-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
The more I hear from both sides of the debate, the more I'm being pushed into that position.Harry said:
For me it's a choice between, do I value and see a purpose in the traditional definition of marriage and it's role in shaping the western societal framework. Or do I feel it has been so watered down and lost so much relevance, that we may as well just make it a free for all in the fashion that you propose. All the arguments made for SSM could equally be put forward for many other formats of intimate relationships between consenting adults. To deny this would be hypocritical to the extreme.
And this is where I develop ambivalent feelings. On a personal level, I'd love to see my gay family member's relationship valued by society in the same way as heterosexual couples. But to the wider social justice warrior activist political movement, this is just another notch on the belt to deconstructing institutions and frameworks that underpin the western society they hate so much.
This whole vote has attempted to place the issue in the position of a debate. This gives the illusion of equal weighting to both sides. When, in reality, there are zero logical arguments on the NO side.lamb22 said:
Through all of this, there only seems to be 3 'points' the no side have trotted out. All of which are more ludicrous than the others.
1. God says it's bad
2. People will marry doormats
3. People told me to vote yes and that's annoying.
Of all of those, only 3 is true. And if that's your reason for denying people the right to marry the people they love, you're a self absorbed idiot.
Panthera Tigris said:
This only makes sense if you consider incestuous relationships to be the moral equivalent of homosexual relationships.
Most people consider heterosexual relationships to be the moral equivalent of homosexual relationships.
And as antman says, this is not what this discussion is about. At all. It's a straw man, and a powerful one.
The question is really whether you consider homosexuality to be immoral. If we don't, as a society, there shouldn't be a problem with allowing same sex marriage.
I don't consider a homosexual relationship to be immoral. It's not my personal cup of tea, but as long as it is between two consenting adults, who are we to judge?Coburgtiger said:
In accepting that, how can we not accept the same arguments for relationships between close blood relations. Sure, it might not be our own personal cup of tea (there are so many beautiful girls out there, why the hell would I want to get with my sister!!.....no offense intended sis...), but how can we justify judging it as immoral if it is two consenting adults? Surely like consenting homosexual couples, what they do is nobody else's business?
Like I say, the original article that took my interest was a pair of half siblings who hadn't been raised together in a single family unit. So not your conventional sibling scenario. But with society and the family unit changing, that kind of example could well become more common.
Panthera Tigris said:
Personally I don't have a profound problem with your example. If social mores change so much that a majority of Australian parliamentarians are prepared to vote to support allowing incestous marraige, sure, go for it. That's democracy. But that's a separate issue to Marraige Equality for SSC.
In actual fact though your science is wrong - there is actually significantly increased risk of having diseased and abnormal offspring through biological brother /sister pairings.
lamb22 said:
Absolutely Lamby.
And it's the same muppets who forced this ridiculous survey on us who are now complaining that the debate is getting ugly and violent.
Hello, we told you this would happen.
And these are the same types who complain that the AFL or Qantas should stay out if it. You wanted public debate and you wanted people to take sides. You got what you wanted.
Like I said originally, elevated yes absolutely. But not quite the dead certainty it's made out to be. But then many people more widely carry around genetic conditions that have just as high likelihood of being passed on in their own right and society doesn't prevent them from breeding.antman said:
Panthera Tigris said:
Well, kind of. The problem is that we carry recessive genetic mutations - when inbreeding occurs the combination of the identical alleles causes the recessive genes to be expressed, thus causing the health issues. And this risk is very high. Anyway, get your point so won't labour it further.
In effect you are saying that although you don't necessarily object to SSM, you don't want to risk a change that "opens the gate" to subsequent more radical changes down the track. Correct me if this is not your argument.
My attitude is that 20 years ago the majority of the population wouldn't have supported SSM - now they do (if the opinion polls are correct). I don't care what we supported then, I care what we support now. It's now our decision at this time. Most Australians living 100 years ago would have been shocked and appalled to know we were considering allowing SSM in 2017. Well, big deal. They are long dead. And if in another hundred years for some reason the population - either through a plebiscite (probably done through sensible implementation of blockchain technology) or through a vote in parliament or whatever, freely chooses to legalise polyamory or incestuous weddings, FANTASTIC. I'll be dead, I won't care, and I won't presume to dictate to future generations of human beings what they should choose or not choose.
You keep using equality in a contradictory way. You can't just change the meaning of a word to suit your political argument. Stick to "I think SS couple should be allowed to marry", not "I want marriage equality so yes to SSM". You're just weakening your argument, unless you don't really care and think that applying a false equivalence is a better way to change minds. Then you are just a political stooge like a large portion of the vocal yes crowd.antman said:
Giardiasis said:
I've never used the above phrases in the way you state although others may have. But there is no problem in my mind for people to say we are giving SS couples equality of marriage rights with hetero couples. You say "but marraige Equality necessarily means that every possible type of human or animal relationship of a romantic nature must therefore be included or you can't use the term equality ". Thats stretching the argument too the point of incredulity IMO.
You didn't explain how aboriginal voting rights failed to give aboriginal people the equality of rights to vote either.
antman said:
Yes - businesses and sports clubs not allowed to comment but church's can ?
What I don't understand is a lot of the Christian churches support SSM so where does the no vote derive from.
Agree with the Abbott "bottom feeder" comment. I don't support violence under any circumstances but I have been surprised some of the rallies to date haven't gone down that path - keep poking a beer argument I guess.
