Dear Paul,

We often hear the argument that gay marriage undermines
western civilization. Personally, it is hard to see how
the promotion of love, commitment, sharing, and
commonality isn't going to strengthen civilization a lot
sooner than it is going to undermine it.

Hi Foxy,

I take your point, but I think what Joe has said is valid. How do you legislate against bigoted thinking. Fred in his mind hates black people, Fred has a sign in his shop window, "No Black People Served".We can legislate against Fred's blatant discrimination, but we can't legislate against Fred's bigoted thinking. When one causes harm then action can be taken.
Real example, an interview with Pauline Hanson, the reporter asked several times, did she agree there were good Muslims in society, Hanson refused to answer. An indication she is bigoted against Muslims, what could she be charged with, not loving Muslims. If Hanson was to belittle, demean, and/or persecute vulnerable people, then she should be prosecuted. Of course Hanson in power there would be no worries, about 18 anything it would be all tossed out like dirty dishwater to the cheering to some of our fellow forumites.

Hi Joe,

Gay marriage I see as progressive, in so far as it represents a change from the existing fixed position. If gay marriage was accepted, then down the track it was rescinded then that would be regressive, a return to the old values. Fluoride in the tap water was progressive when first introduced, as none existed before.
Some progressive changes are far more complex and slow moving, in education for example. I must say not all progressive changes are necessarily for the good. When society is divided or there are strong vested interests then the issue becomes political, global warming is really a scientific issue, but vested interests turned it into a political issue. I take a conservative, even regressive view on abortion, as I do not see progressive change as a positive.

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I still don't see it. Strange: fifty years ago, it was seen as daring and maybe even 'Left' for a man and woman NOT to get married, simply to live together. Of course, that always put the woman in a comparatively weak position, especially since she was the one who had the kids and the care for them while her 'Leftist' partner went out to work and did important things to change society. Marriage was looked on as a bit too stuffy and conventional for genuine revolutionaries.

So now, instead of defiantly staying 'out', homosexuals want to get 'in', by changing the meaning of the word 'marriage'. I don't care enough to worry too much about it, homosexuals can do what they like with each other, simply live together like so many normal people [go for it], but 'marriage' is - call me what you like - between a man and a woman. End of.

So, for me, what is 'progressive' these days ? Ameliorating any social injustices, bringing about equity (especially of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians) and being careful not to go down too many dead-ends, or be caught supporting bogus 'victims'.

What's a current 'progressive' issue ? Closing the Gap, (a) finding ways to employ as many able-bodied Indigenous people as possible in earning their own livelihood, like anybody else; (b) making sure that Indigenous kids get the best education [in order to meet the conditions for (a) ]; (c) making sure that Indigenous health is improved by heavy propagandising about the importance of diet and exercise, to facilitate (b) and (a).

Better wages for the lowest paid. Better social supports for refugees and their integration into Australian society. Much more analysis and promotion of 'Australian values'. Far more tree-planting, especially in the North where climate change will mean better rainfall, and the development of vast plantation forests into a multitude of Indigenous enterprises: nurseries, timber mills in the future, etc., and therefore vital need for a huge range of skills: genuine conservation management, forestry, plant biology, mill management, timber-working, hydraulic engineering.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

Of course there are people who see the world in
very rigid and stereotyped terms. Prejudiced people
are not concerned about genuine group characteristics,
they simply accept any negative statement that feeds their
hostility. The irrationality of prejudice shows that
prejudiced people may be hostile toward groups they
could never have met or even have heard of. And legislation
is not about to change their thinking, I agree. However
what it may do is curtail what they may say.

All societies, including democratic ones, put various
limitations on what people may say. We have laws covering
libel and slander, urging violence, and so on. And that is
as it should be.

Joe,

This is where your logic on same-sex marriage falls flat:

<<… marriage' is … between a man and a woman. End of.>>

The problem with this thinking is two-pronged. Firstly, it ignores that marriage is, and has always been, a fluid concept. Secondly, it fails to recognise that marriage is a social construct, not a divinely-dictated one. Societies determine what marriage is, yet you appear to be appealing to a higher truth that transcends us all. A higher truth that has set the definition of marriage in stone to what it just happens to be today (at least in Australia).

There is no reasoning in your position. It’s just the way you feel, and that’s not good enough if you want to argue against same-sex marriage. Your position is irrational.

Same-sex marriage is a very Left/Progressive issue, and your position on this issue is absolutely Right/Conservative, as are your stances on so many other issues.

Hi AJ,

There are no gods, so nothing can be 'divinely-inspired'.

Marriage as a fluid concept ? In what societies ? When and were ?

God, I wish I cared.

Joe