Marriage equality debate - Pt.3 - Australia votes yes

[Chief]

Continued from Pt 2:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...-debate-the-plebiscite-is-on-its-way.1091155/

===========

It's always fun to read comments from people who aren't as smart as they think they are

Hey!!!

 

[yebiga]

Where did I say people have to agree on everything? I said there are topics where there should be consensus.

.

Why? Who cares whether you and I agree as long as we don't physically harm each other the differences are an asset not a little ability

 

[DemonTim]

Why? Who cares whether you and I agree as long as we don't physically harm each other the differences are an asset not a little ability

So you think there shouldn’t be a consensus on black slavery? Or women’s rights? That people should be able to publicly argue for women to have rights removed?

Should people be able to tell rape victims it’s their own fault?

 

[yebiga]

Irrelevant in 2017 mate. Many people get married with no intention whatsoever to have children.



What?

I find that amazingly narrow minded and naive.

Tell me of all the couples you know what % have been married for 10 years or more and there are no children In that relationship?

I honestly don't know one such married couple. I've never worked or encountered such a couple.

Have you?

 

[Showbags]

Seriously, ask yourself why it has become so necessary that everyone agrees?
Why can't people have opinions which are wildly different and we simply accept them warts and all.

What's with the paranoia? This is a bizarre cultural development.

No one is saying everyone has to agree. You are free to think the earth is flat if you wish but if you wish for your belief to be enshrined in law then you will be required to justify that opinion.

Acceptance of an opinion is different to acceptance of your right to have an opinion.

The No side are wishing to push their opinions on who should or should not be getting married into the law of the state, despite it having no practical effect on them. The Yes side is simply asking to extend the definition to include gay people (not to exclude heterosexuals). It is the No side demanding everyone follow their beliefs.

 

[yebiga]

So you think there shouldn’t be a consensus on black slavery? Or women’s rights? That people should be able to publicly argue for women to have rights removed?

Should people be able to tell rape victims it’s their own fault?

Of course they should. Toughen up pussy cat. You don't have to agree with them - your world will not fall apart.

More importantly by permitting people to hold their own views you can far more accurately judge them

As opposed to culture where everyone lies to each other and we Stoop to accusing people of unconscious crimes.

This sensitivity is a relatively new cultural phenomena - its a 1st world problem excelerated by excessive pathologising and use of prescription drugs.

Harden the * up

 

[yebiga]

No one is saying everyone has to agree. You are free to think the earth is flat if you wish but if you wish for your belief to be enshrined in law then you will be required to justify that opinion.

Acceptance of an opinion is different to acceptance of your right to have an opinion.

The No side are wishing to push their opinions on who should or should not be getting married into the law of the state, despite it having no practical effect on them. The Yes side is simply asking to extend the definition to include gay people (not to exclude heterosexuals). It is the No side demanding everyone follow their beliefs.

It is exactly what you are saying - if people don't agree with you - you believe you can invalidate their opinion - as flat earthers as wearing thin foil hats as Nazi as...

This denies the other person has valid experience. By pursuing this course you have determined that you yourself have nothing new to learn either.

In other words - you are claiming to possess some unchanging truth When the very existence of life of the disagreeable person denies that as a possibility.

So rather than excepting a state of grey - we choose to convince the other to relinquish their own truth or if that fails shun or humiliate or punish them.

What we achieve is something horribly stunted - welcome to our culture.

 

[DemonTim]

Of course they should. Toughen up pussy cat. You don't have to agree with them - your world will not fall apart.

More importantly by permitting people to hold their own views you can far more accurately judge them

As opposed to culture where everyone lies to each other and we in diligence in accusing people of unconscious crimes.

This sensitivity is a relatively new cultural phenomena - its a 1st world problem excelerated by excessive pathologising and use of prescription drugs.

Harden the **** up

Yes those damn rape victims and minorities who have struggled through civil liberty issues just need to harden up

This coming from the guy who is whinging because gays are stealing his word.

And *. Talk about paranoia. “If people can’t blame rape victims everyone will lie to each other”

You’re a parody of a human being.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I find that amazingly narrow minded and naive.

Tell me of all the couples you know what % have been married for 10 years or more and there are no children In that relationship?

I honestly don't know one such married couple. I've never worked or encountered such a couple.

Have you?

I'm half of one, so there you go.

 

[yebiga]

I'm half of one, so there you go.

Great we have one - any advance on one ?

 

[yebiga]

Yes those damn rape victims and minorities who have struggled through civil liberty issues just need to harden up

This coming from the guy who is whinging because gays are stealing his word.

And ****. Talk about paranoia. “If people can’t blame rape victims everyone will lie to each other”

You’re a parody of a human being.

I'm sure we will both be there to protect and nurture them. Won't you?

 

[DemonTim]

I'm sure we will both be there to protect and nurture them. Won't you?

You don’t even have a point. I doubt you even care about the topic, it’s just something for you to be contrary about.

 

[Gough]

You don’t even have a point. I doubt you even care about the topic, it’s just something for you to be contrary about.

He'll be on the wrong side of every social issue going. But instead of looking at himself, he'll see it as further proof of his operating on a higher plane to us plebs. I think we should let him do this, there's no delusion quite like self delusion.

 

[yebiga]

You don’t even have a point. I doubt you even care about the topic, it’s just something for you to be contrary about.

Oh I know you care - I don't have the words to adequately applaud your humanity.
When I take measure of the abundant benevolence pouring out from posters on BF, I am comforted that all in the world will be well.
I envisage poster spending their days comforting the sick, the poor, the disenchanted, the homeless. I imagine you operating soup kitchen dispensing that human touch missing from so many peoples lives.

 

[bourbons]

I find that amazingly narrow minded and naive.

Tell me of all the couples you know what % have been married for 10 years or more and there are no children In that relationship?

I honestly don't know one such married couple. I've never worked or encountered such a couple.

Have you?

2. Not sure what that percentage would be.. 6 or 7%?

I find it amazingly narrow minded that you can't conceive of people wanting to get married but not have children. The arguments you offer make a bit more sense in this context, but rest assured the idea that the only reason people marry is to procreate is objectively wrong.

It is exactly what you are saying - if people don't agree with you - you believe you can invalidate their opinion - as flat earthers as wearing thin foil hats as Nazi as...

This denies the other person has valid experience. By pursuing this course you have determined that you yourself have nothing new to learn either.

In other words - you are claiming to possess some unchanging truth When the very existence of life of the disagreeable person denies that as a possibility.

So rather than excepting a state of grey - we choose to convince the other to relinquish their own truth or if that fails shun or humiliate or punish them.

What we achieve is something horribly stunted - welcome to our culture.

Not all opinions are created equal though. To use the above example - someone saying the earth is flat should be invalidated. There are no shades of grey there.

While I agree that the current debate around SSM is less cut-and-dry than that, in another 50 years I've got no doubt it will be seen in much the same way as the civil rights movement for black people.. don't think rational people see much grey there these days.

Great we have one - any advance on one ?

2 from me, 1 from another poster inside an hour of you asking the question. Go and poll the rest of the forum, let me know how you go - I'm guessing the results will surprise you.

 

[DemonTim]

Oh I know you care - I don't have the words to adequately applaud your humanity.
When I take measure of the abundant benevolence pouring out from posters on BF, I am comforted that all in the world will be well.
I envisage poster spending their days comforting the sick, the poor, the disenchanted, the homeless. I imagine you operating soup kitchen dispensing that human touch missing from so many peoples lives.

Some people actually do care for others.

I find it strange. Someone who advocates for sanctity of marriage and caring for children, yet mocks others for empathy.

Well done again on a non related reply

 

[yebiga]

2. Not sure what that percentage would be.. 6 or 7%?

I find it amazingly narrow minded that you can't conceive of people wanting to get married but not have children. The arguments you offer make a bit more sense in this context, but rest assured the idea that the only reason people marry is to procreate is objectively wrong.



Not all opinions are created equal though. To use the above example - someone saying the earth is flat should be invalidated. There are no shades of grey there.

While I agree that the current debate around SSM is less cut-and-dry than that, in another 50 years I've got no doubt it will be seen in much the same way as the civil rights movement for black people.. don't think rational people see much grey there these days.



2 from me, 1 from another poster inside an hour of you asking the question. Go and poll the rest of the forum, let me know how you go - I'm guessing the results will surprise you.

I have seen numerous women get to the late 30s and early 40s and become desperate for children. Many who months earlier would have sworn to never want children, some not even in a relation- will miraculously find the right partner and conceive in short order. So what people say one day or for many years is not necessarily true. Other people may find that they get to that age and can't conceive and yet others are no doubt conflicted but time decides it for them.

Even someone who actually believed the world to be flat deserves our curiosity at least, surely? The obsession to be right to be seen to be right and to be on the right winning side is diminishes life and authenticity. Shouldn't we be curious how someone might come to believe something we feel is so foreign to us? When the mass of humanity merely regurgitates evening TV, the Flatearther is at least refreshing.

"While I agree that the current debate around SSM is less cut-and-dry than that, in another 50 years I've got no doubt it will be seen in much the same way as the civil rights movement for black people.. don't think rational people see much grey there these days."

Let us contrast two events: In the 1962 Australia extended the vote to our Indigenous community. In 2008, PM Rudd said sorry on behalf of the nation to the stolen generation.
The first event is historic and few people would see any grey in it. The second event is an embarrassing and insulting victory for ceremony over substance.
I suggest the SSM will in a generation not be remembered as an historic victory for civil rights but an embarrassing victory of ceremony over substance.

 

[Sainteric]

Whereas the right expects gays, women, and anyone who isn’t a white male to either toe the line or keep quiet...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You confuse consertitives who are as bad as the left with the right. The right beleives in equal opportunity but not outcomes.

 

[Forward Press]

The right beleives in equal opportunity but not outcomes.

Considering the right tends to push for things like banning Muslim migration and stripping money from health and education I find that difficult to believe.

 

[CakeEater]

I suggest the SSM will in a generation not be remembered as an historic victory for civil rights but an embarrassing victory of ceremony over substance.

Arent all marriages a victory of ceremony over substance?

I.e an act of marriage is a ceremonial institution that celebrates that 2 people want to be together for the rest of their life.

The substance of whether the marriage/relationship will last is yet to be defined.

The substance of the marriage is the value attached to the relationship as defined by the couple.

 

[Mofra]

The first event is historic and few people would see any grey in it. The second event is an embarrassing and insulting victory for ceremony over substance.
I suggest the SSM will in a generation not be remembered as an historic victory for civil rights but an embarrassing victory of ceremony over substance.

I have indigenous friends who were deeply touched by the apology and it meant a lot to them. The tears in the crowd suggest they are not alone.

I have gay friends who will marry as soon as they are able to (noting civil ceremonies do not convey the same rights as marriage). Legal rights are a little more than 'ceremony over substance' and if even it would be 'ceremony over substance' then surely the petty argument against SSM suddenly become moot?

 

[Gough]

Considering the right tends to push for things like banning Muslim migration and stripping money from health and education I find that difficult to believe.

This government in no way believes in equality of opportunity. Joe Hockey made that clear in 2014 Budget, and they haven't deviated from that course since.

 

[yebiga]

I have indigenous friends who were deeply touched by the apology and it meant a lot to them. The tears in the crowd suggest they are not alone.

I have gay friends who will marry as soon as they are able to (noting civil ceremonies do not convey the same rights as marriage). Legal rights are a little more than 'ceremony over substance' and if even it would be 'ceremony over substance' then surely the petty argument against SSM suddenly become moot?

On both points your personal anecdotes are themselves moot.

Whilst people may tear up in kumbayah moments when the same crap goes on is really *en insulting. And many indigenous people feel insulted.

 

[bourbons]

I have seen numerous women get to the late 30s and early 40s and become desperate for children. Many who months earlier would have sworn to never want children, some not even in a relation- will miraculously find the right partner and conceive in short order. So what people say one day or for many years is not necessarily true. Other people may find that they get to that age and can't conceive and yet others are no doubt conflicted but time decides it for them.

Gee you post a lot of irrelevant stuff.

What has any of that (changing minds/relationships/circumstances) got to do with entering a marriage with an intent not to have children?

Let us contrast two events: In the 1962 Australia extended the vote to our Indigenous community. In 2008, PM Rudd said sorry on behalf of the nation to the stolen generation.
The first event is historic and few people would see any grey in it. The second event is an embarrassing and insulting victory for ceremony over substance.
I suggest the SSM will in a generation not be remembered as an historic victory for civil rights but an embarrassing victory of ceremony over substance.

Welcome to your opinion, but I'd say its self evident that changing the law on SSM clearly has more in common with allowing the indigenous vote than the apology to the stolen generation. Both of these are primarily concerned with equality and rights.

 

[yebiga]

Gee you post a lot of irrelevant stuff.

What has any of that (changing minds/relationships/circumstances) got to do with entering a marriage with an intent not to have children?



Welcome to your opinion, but I'd say its self evident that changing the law on SSM clearly has more in common with allowing the indigenous vote than the apology to the stolen generation. Both of these are primarily concerned with equality and rights.

People may intend not to have children but their intention and reality of mortality often alters that intent.