Value Collector
Have courage, and be kind.
- Joined
- 13 January 2014
- Posts
- 12,017
- Reactions
- 8,294
All i see is a bunch of red herrings, what worries you the most?
Same sex marriage - Yes or No?
- Thread starter tech/a
- Start date
- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,839
- Reactions
- 601
So according to Tisme, SSM equates to child abuse.
Why don't you go bash a few poofters and get it out of your system FFS.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,361
- Reactions
- 7,234
How does it look/feel as a gay parent to have the straight community discussing what they think of their families, their lives, their role-in-the-destruction-of-civilisation-as-we-know-it.
Food for thought in this article. Worth reading to to the end.
Same-sex marriage vote: It's upsetting and hurtful to have people judge our lives
Show comments
Last Saturday morning, my partner and I and our six-year-old son were sitting in a busy cafe eating breakfast. Our boy was drawing the farm that he fervently wants us to move to, complete with windmill, orchard, roadside vegetable stall, farm house, his bedroom, mummies' bedroom.
The cafe was crowded. Two clean-cut young men sat down beside us and proceeded to talk. They were loud – it was noisy. They discussed football, work, whether they should order the eggs benedict or the chilli scramble, arrangements for one's impending wedding, and … the marriage equality postal survey.
I braced myself for a rant against same-sex marriage – about how LGBTIQ folk such as myself are terrible and "cruel" parents, and how our son sitting there drawing his dream farm was part of a "stolen generation".
But, mercifully, it didn't come: the two fellows touched upon the subject lightly, agreed that it was a stupid waste of money and that the "yes" vote is a no-brainer, then moved on to other things.
But as I sat there, tense, waiting for them to say something upsetting, I realised that I really didn't want to hear what the hell they thought, not anything at all about their views on the issue – positive or negative. I wanted to eat my eggs, and label my boy's drawing with the broccoli patch and cow paddock, and mind my own business and have everyone else mind theirs.
I realised that I was trying desperately not to listen: but, of course, I had no choice. It's not the kind of thing you can easily block out, when others idly discuss your fate.
And the fact is, the conversation could so easily have gone the other way, which is why I was so edgy. What about that other couple, sitting a little further down the table – what would they say? And that group over there in the corner? What judgments might they like to loudly air about my "lifestyle"?
People like me are simply not safe in a public space at the moment, especially in the virtual public space of social media. The attacks could come at any time, from anywhere, and so we're wary, on guard – even more than usual.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sa...e-people-judge-our-lives-20170908-gydctl.html
Food for thought in this article. Worth reading to to the end.
Same-sex marriage vote: It's upsetting and hurtful to have people judge our lives
- Naomi Stead
Show comments
Last Saturday morning, my partner and I and our six-year-old son were sitting in a busy cafe eating breakfast. Our boy was drawing the farm that he fervently wants us to move to, complete with windmill, orchard, roadside vegetable stall, farm house, his bedroom, mummies' bedroom.
The cafe was crowded. Two clean-cut young men sat down beside us and proceeded to talk. They were loud – it was noisy. They discussed football, work, whether they should order the eggs benedict or the chilli scramble, arrangements for one's impending wedding, and … the marriage equality postal survey.
I braced myself for a rant against same-sex marriage – about how LGBTIQ folk such as myself are terrible and "cruel" parents, and how our son sitting there drawing his dream farm was part of a "stolen generation".
But, mercifully, it didn't come: the two fellows touched upon the subject lightly, agreed that it was a stupid waste of money and that the "yes" vote is a no-brainer, then moved on to other things.
But as I sat there, tense, waiting for them to say something upsetting, I realised that I really didn't want to hear what the hell they thought, not anything at all about their views on the issue – positive or negative. I wanted to eat my eggs, and label my boy's drawing with the broccoli patch and cow paddock, and mind my own business and have everyone else mind theirs.
I realised that I was trying desperately not to listen: but, of course, I had no choice. It's not the kind of thing you can easily block out, when others idly discuss your fate.
And the fact is, the conversation could so easily have gone the other way, which is why I was so edgy. What about that other couple, sitting a little further down the table – what would they say? And that group over there in the corner? What judgments might they like to loudly air about my "lifestyle"?
