Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.

Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
And if I speak out against it I will be branded homophobic or worse.

And we really don't know the long term effect on the children, especially with male only parents which I think is more of a concern than female parents for a variety of reasons.

It's one thing to allow people to live their lives as they wish, it is another thing altogether to subsidise it.

Thank you for your "well said", and returned with interest

 

[Value Collector]

It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.

Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
And if I speak out against it I will be branded homophobic or worse.

And we really don't know the long term effect on the children, especially with male only parents which I think is more of a concern than female parents for a variety of reasons.

It's one thing to allow people to live their lives as they wish, it is another thing altogether to subsidise it.

But why should you deny the right to get married to all gays, even those that don't plan on having children?

This is called the slippery slope fallacy, you want to deny rights to people not because you have a problem with them having those rights, but because you are worried something else will happen.

The correct thing to do would be allow gays to marry, and then have another legislation banning their use of tax payer funded IVF if that's what you are worried about, and if you are worried about them raising children, go out and prove your hypothesis.

 

[SirRumpole]

The correct thing to do would be allow gays to marry, and then have another legislation banning their use of tax payer funded IVF if that's what you are worried about, and if you are worried about them raising children, go out and prove your hypothesis.

The correct thing to do is have a plebiscite on gay marriage and gay parenting access to IVF , adoption etc at the same time as they are separate but related issues. There would be some suspicion that if the gay marriage plebiscite was confirmed then the gay parenting question would not be addressed if they were held separately.

 

[awg]

It's not really the gay marriage thing that worries me, it's the next step.

Gay men using women as incubators and expecting taxpayers i.e. me, to pay for it.
Gay women who could get pregnant, using IVF unnecessarily and expecting taxpayers i.e. me to pay for it.
And if I speak out against it I will be branded homophobic or worse.

And we really don't know the long term effect on the children, especially with male only parents which I think is more of a concern than female parents for a variety of reasons.

It's one thing to allow people to live their lives as they wish, it is another thing altogether to subsidise it.

I sort of agree with some of what you are saying.. I certainly dont want to pay for other folks far-out ideas:

but what then of taxpayer IVF subsidy AT ALL for anyone?

Gods way or no way?

Overseas Adoption even = taxpayer subsidy

On telling kids the truth, no one told me about this when I had kids, seems they may not even teach medical students!

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births

so these individuals are genetically n/either male or female

has God forsaken them?

many other conditions described, a lot of folk have very mixed-up wedding tackle kit, just have to get on with it.
These physical conditions are separate from Gender Identity Disorders

 

[Knobby22]

I sort of agree with some of what you are saying.. I certainly dont want to pay for other folks far-out ideas:

but what then of taxpayer IVF subsidy AT ALL for anyone?

Gods way or no way?

Overseas Adoption even = taxpayer subsidy

On telling kids the truth, no one told me about this when I had kids, seems they may not even teach medical students!

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births

so these individuals are genetically n/either male or female

has God forsaken them?

many other conditions described, a lot of folk have very mixed-up wedding tackle kit, just have to get on with it.
These physical conditions are separate from Gender Identity Disorders

Yes, quite interesting, higher figures than I thought.
If it is a medical problem then obviously we should help....and we do!

 

[Logique]

Why are Warren Entsch and his fellow travellers so afraid of everyday Australians having a say?

We don't want elites and insiders dictating to us thanks Warren. Do the honourable thing now, and tender your resignation from the Liberal National Party.

Coalition same-sex marriage plan an ambush and thought bubble: Eric Abetz - October 22, 2015
SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...eric-abetz-20151021-gkf99w.html#ixzz3pFBiZhR4

...The Coalition's most prominent advocate of gay marriage, Queensland backbencher Warren Entsch, wants the current Parliament to introduce and pass legislation which would legalise gay marriage but only be triggered by public approval in a plebiscite.

Mr Entsch has discussed his idea, which includes mandating a plebiscite within 100 days of the next federal election, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is considering the proposal...

 

[SirRumpole]

Mr Entsch has discussed his idea, which includes mandating a plebiscite within 100 days of the next federal election, with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is considering the proposal...

It should be held AT the next election to save the taxpayer $150 million.

 

[Logique]

It should be held AT the next election to save the taxpayer $150 million.

Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.

 

[Tisme]

Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.

Agreed and put a muzzle on the debate for a generation

 

[drsmith]

Not the worst suggestion ever, and while they're at it, I'd be quite happy for them to include ballot slips for asylum seeker policy, GST, euthanasia, and the NBN.

On issues such as border security, economics and government services, we elect governments to lead and make decisions in those areas.

Only with the more social issues is there scope for a popular vote. Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.

 

[Logique]

On issues such as border security, economics and government services, we elect governments to lead and make decisions in those areas.

Only with the more social issues is there scope for a popular vote. Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.

I accept your stricture Doc.

As for daylight saving..don't get me started on daylight saving, not my favourite thing!

 

[Value Collector]

Examples of these in my view include issues such as a republic, gay marriage and daylight saving where over time there's scope for change over time in the broader public view.

