Same sex marriage debate...

[jirskyr]

Dont take offense to this, but after 2 mins of your psychoanalysis and self aggrandising i totally switched off.

I tried to be fair to you and went out of my way to bring you up to speed, since you kept pressing me. But my first instinct was right, your here to try and win a debating point and puff your chest out, rather than have an honest discussion.

Why else would you respond with a million word essay?

No normal person does that.

Ill know better than to take you seriously next time.

Ah turtling, right on cue. Pretty lazy to attack the person and not the argument, why not just say you don't want to discuss it any more, rather than having a go at me personally?

You don't know me, I'm not trying to win a debating contest. I'm just trying to understand how someone apparently intelligent like yourself is worried that giving gay people marriage rights is going to infringe on your future civil liberties. Your behaviour is exactly what the survey critics feared, that people would take a simple question and spin it into all sorts of nonsense about education and liberty.

I'm not alone, there are other people in here who are trying to assess what you say, but we just can't understand why you are so scared. And you are scared, you are afraid of things that might happen if some folks tie the knot, you've said so yourself. Call it concerned if you like, but concerned/scared enough to deny freedoms to certain folks in the defence of your own freedoms. I've taken your comments very seriously, weighed them up and responded. You've made a lot of comments, there's a lot of responding to be done.

You appear an otherwise regular smart person. I don't know you personally but I like what you write about the Tigers and about football in general. I'm not attacking you as a person, I am sure you are a regular Aussie like me. But on this topic I just cannot understand where you are coming from, and I'm trying, really I am, but I can only ever see a half-baked argument.

You also make some fantastically ironic comments!

You have posted on this topic 53 times over the last 11 days. That's nearly 6% of your all-time posts and you are averaging 4.8 SSM-related posts per day. In fact you haven't posted on any other topic in all that time, just this one!

I first posted on this topic 2 days ago. I've posted 11 times total or 3.7 times per day. I'm about ready to stop talking about it. I post less often than you, for less duration than you, and I concurrently talk about other things on the forum… but somehow I'm not normal. Do a word count if you'd like, see if I post more _words_ than you.

Then you say you can't take me seriously, yet I post a million word essay. Who posts a million words if they aren't being serious? I often post a million words, it's how I talk, surely you know that by now? I think and type fast, don't get weird about it.

 

[jirskyr]

I say we revisit this in 12-18 months should the yes vote win, and see the extent that wider society is affected.

Absolutely! Best thing you've said. Let homosexuals get married and worry about what else happens when it happens.

 

[Abraham]

Dont take offense to this, but after 2 mins of your psychoanalysis and self aggrandising i totally switched off.

I tried to be fair to you and went out of my way to bring you up to speed, since you kept pressing me. But my first instinct was right, your here to try and win a debating point and puff your chest out, rather than have an honest discussion.

Why else would you respond with a million word essay?

No normal person does that.

Ill know better than to take you seriously next time.

Ah turtling, right on cue. Pretty lazy to attack the person and not the argument, why not just say you don't want to discuss it any more, rather than having a go at me personally?

You don't know me, I'm not trying to win a debating contest. I'm just trying to understand how someone apparently intelligent like yourself is worried that giving gay people marriage rights is going to infringe on your future civil liberties. Your behaviour is exactly what the survey critics feared, that people would take a simple question and spin it into all sorts of nonsense about education and liberty.

I'm not alone, there are other people in here who are trying to assess what you say, but we just can't understand why you are so scared. And you are scared, you are afraid of things that might happen if some folks tie the knot, you've said so yourself. Call it concerned if you like, but concerned/scared enough to deny freedoms to certain folks in the defence of your own freedoms. I've taken your comments very seriously, weighed them up and responded. You've made a lot of comments, there's a lot of responding to be done.

You appear an otherwise regular smart person. I don't know you personally but I like what you write about the Tigers and about football in general. I'm not attacking you as a person, I am sure you are a regular Aussie like me. But on this topic I just cannot understand where you are coming from, and I'm trying, really I am, but I can only ever see a half-baked argument.

You also make some fantastically ironic comments!

You have posted on this topic 53 times over the last 11 days. That's nearly 6% of your all-time posts and you are averaging 4.8 SSM-related posts per day. In fact you haven't posted on any other topic in all that time, just this one!

I first posted on this topic 2 days ago. I've posted 11 times total or 3.7 times per day. I'm about ready to stop talking about it. I post less often than you, for less duration than you, and I concurrently talk about other things on the forum… but somehow I'm not normal. Do a word count if you'd like, see if I post more _words_ than you.

Then you say you can't take me seriously, yet I post a million word essay. Who posts a million words if they aren't being serious? I often post a million words, it's how I talk, surely you know that by now? I think and type fast, don't get weird about it.

