Marriage Equality Achieved - (SSM Debate Part 4)

Remove this Banner Ad

There was no acute trauma.
To you.
Have you ever stopped to think that there are people with different life experiences and perspectives than you, and maybe they were affected by an event in a different way to how you were.
Or is anything that exists outside of your own attitude and context completely foreign ?
 
To you.
Have you ever stopped to think that there are people with different life experiences and perspectives than you, and maybe they were affected by an event in a different way to how you were.
Or is anything that exists outside of your own attitude and context completely foreign ?
Affected how?

Name two people who have been institutionalised or died from this “acute trauma”.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

That’s not acute trauma.

Actually it really is...

https://skywoodrecovery.com/chronic-versus-acute-trauma/

Acute trauma is often associated with a single event that happens in one’s life. For example, acute trauma could come in the form of a car accident, theft, witnessing a violent event or an experience that threatens an individual’s physical or emotional safety.

The "acute" part of the trauma relates to short(ish) term symptoms arising from a single event... Say for example someone making threats against you...

I'd say for some people in the LBGTQI community they would have been in situations that would have fit this definition almost perfectly.
 
Actually it really is...

https://skywoodrecovery.com/chronic-versus-acute-trauma/

Acute trauma is often associated with a single event that happens in one’s life. For example, acute trauma could come in the form of a car accident, theft, witnessing a violent event or an experience that threatens an individual’s physical or emotional safety.

The "acute" part of the trauma relates to short(ish) term symptoms arising from a single event... Say for example someone making threats against you...

I'd say for some people in the LBGTQI community they would have been in situations that would have fit this definition almost perfectly.
That being said, it is important not to make assumptions. It is always best to speak with a medical professional before determining a specific diagnosis for someone.
Yeah nah, no acute trauma.
 
That being said, it is important not to make assumptions. It is always best to speak with a medical professional before determining a specific diagnosis for someone.
Yeah nah, no acute trauma.

PMSL - First sentence says it's important not to make assumptions....

Second sentence (if you can call it that) makes a sweeping assumption...
 
I asked for examples of acute trauma. None were forthcoming.

The default case is that it didn’t happen.

Oh ok hang on, I'll just go find some people who are comfortable discussing their personal trauma on an internet forum.... Back soon...

Based on the definition that I provided I would suggest that the vast majority of people would believe that there would be some people in the LGBTIQ community that would have suffered that sort of trauma during the plebiscite process... Would have thought that emotional safety was threatened for a lot of people who were being told that they should just stop being gay...
 
Oh ok hang on, I'll just go find some people who are comfortable discussing their personal trauma on an internet forum.... Back soon...

Based on the definition that I provided I would suggest that the vast majority of people would believe that there would be some people in the LGBTIQ community that would have suffered that sort of trauma during the plebiscite process... Would have thought that emotional safety was threatened for a lot of people who were being told that they should just stop being gay...
What is “emotional safety”?
 
“If you can’t find me an example that perfectly and cleanly fits in this arbitrary box I have defined myself then I dismiss your evidence, and in the event that you do, I’ll change it”.

Comes on the SSM “debate” 12 months after he lost and whinges that some people had a s**t time whilst their right to do the same s**t everyone else could already do might have been rough on them, what an inspired effort.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

How was this changed by the conducting of a plebiscite?
You're joking right?

Did you actually follow the "debate" around the issue and the hateful and downright disgusting arguments that were emanating from some people involved in the "No" campaign? They were given essentially a free kick to spout cruel slogans and make people fearful of their own feelings and identity.

But you'll find some way to convince yourself that this wasn't the case so I may have just wasted my breath...
 
You're joking right?

Did you actually follow the "debate" around the issue and the hateful and downright disgusting arguments that were emanating from some people involved in the "No" campaign? They were given essentially a free kick to spout cruel slogans and make people fearful of their own feelings and identity.

But you'll find some way to convince yourself that this wasn't the case so I may have just wasted my breath...
Would these hateful and disgusting arguments not have been made in the absence of a plebiscite?

How did people want this law to pass? Without electoral mandate? What would have been said by the “hateful and disgusting” had the law passed without the assent of the electorate?
 
Would these hateful and disgusting arguments not have been made in the absence of a plebiscite?

How did people want this law to pass? Without electoral mandate? What would have been said by the “hateful and disgusting” had the law passed without the assent of the electorate?
You mean if it was passed through parliament like every other law and like when the wording was originally changed?
 
If you first allow that anything that hurts someone is violent, then hurting someone's feelings can also be violent.

I don't believe that but that is where the discussion is at. You said something that hurt my feelings, that's assault and I'm entitled to prioritise my offense over your freedom to be offended by my expression of my freedoms.

Words are violent. The biggest losers of the entire SSM debate and subsequent landslide victory in vote were those who made a career and identity out of the entire society pushing them down. Turned out to be wrong.

That's why I liked the vote. It ended the discussion. Ended it. Gone. Overwhelming support.
Those people will need to find something new to lobby for. The war is over. Soldiers need a fight though.
 
Would these hateful and disgusting arguments not have been made in the absence of a plebiscite?

How did people want this law to pass? Without electoral mandate? What would have been said by the “hateful and disgusting” had the law passed without the assent of the electorate?
Absent? No.

Significantly reduced, marginalised and ignored by the MSM and most in society? Almost certainly.

PMSL - Do you honestly think the reason that the Libs settled on a plebiscite was to ensure that they had a mandate? It was the only compromise that they could come up with that somewhat appeased religious zealots like Abbott who took great pleasure in using the process to show the world he is a glowing, card-carrying homophobe...
 
You mean if it was passed through parliament like every other law and like when the wording was originally changed?
But it's not like every other law. It's not like the "Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill", is it?

Would the dissenters have been silenced by the passage of the bill without the clear will of the electorate?
 
But it's not like every other law. It's not like the "Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill", is it?

Would the dissenters have been silenced by the passage of the bill without the clear will of the electorate?

They may have ranted and raved about a perceived lack of due process but there is no way known that there would have been the level of vitriol directed and individuals in the LGBTQI community as there was during the "debate"

There are plenty of examples of significant legislation being passed without having an electoral mandate. You can argue the relative merits of following that path but there is certainly enough precedent there for it to not have been a complete surprise.
 
They may have ranted and raved about a perceived lack of due process but there is no way known that there would have been the level of vitriol directed and individuals in the LGBTQI community as there was during the "debate"

Yes there would be. In fact, the vitriol could quite likely be higher, given the passage of the bill would have been perceived by dissenters as undemocratic.

There are plenty of examples of significant legislation being passed without having an electoral mandate. You can argue the relative merits of following that path but there is certainly enough precedent there for it to not have been a complete surprise.
Pretty much every significant piece of legislation that is passed has electoral mandate - because significant pieces of legislation are based on policy platforms that parties take to elections.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top