The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

Who is boycotting the ssm survey?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 36
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. All
AJ,

Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.

Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to. There was an incident in the NT when I was a kid, when a white bloke ran away with a 'full-blood' girl. The Welfare Officer, Harry Giese, chased them across the country until they got into WA, where they got married. Then they came back, with no further repercussions. End of.

What authorities didn't want was casual liaisons, and therefore more illegitimate kids (something which may not occur with any homosexual liaison). Marriage, they didn't mind. In the SA 1939 Aborigines Act (and in WA's legislation too), it was an offence for a white man to 'consort' with an Aboriginal woman, but not to marry her. That's how they jailed Don McLeod, on that pretext, even without any evidence of any actual liaison. In SA, courts seemed to be pretty firm but gentle with this, exploring a whitefella's intentions, and advising him to cease contact if he had no real permanent plans. If he was prepared to marry, then no worries: do it and the matter is settled.

I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ. So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really. 'Black-white = equal'; 'Man-woman = equal'. I'd advise you to move on and find grounds for homosexual 'marriage' somewhere else.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 1:59:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“Perhaps I should instead have said, “… the apparent offence and hurt,”

But there was no apparent offence or hurt so you would be lying.

“Because both are forms of marriage, and both have opponents for whom bigotry is the only reason for opposition.”

If bigotry is the only reason then why is there a need to make any comparison? We all know what bigotry is so it is enough to say that opponents of SSM are bigots. Saying that they are bigots like opponents of interracial marriage were bigots tells us nothing more. A bigot is a bigot. You can’t be more or less of a bigot so it adds nothing to the argument. It is totally unnecessary and so it must be presumed that the intent is to cast an unrelated slur against SSM opponents.

“analogies are always a useful tool for communication.”

Not if they contribute nothing to the description of bigotry which we already have.

“Indeed, both same-sex marriages and mixed marriages have precisely the same meritorious argument in favour of them: equality.”

Equality is not an argument – it is a value in certain situations but not all situations. There is no argument to prove that it is of value in this situation.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot-on, Phanto, thanks !

Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ: witness my ludicrous vegetable and shell-fish examples.

Gramscians will use 'whatever means necessary' to tear down bourgeois society and replace it with - what ? - I don't know, I can't even imagine, except perhaps nothingness. I felt very sorry for Gramsci, the leader of the Italian Communist Party in the 1920s, a cripple jailed for fifteen years by the Fascists in Italy - and the working class did nothing for him, for the Party, for socialism, and instead supported Mussolini. So proletarian revolution was out: what else ? Well, whatever could be used to tear down bourgeois institutions.

So the long-term strategy to use 'useful idiots' like adolescent uni students, homosexuals, anybody who had a gripe against the 'system'. As for tactics, use whatever works: violence, slander, shouting people down, accusing everybody but yourself of being a 'bigot', etc.

Well, it's working so far :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:30:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting to see how many people regard homosexuality as immoral, but fraud as totally fine. And all in the 'no' camp. If ever there was a case for ethics education in schools...

Fraud is not OK, people. It's criminal and it's wrong. Clearly some people's parents didn't raise them very well.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:35:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, Joe, I don’t know it.

<<Incredibly weak arguments there, and i think you know it.>>

And it’s a little strange for you to claim this after how disastrous your last attempt at portraying the analogy as ‘racist’ was:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229227

<<Any inter-racial couple, a man and a woman, can marry, and in Australia, have always been able to.>>

Correct.

However, I have already explained that this is irrelevant because the issue is not about what HAS been legal, but what SHOULD be legal.

The question of whether interracial marriage SHOULD be legal is independent of whether it HAS always been legal, because what HAS been done in the past is not, in itself, an argument for what SHOULD be done, and to suggest otherwise is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

I’m not sure what part of this you’re not understanding.

<<I can't see any parallel with homosexuals, AJ.>>

I’ll put it as simply as I possibly can: both are forms of marriage, both forms of marriage have their opponents, the opponents of each form of marriage have no rational argument against that which they oppose, and opposition to the two forms of marriage are usually just driven by bigotry.

<<So it does seem racist to even draw any such parallels, quite offensive really.>>

You have not yet justified this claim. Even if my analogy weren’t valid, that still wouldn’t explain why drawing such parallels is racist or offensive.

<<Equality isn't just anything we declare it to be, AJ ...>>

Correct. At no point have I suggested otherwise. In fact, I’ve gone into some detail regarding this on several occasions. I’m sorry you missed it.

--

Dear phanto,

I will resume communications with your good self when you are prepared to cease referring to others as tellers of untruths in a haphazard fashion. Thank you for your time.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well this one came through the pipeline today;

25logicalreasonstovoteno.com

Thought some of you might be interested in this;

https://www.australiansforchange.com/prediction-map/

It shows voting predictions based on last years Census. It was based on six factors. The ones predicating a No vote were older, male, religious, non-english speaking background immigrant, low income and rural.

So if a No vote does get up we can blame the alliance between old WASPs, like the kind that haunt this place, and NESB migrants. Oh the irony.

If fact we may well be able to say this will be the first time NESB migrants could responsible for changing the course of this country, with the full blessing it seems of some of our OLO clan. There is little doubt that without such a solid No position being taken by our new arrivals this would not be a contest.

My shire only had a couple of red flags, how did yours go?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 14 September 2017 2:59:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. ...
  13. 36
  14. 37
  15. 38
  16. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy