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 > Beware the moral high ground > Comments

Beware the moral high ground : Comments

By Peter Wilson, published 30/8/2017

Her central tenet of 'don't tell me what to think' is one that has been all too familiar in recent political debates.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
There is nothing derogatory about keeping the moral high ground.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 1:40:20 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
Katherine Harper "I am a 30-year-old woman of liberal upbringing and no particular religious affiliation... I will be voting "no"."

I am a 49-year-old classical liberal of no particular religious affiliation, and *gay*, and I will be voting "no".

Not because I dislike the idea of two lovers declaring their commitment (which they can already do), but because this issue is another Trojan Horse of the totalitarian Left.

A successful yes outcome will only embolden the arrogant, narcissistic, statue-smashers to go even further.

No left-aligned "reforms" can be supported until this fanatical, delusional group dissipates and disappears.

*Then*, and only then, can Adam and Steve can get hitched (with my blessing, as long as that old fuddy-duddy Mrs Johnson as the cake shop can refuse to bake their cake).
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:00:20 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
The slippery slope fallacy doesn't apply in this case because we aren't discussing a relatively small first step! This is the argument used by the yes campaign to try and argue that the no campaign don't even have a right to even argue their case - and they are wrong: we do have a right to argue our no case.

The ssm debate is an attack on the church and therefore Western Civilisation. We all know who doesn't believe in the right to religion!

Watch out Western Civilisation: we are all under attack and the kids are not being taught to defend it!

People are being taught nothing but to do what the tv tells you to do. It's obvious which side of the campaign the tv supports: no wonder the gays all talk about their too long winded acronym in society as being much more easily remembered as 'the BLT crowd!'

Jokes aside,.. we all have the right to argue our case and any attempt to say you can't is fascism: ...which will ruin a society so keep your eyes peeled...!
Posted by mememememememe, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:28:33 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
hi mememememememe
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:50:50 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
I intent to vote Yes on this one but am not happy with the limited choices available. My preference would be for the government to get out of the business of registering relationships between consenting adults.

If they are in the business then that registration should have some purpose and corresponding legal obligations to match that purpose.

I do though see a real risk to the Yes case in that the SJW crowd will overplay their hand and adopt the same bullying tactics that leave many with an inclination to try and stop the rot.

If the issue is one too fondly embraced by the same crowd that demand diversity of appearance but not opinion, the crowd that support political violence against opponents, the crowd that try to get people sacked from jobs, places of study etc for holding or expressing opinions not related to those jobs, fields of study etc then a No vote by many of the otherwise not to bothered may be a stand against the rot rather than an attempt to spite SSM supporters.

People should have the right to dissent (on their own time). If a church does not want to conduct SSM services they should be safe to do so as long as they hold no government protected powers limiting access to marriage services. If a baker does not want to make a cake they should not have to unless they agree to do so and don't receive any government protection from competition. If you are employed by the government to process marriage certificates or similar though dissent based on personal views should not be an option in your employment.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:19:54 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
So, proponents of the "yes" vote, tell me again this is only about letting two people who "love" each other "marry". As others have pointed out, they can already legalise a union. What does the use of the word "marry" add in practice?

More curiously, why give the word "marry" such potency? Isn't the point of the union being with your partner? Are you planning to go through a "marriage" ceremony thinking only of that word and not the commitment to your partner?

Finally, if the proposed reform is legitimate because "two adults should be allowed to express their love through 'marriage'", as Turnbull and co have argued, when will it be legal for a brother to marry his sister, a filthy old paedophile to marry a six year old and consummate the union when she's nine, one person to marry another who is not competent to form the intention to marry, and why stop at two adults anyway?

This is terminal self-absorbtion by the devious left. The slippery slope is real.
Posted by calwest, Wednesday, 30 August 2017 4:28:53 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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