Hi there RAYCOM...

You raised the spectre of Mr Justice Michael KIRBY, former High Court Justice and grand 'dissentient' extraordinaire ? A noted discordant, and objector from way back. A complete nonconformist.

I did a bit over 32 years as a copper rising to the rank of only a detective sergeant, a somewhat unremarkable career given my length of service ? If you understand what it is I'm trying hard to say to you ?

onthebeach,

What are these downsides and costs to same-sex marriage that you speak of?

<<Those who propose homosexual marriage should be taking the responsibility for proposing solutions to the aftermath of their social experimentation and yes, there are downsides and costs there too.>>

You’re not just talking about economic costs, are you? Whatever they would be, I’m sure they’d be dwarfed by the social and economic costs of the increased mental illness that comes with discrimination and inequality.

<<That is something they unreasonably refuse to do.>>

I’ve never heard anyone else suggest that advocates for marriage equality take responsibility for proposing solutions to some imagined aftermath of their “social experimentation”, let alone refuse to do it.

I like your use of the term “social experimentation” there too. It makes it sound so unknown and scary, when in fact there are plenty of real world examples and an abundance of research to suggest that the sky will not fall in. On the contrary, social contentment will likely improve as it always has in the past, continuing that inverse correlation that it enjoys with inequality and discrimination.

It makes no sense to hold back equality out of fear of what may happen when there is no reason to believe that something bad will happen. By that logic, the US would still own slaves and interracial marriage would still be illegal, and indigenous Australians would still not be recognised as citizens.

But perhaps I’m jumping ahead here. Please, let us all in on what these downsides and costs will be.

Nice article you’ve linked to there too, by the way. Unfortunately, however, it falls flat when the author commits the Equivocation fallacy by discussing equality in a different sense to how it is actually used in this debate. No-one is arguing that same-sex marriage is identical to opposite-sex marriage.

The author also says he “believes” that same-sex relationships are “suboptimal environments” to raise children. However, there is no evidence of this and much evidence to the contrary:

http://www.the7eye.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lgbt-parents2.pdf
http://www.cyriltarquinio.com/app/download/5796122313/regnerus+2012.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/wp06.pdf
http://www.cyriltarquinio.com/app/download/5796122297/Patterson%2B1992.pdf
http://goo.gl/5aoBYr

A referendum is only used to alter the constitution. Those proposing a referendum might like to advise which part of the constitution they'd like to change since the only mention of marriage currently is to note that the Feds have the right to make laws in regards to marriage.

At first blush it seems strange that the same-sex marriage lobby oppose a plebiscite since the polls suggest its a shoe-in. The reason for that opposition is that they know the polls are ephemeral. Currently, we get a very one sided view of the issue. Popular culture presents gays as almost uniformly admirable. Very little is heard of the problems many have with same-sex marriage and when opposition is mentioned it is almost uniformly presented as coming from reactionary clergy.

What a plebiscite will do is provide the noes with a platform to make their case over the head of a censorious media. It was said in the last few days that one example of the distressing things that would be said by the noes (this occurred in Ireland) is that they'd point out that children raised in non-traditional families do, on average, worse than those raised by a father-mother. In other words, people would start to hear the truth and see that the opposition isn't just on religious grounds. Hence the desire to avoid what appears to be a plebiscite with a certain result.

At some point, when/if the plebiscite becomes a reality, we'll start to hear that the public funding of the yes/no cases should be curtailed. The rationale will be cost-saving but the reality will be to try to suppress the no case getting its message out.

A referendum however would require guaranteed funding for the noes. Hence the same-sex lobby aren't pushing that as an option.

Jayb,

I was referring to all our discussions. Note that o sung wu said, “… never have and never will”.

<<Errrr.... when did you do that?>>

In this thread, it was here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18469#328235.

I demonstrated that his beliefs on this topic were ‘baseless’ (well he did, actually) through his personal attacks; that they were ‘fundamentally flawed’ was demonstrated right through my response (e.g. lesbians practicing sodomy?!).

<<People, even you, are entitled to dislike someone for their own reasons.>>

I don’t think I’ve suggested otherwise.

<<I could never see why some other persons opinion would be “Offensive” you.>>

I find any hateful remarks offensive. I would think most people do.

<<Have you ever thought that your opinion is just as “Offensive” to them.>>

All the time. The difference here, however, is that I can rationally justify mine.

<<These books/references are written by people that are Gay...>>

There’s far too much research, spanning multiple disciplines, for all the researchers to be gay. Being gay is not a choice either, and suggesting so contradicts your claim that they’re mentally ill.

Even if they were all gay, though, it would make no difference, as the sources I link to are peer-reviewed works that require evidence and include declarations of the limitations to the research and conflicting interests where relevant.

Your claim that homosexuality is a illness relies on a misunderstanding of what illness is, and the contestable notion of something having “gone wrong” in nature.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that homosexuality is a perfectly normal evolved trait:
ttp://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=evolution+of+homosexuality&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

<<But that is “My” opinion … & it’s just a valid as your AJP.>>

No, the more valid opinion is the one that is more rational and evidence-based.

--

phanto,

Knowledge is possible without wisdom but wisdom is not possible without knowledge. If you’re holding out for some uneducated homophobe to come up with a piece of wisdom that surpasses all facts, then you’ll be waiting for a very long time.

Otherwise, well said! You were the last person I expected to speak in my defence. You addressed it to the wrong person though.

plebiscites are help for the sole purpose that if the people and states vote the right way, as far as the govt is concerned, then they can act on it on the basis that 'the people have spoken' but if they dont go the way govt wants then well, it was only a plebiscite anyway and plebiscites are not binding on the govt."

Questions

Why do referendums or plebiscites only happen when the govt wants one, bearing in mind, the govt is only the servant and we the people are the master?

Why do our servants not organize a referendum or a plebiscite to establish the number of signatures to be gathered for a referendum to be held, even when the govt wants us to have one.

Why not make referendums and plebiscites easy to have? After all we are the masters they are only the servants.

An Australian bloke invented the technology to make them cheap and easy.

From what I have read the "vote for your favorite dead brain xyz' phone app is the technology he developed.

Your fervent support of homosexual men is understandable A.J. Philips, protecting your own is quite as expected, it's the way you go about it that gets up peoples nose. You can't confer, you lecture, always postulating from a superior position, then anyone else on this august Forum. Again, it's indicative of this serious character flaw that you possess, that goes well beyond your annoying hubris, I'd expect.

As I've mentioned to you previously, you'd be considered a real joke if you exhibited this superiority attitude among a bunch of coppers, notwithstanding all the diplomas you possess in criminology, scientology and any other ology you may wish to cite in your vast curriculum vitae ? I've told you before, a framed diploma in criminology, has never caught a crook ? It's hard and dogged police work, that does it !

For once in your life; listen. You never know there are many very smart people who frequent this Forum of Graham's, listen to them instead of 'holding court'. That's why God gave you two ears, to listen, two eyes to watch and learn, and only one mouth, in which to place your size 11; A.J. PHILIPS.