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 > Article Comments > Homophobia claims by same-sex marriage advocates are bullying > Comments

Homophobia claims by same-sex marriage advocates are bullying : Comments

By Gary Johns, published 23/3/2016

In attempting to de-normalise heterosexuality under the guise of bullying, Safe Schools went ­beyond its brief.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Hi Joe (Loudmouth),

Again, I agree. Christianity had to go a long way to arrive at the contemporary clear (theoretically at least) distinction between Church and State, Islam has not yet even embarked on such a journey. Perhaps the reason is that Christians had already in the Bible “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's“ from where to proceed, whereas Koran, as far as I know, has no such advise.
Posted by George, Saturday, 26 March 2016 10:56:31 AM
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
Dear Joe,

First, we are in agreement that Shari'a and Canon laws are "are far 'worse', more backward, than contemporary secular law and its recognition of the equal rights of all, regardless of their religion or lack of religion."

The difference between us is that I am not willing to rest on my laurels, content with ranking third from the bottom.

The same reason that makes it wrong for Muslims and Christians to impose their sexual norms on others, makes it also wrong for states to impose their own norms on others.

Muslims are nothing but a group of people, Christians are nothing but a group of people and states are nothing but a group of people: what possibly gives one group a right to impose themselves on others - but not the other?

Your mention of elections, parliament, majority, duties, rights and obligations is a red herring: these are merely mechanisms by which a state handles its internal matters - but for those to have any meaning, one must first freely consent to belong to this group of people which call themselves "state". As this condition was never met, none of those is relevant.

I agree that Western/democratic states are less cruel than the Islamic State, but that difference is quantitative rather than qualitative. Both types believe that they have a right to control all the people who happen to live in a given land-mass which they conquered.

It is OK to have states, so long as their jurisdiction is based on their citizen's consent rather than on an arbitrary territory. Indeed, it is unlikely that you will be able to obtain the free consent of all the people who live in a huge area such as the continent of Australia, so then you are likely to end up with smaller states - and this is as it should be. Nothing then prevents these smaller independent states to freely enter into a network of mutual agreements on various aspects of life as their people wish.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 26 March 2016 10:05:09 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
Yuyutsu,

Oy. Can you see that your opinion that states have to "be able to obtain the free consent of all the people" - "all the people" - suggests that, ultimately, there should be no states at all, that people somehow should exist free of any obligations to anybody else, but also at the mercy of anybody else who may be stronger ?

So who would build the roads that you travel on ? Who would supply the water and electricity that you rely on ? Schools for your kids ? Hospitals ? Public transport ? How would you agree on a price for what you buy from any shopkeeper stupid enough to try to run a business in a world without common rules ?

Can't you see that even the most basic hunter-gatherer societies provided more structure and safety, coupled with obligations, that what you are proposing ? What you are suggesting is, without any exaggeration, akin to some sort of pre-human society that has never existed, one without rules, duties, obligations in return for some basic order, human relationships, and security.

Democracy - across an entire nation - may have imperfections (since there never has been, or will ever be, a 'perfect' society) - but it's how we, the people, make it. If you want perfection, immerse yourself in religious fantasies like the Islamists: how do you reckon that's turning out ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 27 March 2016 8:09:47 AM
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
Dear Joe,

Obviously, you want a state and apparently so do most others, so what stops you from having your state the way you wish?

The only difference, if you care to not be a violent brute, is to leave those others alone who aren't interested in sharing the benefits and obligations of your state, be they few or many. Live your way, but stop dictating your way of life to others, who would then either remain alone or form their own small states - that's their business, not yours. Nothing stops you of course from defending yourself and your people if others threaten you from without, but that's a different issue: so long as they are peaceful towards your people, you may not include them in your civil dreams and aspirations.

<<Democracy - across an entire nation - may have imperfections...>>

The same red-herring again: while democracy is fine, the issue I raised has little to do with the way a "nation" governs itself and handles its internal affairs, but rather with the very notion of "nation" and who may legitimately be included. I'm not asking for states to be perfect - only that they do not include others who do not wish to be part of their group.

One point I raised in my previous post is that smaller states can still have agreements between them which can facilitate many of your expectations.

Alternately, you can try to attract people to your state by assuring them that whatever happens, those things they cherish most will not be jeopardised if they join your state. Let your constitution assure for example that under all circumstances, homosexuals be allowed their sexual practices, that Jews won't be forced to eat pork or be summoned to court/work or made to carry electronic items on the Sabbath, that Sikhs will never be separated from their kirpans and Muslims never prevented from praying 5 times a day. As other groups of people may offer similar or better freedoms, you will be in competition with them over individual/group liberties - and that's an excellent result.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 27 March 2016 3:13:05 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
Sorry, Yuyutsu, this discussion has become just too idiotic.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 27 March 2016 4:21:33 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
Dear Joe,

Perhaps you are right, perhaps it is idiotic to demand justice in the face of violence. The official advice for tourists in South America is "If attacked by armed robbers, you should give them what they want".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 28 March 2016 1:39:21 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. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

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