@RIZ

you claim you are trying to have a debate about homosexuality.

But your TITLE is about VOTES and PARLIAMENT.

Don't you read your own stuff?

Thus you have politicized this issue which effects the community.

The issue I was reporting on had a CONTEXT and the context was:

"Legalize Gay Marriage" at a seminar.

A question was raised about the social IMPACT of legalizing gay marriage.

"If gay marriage is legalized, what is to stop MANY OTHER types of unusual or un-natural patterns of familiy life claimign EQUAL right to legalization"

The ANSWER from Rodney Croome was: "Australia is a traditional one man one woman society, so it won't happen"

I THEN showed you that it HAS happened with polygamy being just one of NUMBER of unusual or un-natural patterns of 'marriage' which did exactly as Bill Muhlenberg suggested it might..and that Rodney Croome denied. Croome's argument (and yours) is spurious, Bill M showed why!

It's not a red herring.

> > no if CJ was in 'rehab' we could expect an improvement :)
> > but it's the same old "progressive" stuff. But we need it
> > for sure.. to highlight our own positions.

And to keep us on topic. Of the 79 posts to this discussion so far, CJ’s is the only one addressing the argument raised in the article.

Like a referendum, a conscience vote sounds like a good idea. This is what we elect our parliamentarians for - to weigh up the relative merits of an issue, and dispassionately determine the outcome on our behalf. We choose parliamentarians who reflect our values and represent our interests, not those of their party. Still, there are some givens that we don't allow parliamentarians to vote on, whether by conscience or following a party line. For example they can't pass any measure that contradicts our Constitution or our country's external obligations.

Unlike some countries, our Constitution contains little protection for minorities. I tend to support the argument that basic human rights should not be subject to the vagaries of individual parliamentarians' consciences, but I also think that our parliaments are sufficiently diverse to counterbalance this.

So should parliamentarians have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage? In principle, no. However in practice I think that our MPs are sufficiently informed, conscientious and representative on this issue to be trusted with it.

Of course, it's all academic, because a conscience vote is proposed only for Labor Party members (and the independents, of course). There's absolutely no hope that the Greens bill will be passed, because Labor won't be voting as a block, but the opposition parties will be. The real outcome of a conscience vote will be that our elected representatives will have a thorough and sincere debate on same-sex marriage, no doubt bringing to the discussion the same high standards of deliberation that they showed in the RU486 debate.

This is a discussion Australia needs to have. I say bring it on.

Boaz,

The question you pose: "If gay marriage is legalized, what is to stop MANY OTHER types of unusual or un-natural patterns of familiy life claimign EQUAL right to legalization", is fallacious because it assumes that your idea of usual/natural is the right one.

Ignoring that though, I think the answer to the question is: nothing. But that doesn’t matter because they won’t ever be successful.

Take polygamy for example. It won’t be legalized because it’s degrading to women. Even if the women in polygamous relationships consent to it, it’s still offensive to a society that values women as equals and so it will never happen.

How about your personal favourite, NAMBLA? Such relationships will never be legalized or condoned by the general population as young boys are not considered old enough or mature enough to give their consent.

As for the other one you like to mention, bestiality, not only can animals not give their consent, but in many cases it would be considered cruelty.

So you don’t need to worry, Boaz. There is no impending doom. Societies will continue to decide what is generally best for them using the same non-religious, non-biblical mechanism they have always used.

Altruism.

"It's not a red herring."
-ALGOREisRICH

That's about the fourth time you've said that now. Funnily enough, I'm unable to find the bit in my logic textbook where it says 'fallacious arguments can be rendered valid by sufficient repetition of the assertion that they are valid'. So it really doesn't matter how many times you reiterate your red herring, nor how often/loudly you insist it's not fallacious. It won't strengthen your argument - all it will achieve is making you look a goose.

I have no doubt, however, that your response to this will be the all too predictable 'it's not a red herring'. So I give up - I'm throwing in the towel on this point (although not conceding it - I'll just ignore it from now on). You can lead a horse to logic, but you cannot make him think. I see little sense in bashing my head against a brick wall any longer.

<<I tend to support the argument that basic human rights should not be subject to the vagaries of individual parliamentarians' consciences>>

Homosexual "marriage" is no more a "basic human right" than incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.

"However in practice I think that our MPs are sufficiently informed...".

Informed by the lies of the homosexual lobby.
The 10 percent lie.
The homosex is no more dangerous than heterosex lie.
The children are no worse off lie.

Homosexual activists are like those screaming children in the supermarket aisle.
The more concessions, the more demands.
Our society has become like the weak mother who submits to her child's railroading in the hope that granting their ever-more strident demands will placate them.

Homosexual "marriage" will merely be the starting point for screaming demands for punishment of those who still won't toe the homosexual line.

Churches will be sued for failing to provide the homosexual's "basic human right" to get married there, etc, etc.

Homosexual "marriage" will only be the beginning of a new wave of increasing demands.

Homosexual activism is merely a variant form of totalitarianism.

Very funny, Proxy but you don’t really believe that stuff do you?

Do you!

I never realised I was a part of totalitarianism.

Gosh, this is very exciting. Now, where is my apricot silk shirt with the ‘Make love not war’ logo and my velvet lined jack-boots and oh, oh, don’t forget the saffron encrusted whip for blushing the flesh, not damaging it. Maybe this is what you have meant all along. Silly me didn’t recognise the symptoms.

It is totalitari-anism you are talking about, after all, isn’t it?

Big kisses,

David