to get to this point.

It's been fun.
Once again, not at all. The human right argument was made by Asteroid 2578 at around page 16 and onwards of this discussion. 'This is Australia' I believe was your response to the argument at the time. It is not a fall back position at all. It is an interesting proposition that people arguing for the rights of same sex couples are considered the 'scoundrels'.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2017, 23:58
  #426 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 1,477
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
BTW the coalition have not been given a conscience vote on this issue at all. Any member of cabinet who votes for marriage equality will lose their position in cabinet.
References please!!!!!
601 is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 06:11
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There will be marriage equality in the end...

Its a shame we (as a nation) are spending so much precious time, money and energy on this subject.

When nearly every other liberal democratic nation on the planet have already changed their laws it would be naive to believe that day wasn't coming here in Australia too.

It may be sooner or it may be later...but in the end, despite our varying individual belief systems, it wiil be.

We have far more pressing issues to spend time focussing on.

PG
Popgun is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 06:37
  #428 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Speaking of democracy. The issue of SSM has been put to Parliament more than 15'times since 2004. On virtually all of those occasions both sides of Parliament decided to uphold traditional marriage.

This current Parliament is widely considered the first one for which a conscience vote of both sides would result in SSM getting up. It wouldn't have previously.

Interestingly, it's Labor that is insisting on a binding vote on its members over this issue. It's seen one Labor senator resign over the issue and may see other long serving MPs replaced if they vote with their beliefs rather than what they're told by head office.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 06:41
  #429 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
The 'rights' angle isn't consistent. I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners? Why are you not championing the 'right' of Mormons and Muslims to have multiple wives? Are they not deserving of 'equal rights' in the same way that gay people are? If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.

So enough about 'rights'. Unless you're advocating for polygamous relationships you're actually full,of crap when you speak about 'equal rights'.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 07:22
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 429
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
I guess I am full of crap then.

I believe my gay friends who are in committed loving relationships should have similar rights extended to them as I have with my marriage. I see that as fair and just. Happy to discuss why but don't think you really are interested.
jonkster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 07:28
  #431 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
So you're not prepared to extend those 'equal rights' to others? Talk about bigotry.

See how this works?

Have you been reading the last bunch of pages Jonkster? My thoughts on the issue are pretty much out there. But please, feel free to tell me why you feel your gay friends should be able to get married using 'equal rights' as the reason but those rights shouldn't be extended to polygamous relationships? I'm open as to how you justify that as 'fair and just'.

Or is it perhaps that 'rights' are actually subject to some other test and as a society we do actually feel like we can (and should) restrict them in certain circumstances.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 07:51
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 429
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
Yes I have read the last bunch of pages, posted in them in fact.

I have tried to be polite, restrained and honest in my posts, expressing my views without being nasty, politely asking for clarification for other's views as I don't get why they think the way they do and at one point expressed concern for people like you, caught up in a situation where their employer is asking them to support a view the employee sincerely rejects.

Like I said, happy to discuss why I believe what I do but as I am both full of crap and a bigot for holding my views and engaging in the conversation, I gather you really are not interested in what I have to say.
jonkster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 07:52
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,253
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
If you look at the acronym LGBTIQ (I am still waiting for an answer on what the difference is between G and Q btw), an amendment to the Marriage Act will automatically impinge on the rights of the B community. By definition they have the capacity to love females and males equally therefore they should be given the right to marry one of each as its all about equal love right? Limiting the Marriage Act to one person is restricting the rights of all people who have the capacity to love more than one person at a time. Changing the Act does not rule a line under the discussion it only takes it in a different direction.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 08:13
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 429
Received 20 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
If you look at the acronym LGBTIQ (I am still waiting for an answer on what the difference is between G and Q btw)
need to know? Google is your friend...

what the difference is between G and Q?

jonkster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 08:26
  #435 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
Fair enough jonkster. Don't engage then. I put it out there that you can't demand 'equal rights' and not demand polygamy under the same principle. I reckon that's being intellectually dishonest. In short, it's crap. Twice now I've pointed that out. Twice you've not explained how you and others can reconcile promoting SSM on the basis of rights can but stop short of extending that principle to polygamous relationships or even somone who is bi who wants to marry somone of the same sex as well as somone of the opposite sex.