I accepted your questions in good faith, and you responded by being extremely condescending. You were gloating that you got me to respond to you … on a forum ! Wow, who would have thought that people interact on a Forum. That's 4D-chess mind games master level stuff ... because you asked me a question and i responded.

Because this is an emotive topic for alot of people, i have responded to people as best i can who seem like they want to discuss things in a level-headed manner, and ignored others who are here just to argue for the sake of argueing.

Your post above seems more reasonable, and i hope you keep like this in the spirit of the debate.

Now to answer your question...

I have been consistent in what i have been saying all along. If we look overseas, there has been a direct connection between gay marriage being legalised and the stripping away of people's personal freedoms who have a religious or personal objection to the issue. My speal all along has been don't tell other people how to live their lives, and in return they shouldn't tell you how to live yours. If i dont want my children taught about homosexual issues in school, then they shouldn't be. If my church doens't want to marry gay couples, it shouldn't be forced to. If the local florist or baker or wedding planner doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, he shouldn't be forced to.

If the Government is not willing to put sufficient free-speech protections in place, and they have indicated they are not, then i will be voting no for my governement to pass this mystery legislation that they couldnt be botherd putting together before taking to the people.

I dont think there is anything even remotely confusing or half-baked about that.

 

[Abraham]

Because you're saying amending the Marriage Act will lead to x, y and z. Like there's a causation. I'm saying the change is part of a broader trend and opposing the amendment won't change that.

Its a given that once something is normalised under law, then it will have impacts across society.

The Marriage Act doesn't directly legislate what is taught in schools or how businesses will be affected, obviously, but because of the central place in society that Marriage holds, its tentacles feed indirectly into all other areas of the public and private sphere.

This isn't without precedent, as i have said all along, look overseas and then try and come up with a reason why Australia will be immune from these same issues of liberty and free speech.

I am realistic enough to understand that Gay Marriage is inevitable, but want it to be implemented in a manner whereby everybody's rights are taken under consideration. The USA legalized Gay Marriage years ago under dubious circumstances, and they way it was implemented is still polarizing people and communities in a huge way. I would have hoped our MPs were smart enough to take a lesson and do it properly, but that is not going to be the case.

I agree by the way that there is a broader trend across the culture for normalization of LGBT issues, but this is not legislative in the sense that it is specifically forced upon people.

 

[Abraham]

Clearly you have stated above that you have no opposition to "gay Marriage" itself but only consequences in other laws (like Anti Discrimination act, etc). The best course of action then is not to deny Marriage to a person and improve the law.

Realistic question here.

Who is going to improve the law?

The centre-left Coalition, the far-left Labor party, or the extreme-left Greens?

 

[jirskyr]

If the Government is not willing to put sufficient free-speech protections in place, and they have indicated they are not, then i will be voting no for my governement to pass this mystery legislation that they couldnt be botherd putting together before taking to the people.

I dont think there is anything even remotely confusing or half-baked about that.

I may have missed something here.

Doesn't the government always passes "mystery" legislation? Have you ever had an early look into proposed legislation before you voted for your MP or any referendum or plebiscite or survey? Do politicians ever develop ready-made legislation before they have a mandate from the people or the parliament to begin changes to the law or constitution?

The government has already summarised the proposed changes to legislation for us anyway: amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex.

 

[earl]

I am really struggling to understand the reasons behind the no vote that is being stated on this forum. It's a simple thing from what I can see. Can people who are homosexual be legally married. Simple and easy.

I have no idea what these free-speech issues are about but they have nothing at all to do with changing the marriage act to allow homosexuals to be married. To me it's crazy stuff.

Anyway I walked up to the post office and dropped my yes vote off today for statistical analysis. I really think though that this shouldn't have been even discussed by the voters. It's a human right. Just allow it.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

now even physical attack on politician on the opposite side (coward attack on Tony Abbott tonight), these idiot(s) shall be tarted and feathered, and definitely locked away for a few years :bash

 

[goldcoast_tiger]

now even physical attack on politician on the opposite side (coward attack on Tony Abbott tonight), these idiot(s) shall be tarted and feathered, and definitely locked away for a few years :bash

Tarted????are we still on about Bakers?????

 

[Yossarian]

now even physical attack on politician on the opposite side (coward attack on Tony Abbott tonight), these idiot(s) shall be tarted and feathered, and definitely locked away for a few years :bash

Tarred and feathered? Why not get the stocks out too? Probably a simple assault charge will suffice. Dopey thing to do. Tasmanians huh!

 

[newtiger]

All this boils down to one question:

Do you think you have the right to tell people how to live their life, and what moral choices they can and can't make?

Well depends what you mean by "tell". If you mean "advise" or "declare" then sure, then yes, you absolutely have the right to give your opinion on what people should and shouldn't do; freedom of speech. You just don't have the right to compel them to adhere to that opinion.

You also should not have the right to deny someone a civil right because they are different to you. That is what the SSM question is, "should THEY be allowed to marry?". Doesn't matter why someone might say "no", the act of saying no is a wish to deny equal rights. Same-sex couples have the same rights as all other Australians except marriage, and that last part should be changed. It's none of anyone's business if gay people marry, just let them do it same as the hetero couples.

We are going back to square one with these questions you are raising. Your simplifying things to the point that they don't represent the reality we are weighing up.

My belief is that free speech is absolute.

If allowing gay people to marry means nobody else is effected, then fine.

If allowing gay people to marry means other people's rights are trodden on and freedoms are curtailed for a large section of society, for the benefit of literally a minuscule portion of the population, then absolutely no. That's not how freedom works.

<big>The government needs to do this properly</big>, not piece-meal, not play lets hide the legislation, and not allow people's freedom of conscious and freedom of speech to be impeded. They need to get it right, and they haven't got it right.

That's what worries me Governments doing something/anything right!

 

[newtiger]

now even physical attack on politician on the opposite side (coward attack on Tony Abbott tonight), these idiot(s) shall be tarted and feathered, and definitely locked away for a few years :bash

It's a wonder that he guy didn't cop a flogging as Abbott can more then handle himself.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

now even physical attack on politician on the opposite side (coward attack on Tony Abbott tonight), these idiot(s) shall be tarted and feathered, and definitely locked away for a few years :bash

Years ago I was bashed a lot more serious than that by a Christian mob very similar to that of the Sydney Uni no campaign - and I was arrested rather than the perpetrators!

 

[stryker]

This thread is crazy. It started as a poorly written love note to Ian Roberts and morphed into a battle between some of this forums most celebrated blowhards, each arguing points that the others are paying very little attention to.
You can just see them scurrying off to the furthest reaches of the web to try and locate that one fact that will one up their rivals, then posting their 5000 word essays in the vain hope they impress one of us. Guess what guys? No one is reading your boring thoughts.
Carry on though…it is a laugh I suppose.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Styrker, to us we are only sideline bit players but to others this a crucial issue. Gays have waited for thousands of years for this opportunity (and it's only a p…weak pleba) and the conservatives see the collapse of western civilisation at hand. For myself it is just a fairness issue. It is more important than footie and on about the same par as the damage done by poker machines.

Image the anguish of parents whose children have suicided due to discrimination, self doubt and even self hate because they were brought up to hate gays.

 

[stryker]

I am not arguing against the idea, im laughing at the way both sides are presenting their cases…
No campign...society may fall if its passed
Yes campaign...if its not passed the bigots and homophobes win.
Both ideaologies are flawed and ultimately incorrect IMO.

 

[jirskyr]

This thread is crazy. It started as a poorly written love note to Ian Roberts and morphed into a battle between some of this forums most celebrated blowhards, each arguing points that the others are paying very little attention to.

One last blowhard to complete the deck, welcome.

 

[colmcd]

Clearly you have stated above that you have no opposition to "gay Marriage" itself but only consequences in other laws (like Anti Discrimination act, etc). The best course of action then is not to deny Marriage to a person and improve the law.

Realistic question here.

Who is going to improve the law?

The centre-left Coalition, the far-left Labor party, or the extreme-left Greens?

Firstly lets get our politics correct. Abbott is from the Radical extreme right, he has even broken his election promises to push his right wing agenda. He pushed many fringe right wingers up. Turnbull formed a slightly more wet coalition, but still with people of the Center right (Bishop), The incompetent right (Morrison) the soft right and the hard right (ie. Dutton, Barnaby, etc.)… All in all they are on the right. They are also in government.
ALP, currently lead by the Vic right aka Bill Shorten, although the Left have more sway in the ALP.
\
\
So, to your question:
"Who is going to improve the law? "

Good question.

My first answer is which law. If you are referring to the draft bills around SSM, Parliament has already opened an enquiry to look at how the law can be implemented and issues around it's implementation overseas (look Matty Moylan making a run for C'town Oval).
http://www.aph.gov.au/select_ssm see "report" link at the bottom.

We already saw that this inquiry extended the exemptions from Religious ministers, too Religious ministers, Celebrants and Religious institutions. Malcolm Turnbull has opened the possibility of further exemptions applying and adding John Howard's input. (this is Year late homework.... (oh No, Braith Anasta is trying to jump on the bus... shut the door now!)

If you are talking about existing anti discrimination laws.. These will not be changed. Which will make things interesting, but probably not onerously so. Judges not only read the letter of the law, they do read the arguments and intention of the law that parliament puts to debate. (Buddy Franklin coming to the tigers to be our Halfback..?? Sorry not paying your freight.) Where the Marriage act is changed it may offer greater protections to those concerned.

Ultimately we have to let people do their jobs. Better we do our jobs well and clearly indicate what result we want, then get hung up on side points detached to the real issue (are the tigers trainers wearing Green headbands or pink). Parliament is there to make and scrutinise legislation. The SSM legislation has been incredibly hotly debated and well scrutinised. I don't think there is great numbers in either house letting it through, so whatever bill comes forward it is going to go through the EYE of NOD before passing either house and not waved through.

Malcolm Turnbull is walking a tightrope of stability tougher then Mcguire... I mean Haslier... I mean Paul McGregor. He needs to keep his numbers stable, he will even listen to his backbench.

 

[stryker]

This thread is crazy. It started as a poorly written love note to Ian Roberts and morphed into a battle between some of this forums most celebrated blowhards, each arguing points that the others are paying very little attention to.

One last blowhard to complete the deck, welcome.

At least this response is concise…its a start.

 

[Tiger_Tim]

I can understand you not mentioning the Bible as it is very embarrassing, for example, not letting a witch to live, homosexuality is an abomination. So the Bible can form the background of people's thinking even if they don't quote it. The Bible is like the devil whispering evil things in your ear.

Your getting off topic with your bigotted rantings … it was only a matter of time before you couldn't contain yourself any longer.

As you should know, being the Biblical expert you are, the Holy Bible is the literature that forms the cornerstone of Western Civilization, the most free and compassionate of civilisations to ever exist in all of humanity. So you're more than a little off in your analysis.

Its funny you mention evil, do you believe that evil exists? It seems you do, because you have mentioned it in your response.

I ask because good, evil and morality itself cannot exist in naturalist/atheist philosophy. Nearly all intellectual atheists admit this ... yet i can bet my last dollar that you cannot explain evil without putting God firmly in the paradigm.

Probably a good idea not to start intellectual fights that you have no chance in hell of winning.

The Bible was used to it's utmost to keep civilisation brutal and stupid. It was used to justify slavery, to justify killing witches, to impede science, to corrupt philosophy, to hoodwink the ignorant, to scorn homosexuality, to prevent women from obtaining equality etc. etc..

I was obviously using the evil word in an everyday sense and you are only creating a false philosophical position in an attempt to obfuscate.

You cannot mention intellectualism and the Bible in the same breath - there are the ultimate contradiction.

Got no problems with people who believe in religon, the bible,God, or whatever.
but my opinion of the bible is that its just a book that contains a whole lot of stories, put together and rewritten and retranslated over a hell of a long time, and like the koran, the stories have changed slightly each time that its been translated, until by now, the stories are probably far from what was originally intended.

Keep in mind these stories were mostlikely written and put together by (in most cases) people who had hardly been outside the village they were born in , and probably believed that the Earth was flat.
I cant see how anyone could put their confidence in what was written so long ago.when the world was an incredibly different place.
Even now, with the knowledge of current happenings in the world, if you started a story, and told one person to repeat it to another person, and for them to repeat it again to someone else, by the time it had gone through twenty people, the story would likely mean nothing like the original,

I've got a relation who I have had a heap of debates on religion with (friendly ones mostly ) over a wine or three , and whenever hes asked a difficult question , he ,like most bible followers, drops back on the old line "it's Gods will) or another one of the great escapes .

People can believe what they like, but id rather read something that unites people rather than bibles, korans and most other religious books that often cause more trouble than their worth,
My opinion( thats all it is) is that the Bible, or any other story book has no place in determining whether any two people who want to marry each other , can or cant do it.
Who knows, maybe some of the disciples may have batted for the other side , stranger things have happened , and they really loved that Boys club

I agree with you. I believe the bible is just made up stories that somebody put out there and people believed in it and it continued on. Someone else probably saw this and got jealous and wrote his own book and called it the Koran and said this is the REAL story, and so on. In the end if you believe in something then good on you as long as you don't try and preach or convert me then i'm happy for you.
My wife and son are church goers which is great because i get some peace and quiet sunday morning to read the paper and watch Sports Sunday.

Not long ago we were sitting at the dinner table and my son says 'Dad why don't you believe in God?' so i told him my thoughts. His comeback was ' Because you don't believe in God you won't come to heaven with me and Mum, you'll go to hell'. Pretty heavy for him to think this but i assured him that i'm a betting man and i'll take the punt on it.