Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

Using VC's logic, I would suggest the Irish would love to have a second crack at the SSM vote ......


So if it does get up here should the opposite side get to have as many votes as it takes to reverse the perverse?

 

[SirRumpole]

Using VC's logic, I would suggest the Irish would love to have a second crack at the SSM vote ......


So if it does get up here should the opposite side get to have as many votes as it takes to reverse the perverse?

The gay lobby want the politicians to keep voting until they get it "right" .

 

[Tisme]

The gay lobby want the politicians to keep voting until they get it "right" .

Which is what I'm saying too ... good on the gay lobby for that, we should encourage it, because they will no doubt get taxpayer funding to fight their fight and put up a good sales pitch.

 

[Value Collector]

The anti-referendum, 'equality' crowd - have already lost the argument once they start advocating the abandonment of democratic principles to get their own way.

Here's the inconvenient thing about a plebiscite: it forces full ventilation of all the arguments on each side. Yet our morally superior betters in the same sex marriage lobby shrink away from that.

So many of those lecturing us on the cost of a $150 mill plebiscite - were the same ones who sat idly by while Rudd-Gillard-Rudd drove the national accounts to the brink, billions into deficit.

If the same-sex marriage case is so strong, what is there to fear from everyday Australian exercising their democratic right to have a say?

Gays will have to wait a little longer to hop aboard the Jenny Macklin cadged hand outs gravy train.

I am not scared of a referendum, I think we would win easily.

However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.

eg, If the southern US states voted to keep slavery, would that make slavery moral? Yes or NO.

And would the government in the USA be justified in Banning enslaving a minority even if the majority voted to allow it? Yes or NO

 

[luutzu]

I am not scared of a referendum, I think we would win easily.

However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.

eg, If the southern US states voted to keep slavery, would that make slavery moral? Yes or NO.

And would the government in the USA be justified in Banning enslaving a minority even if the majority voted to allow it? Yes or NO

welcome back. All refreshed to rights the wrongs again?

 

[SirRumpole]

However, I am just pointing out the popularity of an idea says nothing about whether its the right thing to do.

Surely you must realise that the idea of "right" and "wrong" is a personal judgement ?

Gay Marriage is wrong to religious people because their Bibles tell them that it is.

You and I may think that their beliefs are laughable but they have them anyway and as you have said they have a right to have them, whether they are politicians or members of the public.

The idea of Marriage as an institution is becoming outdated as many couples decide not to bother anyway. Civil Unions provide the same Rights, as do even de facto relationships, so any comparison with slavery is really absurd.

SSM is a trivial issue when it comes to the other problems confronting the country.

 

[Value Collector]

Surely you must realise that the idea of "right" and "wrong" is a personal judgement ?

.

No, not when you are dealing with morality, in any given situation, there would be an option which would be the most moral choice, and that's not up to personal judgement, its an objective fact. Peoples opinions on what the moral answer is might differ, but that's no different to peoples opinions on the answer to a math problem, there would be answer that is most correct to the math problem that isn't affect by opinion.

Gay Marriage is wrong to religious people because their Bibles tell them that it is.

Its their opinion is wrong, But that's because they have false logic, because they are using a false premise.

Also, that's another good reason not to have a plebiscite, because debates that involve religious concepts are irrelevant, the religious can live by their rules, but they have no right to force their rules on other groups, if a law doesn't have a secular objective it has no place on the books.

You and I may think that their beliefs are laughable but they have them anyway and as you have said they have a right to have them, whether they are politicians or members of the public.

Yes they have a right to have them.

No they don't have a right to force others to live by them, if a Christian or a Muslim doesn't like gay marriage, they don't have to have one.

The idea of Marriage as an institution is becoming outdated as many couples decide not to bother anyway. Civil Unions provide the same Rights, as do even de facto relationships, so any comparison with slavery is really absurd

.

the comparison to slavery is simply showing that I popular vote doesn't make some thing right.

But, civil unions might give the same rights, and the front of the bus ends up at the same stop as the back of the bus, is it right to limit black people to the back of the bus, simply because they get to the same destination? Yes or No

SSM is a trivial issue when it comes to the other problems confronting the country

Exactly, so why would a trivial issue require a plebiscite?

 

[SirRumpole]

Exactly, so why would a trivial issue require a plebiscite?

Methinks thou doth protest too much



Are you taking the Shorten line that gays need to be protected from the No case ?

 

[Value Collector]

Are you taking the Shorten line that gays need to be protected from the No case ?

