I was looking forward to having a mature exchange of opinions and ideas about gst changes and that thread was shut down because of political implications. Gay marriage is a political topic.
In principle the issue of homosexual marriage is apolitical. However, in practice the pro and anti groups are seen as liberal and conservative, and these groups tend to align themselves with the political left and right, respectively. Ideally the issue is one that should be subject to the democratic will of the majority. It should not be left to a bunch of self obsessed politicians to make such a decision on behalf of 23 million people, not even as a conscience vote.
So, in principle, we are not having a political discussion any more than a discussion about euthanasia would be political. It's just that one issue has polarised the political parties while the other has not, and political action is the only way to achieve social change.
rockylizard said
02:23 PM Nov 15, 2015
Gday...
Cheers - John
usedtobe said
02:39 PM Nov 15, 2015
Agree with you re the topic being apolitical Dorian, it is a social and morality issue, any society that promotes a practice that is detrimental to the natural and 'normal' order of things must be weakened and harmed. Cause and effect.
What happened in Paris and elsewhere in the past is an illustration of the principle. God is not at fault for human behaviour, and to say He is, shows an inconsistency by the God knockers, why blame God if you do not believe in Him ? Whether one is an atheist or a theist only proves that we have a free will to believe or not to believe. The same free will to do evil or good.
just because someone says they do something because God has them do it, does not make it true, mostly deluded. Actually how would you know if it was God or not ? Hitler, pol pot, Stalin and a host of despots did what they did because they had a belief system that they put into effect.
Same sex marriage while nowhere in the same league, ( the principle of promoting a practice that is detrimental to society holds true) also has a similar effect of changing the basis of society, much more subtle and slower, but change it it will. Cause and effect, cause and effect.
-- Edited by usedtobe on Sunday 15th of November 2015 02:53:42 PM
4.1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The ICCPR enshrines the rights of all people to non-discrimination and equality before the law. Australia has committed to uphold these standards.
Article 2(1) of the ICCPR sets out the principle of non-discrimination:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 26 of the ICCPR sets out the principle of equality:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Other relevant rights set out in the ICCPR include the right to privacy (article 17) and the right to marry and found a family (article 23).
The ICCPR does not specifically refer to sexual orientation. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has found that the treaty includes to an obligation to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Toonen v Australia, the Human Rights Committee held that the reference to sex (ICCPR article 2) and the right to privacy (ICCPR article 17) include sexual orientation.[12] The Committee has also held (in Young v Australia) that distinctions made between same sex couples and opposite sex couples in relation to veterans entitlements were discriminatory, in breach of article 26 of the ICCPR.[13]
As noted by the Law Council of Australia, it is likely that the principles of the ICCPR would extend to gender identity under its other status grounds.[14] The Human Rights Committee has, for instance, placed emphasis on the need to protect trans communities from violence, torture and harassment[15] and to recognise the right of trans people to change their gender by permitting the issuing of new birth certificates.[16]
03_Troopy said
02:48 PM Nov 15, 2015
dorian wrote:
deverall11 wrote:
I was looking forward to having a mature exchange of opinions and ideas about gst changes and that thread was shut down because of political implications. Gay marriage is a political topic.
In principle the issue of homosexual marriage is apolitical. However, in practice the pro and anti groups are seen as liberal and conservative, and these groups tend to align themselves with the political left and right, respectively. Ideally the issue is one that should be subject to the democratic will of the majority. It should not be left to a bunch of self obsessed politicians to make such a decision on behalf of 23 million people, not even as a conscience vote.
So, in principle, we are not having a political discussion any more than a discussion about euthanasia would be political. It's just that one issue has polarised the political parties while the other has not, and political action is the only way to achieve social change.
Exactly Dorian, and the same could be said for the religious points of view.
Grandad5 said
03:04 PM Nov 15, 2015
deverall11 wrote:
I was looking forward to having a mature exchange of opinions and ideas about gst changes and that thread was shut down because of political implications. Gay marriage is a political topic.
I totally agree with you deveral. The only difference in our standpoint is I believe rather than saying the GST thread was closed therefore we should close this one, I'd rather say If we prove to Cindy we can be mature in discussing a provocative subject, may we re-open the GST thread please.
The balls in our court to show we can handle delicate issues.
Jim
usedtobe said
03:11 PM Nov 15, 2015
Troopy, the fact that the UN said what it did does not make it a universal right, not every nation agreed to the document you posted, humanity has always decreed certain 'rights' for its citizens, that is what we have a so called democracy for, so using your argument, hitler, Stalin and others decreed a thing and it became law, it was considered a right to be exercised by their people.
