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 > General Discussion > Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?

Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. Page 33
  10. 34
  11. 35
  12. 36
  13. 37
  14. All
Foxy, "The number one reason heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filling of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another."

That is the stuff of womens' magazines - 'the one', romantic love and all of that rose tinted glasses stuff. Where is the evidence to back it up?

Most couples I know say that it was because they were planning to have children that they married, otherwise living together would have been fine.

A high percentage of couples who have lived together for a long time before marriage. They don't need a paper to tell them how they feel and marriage was about formalising arrangements for children and for pesky officialdom.

I am certain that where child dependants are not involved the greatest majority of people, heterosexual or homosexual, would prefer to have government entirely out of their lives and relationships.

For centuries adults were free and able to run their own relationships and domestic affairs without the intrusion of the Nanny State's courts and public servants. Get rid of the Nanny State and have simply worded agreements if deemed necessary, but the involved parties can decide all of that. As it is now, many are inadvertently snared into complex mine field that is family law and lawyers get to feather their nests.

Using the tools and tricks of propaganda to label and stereotype those who have genuine objections to overturning the Marriage Act will rebound on activists.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 21 November 2009 4:49:27 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 Cornflower,

Where is YOUR evidence to back up anything
that you've posted here?

Your say so? The fact that YOUR friends tell
you something makes it authoritative - whereas
what I say is questionable?

The websites that I quote from are in your
opinion - simply rants from "minority parties."
The fact that Galaxy polls show that over 60%
of Australians support same-sex marriage -
is brushed aside by you again as "propaganda."
No chance of them being accurate in your eyes,
is there?

You expect from others certain courtesies that
you're not prepared to give.

You seem to be so convinced of your omniscience
that you're not prepared to listen to any one
else. All you seem capable of doing is bleating
about the actions of others without looking
at how you're behaving.

Give you a break? How about your returning
the favour?

It's other people who, "use tools and tricks of
propaganda to label and stereotype ..." not you.
And you say that these actions will rebound...
Damn straight! (pardon the pun).
So stop doing it - otherwise you'll have no credibility
left whatsoever!

For your information, "The Senate Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee is due to release its report into
marriage equality. It's impossible to know what the
outcome will be, except to say it will again raise the
issue's profile. Then on Saturday, there will be another
National Day of Action on Marriage Equality with rallies
in most major centres."

As we all know, and as history has shown - "minorities"
are no small achievers. You only have to study the
history of the Jews, as one example.

But hey, you go right on doing what you're doing.
Stick with, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Change will come whether you like it or not.
60% of the population approving something is sure
to attract the attention of the politicians.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 21 November 2009 5:54:14 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
Cornflower,

I think you need to sit down and think about what you're arguing.
'Nanny state'? A term I reject having the same intellectual justification as a declaration that the world is flat. (It is a 'backs to the wall' desperation pejorative term called on by 'conservatives' who are bereft of either an argument or logic)
The intention is to indicate an overly protectionist position of government legislation.

Your application of this term leaves one wondering 'what is being protected?' in this instance,'the marriage act' in its current form.
Those like Foxy and myself that aren't opposed to Homosexual marriage or the Homosexuals themselves AREN'T being protected by the Nanny State. Rather it's the Naysayers who are defending (needing the Nanny state protection for the Status Quo.)

Also, self referential and anecdotal justification has no more validity in logic/law/reason that claiming that one slept with ET.
*IT ISN'T EVIDENCE*

I would argue that the more extreme (fixed reflective of dogma) a view is, the higher the likelihood that the holder's friends are likewise afflicted. (e22)
"birds of a feather etc".

>"for centuries....."< when was this? Even the Druids had an equivalent of a codified marriage as did the 'stone-age natives of PNG.

>"Genuine Concerns....."< What you mean, is emotional concerns, which are only valid to that individual.
As demonstrated Your response >"is full of tricks and techniques"< and poor logic, unprovable assertions and light on provable facts.

BTW this in no way implies you are not entitled to your 'personal' views. What explicitly mean is that if you express those views which impose restrictions on other's 'rights', you must accept, you will be challenged.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 22 November 2009 12:36:11 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
examinator,
What a lot of meaningless waffle!

The operative word in; "Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?" Is the word "allow", our society currently allows gays to sexuall cohabit. What do they want at law, certainly not social recognition of they being a couple; Because they have that already.

However the term marriage with regard to gender can only be defined as "between a person of male gender and a person of female gender" no exceptions. It is a union of different genders. Marriage means a bonding together of two things of difference. Combining more of the same into one union is not marriage
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 22 November 2009 1:44:07 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 share the frustrations with Cornflower’s posts. It’s worth pointing out, though, that they contain many of the features of the anti-equality brigade, and they show why it’s a difficult issue for governments.

First, the enemies of equality are happy to cloud the debate with spurious unrelated issues. Cornflower is entitled to her/his view that government intervention into non-marital relationships goes too far. But this has nothing to do with equality for same-sex couples, and his claims that it does is completely irrelevant. Cornflower’s claims are far from the worst irrelevancies we’ve read here, but the tactic of attempting to derail the debate with straw issues is one s/he shares with the most repugnant participants in this discussion.

Second, the opposition to marriage equality is littered with absurd and untested assertions:
- “'rights' cannot be given without taking away the rights of others” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75836
- “homosexual pairings are not covered by the Marriage Act is simply because the State chose to regulate, support and exploit the common natural couplings that work to the advantage of the community” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75639
- “There is growing concern in the electorate about the assault on the Marriage Act.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76756

Third, the enemies of equality are immune to reason. You can make a case from first principles, and argue it until you’re blue in the face: they simply will not budge, and they will steadfastly refuse to address core questions, like the one CJ has been pressing. Logic plays no part in their views.

Fourth, they don’t shrink from making dark threats: “Using the tools and tricks of propaganda to label and stereotype those who have genuine objections to overturning the Marriage Act will rebound on activists.” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#76760

[continued
Posted by woulfe, Sunday, 22 November 2009 5:54:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[from previous]

This is the crux of equal-rights politics. Governments need to find the courage to override the objections of the zealots, or a way of accommodating their views that doesn’t introduce more inequality (like civil partnerships).

Unfortunately, the zealots don’t just lie down quietly when governments come to a decision, as we’ve seen in the US. More than forty years after racial equality was legislated there, race politics is still a huge factor in US public affairs. Equality for same-sex-attracted people in the US is being achieved in tiny increments, and every step is bitterly fought by the zealots. Here, they also attempt to throw their weight around, but governments are becoming a little better at recognising the cost of yielding to them: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/christian-lobby-warns-rudd-over-civil-unions/1683930.aspx

The enemies of equality are irrational, unconcerned by values of truth and fairness, willing to introduce any unrelated issue to derail the debate, and prepared to bully and threaten governments to get their way. Cornflower is a relatively mild case, but still displays all the symptoms.
Posted by woulfe, Sunday, 22 November 2009 5:57:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage 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. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. Page 33
  10. 34
  11. 35
  12. 36
  13. 37
  14. All

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