PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

MTOW 13th Aug 2015 05:22


The bulk of journalists seem to see themselves not as recorders, or even commentators, but as significant players in national politics
With that statement, I think you've identified a very large part of the problem Australia has languished in since the 1970s.

MTOW 13th Aug 2015 05:27

Hempy, here's why I think that same sex marriage is the wrong way to go.


Marriage License Office Clerk














"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?", said the clerk.

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers?? You can't get married."

"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license.





Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right.





Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Anderson."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"------------








...Don't laugh, it’s just a matter of time.



OK, so what I've pasted here is a 'funny'. But of you don't think there'll be some - and quite a few, in fact - who will see the acceptance of same sex marriage as a green light to further their pet ideas, you're being naÔve. It will start with one already outspoken section of our society who will demand recognition of multiple wives "because it's part of their tradition" - and also demanding that the taxpayer support all those multiple families with benefits.

chuboy 13th Aug 2015 05:43

I'll take the bait MTOW.

What's inherently wrong with polygamous marriages anyway, if as a society we're ready to accept them (I'm not aware of a jurisdiction that has legalised SSM in the face of a majority opposition)? If anything, nature has shown us polygamous relationships far more often than it has homosexual ones (although we have seen them too).

Are you suggesting that at no point in the future, should we ever consider allowing a person to be married to more than one other consenting person, regardless of how our social norms might evolve in that time? To take that a step further, should we vow never to consider a change to any of our laws in the future? In that case do we even need a parliament?

The question of welfare benefits for "those people" in a hypothetical polygamous marriage is so laughably low on the priority list I think it's hysterical that you would even mention it. The welfare cost can be eliminated entirely with the stroke of a pen in the regulations - but even that cost barely registers in the context of welfare expenditure generally, let alone government expenditure as a whole.

As for the remark about incest, well what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if we have an epidemic of brothers and sisters wanting to marry today because heterosexual marriage is legal? :rolleyes:

RJM 13th Aug 2015 06:46


I seem to recall concerns posted here some time ago (regarding the inappropriately high proportion of media outlets that are controlled by a single entity) being dismissed entirely.
Chuboy, the Left's mantra that the evil Murdoch controls our minds via his pervasive media empire could apply to the vastly larger and more pervsasive ABC. At least, to have your mind controlled by Murdoch you have to volunteer for treatment by paying for one of his newspapers. The ABC is beamed everywhere at no charge. No direct charge, anyway.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but hyperbole and hypocrisy seem to go unremarked on the Left. Perhaps the idea is that if the cause is pre-supposed as just, how you promote it doesn't matter.

Jeps 13th Aug 2015 06:54

If you want to have 10 wives, go ahead have 10 wives. I really don't care what you do. If you want to marry your dog, go right ahead. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. The USA has up until more recently been a very religious western democracy. They have it. Ireland speaks for itself with its strong Catholic history. They have it. All it does is give people more freedom and less power to the government and that's something I always seek.

If major policy changes aren't made by this government (I'm not asking them to nor do I expect) I wont be voting for them. In fact I wont be voting for anyone because who on earth does an Anarcho libertarian vote for in Australia? I'm resided to the fact that on the ballot paper I'll be writing something cliche like "legalize pot man".

So many of them just have their heads so far up there own backsides its not funny, even for politicians. Eric Abetz is the leader of the F#$&wit brigade.

SOPS 13th Aug 2015 09:02

Just great, once again the Libs are stuffing it up. Tony needs to start listening to the electorate!

chuboy 13th Aug 2015 09:21


Originally Posted by RJM (Post 9080670)
Chuboy, the Left's mantra that the evil Murdoch controls our minds via his pervasive media empire could apply to the vastly larger and more pervsasive ABC. At least, to have your mind controlled by Murdoch you have to volunteer for treatment by paying for one of his newspapers. The ABC is beamed everywhere at no charge. No direct charge, anyway.

People still voluntarily submit themselves to the ABC, it's not as if their TVs are permanently set to News24.

Most people don't even read the newspaper though. The real damage is done when the "infotainment" shows like Sunrise and The Project discuss the day's news. The journos play part of the game in determining what the talking heads on the idiot box are going to be discussing tonight/tomorrow, but it's that relatable presenter who ultimately moulds the opinions of your average mouth-breathing dimwit eating their dinner in front of the telly.

I don't think this is anything particularly new of course. Back in the day the town crier or the local gossip would have been the source of news and I'm sure they would have spread a rumour or withheld something incriminating if they had something to gain for it. The important thing is to never believe you are being told the whole story.


Two wrongs don't make a right, but hyperbole and hypocrisy seem to go unremarked on the Left. Perhaps the idea is that if the cause is pre-supposed as just, how you promote it doesn't matter.
I don't think the "hypocrisy" is exclusive to the Left. In my experience both sides are quick to turn a blind eye to unethical journalism if it favours a cause they support.

clark y 13th Aug 2015 11:14

Why don't we all just stop wasting time and remove "marriage" completely from the government, legal and welfare systems completely.