Come on if that is the only argument for same sex marriage, and you acknowledge, that was not stated in the document, they have the right to medical, Centrelink, and civil laws re inheritance and all other rights as an Australian citizen. So why compel the majority of citizens in Australia, to change what has been the accepted norm of marriage being between male and female ?
You need to show more than it being a human right, to justify your argument, just my opinion though. You have not mentioned the effects on society regarding the children, health, or rights of those who object to the SSM issue.
Grandad5 said
03:12 PM Nov 15, 2015
Re religious grounds....I can't see the passing of legislation to legalise gay marriage having any impact on any religious group. The church, of whatever flavour you choose should NEVER be legislated to make your beliefs illegal.
Should that ever happen I think you would find all the pro side of this discussion (Athiest or believer) switching sides to support your right to not legitimise gay marriage within your Christian beliefs. You can count me in the lead the charge. But I still think we should legalise gay marriage.
I'm also non religious btw
Jim
-- Edited by Grandad5 on Sunday 15th of November 2015 03:14:09 PM
Grandad5 said
03:18 PM Nov 15, 2015
Usedtobe, I can't accept that because this is the way marriage has always been as an acceptable reason to continue that way.
One might say that for hundreds of years slavery was acceptable in the USA. Surely you can't apply the same logic to continuing with that practise.
Perhaps I might ask, what is the harm in allowing SSM?
What will happen beyond what is already in place with gay couples all over the country.
Jim
Young Simmo said
03:23 PM Nov 15, 2015
Who started this rubbish?
I am getting sick of it.
Simmo.
usedtobe said
03:57 PM Nov 15, 2015
I will ignore the absurdity of making a comparison to slavery, except to say that it was due to the work of committed Christians such as William Wilberforce and John Newton (he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace) to abolish slavery, exactly because it was detrimental to society, but money interests prevailed for far too long.
Jim, the reason that SSM is not good for society is that it weakens and changes the basis for society which is the family unit. Families have always been the basic building block of any society that ever existed. Whether a primitive or so called advanced society. Same sex couples already have the right to live together as do many hetrosexual couples, I have already listed those rights previously.
By definition SSM couples cannot have children naturally, they depend on the opposite sex to provide any children they may wish to have. One of the rights any child should have, is to be brought up with its natural mother and father. Do we give SSM couples a right and take away those of the child to satisfy a natural desire of wanting to have a family in an unnatural relationship ?
The further harm is that you disenfranchise the rights of every individual who holds to the 'traditional' view that marriage is between a man and a woman, these are overwhelmingly the majority view of Australians, shown by multiple polls.
In America the law was changed by their Supreme Court, by a majority of 1. The vote was 5-4 in favour of SSM hardly a ringing vote, but that is just my opinion. The voters of America were not given an opportunity to decide, their House of Congress nor the Senate were given an opportunity to decide, yet it became LAW because of a majority of 1.....that's not democracy it is the rule of 5 people over the majority.
I have observed the debate here in Australia and have not heard a good reason for change other than love, and their human right. What about my right which is based on the fact that marriage was always a hetrosexual not a homo fact, because family was the issue.
Grandad5 said
04:28 PM Nov 15, 2015
I will ignore the absurdity of making a comparison to slavery, except to say that it was due to the work of committed Christians such as William Wilberforce and John Newton (he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace) to abolish slavery, exactly because it was detrimental to society, but money interests prevailed for far too long.
I accept that response. Perhaps I should have used equal wages for women as that is something that changed in our lifetime.
Jim, the reason that SSM is not good for society is that it weakens and changes the basis for society which is the family unit. Families have always been the basic building block of any society that ever existed. Whether a primitive or so called advanced society. Same sex couples already have the right to live together as do many hetrosexual couples, I have already listed those rights previously.
In principle, I accept the family unit of Mom and Dad is the basis of our society, but unfortunately that is no longer the norm. The majority of kids in my daughters highschool class come from homes with one parent. The family unit that we grew up with is no longer the norm. The things is though, speaking as a Dad with 5 kids who mostly had different biological fathers I can confidently state that they had no issue with their strange parenting arrangments. They coped very very well and some may say thrived.
I've also seen kids with two moms that also coped very well. Neither child ended up gay which is often the assumed outcome.
By definition SSM couples cannot have children naturally, they depend on the opposite sex to provide any children they may wish to have. One of the rights any child should have, is to be brought up with its natural mother and father. Do we give SSM couples a right and take away those of the child to satisfy a natural desire of wanting to have a family in an unnatural relationship ?
