Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original

Old 13th Dec 2017, 09:04
  #19881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
How is it 'groupthink' that only those who think a key, legally required aspect of the job is reasonable will be interested in doing the job?

Only those with an interest in aviation and willingness to fly become pilots, you can't say "I want to be a pilot but without doing any of the flying stuff". Only those who find treating patients and dealing with illnesses morally acceptable can become medical doctors. If your personal beliefs are that killing animals for food is immoral, don't get a job in an abbatoir. Equally though, if you dislike flying and can't be a pilot for that reason, that isn't a justification to prevent others who like flying from becoming one.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 09:31
  #19882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 734
It's only legally required because a law was amended to make it so.

If the exemption granted to current celebrants was extended to new appointees, it would provide greater diversity (another popular buzz word).

But from what you're saying, in future only those who subscribe to the pro-SSM mindset need apply. So one group's views are given precedence over another's in the name of fairness and equality.
CoodaShooda is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 09:58
  #19883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Unlike the "groupthink" we had until two weeks ago? Too bad if you thought same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. Too bad if you think a divorced Roman Catholic shouldn't be allowed to get re-married, let alone to a non-RC. Too bad if you think real Aussies shouldn't marry Asians. To bad if you think Christians/Muslims/Buddhists/whatever should only marry within their own religion.

So much for your call for "diversity". The marriage ceremony is about the couple, not the celebrant. What about their diversity?

New celebrants are entitled to think what they like, they just have to obey the law while doing their job. Just like everyone else.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 10:08
  #19884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 131
If the job involves marrying same-sex couples, then yes, only those who can morally do that can apply and expect to get the job, just as only those who subscribe to the pro-aviating viewpoint are worth interviewing for a pilot job and only those able to butcher animals should apply to work at a butchers shop. It's giving precedence to those who are willing to do the job, when considering if they should be licenced to do the job, nothing more.

Out of curiosity though, if an exemption was made along the lines of "new or existing civil celebrants can register as conscientious objectors, or similar term, and not be required to carry out same-sex marriages", would you be more open to the idea? I doubt there would be very many people who hold religious views so strong that they can't abide the idea of SSM, but simultaneously so weak that they aren't eligible to be a religious celebrant, so it may be a tiny fraction of a small subset of the community who would use that exemption.
De_flieger is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 10:42
  #19885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 734
LeP
The recent "groupthink" would have included all points of view. And those examples you mention seem to have been getting by ok. I'm not aware of any campaigns for change for them similar to the recent SSM debate.

The new law will ultimately see this replaced with only one point of view. Dissenters will be discriminated against through exclusion.

Fliers
What's your objection to your suggestion regarding "conscientious objectors"?
CoodaShooda is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 18:11
  #19886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
CS, none of those things I mentioned was legal behaviour for a civil celebrant. Two weeks ago any views of marriage that were counter to the legal definition of marriage were not acceptable for a civil celebrant to impose on couples using their services. The civil celebrant either conformed to the legal definition or sought alternative employment. It very definitely did not include all points of view.

Today exactly the same rule will apply to new civil celebrants, conform to the legal definition of marriage in full or don't participate. They can think what they like, just not impose their views on others.

Dissenters were discriminated against through exclusion pre-SSM and will be now.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2017, 20:46
  #19887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 734
Two weeks ago, the law precluded SSM, so dissenting viewpoints were irrelevant.

The introduction of the new law allows current celebrants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSMs to remain true to their beliefs.

Future celebrant aspirants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSM will not be allowed to become a celebrant, unless they change their beliefs. Why are their beliefs being given less weight than those of SSM supporters?
CoodaShooda is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 00:30
  #19888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by CoodaShooda View Post
Two weeks ago, the law precluded SSM, so dissenting viewpoints were irrelevant.

The introduction of the new law allows current celebrants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSMs to remain true to their beliefs.

Future celebrant aspirants whose beliefs preclude them from conducting SSM will not be allowed to become a celebrant, unless they change their beliefs. Why are their beliefs being given less weight than those of SSM supporters?
Laws also say that a celebrant is precluded from conducting a marriage between a 40 year old Muslim and his 12 year old bride to be. Why are their beliefs being given less weight?
Hempy is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 01:35
  #19889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
Laws also say that a celebrant is precluded from conducting a marriage between a 40 year old Muslim and his 12 year old bride to be. Why are their beliefs being given less weight?
Not really comparable, in my opinion.