If you can't see my facetious use of the word 'bigoted' and see the principle behind my use of it in the context I have then by all means disengage.
Keg is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 09:27
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,253
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
Thanks for the link Jonkster and now I know why no one has tried to put it in their own words. I now understand that the whole LGBTIQ movement is akin to a socialist ideology and peripherally a movement for individual rights. The Q people don't really consider themselves G people, a bit like the difference between Joe and Leon. It also highlights that the Safe Schools indoctrination is not about bullying but about spreading the ideology to the young.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 09:30
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Keg
The 'rights' angle isn't consistent. I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners? Why are you not championing the 'right' of Mormons and Muslims to have multiple wives? Are they not deserving of 'equal rights' in the same way that gay people are? If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.

So enough about 'rights'. Unless you're advocating for polygamous relationships you're actually full,of crap when you speak about 'equal rights'.
I don't see the inconsistency at all. This discussion is not about polygamy. Is there a push to have such relationships recognised as marriage? If so, then it would be entirely appropriate to take a rights based approach. Without having put my mind to the issue, my personal observation of polygamy was while on duty in the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan. In that context it was associated with the subjugation of women. While I have lived in the United States, I have not had any exposure to the Mormon version of polygamy and whether there are associated issues with the denial of rights. So, if the question is asked, looking through the lens of rights is an appropriate way of deciding if the issue is worth pursuing. Right now, I don't know the answer to that question.

Regarding your previous discussion on the complex and emotive issues of euthanasia and abortion, I think a rights based approach is also helpful. I actually have taken the time to study these issues in the context of utilitarian ethics. I don't see an inconsistency with the ethical approach to these issues with views presented in support of same sex marriage, but probably best left for another discussion.
theheadmaster is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 09:40
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: h&h
Posts: 94
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
Limiting the Marriage Act to one person is restricting the rights of all people who have the capacity to love more than one person at a time..
Wrong.

Bisexual persons can indeed fall in love with people from both sexes. However just like gay or straight people, falling in love usually occurs only to one other person at the same time. Therefore a bisexual person will normally be just in either a relationship with someone of the opposite or from the same sex, but not with both at the same time.
By the way, this is the most common misconception about bisexuals, so I dont blame you for being a bit ignorant about it.

And there we might have the argument against polygamous relationships. Marriage imho is a loving, voluntary, bonding of two persons. Because we as humans fall in love with only one other person at a time.
I'm not an expert in polygamy but for what I've seen of it, usually it's about one male having a relationship with, or maybe better; 'owning' multiple women. I've not yet seen any example of one female owning multiple males in polygamy. Therefore in my view it is a form of surpression of females and totally has nothing to do with love between two persons.
However, maybe I'm wrong and in the future I have to change my opinion about polygamy.

For now I just really don't see why this should hold back SSM?
reivilo is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 10:01
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,094
Received 478 Likes on 129 Posts
I'd love to find out why those who push the 'equal rights' principle are not advocating for those who want to marry multiple partners?
Correct me if I am wrong but don't people who wish to be polygamists have 'equal rights' as it stands? Ie whether you are someone who wants to marry two or more people, or you are anyone else, you both have the same rights applied in Australia....... you can't do it.
If you're going to push this rights barrel you should be up front and honest about the logical conclusion about what you're asking society to sign onto.
Suggesting that the logical conclusion after SSM is that Polygamists will also want equal rights is illogical.
In Australia everyone has equal rights surrounding polygamy, rape, paedophilia, beastiality, and drink driving, you can't do it no matter who you are.
framer is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2017, 10:27
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 601
References please!!!!!
Sure, here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...e-vote-for-mps

The communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who supports same-sex marriage, had earlier warned the meeting about the risk of government disunity if frontbenchers were forced to resign for backing the change.
Tony Abbott warns colleagues not to vote for same-sex marriage

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has warned his ministerial colleagues they would have to resign from the frontbench if they were to vote in support of same-sex marriage
The Coalition party room voted against having a conscience vote on same-sex marriage by about 60 votes to 30 on Tuesday night, but about half of Mr Abbott's frontbench voted against this position.
Mr Abbott said on Wednesday that it is "the standard position of our party that if a frontbencher cannot support the party's policy, that person has to leave the frontbench".

Keg said:
Interestingly, it's Labor that is insisting on a binding vote on its members over this issue. It's seen one Labor senator resign over the issue and may see other long serving MPs replaced if they vote with their beliefs rather than what they're told by head office.
Labor has had a conscience vote on this issue since 2012 and this will continue for the life of this parliament.

The Coalition has never had a free vote on this issue.
obira is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.