The gay parents I referred two had kids from previous failed hetero marriages. The issue of a gay couple adopting or using AI is one that I think I might adopt a wait and see attitude to. I'm not 100% certain yet
The further harm is that you disenfranchise the rights of every individual who holds to the 'traditional' view that marriage is between a man and a woman, these are overwhelmingly the majority view of Australians, shown by multiple polls. In America the law was changed by their Supreme Court, by a majority of 1. The vote was 5-4 in favour of SSM hardly a ringing vote, but that is just my opinion. The voters of America were not given an opportunity to decide, their House of Congress nor the Senate were given an opportunity to decide, yet it became LAW because of a majority of 1.....that's not democracy it is the rule of 5 people over the majority. I have observed the debate here in Australia and have not heard a good reason for change other than love, and their human right. What about my right which is based on the fact that marriage was always a hetrosexual not a homo fact, because family was the issue.
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept any news of this kind from the USA as being relevant. Voting isn't compulsory there for one so presidents have been elected to office with tiny number of people actually voting for the guy. The whole system reaks as far as I can see.
I am assuming that here the matter will be decided by the majority. If the majority agree with you then so be it. I can't help but think however that its not a done deal that the majority agree with you. Time will tell I guess.
Grandad5 said
04:46 PM Nov 15, 2015
Usedtobe....I just went away and thought about what you said a bit more and something became clear to me.
I've witnessed first hand just about every combination of family you can think of and only two things have ever screwed with the kids.
Violence and neglect.
That stuffs them right up imho.
And I see no reason to think either of those two things will occur more in a SSM than a hetero one.
Ok, that's it from me I think.
Jim
Lesley F said
04:50 PM Nov 15, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_peYvQSIXg
Grandad5 said
05:07 PM Nov 15, 2015
What a classic. Thank you Lesley. You gotta love her.
usedtobe said
05:21 PM Nov 15, 2015
thanks for your response Grandad,
Just because something is no longer the norm is not a good enough reason to accept it as a new norm, if we did that then where do we stop ? our society has changed heaps in my lifetime already, but for the better or worse ? I am not speaking about technology but about what are the grounds or basics for a strong and sustainable society. the argument for SSM is ultimately a philosophical one that impacts our society over the long term. Just as we decided that censorship was out of date, and too repressive, we then saw a gradual pushing of the boundaries to the state where our Sat morning paper, has 2 pages dedicated to ads for sex of any and all persuasions. The www is awash with porn, public standards have changed to reflect all this. language, and behaviour also changes with the times. Does it really matter ? I am not arguing for a wowser mentality, i am using the argument to illustrate how changes in society happen.
I teach in a high school, this will be my final year (I retired 2 years ago I thought) and I have seen what a small change can do when time and fashions have their effect. How come we have had so much societal change ? as you say, single parent and blended families are now the norm, I have many students who honestly consider it normal to use swear words in public classroom, and get upset when told that it is not acceptable. Only 5 years ago they would get a inschool suspension, now it is, let them swear it is not worth the bother. I can regularly see young boys 14-17 watching and sharing porn in the school corridors on their phones, it is ignored. I have reported bullying via txt msgs and the student was told by the deputy to delete it and ignore any future txts. What is the answer ? Our society will not accept the restrictions because they have had their taste of so-called freedom and like it, it makes them feel good. Political correctness, not wanting to call a spade a spade, and morality has a different face nowadays.
The illustration I gave re the USA Supreme Court ruling was only to show how a fundamental change in societies laws, can be made by a very few individuals. whether it is censorship, or any ethical issue, a seemingly small change can have disastrous consequences not foreseen by the populist ideologues who are ruling our public institutions.
dorian said
05:36 PM Nov 15, 2015
I can read and understand English just as well as any wighead, but I don't see any reference, either direct or implied, to homosexuality or heterosexuality in that UN document. AISI, it simply states that a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of whether they are male or female. Perhaps the charter should be amended to explicitly include sexual orientation, but even if it were, I still wouldn't see it as a legitimate reason to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate homosexual couples.
As for the US Supreme Court, I find it grossly offensive that a clique of 5 judges can pontificate on issues that affect a population of 300 million people. Instead of democracy, we have rule by diktat. It's pretty much the same here. In fact it's the same everywhere that British law applies, except that in the UK we also have that great bastion of unearned privilege, the House of Lords.
