Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Posts
35,162
Likes
28,986
Location
The GoldenBrown Heart of Victoria
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Man Utd Green Bay Melb Storm
Sorry did I mention the bible somewhere?

And it sounds like you agree the same logic that demands people agree to SSM (equal rights, consenting adults, don't judge other people's relationships etc) also suggests that we should be able to marry siblings.

I would genuinely like someone to explain why that's not the case btw.

For all the bashing of No supporters for not being logical or having reasons for being concerned.. surely there's a decent answer.
You can marry your sister if you like....We won't stop you.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
1. So is SSM
2. Who are you to make that judgement? There's power imbalances in every relationship.
3. So is SSM.
Incest is illegal, not just incestual marriage. Homosexuality is legal. They are not comparable (SSM also isn't "illegal" it is just not legally recognised. Again, different)
Who am I to make that judgement? It's why a lot of sexual relation laws exist. Age requirements, incest, foster parents etc
Repeating it only shows you don't actually understand the topic.
 

Tiger08

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
1,582
Likes
2,093
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I don't think pointing out what's currently legal and illegal is actually the point here.. we are talking about how/if the law should change.

The same 'logic' that suggests SSM should be permitted also suggests that incest (between consenting adults) and marrying siblings should also. Sexual relations laws are there are to protect people, if two consenting adults (brother and sister) want to go at it, who are you to stop them?
 

happy_eagle

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Posts
20,694
Likes
13,412
AFL Club
West Coast
The same 'logic' that suggests SSM should be permitted also suggests that incest (between consenting adults) and marrying siblings should also.
I must have missed all of these "pro incest marriage" rallys that went on, and all the other countries that have approved incest marriage recently.
After all, its the same thing as SSM accoridng to you
 

Showbags

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Posts
5,365
Likes
5,528
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
West Ham Utd
Thread starter #8,055
1. So is SSM
2. Who are you to make that judgement? There's power imbalances in every relationship.
3. So is SSM.
I'm a libertarian on social issues generally. I couldn't really care less whether people want to marry or **** their sister or cousin as long as they are adults exercising free and informed consent. I couldn't care less whether people want to marry 5 people either (polygamous marriage). The State should only step in to protect vulnerable parties in my view.

But DemonTim's point on the power imbalance in incestuous relationships is a valid one. A father who grooms his daughter in order to enter into a sexual relationship once she comes of age, is a violation of the idea of free and informed consent.

Also the biological ramifications regarding children from incestuous relationships is another valid reason why the State should step in and regulate.

A couple of years ago I was working with a guy in his 30's that was screwing his cousin. He didn't have any contact with her until he was in his late 20's therefore both were exercising free and informed consent. It wasn't my cup of tea personally but I'm of the view that whatever adults exercising free and informed consent do in their private lives is none of my business nor should it be the business of the State.

The argument should in my view always come down to the weighing of the pros and cons of a change not simply working backwards from your conclusion that gay relationships are disgusting like most of the NO side seem to do.

What are the pros and cons for legalizing SSM? So far the so called "negatives" of the change put forward by the NO side have been spurious. The positives have been outlined and are far more convincing.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
I don't think pointing out what's currently legal and illegal is actually the point here.. we are talking about how/if the law should change.

The same 'logic' that suggests SSM should be permitted also suggests that incest (between consenting adults) and marrying siblings should also. Sexual relations laws are there are to protect people, if two consenting adults (brother and sister) want to go at it, who are you to stop them?
Of course it's relevant. You'd need to change law, then change the marriage act. Homosexuality is legal, incest isn't. Your response is basically "I don't care about how they're different. I'm ignoring the reasons. But tell me why they're different"

Not to mention it has no relation. Did you complain about mlk because he didn't do enough for asian rights?

If you want incest to be legalised, then maybe you should start a movement. Do you want to do that?
 

