Hi Runner,

So who defines 'bigot' ? One person's bigotry is another's reasonableness, so as George Brandis pointed out, there's no law against it simply because it can't, after all, be defined.

And I wasn't aware that defending the current legal position on homosexual marriage was in any way illegal. So how can defending something that's legal be bigotry ?

Cheers,

Joe

.

A plebiscite, Joe?

<<No worries: put it to a plebiscite and let the Australian people decide.>>

That’s an interesting suggestion from someone who assures the rest of us that they don’t care about the issue. After all, why would someone who didn't care want such a costly solution - both socially and economically - when there’s no reason our elected MPs can’t vote on it like they do with most other things that don’t involve the constitution?

<<So who defines 'bigot' ? One person's bigotry is another's reasonableness …>>

We define 'bigot' through the use of our language. Who is deserving of the label depends on who is not willing to change their mind on a given position, even after it is shown that they cannot rationally support it. Which is why I ask those who are opposed to marriage equality for a rational argument against it.

<<And I wasn't aware that defending the current legal position on homosexual marriage was in any way illegal. So how can defending something that's legal be bigotry ?>>

Bigotry has nothing to do with legality.

Although, trying to redefine bigotry to exclude yourself from the label is another strange thing, for someone who supposedly doesn't care at all about this issue, to do. Why should you be affected?

I think someone's being a tad dishonest with himself...

--

Is it really now, runner?

<<... you just can't see [the bigotry] in your own life. Quite obvious to others.>>

Well, then, you shouldn’t have too much trouble providing an example of me being a bigot, should you?

Unfortunately, though, I suspect your evidence of my alleged bigotry will be as about as plentiful as your examples of my misrepresenting the Bible (i.e. not very).

Either put up or shut up.

AJ,

Yeah, plebiscite: get this crap over with and let the people decide. End of. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Let anybody live together with anybody else, who cares, it's their private life, nothing to do with us or with the state, do your thing and leave the rest of us out of it. Ask nothing of 'us' and we'll leave 'you' to do what you damn well like.

Joe

But the cons far outweigh the pros with a plebiscite, Joe, that was one of my points earlier.

<<Yeah, plebiscite: get this crap over with and let the people decide. End of. Hopefully in my lifetime.>>

And why in your lifetime if, again, you don’t care? Furthermore, are you really so naive as to think that if it were voted down then it would NEVER happen, despite the fact that we’re becoming more enlightened, civilised, and tolerant with each generation? Is that what it takes for someone who supposedly doesn't care about the issue to Rest in Peace?

<<Let anybody live together with anybody else, who cares, it's their private life, nothing to do with us or with the state, do your thing and leave the rest of us out of it. Ask nothing of 'us' and we'll leave 'you' to do what you damn well like.>>

But preferably without the option of getting married, though, am I right? Do you not see the contradiction there?

AJ

In that case, whaddawe want ? Plebiscite ! When do we wanit ? NOW !

Contradiction ? Do you see the contradiction, AJ, between 'marriage' as defined as the union of a woman and a man, the legal definition of marriage, and the inappropriateness of 'marriage' as involving other forms of union which are currently not recognised by law ? Whatever it is, let it be but it's not marriage.

Christ, there are so many more important issues. My last post on the issue, it's just so boring.

j

Loudmouth:

You could be right when you say that homosexuals 'have' to get married.

They could be getting married in order to enhance their identities as homosexuals. Of course they may not be too. It is always a possible motive that you could not accuse heterosexuals of since they do not have to enhance their sexual identities by getting married.

There will always be that doubt in people's minds when they see a same-sex married couple. Did you get married for love or just to take the heat off your identity as a homosexual? We may never know and they will not be able to prove their motive no matter what they say since motivation cannot be so easily tested.

They will always be suspected of abusing marriage for the wrong reasons and so they will never really have 'marriage equality' in the minds of the general public who actually bother to question these things. Their marriage will always be suspect and no amount of paperwork will convince those truly looking for their motivation.

It is this possible abuse of marriage that is behind a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage. Those who do not think about the issue are easily conned into believing it is about simple equality but it is not simple at all. Their reasons for marrying, whether or not they agree, will always be suspect and there is no way that the susceptibility of their motivation compares to heterosexual marriage.

The only way that their motivation can be truly tested is whether or not they are prepared to accept some other type of arrangement other than marriage. If they had any integrity at all this is what they would be lobbying for but whilst it ‘has’ to be marriage then their motivation will always appear suspect and so too will their attitude to marriage.