The Forum > Article Comments > Same-sex marriage: coercion dolled up as civil rights > Comments
Same-sex marriage: coercion dolled up as civil rights : Comments
By Brendan O'Neill, published 2/5/2014Stop treating Brendan Eich as a one-off – gay marriage is inherently illiberal.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ...
- 16
- 17
- 18
-
- All
Lego you have now admitted that you do not like homosexuals, as comparing homosexuals to the list you have posted; reveals the vitriol you have towards others.
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 5 May 2014 7:29:46 PM
| |
Shockadelic,
<<Gay marriage has existed in so few places for so little time, there would hardly be any "evidence" yet of anything at all!>> But not only is there no evidence, we know from past examples that different family structures have no measurable effect of societal stability (please see my last paragraph to Saltpetre). Correlations could be about the best you can draw. If you can point me to anything that suggests that a model of family consisting of two parents of the same sex will have a flow-on effect that is detrimental to society, then I'd be fascinated to see it. Equal rights are not something we hold back until it can be shown that they won’t be detrimental. The only ethical way of going about them is to grant them unless/until a detrimental effect can be demonstrated. <<Both gay marriage *and* opposition to it could be described as such. Which is the point *I* was making.>> Well, you did a pretty poor job of doing that. Why then would you ask me to make up my mind? You take me for a fool if you actually think I didn't consider this either. Refer back to my last paragraph. <<You don't need "scholarly, peer-reviewed articles" to know what applies to animals and plants, applies to humans.>> But to what extent in humans, and with such a narrow gene pool too? The only scholarly articles I could find regarding the dangers of outbreeding were in relation to re-populating endangered species. Normally I wouldn’t request such a high standard of support for one’s argument but my search results were so filled with far-right websites that I figured it would be appropriate in this case. <<There's nothing in any discrimination act about access to *symbolism*.>> There doesn’t have to be. <<If I cannot buy "chocolate" at a store, but can buy "cocoasolids", an identical product, I'm not being "discriminated" against because the LABELLING is different.>> You would need to ask the chocolate that. How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant. You’re also not being treated differently. Your analogies are absurd. Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 12:34:19 PM
| |
LEGO,
If you’re up for another round, then fine. Your last attempt (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0#276021) resulted in such a crushing defeat that I wouldn’t mind another go. It was fun. I would request, however, that this time you actually read my posts instead of skimming them. It wastes my time and you made a right fool of yourself doing that. But you have some nerve implying that I couldn’t debate like an adult. It was you who didn’t have the courtesy to read my posts properly and resorted to ad hominems when you had exhausted all your arguments. Your arguments were so vacuous that you needed me to fit your stereotype of an anti-racist so that you could divert attention from them by attacking my supposed position instead. Despite my continual clarification of my position, you continued to try to second-guess a different position, and when you didn’t get your way, you stomped your feet like a petulant child and resorted to conspiracy, slander and bullying tactics. It was a pathetic sight to behold and an utter embarrassment to watch. Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 12:34:22 PM
| |
A simple solution to the issue of gay marriage would be to de-legalise marriage. A form of civil union would still be recognised by the state between people, but with a minimum of ceremony. Those who in addition wanted their union recognised within the customs of a particular cultural group, or religion, could have a ceremony, with customs and restrictions of that group. Government registrars would only conduct a civil ceremony and would not be permitted to use the word "marriage". Civil celebrants and clerics could still be licensed by the state to perform the legal process, as well as conduct a "marriage" ceremony. Government registrars would not be permitted to refuse to conduct a ceremony on the basis of the gender of the couple, but civil celebrants, and clerics, would.
Posted by tomw, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 2:40:58 PM
| |
AJ Philips "such a narrow gene pool"
If that were true, it'd be difficult to tell a Tibetan from a Zulu. Is it difficult? The major "races" (populations) were unable to breed together to any significant degree for tens of thousands of years. There are alleles that only exist in certain ancestries, and are therefore untried with other mixtures. As I said, it's a gamble. And with any gamble, you can lose. If you can see difference with the naked eye, you're not looking at *close* genetic relationships. I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans. If you need one, look yourself (maybe those "far-right" sites actually have the references you're looking for!). If there's no research on humans, it's because of PC ideology, making any inquiry into "racial" genetic differences taboo and therefore no funding available. "How you feel in that scenario is irrelevant" And how gays (or rather, militant gay activists) feel is irrelevant, if they can't get "married" (symbolism, labelling), but can have their relationship *recognised* by virtually everyone that needs to. Governments and many private companies have changed their policies, without any need for legal prodding. If there were a situation (e.g. a particular company's policies) where it weren't recognised, you can lobby/picket/protest the *company*, not expect the *law* to be changed. Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 7:49:43 PM
| |
Shockadelic,
<<If that were true, it'd be difficult to tell a Tibetan from a Zulu.>> Deary me. How embarrassing. Such a simplistic understanding of genetics. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/33.full http://web.udl.es/usuaris/e4650869/docencia/GenClin/content/recursos_classe_(pdf)/revisionsPDF/geneticvariation.pdf <<The major "races" (populations) were unable to breed together to any significant degree for tens of thousands of years.>> Correct. <<There are alleles that only exist in certain ancestries, and are therefore untried with other mixtures.>> The question is, “How much of a problem is this?” According the articles I’ve read, the biggest problem is the physical differences, such as a short, fat, pale white person breeding with a tall skinny black African with the offsping not being perfectly suited to the cold climate of the former or the hot climate of latter. Again, not very relevant to modern times. <<I can't be bother looking for your precious articles because I don't need an egghead with heaps of letters after their name to tell me that if outbreeding depression occurs in animals, it occurs in humans.>> Revealing. In other words, you’re only interested in that which supports your preconceived ideas. <<If you need one, look yourself (maybe those "far-right" sites actually have the references you're looking for!).>> I had a good search of the Griffith University online library (which provides access to just about every journal article ever written, and many textbooks) and as I said before, I couldn’t find much. Those right-wing websites I mentioned didn’t have any references (surprise, surprise). That’s why I’m asking you. <<If there's no research on humans, it's because of PC ideology, making any inquiry into "racial" genetic differences taboo and therefore no funding available.>> Ah, conspiracy theories. There’s a ton of information about genetic racial differences. That’s why LEGO suffered so badly last time. <<And how gays (or rather, militant gay activists) feel is irrelevant, if they can't get "married" (symbolism, labelling), but can have their relationship *recognised* by virtually everyone that needs to.>> How you may feel in the false analogy you supplied was irrelevant because the *chocolate* was the subject of the labelling; not you or even your relationship to it. Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 6 May 2014 10:48:43 PM
|