As for committed Christians such as William Wilberforce, he obviously never read the Bible. Had he read the Ten Commandments he would have found that God condones slavery ... twice.
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work -- you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (Exodus 20:8-11) Neither shall you covet your neighbour's wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour's house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 15th of November 2015 06:18:28 PM
usedtobe said
05:47 PM Nov 15, 2015
Dorian, the slave referred to in the passages you quoted, were today's equivalent of servant, and if you go to India today you will see people referred to as servants, yet they are actually paid house help.
You missed the point that Wilberforce and Newton were Christians and they hold to the New Testament and are not under the Old Testament laws anyway...
Agree with your comments re first part of post though 😀😀
dorian said
06:21 PM Nov 15, 2015
I consulted a Hebrew scholar. The original word is correctly translated as "slave". It is the same word that is used to describe the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt. If you need to understand what it was like to be a "servant" during those times, then just read a little further into Exodus. A "servant" could be beaten to death by his master, but no penalty was payable if the slave survived for longer than a day. And so on ...
rockylizard said
07:54 PM Nov 15, 2015
Gday...
What a passionate expression of the various points of view. This has been a very interesting thread to follow - albeit not necessarily providing any new information or points of view.
However, may I please suggest all be frank and honest to each other ... and to one's self - your opinion on this subject is very unlikely to change despite any argument contrary to your own beliefs, no matter how rational or equally passionate as your own.
Same-sex marriage is a polarising subject and, as such, it is very rare that the views of either the 'for' or the 'against' will be changed or altered by any amount of tooing and froing in a thread on a caravaning/travelling forum.
Cheers - and let the games continue - John
Young Simmo said
08:04 PM Nov 15, 2015
Yes rockylizard, I agree completely but I have to say, the most revolting thing about this whole subject is seeing 2 blokes kissing on TV, I reach for the vomit bucket.
Simmo.
Grandad5 said
08:08 PM Nov 15, 2015
I also agree John.
I don't honestly think it was anyone's intention to convert opinions.
Rather, to compare them.
Jim
usedtobe said
08:13 PM Nov 15, 2015
Hi John,
I found this thread an interesting exercise in airing contrary views, I think that in a thread like ' I digress' we ought to allow for topics that digress from the strict caravan type topics, after all, we digress. May I congratulate the moderator on allowing the topic to continue.
My purpose has been to challenge thinking on what is a generally accepted view that anything goes as long as most folk agree.
I have found that we are generally apathetic as a nation, and do not want to be seen as out of step with current thinking, even if we do not fully agree with it. The media has hijacked the notion of what is right and wrong, and set the agenda for how we ought to think. They shut out any view that conflicts with their politically correct ideology, and so we are made to feel out of touch, insensitive and bigoted for daring to oppose the agenda they have set. I suspect they have their version of social engineering or what is best in mind.
jules47 said
08:20 PM Nov 15, 2015
An interesting discussion - without anyone resorting to sledging or insulting another - well done guys!!!!
usedtobe said
08:23 PM Nov 15, 2015
Yes Jules, I think we are all surprised at the tone and tenor of what is a divisive subject, shame it does'nt happen more often on other controversial digressions.
-- Edited by usedtobe on Sunday 15th of November 2015 08:32:04 PM
jules47 said
08:35 PM Nov 15, 2015
Yes - usedtobe - even some who have posted in this thread have been known to "voice their opinions" more forcefully than on this post. Keep it up guys!!!
iana said
09:56 PM Nov 15, 2015
Yeah congratulations all, an engaging post. A few more like this and maybe those hiding behind the rocks will dare to come out and have a say. As I said in an earlier post, if Cindy does not have the time to moderate a thread, and can only cut and shut, then maybe a couple of volunteer moderators could keep threads like this on the wavy straight and narrow.
03_Troopy said
11:36 PM Nov 15, 2015
There should be no need to defend anyone's right to something, that no-one has the right to deny them.
I've lost interest.. besides I have to take the kids to the workhouse and get a service done on the pit pony...
03_Troopy said
06:36 AM Nov 16, 2015
usedtobe wrote:
Troopy, the fact that the UN said what it did does not make it a universal right, not every nation agreed to the document you posted, humanity has always decreed certain 'rights' for its citizens, that is what we have a so called democracy for, so using your argument, hitler, Stalin and others decreed a thing and it became law, it was considered a right to be exercised by their people.
Correct, not every nation is a member of the United Nations, not signatory to the ICCPR, but Australia is.