AnQrKa 13th Aug 2015 14:33

The title of this thread is War in Australia (any Oz Politics)

The majority of posts from the last several pages have been about SSM. An unimportant issue. A distraction at best.

The Politicians have won. The masses (us) are arguing about the fringe issues when the big-ticket screw-upís (both parties) are going un challenged.

Rome is burning and we are being purposefully distracted.

How is the economy really going?

RJM 13th Aug 2015 14:36

Self-interest, probably clark y.

It's in society's interest to have a fairly high degree of formality and permanence in the social unit of the family, notably in order to have children raised in a stable environment. Families have proved to be good providers of such an environment.

If marriage were taken out of the 'official' sphere and left entirely to churches for example, with marriage having no legal standing, I suspect our society would be worse off.

Good points above, chuboy. The media seem to have an exaggerated sense of their role.

dr dre 13th Aug 2015 19:23


The title of this thread is War in Australia (any Oz Politics)

The majority of posts from the last several pages have been about SSM. An unimportant issue. A distraction at best.

The Politicians have won. The masses (us) are arguing about the fringe issues when the big-ticket screw-up’s (both parties) are going un challenged.

Rome is burning and we are being purposefully distracted.
I agree
So let's pass the legislation that's about to be tabled in federal parliament, in no time we'll join the rest of the civilised world in granting marriage rights to same sex couples and then we will move on to tackle more important issues

Takan Inchovit 13th Aug 2015 20:27

Lets just put it aside until all the emotional baggage is collected, no need to evacuate the whole terminal.

RJM 13th Aug 2015 21:46


I agree
So let's pass the legislation that's about to be tabled in federal parliament, in no time we'll join the rest of the civilised world in granting marriage rights to same sex couples and then we will move on to tackle more important issues
The gay marriage issue has little practical impact either way - it directly involves very few people and is more symbolic than anything else. There are gays living as couples anyway.

That doesn't make it right to invoke a favourite Leftist mantra: 'Haven't we discussed this long enough? It's time our argument was accepted and we moved on.'

The level of interest and the length of a debate are not reasons to accept any argument and 'move on'. In this case, it would be an acceptance that the tail wags the dog.

For one side to 'give up' and accept the other's argument will make debate on the next issue harder. Elsewhere, that has led to the majority acceding to further claims from a focused and noisy minority: in the US and Europe, the march of what was regarded as radical gender politics continues as the words 'husband' and 'wife' are expunged from legal and other official texts, with further pressure to ban the use of the words 'man' 'male' 'woman' and 'female'.

Will the Left tell us that we've discussed those moves for long enough and should agree with them and move on? Even George Orwell would have been shocked at the evolutions taking place. To paraphrase the quote, 'All that is necessary for minority views to dominate is for the majority not to defend its own views.'

dr dre 14th Aug 2015 00:32


The gay marriage issue has little practical impact either way - it directly involves very few people and is more symbolic than anything else.
Then why are so many conservatives so adamantly against it?
On one hand they say marriage for same sex couples effects so few people and is so unimportant we should all forget about it.
On the other hand they think it's so important we should have a national plebiscite (not a referendum, know the the difference) and are making tv ads to campaign against it?

I'll also point out I don't see this as a left/right issue, a lot of small government Liberal party supporters I know support marriage for same sex couples on the grounds that government shouldn't be in the business of dictating how people should live their lives.
And if you want a further conservative argument for SSM, watch a former Bush administration official argue for it from a conservative point of view here on Fox News none the less:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OE-gNhcl6A
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ZtD-hfH5cI

Worrals in the wilds 14th Aug 2015 09:37

One of the problems I've noticed with the SS / SSM debate over the years is how people define the word 'support'. It means quite different things to different people, and I think that's causing :confused: on both sides. To some people (particularly gay people), 'support' automatically means fully accepting SSM for gay couples, whereas other people's 'support' of gay relationships is better translated as 'well the poor bastards probably can't help it and we shouldn't throw them in jail any more' :ooh:.

However, in most polls and opinion pieces people are merely asked whether they 'support' the concept of SS relationships, without asking what they actually take that to mean:8.

I'll also point out I don't see this as a left/right issue,
Correct. There is still opposition within Labor on religious grounds, though it's been pretty much sidelined with the conscience vote sunset clause.

CHAIRMAN 14th Aug 2015 13:49


To some people (particularly gay people), 'support' automatically means fully accepting SSM for gay couples, whereas other people's 'support' of gay relationships is better translated as 'well the poor bastards probably can't help it and we shouldn't throw them in jail any more'
:D:D
That's an absolute cracker

Eddie Dean 14th Aug 2015 20:39

Watching World News ABC TV
Refugees on Cos are very well fed

Dark Knight 14th Aug 2015 23:54


Watching World News ABC TV
Refugees on Cos are very well fed
So??

Where is Cos?


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:43.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.