There are a number of perfectly valid reasons why marriage to a pre-pubescent child is not a good idea. eg a real chance of physical and mental damage to the child.
There is no real chance of either occurring in the event of either a member of the clergy or civil celebrant electing not to conduct the marriage of an LGBTQI couple. Certainly not when there are others readily available who will obligingly do so.

Clearly obfuscation.
WingNut60 is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 03:16
  #19890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
CS, and there we have it. "Dissenting views were irrelevant". Because they're views that you don't hold they're irrelevant and the only ones that count are those that match yours. Shall I use that "argument" right back at you?

As I've repeatedly said, if my sincerely held belief is that people of different religions can't marry then that view is being totally disrespected if I'm a civil celebrant. I either accept that others have different views and get on with being a civil celebrant or I quit. Whether there have been campaigns to change the law in that direction are irrelevant.

It's not about the views of SSM supporters. It's about impact on the couple being married. Denying a couple marriage without legal cause is a far bigger harm than what is being done to the celebrant who disagrees with SSM. That's how these things are balanced. Can you tell me what harm is done to such a celebrant if they officiate at a same-sex marriage?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 03:30
  #19891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 734
LeP

I marvel at your ability to twist context into other dimensions.

I have no argument with SSM.

My interest, as stated at the start, is the effect the changes will have on other groups, directly or otherwise.
CoodaShooda is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 04:16
  #19892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Waterfall
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by De_flieger View Post
Crownstay01 No, the vocal minority was the spineless politicians on both sides of parliament, and a highly vocal subset of the Christian lobby that at best, represented a narrow, fearful and archaic branch of a diverse group that largely rejected their views.
I agree, I was being facetious. As I expected, the so-called "silent majority" turned out to be neither.
Crownstay01 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 05:38
  #19893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
CS, degrees of harm are exactly how decisions about competing rights are decided. The rights of the couple to be married versus the rights of the civil celebrant. What harm is brought on the civil celebrant by marrying a same-sex couple?

Twist context? You're the one twisting and turning - you refuse to see that civil celebrants have always been affected by having to conform to the legal definition of marriage, regardless of their personal views.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 11:08
  #19894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Darwin, NT, Australia
Posts: 734
LeP
Happy to agree to disagree. 🤡
CoodaShooda is online now  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 11:33
  #19895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,258
Originally Posted by De_flieger View Post
Crownstay01 No, the vocal minority was the spineless politicians on both sides of parliament, and a highly vocal subset of the Christian lobby that at best, represented a narrow, fearful and archaic branch of a diverse group that largely rejected their views.
They were not the vocal minority I was referring to.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2017, 18:49
  #19896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
Nonetheless, they were the vocal minority who insisted on having the survey, rather than having a straight Parliamentary vote. Presumably they were hoping for some sort of "silent majority" effect brought about by FUD.

You did rather leave yourself wide open there Traffic.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 10:08
  #19897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
Is Dutton lining up to topple Turnbull and take on the leadership?
What a disaster if the rumours are true!
Ethel the Aardvark is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 11:46
  #19898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Interesting how the ALP haven’t lowered themselves to political point scoring over Barnabys philandering. One can only imagine the Conservative outrage it if it was an Labor pollie in the same position.
Hempy is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 13:58
  #19899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back too the hot bits again
Posts: 78
You would of thought that someone would ask the question if the poor kid will be an Aussie or a Kiwi.
The new Lib Senator Molan looks a lovely piece of work and the libs over in WA whilst conferencing on Rottnest have been throwing each other to the floor in a pythonesque manner.
Is this the future of right wing politics in Oz. tut tut I say.
Ethel the Aardvark is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2018, 14:12
  #19900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Balikpapan, INDONESIA
Age: 67
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Ethel the Aardvark View Post
Is Dutton lining up to topple Turnbull and take on the leadership?
What a disaster if the rumours are true!
You'd have to suspect that making him Minister for Everything was intended to tie him up and out of the way.
The Liberals have recent experience of what it's like to have an unpopular PM up front.
So it'll depend on whether the flinty-eyed right are prepared to keep tolerating Malcolm or whether they just can't exist without the bloodshed and toe-cutting.
WingNut60 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.