Come on if that is the only argument for same sex marriage, and you acknowledge, that was not stated in the document, they have the right to medical, Centrelink, and civil laws re inheritance and all other rights as an Australian citizen. So why compel the majority of citizens in Australia, to change what has been the accepted norm of marriage being between male and female ?
One of the Civil Law rights to which you refer, is the right to marry their chosen partner. The same as you have a right to believe in your beliefs. You don't have the right to enforce those beliefs onto others though, and others have a right to have their own beliefs.
You need to show more than it being a human right, to justify your argument, just my opinion though. You have not mentioned the effects on society regarding the children, health, or rights of those who object to the SSM issue.
I have not mentioned the effects of SSM on society as far as health, or the rights of others in their own beliefs, simply because it has no relevance to those things. As far as the effects on the children, that is something that's hard to say. If the children experience the same broad range of life experiences, and don't have the beliefs of the parents forced upon them, the same as you would expect the children of heterosexual parents to have, I don't see how it would be so detrimental to them growing up and maturing in that environment.
Izabarack said
07:47 AM Nov 16, 2015
usedtobe wrote:
.....their basic ethics and moral values as they first tolerated and then accepted the idea that
I am always concered by any mention of moral value in debate about equal rights for all, in a discussion of same sex marriage. The immediate suggestion being that those who do not have a middle stream hetrosexual orientation are somehow of low moral values. Sexual preference can no more be chosen than can the colour of one's eyes or skin colour. Moral values are not connected in any way to sexual preferences or a want to marry another person. Tolerence, as mentioned above, demonstrates maturity in the society under review. Empathy and understanding underline tolerance and those two factors need to be at the forefront of debate about same sex marriage.
In principle the issue of homosexual marriage is apolitical. However, in practice the pro and anti groups are seen as liberal and conservative, and these groups tend to align themselves with the political left and right, respectively. Ideally the issue is one that should be subject to the democratic will of the majority. It should not be left to a bunch of self obsessed politicians to make such a decision on behalf of 23 million people, not even as a conscience vote.
So, in principle, we are not having a political discussion any more than a discussion about euthanasia would be political. It's just that one issue has polarised the political parties while the other has not, and political action is the only way to achieve social change.
Gday...
Cheers - John
Agree with you re the topic being apolitical Dorian, it is a social and morality issue, any society that promotes a practice that is detrimental to the natural and 'normal' order of things must be weakened and harmed. Cause and effect.
What happened in Paris and elsewhere in the past is an illustration of the principle. God is not at fault for human behaviour, and to say He is, shows an inconsistency by the God knockers, why blame God if you do not believe in Him ? Whether one is an atheist or a theist only proves that we have a free will to believe or not to believe. The same free will to do evil or good.
just because someone says they do something because God has them do it, does not make it true, mostly deluded. Actually how would you know if it was God or not ? Hitler, pol pot, Stalin and a host of despots did what they did because they had a belief system that they put into effect.
Same sex marriage while nowhere in the same league, ( the principle of promoting a practice that is detrimental to society holds true) also has a similar effect of changing the basis of society, much more subtle and slower, but change it it will. Cause and effect, cause and effect.
-- Edited by usedtobe on Sunday 15th of November 2015 02:53:42 PM
Taken from this source
4.1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The ICCPR enshrines the rights of all people to non-discrimination and equality before the law. Australia has committed to uphold these standards.
Article 2(1) of the ICCPR sets out the principle of non-discrimination:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 26 of the ICCPR sets out the principle of equality:
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Other relevant rights set out in the ICCPR include the right to privacy (article 17) and the right to marry and found a family (article 23).
The ICCPR does not specifically refer to sexual orientation. However, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has found that the treaty includes to an obligation to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Toonen v Australia, the Human Rights Committee held that the reference to sex (ICCPR article 2) and the right to privacy (ICCPR article 17) include sexual orientation.[12] The Committee has also held (in Young v Australia) that distinctions made between same sex couples and opposite sex couples in relation to veterans entitlements were discriminatory, in breach of article 26 of the ICCPR.[13]
As noted by the Law Council of Australia, it is likely that the principles of the ICCPR would extend to gender identity under its other status grounds.[14] The Human Rights Committee has, for instance, placed emphasis on the need to protect trans communities from violence, torture and harassment[15] and to recognise the right of trans people to change their gender by permitting the issuing of new birth certificates.[16]
Exactly Dorian, and the same could be said for the religious points of view.
I totally agree with you deveral. The only difference in our standpoint is I believe rather than saying the GST thread was closed therefore we should close this one, I'd rather say If we prove to Cindy we can be mature in discussing a provocative subject, may we re-open the GST thread please.