People like me are simply not safe in a public space at the moment, especially in the virtual public space of social media. The attacks could come at any time, from anywhere, and so we're wary, on guard – even more than usual.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/sa...e-people-judge-our-lives-20170908-gydctl.html
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,361
- Reactions
- 7,234
One of the issues that makes this discussion very difficult is the determination by many people to just repeatand repeat statements that, actually, are not fact.
Seven common myths in the marriage equality debate
I have long been involved in one of the key civil rights causes of our day: the struggle for marriage equality. As a lawyer in Canada in the past, I was involved in same-sex marriage litigation in that country. That was early in the last decade, around 2002. Ever since, I have written about the issue and engaged in debate about it. I now feel I've heard it all – all the arguments against marriage equality. And I feel very confident at this point saying that none of the arguments against marriage equality holds up in the light of logic.
Myth 1: Definitions like "marriage" don't change. Actually, they do. Societies change, and in turn social definitions change too. Social definitions are not the same as scientific definitions, which either don't change (eg, 'triangle') or change infrequently (eg, 'planet'). Social definitions are constantly being updated. For example, the definition of voter – our most important marker of citizenship – only recently came to include Indigenous voters (1963) and 18-year-olds (1973). Previously, you needed to be non-Indigenous and 21. In earlier decades you also needed to be male and to have substantial property holdings. Things change.
If marriage equality becomes a legal reality, this will allow everyone to make choices based on their personal convictions. Photo: AAP
Myth 2: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Actually the current Australian law on this dates from 2004. While Western marriage has tended in recent decades and centuries to be a largely heterosexual institution, Western societies have also held changing attitudes toward marriage in centuries past. Even the Catholic Church once sanctified certain forms of same-sex relationships.
In any case, the fact that something is (or isn't) historically unchanged is neither here nor there in a moral sense. As Judge Posner in the US said at the Court of Appeals, '[t]radition per se … cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination – regardless of the age of the tradition'. If tradition mattered more than anything else, then of course we would need to hold on to some other Western traditions (eg, slavery, and capital punishment for property theft). Things change, as they should.
Myth 3: Children need opposite-sex parents to thrive. Simply untrue and debunked in countless studies. See here. In a society where we must live together in mutual respect, we cannot base public policy on intuition and anecdote. We must instead look at what actual evidence is available. The fact that you grew up with a mum and dad and turned out OK does not count as adequate evidence.
Myth 4: Keeping the traditional definition of marriage is harmless. Again, look at the evidence. One of the most important arguments for legally recognising same-sex marriage is that the current definition excludes a segment of society from being socially viewed as equal. That is, legal exclusion expresses a society's refusal to express that everyone has equal status. Thus it is no surprise that young people who are "different" (eg, by being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex or queer) from the rest of society suffer far higher rates of depression and suicide. Specifically, the studies show that it is the absence of marriage equality that reduces mental health.
Myth 5: You can have equality without calling it same-sex "marriage". The argument here is that a term like "civil union" is just as good, since it secures many of the same tangible benefits. For example, in a state that recognises same-sex civil unions, partners have the right to be contacted as next of kin by hospitals when something goes wrong. These benefits are undoubtedly useful. But as we have long known, at least since the days of "separate but equal" schools, separateness amounts to symbolic inequality. The point of including everyone within the same terminology ("marriage") is to express an equality of status.
Myth 6: Marriage equality affects religious freedom. No, it doesn't. It is clear that any marriage equality law passed in Australia will exempt religious celebrants from having to officiate same-sex weddings.
A related myth is that legalising same-sex marriage affects the freedom of speech of those who oppose it on religious grounds. This is also incorrect. The fact that a law is on the books does not mean you are barred from disagreeing with it, any more than you are barred from disagreeing with the current law. The new law would affect only who can get married.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/seven-common-myths-in-the-marriage-equality-debate-20170831-gy84vu
Seven common myths in the marriage equality debate
- Ron Levy
I have long been involved in one of the key civil rights causes of our day: the struggle for marriage equality. As a lawyer in Canada in the past, I was involved in same-sex marriage litigation in that country. That was early in the last decade, around 2002. Ever since, I have written about the issue and engaged in debate about it. I now feel I've heard it all – all the arguments against marriage equality. And I feel very confident at this point saying that none of the arguments against marriage equality holds up in the light of logic.
Myth 1: Definitions like "marriage" don't change. Actually, they do. Societies change, and in turn social definitions change too. Social definitions are not the same as scientific definitions, which either don't change (eg, 'triangle') or change infrequently (eg, 'planet'). Social definitions are constantly being updated. For example, the definition of voter – our most important marker of citizenship – only recently came to include Indigenous voters (1963) and 18-year-olds (1973). Previously, you needed to be non-Indigenous and 21. In earlier decades you also needed to be male and to have substantial property holdings. Things change.
If marriage equality becomes a legal reality, this will allow everyone to make choices based on their personal convictions. Photo: AAP
Myth 2: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Actually the current Australian law on this dates from 2004. While Western marriage has tended in recent decades and centuries to be a largely heterosexual institution, Western societies have also held changing attitudes toward marriage in centuries past. Even the Catholic Church once sanctified certain forms of same-sex relationships.
In any case, the fact that something is (or isn't) historically unchanged is neither here nor there in a moral sense. As Judge Posner in the US said at the Court of Appeals, '[t]radition per se … cannot be a lawful ground for discrimination – regardless of the age of the tradition'. If tradition mattered more than anything else, then of course we would need to hold on to some other Western traditions (eg, slavery, and capital punishment for property theft). Things change, as they should.
Myth 3: Children need opposite-sex parents to thrive. Simply untrue and debunked in countless studies. See here. In a society where we must live together in mutual respect, we cannot base public policy on intuition and anecdote. We must instead look at what actual evidence is available. The fact that you grew up with a mum and dad and turned out OK does not count as adequate evidence.
Myth 4: Keeping the traditional definition of marriage is harmless. Again, look at the evidence. One of the most important arguments for legally recognising same-sex marriage is that the current definition excludes a segment of society from being socially viewed as equal. That is, legal exclusion expresses a society's refusal to express that everyone has equal status. Thus it is no surprise that young people who are "different" (eg, by being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex or queer) from the rest of society suffer far higher rates of depression and suicide. Specifically, the studies show that it is the absence of marriage equality that reduces mental health.
Myth 5: You can have equality without calling it same-sex "marriage". The argument here is that a term like "civil union" is just as good, since it secures many of the same tangible benefits. For example, in a state that recognises same-sex civil unions, partners have the right to be contacted as next of kin by hospitals when something goes wrong. These benefits are undoubtedly useful. But as we have long known, at least since the days of "separate but equal" schools, separateness amounts to symbolic inequality. The point of including everyone within the same terminology ("marriage") is to express an equality of status.
Myth 6: Marriage equality affects religious freedom. No, it doesn't. It is clear that any marriage equality law passed in Australia will exempt religious celebrants from having to officiate same-sex weddings.
A related myth is that legalising same-sex marriage affects the freedom of speech of those who oppose it on religious grounds. This is also incorrect. The fact that a law is on the books does not mean you are barred from disagreeing with it, any more than you are barred from disagreeing with the current law. The new law would affect only who can get married.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/seven-common-myths-in-the-marriage-equality-debate-20170831-gy84vu
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Can someone run it by me why this minority group wants to change the definition of marriage again?
Because slavery has been abolished? Slavery = SSM
The voting age has been lowered to 18? Voting age = SSM
Capital punishment for theft has been abolished? Capital punishment = SSM
The Catholic church once sanctified homosexuality? Catholic church = SSM
Lack of evidence that kids turn out OK with natural (male/female) parents? Male/female parenting is a risk
Absence of homosexual marriage reduces mental health? Homosexuals have mental health issues.
Ron Levy. What a fantastic distortion.
Male / female marriage and the associated raisng of offspring does not equal anything else.
Because slavery has been abolished? Slavery = SSM
The voting age has been lowered to 18? Voting age = SSM
Capital punishment for theft has been abolished? Capital punishment = SSM
The Catholic church once sanctified homosexuality? Catholic church = SSM
Lack of evidence that kids turn out OK with natural (male/female) parents? Male/female parenting is a risk
Absence of homosexual marriage reduces mental health? Homosexuals have mental health issues.
Ron Levy. What a fantastic distortion.
Male / female marriage and the associated raisng of offspring does not equal anything else.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,598
- Reactions
- 12,720
Stated often enough on he various threads.
But an additional thing that worries me? The social programming. Friendships are being lost over the issue, because of the conduct of the yes campaign. Both Turnbull and especially Shorten made me physically want to vomit today.... A straight man claiming a rainbow coalition? Absolutely ludicrous.
More than ever now, I am resolutely no. Where once I didn't care about anyones sexuality. now I do, especially their sexual politics. Where once I was sympathetic, Now I say anyone who wants to call me names bases on a political concern, can just go straight to hell.
No soup for you.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
It seems, to me, that you may be making the error of responding to an irrational proposal with a series of rational questions.
Lovely as it would be if it were to somehow happen, do you seriously expect to receive rational responses?
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
The justifications are imaginitive. A lawyers persuasive comments.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Turnbull and Shorten are grovelling sycophants trying to gain popular favour by grandstanding on this issue, it will get through easily without any in depth discussion about the implications
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
I am hoping the NO VOTE wins.
Civil Unions give homosexuals the exact same rights as heterosexuals
There is a reason why Marriage is as it is.
Marriage is Father, Mother, Child.
imv, this is the last swing to destroy Western Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture
mother and father
ladies and gentlemen
VOTE NO.
Stand up for the Family.
------------------------------------------------
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/
Civil Unions give homosexuals the exact same rights as heterosexuals
There is a reason why Marriage is as it is.
Marriage is Father, Mother, Child.
imv, this is the last swing to destroy Western Culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture
mother and father
ladies and gentlemen
VOTE NO.
Stand up for the Family.
------------------------------------------------
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/is-political-correctness-going-too-far.18326/
It really amazes me this debate is still occurring in this thread, it's the same regurgitated arguments from both sides, I doubt anyone has altered their judgement at all and if not probably strengthened their position. It's disgraceful the government has put us in this position and wasted tax payer dollars in the process.
- Joined
- 24 May 2009
- Posts
- 3,252
- Reactions
- 255
It is disgraceful that communists feel they can speak for us -- especially the Greens.
Where is your argument FOR same sex marriage.
For what reason should marriage change to genderless.
Love wins, with no boundaries, no gender, no age......
Marriage is about FAMILY.
One man and one woman.
Where is your argument FOR same sex marriage.
For what reason should marriage change to genderless.
Love wins, with no boundaries, no gender, no age......
Marriage is about FAMILY.
One man and one woman.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Waste taxpayers money ? Our Vic Premier Danial Andrews blew $1.2 Billion on cancelling the East West freeway , that we still need.
$120Million is chicken feed for what is an important issue.
What if "us" are actually a minority on the subject and you actually think you can speak for the majority on the subject who support SSM, take this thread for example where the majority of votes support SSM but the loudest voices are those from the no camp.
You've been in this thread since the start, if you're unaware of what the argument for SSM is then repeating it now would just make me the fool.
I don't see why one can't be equally angry that both are a waste. We elect our politicians to represent us and make decisions on important issues, this shouldn't be any different.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,685
- Reactions
- 11,997
I'd agree with that if people actually accepted the 18 Parliamentary votes on SSM that have been held in the past and resulted in NO.
Obviously some people don't take NO for an answer, they are they loudest voices in this campaign.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Give me one good reason why SSM is so unimportant that it just requires a vote by the nitwits in Canberra without the people having a say, but don't worry homossexuals will be free to express themselves in public very soon and children will be told that it's normal.
How many votes are too many where the issue should never be raised again? What sort of time frame should occur before a re-vote can occur? The 18 votes have mostly been private members bills that never made the floor.
Because the marriage act was so unimportant in 2001 that Howard altered the definition without a public vote, that shouldn't be any different now.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,685
- Reactions
- 11,997
Well you either accept what the politicians say as you supported before or you keep going untill you get the result "you" want.
If there is so much support for SSM in the community its supporters should not be afraid of a public vote.