Yes, its the governments duty to provide for and protect the inalienable human rights of its citizens.

The Government should not set up a situation where a majority group has the opportunity to deny a minority group its fundamental human rights.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, its the governments duty to provide for and protect the inalienable human rights of its citizens.

The Government should not set up a situation where a majority group has the opportunity to deny a minority group its fundamental human rights.

Marriage is not a fundamental human right.

It's an official recognition of a relationship. People generally should have rights to form relationships with whoever they choose, but society puts some restraints on this through age, mental capacity and kinship for the protection of the individual and society.

Should we recognise marriages between 11 year olds ?

Of course the argument is that gays do not need protection as long as they fulfill other requirements, I'm just saying that marriage is not a "inalienable right", if such things really exist except in the collective mind of society.

 

[Tisme]

Marriage is not a fundamental human right.

It's an official recognition of a relationship. People generally should have rights to form relationships with whoever they choose, but society puts some restraints on this through age, mental capacity and kinship for the protection of the individual and society.

Should we recognise marriages between 11 year olds ?

Of course the argument is that gays do not need protection as long as they fulfill other requirements, I'm just saying that marriage is not a "inalienable right", if such things really exist except in the collective mind of society.

Thank goodness (apart from locking kids up in gulags on melanesian islands) we don't have a charter of human rights, otherwise we'd have to consider the "inalienable human rights" challenge. If the high court considers it alright for the govt to do whatever it wants ........

 

[Value Collector]

Marriage is not a fundamental human right.

.

Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.

Where the infringement of human rights goes in, is where the government decides which marriages it will recognise and which it wont, When the government chooses to recognise marriages based on sexuality, that is an infringement of a persons basic human right to not face discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

Should we recognise marriages between 11 year olds ?

No, because an 11 year old is generally considered not to have the emotional maturity and independence to to consent to it.

Of course the argument is that gays do not need protection as long as they fulfill other requirements, I'm just saying that marriage is not a "inalienable right", if such things really exist except in the collective mind of society

As explained, the inalienable right is to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, deciding to not recognise marriages based on sexuality is a breach of this, the UN mentions this is their universal declaration of human rights.

 

[Tisme]

Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.

.

Yeah but you want our govt to interfere with that and force our social construct to accept your social construct.... and our social construct gets to pay the costs associated with your social construct.

 

[SirRumpole]

Well marriage is a social construct that humans employ, they exist regardless whether the government recognises them or not.

Sorry to nitpick, but it's the relationships that exist, marriages don't untill they are officially recognised.

 

[Value Collector]

Sorry to nitpick, but it's the relationships that exist, marriages don't untill they are officially recognised.

a Marriage is the name we give a certain type of relationship, Marriages existed before governments got into the business of recognising them, they predate all world governments and all religions.

What you are talking about is legally recognised marriage, Marriage can be recognized by a state, an organization, a religious authority, a tribal group, a local community, peers or even just by the mutual agreement of those participants.

Some same sex couples actually got married in the Act when same sex marriage was legalised there, only to later have their federal government end their "legal marriage" Status, this is clear discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So yes there are marriages that exist, that are not "legally recognised" by the state, the fact that they are not recognised doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Value Collector]

Yeah but you want our govt to interfere with that and force our social construct to accept your social construct.... and our social construct gets to pay the costs associated with your social construct.

No, I just want the government to retract the changes that the Howard government made to the marriage act, without those changes the states could legalise gay marriage, as the ACT did.

I don't care if you accept gay marriage, if you don't like it don't have one, I just want the government to recognise marriages equally

 

[Tisme]

, I just want the government to recognise marriages equally

Isn't that what they are doing already?

 

[Value Collector]

Isn't that what they are doing already?

Nope, they only recognise marriages between one man and one woman, they refuse to recognise the marriages between two men or two women.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nope, they only recognise marriages between one man and one woman, they refuse to recognise the marriages between two men or two women.

So why not 5 women and 1 man ? After all it's not the governments business if they all consent is it ?


Why not multiple marriages where I can have as many wives as I want (God help me) and my wives can have as many husbands as they want ?

 

[Value Collector]

So why not 5 women and 1 man ? After all it's not the governments business if they all consent is it ?

I have no moral objection to polygamy, provided all participants are consenting adults. Polygamous marriages most likely predate monogamous ones.

So it would be up to a person who is against it to answer your "why not" question.

but polygamy is a separate topic.