JeffDunne

TheBrownDog
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Posts
50,988
Likes
21,658
Location
Jury Duty
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
And it sounds like you agree the same logic that demands people agree to SSM (equal rights, consenting adults, don't judge other people's relationships etc) also suggests that we should be able to marry siblings.
I don't agree with anything of the sort.

All I am saying is if you want it, lobby for it. Convince us why the community should accept you boning your sister.

But for the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with SSM.
 

Showbags

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Posts
5,365
Likes
5,528
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
West Ham Utd
Thread starter #8,058
Have you got links for these studies? The devil is in the detail.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446470/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1753-6405.12432/abstract

I didn't draw that conclusion. But it's typical of the yes side to misrepresent the opposing argument. What I'm saying is that the assumption that the higher rates of mental illness, suicide and domestic violence are wholly due to societal pressure could be incorrect - and counter-productive. There's no clear evidence for it.
You are insinuating that societal pressures/social exclusion aren't the main cause of depression/suicide etc, in other words that homosexuality is an intrinsic mental disorder. How else can it be interpreted than that? Again provide the studies that suggest it is a mental disorder.

Even if it isn't the sole cause, the fact that it has a large part to play in the high rates of depression/suicide (which surely you can admit), especially when compared to the rest of the population, means that a response is necessary.
 

Tiger08

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 14, 2007
Posts
1,582
Likes
2,093
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
I'm a libertarian on social issues generally. I couldn't really care less whether people want to marry or **** their sister or cousin as long as they are adults exercising free and informed consent. I couldn't care less whether people want to marry 5 people either (polygamous marriage). The State should only step in to protect vulnerable parties in my view.

But DemonTim's point on the power imbalance in incestuous relationships is a valid one. A father who grooms his daughter in order to enter into a sexual relationship once she comes of age, is a violation of the idea of free and informed consent.

Also the biological ramifications regarding children from incestuous relationships is another valid reason why the State should step in and regulate.

A couple of years ago I was working with a guy in his 30's that was screwing his cousin. He didn't have any contact with her until he was in his late 20's therefore both were exercising free and informed consent. It wasn't my cup of tea personally but I'm of the view that whatever adults exercising free and informed consent do in their private lives is none of my business nor should it be the business of the State.

The argument should in my view always come down to the weighing of the pros and cons of a change not simply working backwards from your conclusion that gay relationships are disgusting like most of the NO side seem to do.

What are the pros and cons for legalizing SSM? So far the so called "negatives" of the change put forward by the NO side have been spurious. The positives have been outlined and are farm more convincing.
Fair response on all of that and I think that's probably how it will play out. I do think there needed to be a proper debate on all this and for all it flaws, the glorified opinion poll seems to be doing that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JeffDunne

TheBrownDog
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Posts
50,988
Likes
21,658
Location
Jury Duty
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
It was an opportunity missed back then by the ALP but this is about the current mess, and the divisive nature of it rests with the conservatives within the Liberal party. The normal course of action on controversial matters is for politicians to have a conscience vote. Controversial things like RU486 were done this way by Howard which resulted in it being approved in the face of opposition by the then Minister for Health, a certain Mr T Abbott. The lack of a conscience vote for Liberal Party MPs on the current bill is the problem behind the current situation. There is no leadership within the party and they are held hostage to the conservative wing.
Shouldn't every vote be a "conscience vote"? Its amazing how little we expect of our elected representatives.

That aside, the reason we are where we are now is in large part due to a complete lack of leadership on all sides of the isle. International leadership has had more influence in us getting to this point than anything that's happened in Canberra. Some Republican politicians have shown more leadership than we've seen here from the ALP.

And don't kid yourself, Labor would like nothing more than the government to delay an implementation of SSM. It is the perfect issue for them to work on a clear division in the Government. They would be loving how this one issue is now giving voice to the far right. Labor's handling of this for over a decade has been deplorable and hypocritical.
 

