Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

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.

I am not sure why you can not just admit that its possible for the popular vote to be wrong, and that sometimes the best decisions may be the unpopular one.

History is littered with concepts which can be shown to be immoral, that at the time were probably very popular concepts, and would have won a vote.

I personally feel that the pro gay marriage side would win a plebiscite, all I am saying is that whether it wins or not doesn't affect whether it is moral or not. The vote just shows whether a concept is popular.

I know you are a fan of logical fallacies, the one you have committed here is the argument from popularity,

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.
If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief

.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

 

[SirRumpole]

I am not sure why you can not just admit that its possible for the popular vote to be wrong, and that sometimes the best decisions may be the unpopular one.

History is littered with concepts which can be shown to be immoral, that at the time were probably very popular concepts, and would have won a vote.

I personally feel that the pro gay marriage side would win a plebiscite, all I am saying is that whether it wins or not doesn't affect whether it is moral or not. The vote just shows whether a concept is popular.

I know you are a fan of logical fallacies, the one you have committed here is the argument from popularity,

.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

What I'm saying is "who should decide what is 'moral' " ?

Kindly answer that question before going off on tangents.

 

[McLovin]

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 ?

Yes. I can. A group cannot be denied its civil rights. It is not up to the majority of the voting population to decide whether or not to enfranchise them. That's why we have a legislature an executive and a judiciary. The rights of minorities require as much protection as the rule of the majority. And it is the role of government to ensure that protection. So, like I said, unless someone can mount a reasonable argument as to why the right to marry is not universal I don't see why it shouldn't be extended universally.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes. I can. A group cannot be denied its civil rights..

If marriage was a "civil right", then it's a matter that could be decided in court via the Anti Discrimination Act or the Constitution.

The courts have said it's a matter for Parliament. The Parliament represents us, so...

 

[sinner]

so what are you afraid of ?

Honestly? That people like you might make up enough of our populace to be the majority and the kind of country and future that entails for the rest of us.

Stop telling me to leave. You leave, off to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other nutjobs.

 

[McLovin]

If marriage was a "civil right", then it's a matter that could be decided in court via the Anti Discrimination Act or the Constitution.

What part of the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Constitution would be used to challenge the existing legislation?

The courts have said it's a matter for Parliament. The Parliament represents us, so...

So what? How does that negate anything I've said? Do you disagree that the parliament shouldn't be allowed to disenfranchise a group of people?

 

[SirRumpole]

Honestly? That people like you might make up enough of our populace to be the majority and the kind of country and future that entails for the rest of us.

Stop telling me to leave. You leave, off to Saudi Arabia or Russia with the other nutjobs.

You told me to leave first.

So you are gay ?

Nothing to be afraid of if you are.

So you don't believe the polls that say that SSM is supported by a majority of the population ?

Why not ?

 

[SirRumpole]

What part of the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Constitution would be used to challenge the existing legislation?

That's why I say it's not a matter for the Courts, it's not in their jurisdiction.

So what? How does that negate anything I've said? Do you disagree that the parliament shouldn't be allowed to disenfranchise a group of people?

Well, obviously they have done just that and have decided to let us have a vote on it. I just don't see the problem with that, it's called democracy.

 

[McLovin]

Well, obviously they have done just that and have decided to let us have a vote on it. I just don't see the problem with that, it's called democracy.

That doesn't answer my question. If it wasn't something you disagree with would you take such a nonchalant attitude toward it?

I guess you're OK with stripping citizens of their citizenship too. As long as their muslim. 'Cause ya know it doesn't affect you so who cares. It's called democracy!

 

[sinner]

You told me to leave first.

This is the internet, not the schoolyard, so let me refresh your memory:

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.

But perhaps you're not up to scratch on a basic understanding of chronology either.

So you are gay ?

Nothing to be afraid of if you are.

Nope, not gay. Plenty of gay friends though, some of whom wish to be married but all of whom want the right to marry. I cringe with shame along with all other attendants every time I attend a heterosexual wedding (like on Friday) as the celebrant is forced to state John Howards little hetero oath.

So you don't believe the polls that say that SSM is supported by a majority of the population ?

Why not ?

As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?

 

[SirRumpole]

That doesn't answer my question. If it wasn't something you disagree with would you take such a nonchalant attitude toward it?

I don't get where you are coming from. The Parliament has repeatedly failed to resolve the SSM issue and has decided to have a vote. What is the problem ? You want to try Russia where Putin has gays thrown in gaol ?

I guess you're OK with stripping citizens of their citizenship too. As long as their muslim. 'Cause ya know it doesn't affect you so who cares.

If people of whatever religion commit crimes here and we can get rid of them, I'm all for it.

Again , what's the problem ?

 

[McLovin]

As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?

Exactly.

 

[SirRumpole]

[uote]
As VC and McLovin have already pointed out this is both a logical fallacy and utterly irrelevant. If you can't grasp the basics of logic or inalienable human rights (which are enshrined in the US Constitution as: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for all) then what is the point of attempting to hold a rational discussion on any issue with you?

Look the situation is this, the Parliament has not resolved the issue, the Courts can't , so who is left ?

The polls are on your side so why don't you just take the chance instead of knocking your fellow Australians ?

 

[sinner]

Look the situation is, the Parliament has not resolved the issue, the Courts can't , so who is left ?

The polls are on your side so why don't you just take the chance instead of knocking your fellow Australians ?

INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS

i.e. the rights that not me, not you, not a democratic majority, *nobody* has a right to decide, give, or rescind.

I guess I knock my fellow Australians because most of what I see is mental gymnastics that would put Kafka to shame, and the little hole in my chest where pride is supposed to go has been a barren socket for so many years now.

 

[SirRumpole]

i.e. the rights that not me, not you, not a democratic majority, *nobody* has a right to decide, give, or rescind.

I'm sorry but that is nonsensical rubbish that logic can see through immediately.

"no one has a right to give 'rights' " is what you said. If that is the case then no one has any rights at all, right ?

Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.

It seems you are saying that rights are "God given" ?

Are you religious by any chance ?

 

[McLovin]

Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.

Wrong.

 

[sinner]

I'm sorry but that is nonsensical rubbish that logic can see through immediately.

MFW SirRumpole calls a cornerstone of 200+ years of civilisation "nonsensical rubbish"

"no one has a right to give 'rights' " is what you said.

What the hell are you talking about crazy person? Inalienable human rights. Those are rights you're born with, that nobody can take away. Inalienable. You cannot be alienated from them.

Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.
It seems you are saying that rights are "God given" ?

Are you religious by any chance ?

Man. I really seriously thought I knew all of the best gymnasts on ASF, but you are really showing me how it's done. You should consider joining the Liberal party.

 

[Value Collector]

What I'm saying is "who should decide what is 'moral' " ?

Kindly answer that question before going off on tangents.

It's not a matter of deciding what is moral, the moral option will always exist as the moral option, it is the duty of the people in power to decide what laws to enact or get rid of, to bring us as close to the moral option as possible with the information they have using reason and logic and passing each option through a series of filters to test if it is a more moral than another option.

 

[SirRumpole]

Wrong.

Fraid not.

If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.

It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.

 

[McLovin]

Fraid not.

If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.

It's the legal and judicial system that enable us to enjoy our freedoms and rights and that's what people have to change if they want their rights recognised.

Ahh...Goalpost shift.

This...

If Rights are not legally enforceable then they are without substance.

Is not that same as...

Someone has to give rights that are recognised in law, either via the Constitution or legislation.