This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
Value Collector said:
So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending state schools, would that be moral for the government to follow through and ban blacks from schools?
Click to expand...

Was such a vote ever taken or is this just a hypothetical ?

The public view of morality shifts over time and the public can make up their own minds about what is "right" or "wrong" at any particular time.

certain things are immoral
Click to expand...

What you may think is immoral and what I may think is immoral don't necessarily coincide. I find people using contrived methods to have children to try and prove that they are the same as everyone else to be immoral, and I don't base that on any religious text.

If the plebiscite on SSM passes I will accept it, if it doesn't will you accept the result ?

If it doesn't pass perhaps you just have to accept that it's not the right time.
 
Value Collector said:
So in the example I gave, of the majority voting to restrict black children from attending s.
Click to expand...

You have a real thing for blacks and gays don't you?

Blacks can't control their skin tone. Gays, hetros and whatever is in between can control their sexual activities ... it's something most youth have to endure as they hit puberty...probably the most extreme time for a person to satisfy natural urges.

You don't know it, but everytime you throw the black fellas up as examples of our humbug and bigotted society you actually drag them down to the debate rather than allowing them singular status to pursue their genuine need for change.
 

Yes the publics view on morality will change over time, but what is and isn't actually moral won't, its not subjective, in any given situation there is an action that is the most moral action, and this doesn't change based on popular decision, sometimes the most moral action will be the unpopular one.

I am the first to admit, that there are things I do regularly, that one day might be proven to be immoral, take eating meat for example, if it is later proved that for various reasons eating animals is immoral, that means it has always been imorral, public opinion doesn't change it.

If gay marriage is voted down, I would view it as a temporary set back, it wouldn't be a sign that banning gay marriage is the most moral action, anymore than a vote on whether the earth is flat would change the actual physical fact of reality.

As I said, in any situation there is a non subjective action that would be most moral, opinion doesn't change it anymore than opinions change gravity, off course just as we learn more about gravity over time, we understand morality better over time,
 

Really, you are going to say you chose to be straight again?
 
Value Collector said:
Really, you are going to say you chose to be straight again?
Click to expand...

I going to say anyone chooses what they want to do with their genitals. You have no proofs to contradict lifestyle versus genetics. Instinct drives procreation, behavioural desire drives the method of copulation. Of course you choose you actions, you aren't compelled to take a bloke to your bed.

The thing is that we have no idea if a homosexual does feel the same drives from the same urges. For all we know homosexuals may well have a negative instinct for procreation thus the aversion to reproduction plug and socket combo and the emotional safety of same sex besties playing with each others privates.

You can and do dismiss anyone's argument, but you have yet to offer up a realistic consensus of your own making, preferring to using fallacious arguments about deep southern blacks to segue your point of view.

You throw "love" around like a mad women's underpants as a sublime excuse for marriage, tell us all a yarn that male on male invented the thing and can't understand why someone would have the audacity to question your fantastic stories and their veracity.

God help those who have a moral and ethical conundrum to deal with the whole concept, especially those who do find solace in a God, which for some reason is a weakness and fair game for deprecation, but let no one dare depreciate the feelings of the underdog homosexual.

You can make like you have the majority of Australians protecting your back, but that is not the same thing as agreeing with your agenda. Now we have the opportunity to put the vote to the "will of the people", we'll see what they are prepared to cough up, which we are told is a fait accompli success because 65% of the population agree.
 
Value Collector said:
As I said, in any situation there is a non subjective action that would be most moral, opinion doesn't change it anymore than opinions change gravity, off course just as we learn more about gravity over time, we understand morality better over time,
Click to expand...

No you miss the point. YOU are making a judgement of what would be "most moral". Others may make the same or a different judgement. The idea that only you know what is "right" is arrogant. Morality is best determined at an appropriate time by the expression of the public will through, in the case of SSM, a plebiscite.
 

Nope, I think you can test whether certain things are moral, there are certain factors that are preferable, that can be shown through logical reasoning. As I said, the actual 100% moral answer to a lot of things might elude us, but it always exists, and doesn't change due to opinion, just like gravity we can learn more about it as time goes on.

And my line of questioning throughout this whole debate has been part of that. I have constantly asked questions to the people who are against gay marriage to find out if they had any valid reasons to restrict people's rights to marry, and so far none have been given.

I don't think you have answered my question, would it be moral to ban blacks from schools if it was shown by a plebiscite that was the will of the masses?
 
Value Collector said:
I don't think you have answered my question, would it be moral to ban blacks from schools if it was shown by a plebiscite that was the will of the masses?
Click to expand...

Depends on circumstances that can only be theorised.

If there was a concerted effort by black parents to teach their kids that white schools are bad and they should disrupt them to the point where other students can't get any work done, what then ?
 
Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible

That is what they are doing, overhang.

The Government is taking over Marriage, and brainwashing/social engineering the sheep with the new rules on how you have to think.
The truth, of a man and woman with their child, will be hate speech.

You lose your freedom of speech and your freedom of conscience.
 

Tink I find it amazing that you believe that the government removing one of the last bits of control they have over the definition of marriage is considered totalitarianism. Sorry to inform you but the government has always owned marriage and citizens have fought the government for freedom to marry since the convict days and slowly wielded that power away from governments.

If the government forced Tink from ASF to have a same sex marriage then that is considered totalitarianism. If the government doesn't stand in the way of allowing Tink from ASF to marry whoever she falls in love with regardless of race or sex then that is considered libertarianism.

I find this amazing that you keep thinking that this is an attack on freedom of speech when no one is censoring your opinion, the majority may disagree with your opinion but that isn't censorship. Perhaps you would be better suited to a country like Russia where the state has more control over it's citizens and is a long way from ever having equal rights. Given your hate of the ABC that could work well where the state media in Russia must spread the propaganda of the government.
 
overhang said:
Perhaps you would be better suited to a country like Russia where the state has more control over it's citizens and is a long way from ever having equal rights
Click to expand...

I really like this idea overhang.

Send the right wing where they belong, to places like Russia and Saudi Arabia where they share the views of the psychopaths in charge there.

That's what I always find so amusing about our irrational Western right wing, they say they hate the terrorists coming to impose Sharia on all of us, but they never seem to make the connection that most of their views are identical to the wettest dreams of the most Wahhabist of Imams.

I guess filling the brain with so much irrational hate and fear doesn't leave capacity to discover such connections.
 
SirRumpole said:
If there was a concerted effort by black parents to teach their kids that white schools are bad and they should disrupt them to the point where other students can't get any work done, what then ?
Click to expand...

You're clutching at straws here, because you know it wouldn't be moral to ban people from schools based on skin colour, even in the example you gave it would be wrong, the correct thing to do would be to suspend individual trouble makers, not ban a whole race.

Lets use another example, If the southern states in the USA had voted to keep slavery, would this have made slavery Moral?

or,

If Hitler held a plebiscite on whether he should commit genocide against the Jews and 51% of Germans agreed he should, would that have made the holocaust moral?

Surely you can see a majority vote doesn't change whether something is moral or not.
 

Well, you brought up this diversionary tactic and its pointless discussing this sort of hypothetical further.

If Hitler held a plebiscite on whether he should commit genocide against the Jews and 51% of Germans agreed he should, would that have made the holocaust moral?

Surely you can see a majority vote doesn't change whether something is moral or not.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that in a properly constructed plebiscite with a free vote with no intimidation that a majority would have voted for extermination of fellow human beings (when a lot of the voters would have been Jews themselves) ?

You are comparing apples with oranges again using hypotheticals that will never be carried out. We are not a Nazi country, we have a free vote and if you can't trust your fellow citizens to come to a reasoned conclusion on this issue, then there is not a lot of point living here.
 
SirRumpole said:
Do you really think that in a properly constructed plebiscite with a free vote with no intimidation that a majority would have voted for extermination of fellow human beings (when a lot of the voters would have been Jews themselves) ?

.
Click to expand...

lets say they did vote for it, would it make it moral?

I reckon there would be have been a decent chance the southern states of the us would have voted slavery in, would that have made it moral
 
Value Collector said:
lets say they did vote for it, would it make it moral?

I reckon there would be have been a decent chance the southern states of the us would have voted slavery in, would that have made it moral
Click to expand...

Clutching at straws. The slavery vote never happened. Just trust the country to make the decision that they consider right at the time. Any other course is trying to enforce your ideas on the rest of us.
 

um lol, how can you twaddle this tripe and sleep at night.

This is Australia. The country that had a "White Australia Policy" up until the Racial Discrimination Act was passed in 1975, only 40 years ago. Of course my fellow citizens cannot be trusted and suggestions to piss off are the same kind of **** I used to hear in the run up to the Iraq War "if you love terrorists and hate freedom so much why not just leave then" ...

No. How about you leave, take your insanity with you and leave the rest of us to build the future? It'll be much quicker without you and I'm sure you'll want back in as soon as you see what you're missing.

Morality and Law are not the same thing, maybe you need to retake Logic 101 because that is when most people learn these basics of thinking.
 

What a load of cr@p. Your ideas of right and wrong are not sacrosanct, and I haven't even told you how I'll vote, I may well vote yes.

What you are saying is that YOU are right and everyone else can't be trusted.

So what if there was a plebiscite and SSM was roundly supported (as apparently all the polls suggest it would be)? Would the Australian voters still be a bunch of homophobic retards ?


I would hardly be supporting a plebiscite if I was so homophobic that I would worry about a result going against me, so what are you afraid of ?

It seems we have another one here with little faith in their fellow Australians. Why don't you move to Ireland ?
 

If the right to marry is a civil right, and I'm yet to see a coherent argument that it isn't, then voting on whether to extend or remove that right from a certain group is wholly undemocratic. A democracy is not just majority rule it's also the protection of miniority rights.

Have the ballot and get it over with, but let's not pretend it's some great exercise in democracy. It's just the remnants of a recalcitrant PM who has, thankfully, be resigned to history.
 

Well, either the public or the politicians have to vote for it, so I can't really see that a small group of people voting on something is more democratic than the whole country voting, can you ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurf1976
The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
630
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...