That childhood song comes to mind "One of these things is not like the other", lol

replace gay marriage in the list of those three things with, slavery or women's right to vote or or equal pay for women etc and you will see its not the same as the other two you listed.

the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.

 

[SirRumpole]

the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.

I thought we had been through this before.

What is the greater minority, 225 politicians or 16,000,000 voters ?

 

[Value Collector]

What is the greater minority, 225 politicians or 16,000,000 voters ?

what are you trying to say? I think you need to re read what I actually wrote.

lets say 12,000,000 of the voters are catholic, who wouldn't mind stripping the 100,000 Methodists of their religious rights, putting such a topic to vote would mean a group in a majority position could unfairly harm a minority group, In this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.

A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group, this makes popular votes on such matters irrelevant, its not the same as voting for day light saving or a republic, several people have tried to explain this concept to you already, the decision needs to be made based on facts and evidence, not opinion.

 

[poverty]

A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group

They do if they vote for it. Surely you remember that Aborigines were only counted as part of the population as a result of the 1967 Referendum. 90% voted in favour that day, but they could have just as easily voted against it.

 

[SirRumpole]

what are you trying to say? I think you need to re read what I actually wrote.

lets say 12,000,000 of the voters are catholic, who wouldn't mind stripping the 100,000 Methodists of their religious rights, putting such a topic to vote would mean a group in a majority position could unfairly harm a minority group, In this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.

A majority does not have the right to deny rights to a minority group, this makes popular votes on such matters irrelevant, its not the same as voting for day light saving or a republic, several people have tried to explain this concept to you already, the decision needs to be made based on facts and evidence, not opinion.

SIGH.

And I've tried to explain this to you too.

The way our law is structured is that SOMEONE has to vote Gay Marriage into law. It's either a small group of politicians who can be lobbied or threatened by special interest groups on either side of the issue, or the larger population who don't have to worry about losing their seats at the next election.

Which group do you think more likely to come up with the "right" decision ?

People such as yourself seem very unsure about being to explain your position to your peers, so maybe you think your arguments won't stand up to public scrutiny ?

n this case the politicians need to just stand up and make the right decision.

So what happens if the majority of politicians are catholic ?

This is much more likely to happen in a small group than a large one so the politicians would be unrepresentative of the population.

 

[Value Collector]

They do if they vote for it. Surely you remember that Aborigines were only counted as part of the population as a result of the 1967 Referendum. 90% voted in favour that day, but they could have just as easily voted against it.

If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?

It would be the governments job to protect the rights of a minority group, not give in and allow a majority to strip them of human rights.

 

[Value Collector]

SIGH.

And I've tried to explain this to you too.

The way our law is structured is that SOMEONE has to vote Gay Marriage into law. It's either a small group of politicians who can be lobbied or threatened by special interest groups on either side of the issue, or the larger population who don't have to worry about losing their seats at the next election.

Which group do you think more likely to come up with the "right" decision ?

People such as yourself seem very unsure about being to explain your position to your peers, so maybe you think your arguments won't stand up to public scrutiny ?



So what happens if the majority of politicians are catholic ?

This is much more likely to happen in a small group than a large one so the politicians would be unrepresentative of the population.

We trust politicians to make all kinds of decisions, we don't have a referendum before major decisions such as declaring war on enough state, yet you think they aren't up to deciding whether gays should have the right to marry?

If the majority were Catholic, they should still have to show their decision is based on secular ideals by using things such as the lemon test.

 

[poverty]

If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?

You just said the majority cannot deprive a minority of their rights. Yet obviously if the votes fell that way they would have been deprived of them, as that was the law and the whole point of having the referendum.

It would be the governments job to protect the rights of a minority group, not give in and allow a majority to strip them of human rights.

No, it was the government who deprived them of it in the first place. This is where you're falling down, if you think politicians will always act in the best interest of society rather than the best interests of their own political agendas.

 

[Value Collector]

You just said the majority cannot deprive a minority of their rights. Yet obviously if the votes fell that way they would have been deprived of them, as that was the law and the whole point of having the referendum.

.

When I say the majority "can't" deprive a minority of human rights, I mean they can't legally do it, we have laws that protect the rights of minority groups.

But, you avoided my question

"If the majority of the population had voted against allowing the aboriginals to be counted as citizens, would that have made it moral to exclude them?"

if the answer is "No, it still would have been immoral to exclude them" then it makes the popular a waste of time, and the government should just step in and do the right thing.

No, it was the government who deprived them of it in the first place.

Exactly, so when a sitting government realises that a past government has messed up, and there is an immoral law on the book, they need to change, the popular opinion is irrelevant.

This is where you're falling down, if you think politicians will always act in the best interest of society rather than the best interests of their own political agendas

We put them in power to make decisions, to debate the big issues, we have seen even on this thread how the debate on this topic is constantly side tracked by logical fallacies, red herrings and religious concepts, it is much easier for a small group to nail down the facts and make a decision than it is to try and get the entire population to sit down and make a rational decision.

The parliament has no trouble changing all sorts of laws without referendums, its just this topic that brings out the political cowardice.