Gough

Moderator
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
40,714
Likes
66,499
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Moderator #8,063
Shouldn't every vote be a "conscience vote"? Its amazing how little we expect of our elected representatives.

That aside, the reason we are where we are now is in large part due a lack of leadership on all sides of the isle. International leadership has had more influence in us getting to this point than anything that's happened in Canberra. Some Republican politicians have shown more leadership than we've seen here from the ALP.

And don't kid yourself, Labor would like nothing more than the government to delay an implementation of SSM. It is the perfect issue for them to work on a clear division in the Government. They would be loving how this one issue is now giving voice to the far right. Labor's handling of this for over a decade has been deplorable and hypocritical.
That it would be a disaster for Turnbull was the only reason that I considered voting no.
 

Belnakor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
18,286
Likes
8,945
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
You are insinuating that societal pressures/social exclusion aren't the main cause of depression/suicide etc, in other words that homosexuality is an intrinsic mental disorder. How else can it be interpreted than that? Again provide the studies that suggest it is a mental disorder.

Even if it isn't the sole cause, the fact that it has a large part to play in the high rates of depression/suicide (which surely you can admit), especially when compared to the rest of the population, means that a response is necessary.
wow you really went ham on that strawman you constructed for yourself.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Posts
2,662
Likes
3,550
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
Apparently the bookies have this almost line ball, with the big money coming for no.

If this is a line ball result it will solve nothing and reinforce the division that this has created. Most people I know who are voting no are not voting no because they oppose gay marriage, they are voting no because of they perceive one or more of the following:

  • this allows safe schools into all schools (growing opposition to this program and some of the content)
  • we have not seen the legislation so what are we voting on
  • related to point 2, will religions be protected from vilification laws? Will people of faith who refuse to say bake a cake for a gay marriage (this comes from the USA where people have been sued)
  • violent, aggressive protests, people telling others what to think/do (shades of Brexit and Trump)
Whether deliberate or not, the way this has been rolled out is creating real confusion and concerns about what the implications are. Australians a re by nature conservative so if you create confusion they tend to stick to the status quo (eg Republic vote).

I suspect this will resolve nothing and just lead to more division. A sad state of affairs as the only victims will be SSM couples and if it were not for the issues above I believe this would sale through.
 

JeffDunne

TheBrownDog
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Posts
50,988
Likes
21,658
Location
Jury Duty
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
Whether deliberate or not, the way this has been rolled out is creating real confusion and concerns about what the implications are. Australians a re by nature conservative so if you create confusion they tend to stick to the status quo (eg Republic vote).
2/3rds of Australians voted FOR a republic. Howard's rigged vote created the confusion.

I'd have thought Australians for the most part are getting sick and tired of political parties that deliberately create confusion as an excuse to not deliver what the majority thinks is a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Posts
2,662
Likes
3,550
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
2/3rds of Australians voted FOR a republic. Howard's rigged vote created the confusion.

I'd have thought Australians for the most part are getting sick and tired of political parties that deliberately create confusion as an excuse to delivering what the majority thinks is a no-brainer.
I would agree but was shocked to see the bookies (who are more accurate than polls) have it close. Close is not good enough, it will feed the fires.
 

WA ROO

FSB 5th Directorate
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Posts
14,992
Likes
8,871
Location
Lubyanka Square
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Red Devil Sport Club
If NO got up, how do you see things panning out for Turnbull?
Not sure how it would turn out for Turnbull
But I see this board going into a huge meltdown

I would agree but was shocked to see the bookies (who are more accurate than polls) have it close. Close is not good enough, it will feed the fires.
Mostly on the Yes side
 

Showbags

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Posts
5,365
Likes
5,528
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
West Ham Utd
Thread starter #8,073
Not sure how it would turn out for Turnbull
But I see this board going into a huge meltdown


Mostly on the Yes side
If YES gets up the NO side will shit the bed as well. The illegitimacy of the process will make both sides refuse to accept the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom