Marriage Equality

[The_General]

Serious question. How is it diluted?

Because marriage is about a man and a woman. There's hundreds of years of this being the tradition. Sure it has been tinkered with over the while, but it has - in western culture - pretty much been about man and woman.

If marriage becomes anyone can marry anyone so long as they're consenting, it no longer means the same thing.

I recognise that other groups in society should have the same legal protections/entitlements as Heterosexual couples, which is why I think there should be something equivalent legally. That group can and should start their own traditions, rather than try co-opt another section of society. Who knows, maybe if that happens, people will look at things like divorce rates and other factors and say, why isn't traditional marriage as successful as civil union?

In a way, it's like the suburb I live in. There is a very large proportion of the community is from another religious group. Each year the council celebrates the religious festivities of that group. Festivals, billboards, etc.
When it comes to Xmas however, the amount of decorations has reduced and the length of time they are displayed has become shorter and shorter to respect this other segment of community. That change hasn't stopped me having family outings on Xmas Day, but it has reduced the special feeling that that time of year had. The question around the house of my in-laws (who are somewhat religious) is why do they need to lose something, for someone else to gain something. They're more than happy for the other religion to celebrate and be happy, but why must they reduce their own celebrations so as not to offend the first group?

Hopefully that analogy gives some Indication of what the change would mean to me as a comparison. I've done my best to try do so in a way that I hope is inoffensive.

 

[The_General]

I agree. As I said to General I have no skin in the game. Even more so as I no longer live in Aus. I am married. That was done only for my wife. I explained to her that it meant nothing to me (she "loved" that!). My commitment to her was not tied to laws or churches or tradition (for me - I imagine it was tied to all of those things for her).

I agree completely that people's feelings matter to them. But General was accusing me (and more generally of people who think like me on this issue) of being arrogant and not considering his feelings. I find that pretty arrogant. His feelings relate to a small correction to a weasely change to the Australian Marriage Act that have absolutely no affect on him or his wife or his marriage. But it absolutely and materially affects same-sex couples. Why is his choice to deny them access to something that he takes for granted not arrogance? Not unfeeling? That is what I was trying to flesh out. Traditionalists don't tend to like to delve into issues. Tradition simply trumps all. It is thoughtless and closed minded and while General says his decision is not religious it certainly fits the bill.

I'll say as short as possible, because in a debate where you determine what is a valid reason or not, there is no debate. Anytime you don't think an argument is up to your values set, you can say no. You're wrong. But who's to say that is correct. I'm not stopping two people from loving each other and IF THIS IS ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS then civil union achieves that whilst allowing the group of society who wish to maintain traditions keep what they value.

Yes, some people in that group of traditionalists are religious. But, I don't believe in god. I don't believe in divine intervention, that people can turn water into wine, walk on water, or any other the Christian *smile*. Add into that all other religions and their beliefs as well.

You see, people are allowed to have a contrary opinion to your own, and you aren't the one who gets to determine what the ground rules are.

 

[Giardiasis]

You see, people are allowed to have a contrary opinion to your own, and you aren't the one who gets to determine what the ground rules are.

That's pretty much the major reason why I can't stand the yes crowd, because a large proportion don't think you should be allowed an alternative opinion. Once they get this over the line, they'll move onto their next projects> transgenderism acceptance and pronoun wordplay.

For decades, university intellectuals have stretched the terms “oppression” and “violence” like rubber bands, trying to fit them over more gentle concepts like “disagreement” and “dialogue.” The slow creep eventually worked; hundreds of thousands of students graduate college every year believing words truly constitute aggression. Hence your opinions are oppressive and must be silenced!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'll say as short as possible, because in a debate where you determine what is a valid reason or not, there is no debate. Anytime you don't think an argument is up to your values set, you can say no. You're wrong. But who's to say that is correct. I'm not stopping two people from loving each other and IF THIS IS ABOUT LEGAL RIGHTS then civil union achieves that whilst allowing the group of society who wish to maintain traditions keep what they value.

Yes, separate but equal as I said. It is the separate part that interests me. We are all humans. You wish to maintain a distinction between you and them. Okay. I don't see the difference. The default position to me is that if the change doesn't affect me, why would I go out of my way to oppose it? The way I look at any vote (and this isn't one) is to ask if my vote was the deciding vote would I be okay with it? That is how I look at your decision to deny a section of the population access to marriage in the exact same form as you enjoy? If yours was the last and deciding vote would you be okay that it denies your fellow Australians that access?

Yes, some people in that group of traditionalists are religious. But, I don't believe in god. I don't believe in divine intervention, that people can turn water into wine, walk on water, or any other the Christian *smile*. Add into that all other religions and their beliefs as well.

That is as may be but the nature of the "tradition' argument is indistinguishable from the religious argumentto me.

You see, people are allowed to have a contrary opinion to your own, and you aren't the one who gets to determine what the ground rules are.

And how have I stopped them from having those opinions? I'm simply asking questions to try to put some meat on the bones of their opinions. They don't have to respond. Debate requires that we each air our opinions. I have voiced my objections to the use of tradition as an argument and explained why. Am I not allowed to do that? Is doing that oppressing you in some way?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Because marriage is about a man and a woman. There's hundreds of years of this being the tradition. Sure it has been tinkered with over the while, but it has - in western culture - pretty much been about man and woman.

Yes, how does some one else having a different marriage affect yours in any way?

If marriage becomes anyone can marry anyone so long as they're consenting, it no longer means the same thing.

To whom? To you? Your marriage would be different if someone else you gets married and it's different to yours? There are people in heterosexual marriages right now who think their wife is their property. Does that devalue your marriage?

I recognise that other groups in society should have the same legal protections/entitlements as Heterosexual couples, which is why I think there should be something equivalent legally. That group can and should start their own traditions, rather than try co-opt another section of society. Who knows, maybe if that happens, people will look at things like divorce rates and other factors and say, why isn't traditional marriage as successful as civil union?

Because they aren't "different groups" we are all members of this society. And we all deserve to be treated the same.

In a way, it's like the suburb I live in. There is a very large proportion of the community is from another religious group. Each year the council celebrates the religious festivities of that group. Festivals, billboards, etc.
When it comes to Xmas however, the amount of decorations has reduced and the length of time they are displayed has become shorter and shorter to respect this other segment of community. That change hasn't stopped me having family outings on Xmas Day, but it has reduced the special feeling that that time of year had. The question around the house of my in-laws (who are somewhat religious) is why do they need to lose something, for someone else to gain something. They're more than happy for the other religion to celebrate and be happy, but why must they reduce their own celebrations so as not to offend the first group?

I don't think that analogy works to be honest. Where is the evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the nature or celebration of heterosexual marriage? Will the cakes get smaller? The dresses? The parties?

Hopefully that analogy gives some Indication of what the change would mean to me as a comparison. I've done my best to try do so in a way that I hope is inoffensive.

Fair enough if that is how you see it. I can't see how one persons enjoyment of something is diminished by another's celebration of the exact same thing? In your analogy the other religious group would need not to be celebrating a different set of festivals but just joining in your Christmas ritual. That is where I can get to grips with your position. They just want to have Christmas too and you want to keep them from it. They can have pseudo-Christmas. They can do all the same things you're doing so long as they don't call it Christmas because that makes your Christmas less special.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

That's pretty much the major reason why I can't stand the yes crowd, because a large proportion don't think you should be allowed an alternative opinion. Once they get this over the line, they'll move onto their next projects> transgenderism acceptance and pronoun wordplay.

For decades, university intellectuals have stretched the terms “oppression” and “violence” like rubber bands, trying to fit them over more gentle concepts like “disagreement” and “dialogue.” The slow creep eventually worked; hundreds of thousands of students graduate college every year believing words truly constitute aggression. Hence your opinions are oppressive and must be silenced!

Couldn't agree more Gia. But wht kind of mental gymnastics are required to turn asking for people to express their opinion openly into 'silencing'? That is Olympic level. Lumping people into categories is a big mistake. My support for the Yes campaign is about freedom and equality and the objection to segregation of society. Why can't we all just get along? ;D It would be a huge mistake to link me to oppression Olympics going on in certain parts of academia. People can come to similar positions from vastly different starting points Gia.

 

[Giardiasis]

Couldn't agree more Gia. But wht kind of mental gymnastics are required to turn asking for people to express their opinion openly into 'silencing'? That is Olympic level. Lumping people into categories is a big mistake. My support for the Yes campaign is about freedom and equality and the objection to segregation of society. Why can't we all just get along? ;D It would be a huge mistake to link me to oppression Olympics going on in certain parts of academia. People can come to similar positions from vastly different starting points Gia.

You aren't at the same level of the people I was referring to, but at the same time you don't think people like the General should have a say in the matter, so I'm not sure why you are asking for him to explain his opinion. It doesn't matter what his reasons are. For you to turn this into an issue about freedom and equality seems to only look at it from one perspective. What about the general's freedom to not want SS couples to be considered as married?

This is where the whole confusion comes from. The general should be free to live in a community that doesn't consider SSM as valid, just as other communities should be free to consider it valid. However we live in a society where a large centralised authority has taken it upon itself to decide these issues for both groups of people that are for and against it. Hence what other option does the general have but to vote no?

 

[The_General]

Knighter, when you believe you can be judge and jury on what is a "reason" or an "excuse", you're trying to put yourself into a position of power. It's a tactic which then makes the second party go to a defensive position, trying to prove their argument is valid. It closes down the field of play to only things you deem worthy. It's not respectful at all. Basically, unless our opinions fit within the framework you feel worthy of debate, then it can't be had. You may not agree with it, but you don't have the right to judge what can and can't be reasons people feel a certain way about a topic.

I didn't respond to you, and your response was to say I was arrogant and vacuous. Thoughtless and close minded. You then proceeded to push the point with others that I wouldn't engage with you. (I really doubt the sincerity of the "oh but you don't have to respond" argument). What I said was, I've seen the way these discussions go on countless forums/social media threads, and they always go the same way. "My opinion is more valid than your excuses, therefore you're a bigot/bad person/(insert other negative connotation here), unless you vote yes." The whole discussion is more pointless than the vote.

You've said I take marriage for granted, but how do you know that? You're making judgements decisions about me without even knowing me. The fact is, I outlined my opinion, I offered a compromise (which the yes campaign isn't really looking to do I might add) and said that I considered traditional marriage as something special that would be affected by SSM. Considering something usually means it's not being taken for granted. Additionally, the fact I've pointed out instances where I've heard SS couples have been treated as the proverbial red-headed step child and reiterated that something needs to be done to prevent those things from occurring hardly means I'm unsympathetic to what is trying to be achieved here. By ignoring what I've said (which the above examples demonstrate you have) and throwing a bunch of criticism my way basically is a power play to frame a conversation on your terms. I think I've been pretty reasonable with my language and tone throughout. I don't need to play those games, because I'm not interested in converting you to my idea, proving a point or belittling your values. You're fully entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I'd encourage you to go read your own posts and analyse the language you use from a point of view other than your own. Although based on your own feedback, you're pretty aware of your conduct but pursue that path anyway. If you don't think your trying to control the debate and have it on "your terms" then there's not much point discussing things, is there?

 

[MD Jazz]

A lot of words to say nothing and be a victim. And provide more evidence that the real reason is SSM will diminish your marriage

 

[jb03]

Because you believe the majority of the "yes" crowd are pain the arse wankers or whatever you want to call them seems a pretty silly reason to vote "no".

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Knighter, when you believe you can be judge and jury on what is a "reason" or an "excuse", you're trying to put yourself into a position of power. It's a tactic which then makes the second party go to a defensive position, trying to prove their argument is valid. It closes down the field of play to only things you deem worthy. It's not respectful at all. Basically, unless our opinions fit within the framework you feel worthy of debate, then it can't be had. You may not agree with it, but you don't have the right to judge what can and can't be reasons people feel a certain way about a topic.

I didn't respond to you, and your response was to say I was arrogant and vacuous. Thoughtless and close minded. You then proceeded to push the point with others that I wouldn't engage with you. (I really doubt the sincerity of the "oh but you don't have to respond" argument). What I said was, I've seen the way these discussions go on countless forums/social media threads, and they always go the same way. "My opinion is more valid than your excuses, therefore you're a bigot/bad person/(insert other negative connotation here), unless you vote yes." The whole discussion is more pointless than the vote.

You've said I take marriage for granted, but how do you know that? You're making judgements decisions about me without even knowing me. The fact is, I outlined my opinion, I offered a compromise (which the yes campaign isn't really looking to do I might add) and said that I considered traditional marriage as something special that would be affected by SSM. Considering something usually means it's not being taken for granted. Additionally, the fact I've pointed out instances where I've heard SS couples have been treated as the proverbial red-headed step child and reiterated that something needs to be done to prevent those things from occurring hardly means I'm unsympathetic to what is trying to be achieved here. By ignoring what I've said (which the above examples demonstrate you have) and throwing a bunch of criticism my way basically is a power play to frame a conversation on your terms. I think I've been pretty reasonable with my language and tone throughout. I don't need to play those games, because I'm not interested in converting you to my idea, proving a point or belittling your values. You're fully entitled to your opinion, as am I.

I'd encourage you to go read your own posts and analyse the language you use from a point of view other than your own. Although based on your own feedback, you're pretty aware of your conduct but pursue that path anyway. If you don't think your trying to control the debate and have it on "your terms" then there's not much point discussing things, is there?

[EDIT]

I have at no stage said you can't use any particular reason, only that I don't think tradition is a good one. I'm allowed to choose what I think are good and bad reasons aren't I? My opinion isn't binding or coercieve is it? There is no power game here, General. I have not suggested I have the only answers nor have I suggested I have superior values to anyone. I don't have any power here. I am a guy on a forum expressing opinions and questioning others. That's it. If you feel set upon, I'm sorry. You posted your intention to do something that I disagree with and I responded. I'm not sure why that is such a big deal? I'm not controlling anything nor trying to.

I didn't mean you take marriage for granted. I meant you to take for granted your access to something you are then denying someone else. The point I am always trying to get you to see (I may not change your mind but so what? the discussion can still have merit) is that it seems seriously selfish to deny someone something you have access to, when it is costing you nothing. I have at no stage called you a bigot nor implied you were one. What I have done is identify what I think is a flaw in your argument and try to engage you on it. You may find my method and my language confronting. So be it.

On arrogance it's a pot - kettle stand off. You called me arrogant and I responded in kind. My arrogance is in my language and my dismissal of "tradition" as a good excuse for discrimination against a sector of society. Yours is in your belief that your marriage holds a special place that can't be aspired to by same-sex couples. Your compromise doesn't make any sense to me. If same-sex couples can get married under your compromise why bother to hold out over the name given to their union? It just seems a strange position. They're married, why can't they call it that?

I'm not sure where the persecution complex about being judged is coming from? It is human nature to judge others. We do it all the time, usually on scant information and call it intuition. I have made value judgements based on your statements and my values. That is perfectly reasonable. I only know my own values. The place I probably did cross the line was your suggestion that the way some people on the "yes" side express themselves justified your being in the "nos". This debate is about other people's freedoms. Your freedoms are not on the line at any stage, so I absolutely am judging you based on that statement. You would, by your own admission, happily deny someone the same access to marriage you enjoy because you don't like the way I (and people like me) express myself. I will judge that behaviour. I will look at that and say "that is a pretty sh!tty way to behave". I am free to do that without impinging on your rights and freedoms at all.

Did you read my response to your analogy? Can you see where we differ in perspective?

 

[Elmer]

Because you believe the majority of the "yes" crowd are pain the arse wankers or whatever you want to call them seems a pretty silly reason to vote "no".

I was pretty annoyed to get an unsolicited call from the "Yes" campaign last night, asking me if I was aware of the vote? Had my voting forms arrived yet? and how was I going to vote? Having answered the first few questions cordially upon being asked how I will vote I was fairly abrupt informing them it's none of their business. It's not enough to change my mind but I find that sort of questioning at best highly inappropriate and at worst sinister.

I then got a text immediately after telling me where to post my 'YES' vote.

Gotta say that left me thinking 'pain in the arse wankers.'

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Gotta say I was pretty annoyed to get an unsolicited call from the "Yes" campaign last night, asking me if I was aware of the vote? Had my voting forms arrived yet? and how was I going to vote? Having answered the first few questions cordially upon being asked how I will vote I was fairly abrupt informing them it's none of their business. It's not enough to change my mind but I find that sort of questioning at best highly inappropriate and at worst sinister.

Yup. If we all wanted to live in 'Merika we could go apply for green cards. Do we have to follow every *smile* trend? Surely there is ample evidence that their political system is a complete shambles? Maybe let's stay away from copying the bloody 'seppos' for a while?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Because marriage is about a man and a woman. There's hundreds of years of this being the tradition. Sure it has been tinkered with over the while, but it has - in western culture - pretty much been about man and woman.

If marriage becomes anyone can marry anyone so long as they're consenting, it no longer means the same thing.

I recognise that other groups in society should have the same legal protections/entitlements as Heterosexual couples, which is why I think there should be something equivalent legally. That group can and should start their own traditions, rather than try co-opt another section of society. Who knows, maybe if that happens, people will look at things like divorce rates and other factors and say, why isn't traditional marriage as successful as civil union?

In a way, it's like the suburb I live in. There is a very large proportion of the community is from another religious group. Each year the council celebrates the religious festivities of that group. Festivals, billboards, etc.
When it comes to Xmas however, the amount of decorations has reduced and the length of time they are displayed has become shorter and shorter to respect this other segment of community. That change hasn't stopped me having family outings on Xmas Day, but it has reduced the special feeling that that time of year had. The question around the house of my in-laws (who are somewhat religious) is why do they need to lose something, for someone else to gain something. They're more than happy for the other religion to celebrate and be happy, but why must they reduce their own celebrations so as not to offend the first group?

Hopefully that analogy gives some Indication of what the change would mean to me as a comparison. I've done my best to try do so in a way that I hope is inoffensive.

Cheers General.
I respect the right to that POV and you argued your points well.

FWIW I'm voting yes but did so with plenty of thought.

Ultimately I saw this as about inclusion of different sexualities & feel that it strengthens society rather than divides it by giving them the right to marry.

Everyone sees the concept of what 'marriage' is differently.
The concept is derived from religion and I respect that. I think this is an important point often lost in the 'yes' argument. It's very hard to shake the religious beliefs of people. If I have learned one thing in life it's that. Not to say it's not worth fighting to bring change to outdated beliefs.

I'm not religious, so I see my 'marriage' to my wife more so as a union between 2 people who pledge love to each other for life, rather than specifically being between a 'man & a woman'.
I don't see how gay couples etc. wanting the same right to 'marriage' dilutes that one iota.
There are many good and bad marriages between a man & woman the world over. Bad hetero marriages have been doing a pretty good job diluting what it means to be married in recent times. Divorce rates are creeping up all the time.

My personal belief is love, respect and commitment are the most important thing when it comes to that bond, not one's sexual orientation. IMO 'Marriage' should be a celebration of love and equally importantly commitment above all else. That's what builds strength in families and society. If those key ingredients were given the priority over format then the world would be a better place for it.
Everyone should have the right to be 'married'. The Gay community should have that right.
Who am I to say they don't?
If I was that way inclined, I'd want to be able to marry the partner I love.

More importantly the entire concept of marriage needs a little more love, honour & respect.
That should be true no matter what one's sexuality is.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Cheers General.
I respect the right to that POV and you argued your points well.

FWIW I'm voting yes but did so with plenty of thought.

Ultimately I saw this as about inclusion of different sexualities & feel that it strengthens society rather than divides it by giving them the right to marry.

Everyone sees the concept of what 'marriage' is differently.
The concept is derived from religion and I respect that. I think this is an important point often lost in the 'yes' argument. It's very hard to shake the religious beliefs of people. If I have learned one thing in life it's that. Not to say it's not worth fighting to bring change to outdated beliefs.

I'm not religious, so I see my 'marriage' to my wife more so as a union between 2 people who pledge love to each other for life, rather than specifically being between a 'man & a woman'.
I don't see how gay couples etc. wanting the same right to 'marriage' dilutes that one iota.
There are many good and bad marriages between a man & woman the world over. Bad hetero marriages have been doing a pretty good job diluting what it means to be married in recent times. Divorce rates are creeping up all the time.

My personal belief is love, respect and commitment are the most important thing when it comes to that bond, not one's sexual orientation. IMO 'Marriage' should be a celebration of love and equally importantly commitment above all else. That's what builds strength in families and society. If those key ingredients were given the priority over format then the world would be a better place for it.
Everyone should have the right to be 'married'. The Gay community should have that right.
Who am I to say they don't?
If I was that way inclined, I'd want to be able to marry the partner I love.

More importantly the entire concept of marriage needs a little more love, honour & respect.
That should be true no matter what one's sexuality is.

See, that was nice. Why do I have to be so antagonistic when I post? Thanks for showing me the way ToO.

 

[Harry]

Because you believe the majority of the "yes" crowd are pain the arse wankers or whatever you want to call them seems a pretty silly reason to vote "no".

Reckon it's a great reason. People at my place of work are putting up rainbow yes posters in the office. You reckon no posters would be tolerated? This stuff shouldn't take place at work. Won't even start with what kids are being exposed to at schools.

 

[Giardiasis]

Reckon it's a great reason. People at my place of work are putting up rainbow yes posters in the office. You reckon no posters would be tolerated? This stuff shouldn't take place at work. Won't even start with what kids are being exposed to at schools.

This is just one such issue. It applies to all the PC left wing crusades. We had a team day at work last week where everyone had to sit there and be told by our manager (a woman) that we needed to hire more women "cos diversity" and that we had too many men in top positions. Then some other women made great suggestions such as only letting men leave and only hiring women. Everyone sat there looking at the ground, afraid to say the bleating obvious that perhaps women don't want to work there and is "diversity" really all it's cracked up to be? Perhaps we don't worry about gender and just focus on hiring the best people? Everyone was afraid of being called a bigot or hurting their chance of promotion. I wasn't there otherwise I could be out of a job.

 

[jb03]

Reckon it's a great reason. People at my place of work are putting up rainbow yes posters in the office. You reckon no posters would be tolerated? This stuff shouldn't take place at work. Won't even start with what kids are being exposed to at schools.

It is still not a valid reason to vote no surely?

I still support the Tigers despite Leysy also supporting them.

 

[tigertim]

Reckon it's a great reason. People at my place of work are putting up rainbow yes posters in the office. You reckon no posters would be tolerated? This stuff shouldn't take place at work. Won't even start with what kids are being exposed to at schools.

What part of the SSM issue are the kids being exposed to at school?

 

[Harry]

What part of the SSM issue are the kids being exposed to at school?

The issue itself shouldn't be discussed at schools especially primary.