The balls in our court to show we can handle delicate issues.
Jim
Come on if that is the only argument for same sex marriage, and you acknowledge, that was not stated in the document, they have the right to medical, Centrelink, and civil laws re inheritance and all other rights as an Australian citizen. So why compel the majority of citizens in Australia, to change what has been the accepted norm of marriage being between male and female ?
You need to show more than it being a human right, to justify your argument, just my opinion though. You have not mentioned the effects on society regarding the children, health, or rights of those who object to the SSM issue.
Re religious grounds....I can't see the passing of legislation to legalise gay marriage having any impact on any religious group. The church, of whatever flavour you choose should NEVER be legislated to make your beliefs illegal.
Should that ever happen I think you would find all the pro side of this discussion (Athiest or believer) switching sides to support your right to not legitimise gay marriage within your Christian beliefs.
You can count me in the lead the charge. But I still think we should legalise gay marriage.
I'm also non religious btw
Jim
-- Edited by Grandad5 on Sunday 15th of November 2015 03:14:09 PM
One might say that for hundreds of years slavery was acceptable in the USA. Surely you can't apply the same logic to continuing with that practise.
Perhaps I might ask, what is the harm in allowing SSM?
What will happen beyond what is already in place with gay couples all over the country.
Jim
Who started this rubbish
?
I am getting sick of it
.
Simmo.
I will ignore the absurdity of making a comparison to slavery, except to say that it was due to the work of committed Christians such as William Wilberforce and John Newton (he wrote the hymn Amazing Grace) to abolish slavery, exactly because it was detrimental to society, but money interests prevailed for far too long.
Jim, the reason that SSM is not good for society is that it weakens and changes the basis for society which is the family unit. Families have always been the basic building block of any society that ever existed. Whether a primitive or so called advanced society. Same sex couples already have the right to live together as do many hetrosexual couples, I have already listed those rights previously.
By definition SSM couples cannot have children naturally, they depend on the opposite sex to provide any children they may wish to have. One of the rights any child should have, is to be brought up with its natural mother and father. Do we give SSM couples a right and take away those of the child to satisfy a natural desire of wanting to have a family in an unnatural relationship ?
The further harm is that you disenfranchise the rights of every individual who holds to the 'traditional' view that marriage is between a man and a woman, these are overwhelmingly the majority view of Australians, shown by multiple polls.
In America the law was changed by their Supreme Court, by a majority of 1. The vote was 5-4 in favour of SSM hardly a ringing vote, but that is just my opinion. The voters of America were not given an opportunity to decide, their House of Congress nor the Senate were given an opportunity to decide, yet it became LAW because of a majority of 1.....that's not democracy it is the rule of 5 people over the majority.
I have observed the debate here in Australia and have not heard a good reason for change other than love, and their human right. What about my right which is based on the fact that marriage was always a hetrosexual not a homo fact, because family was the issue.
I've witnessed first hand just about every combination of family you can think of and only two things have ever screwed with the kids.
Violence and neglect.
That stuffs them right up imho.
And I see no reason to think either of those two things will occur more in a SSM than a hetero one.
Ok, that's it from me I think.
Jim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_peYvQSIXg
Just because something is no longer the norm is not a good enough reason to accept it as a new norm, if we did that then where do we stop ? our society has changed heaps in my lifetime already, but for the better or worse ? I am not speaking about technology but about what are the grounds or basics for a strong and sustainable society. the argument for SSM is ultimately a philosophical one that impacts our society over the long term. Just as we decided that censorship was out of date, and too repressive, we then saw a gradual pushing of the boundaries to the state where our Sat morning paper, has 2 pages dedicated to ads for sex of any and all persuasions. The www is awash with porn, public standards have changed to reflect all this. language, and behaviour also changes with the times. Does it really matter ? I am not arguing for a wowser mentality, i am using the argument to illustrate how changes in society happen.
I teach in a high school, this will be my final year (I retired 2 years ago I thought) and I have seen what a small change can do when time and fashions have their effect. How come we have had so much societal change ? as you say, single parent and blended families are now the norm, I have many students who honestly consider it normal to use swear words in public classroom, and get upset when told that it is not acceptable. Only 5 years ago they would get a inschool suspension, now it is, let them swear it is not worth the bother. I can regularly see young boys 14-17 watching and sharing porn in the school corridors on their phones, it is ignored. I have reported bullying via txt msgs and the student was told by the deputy to delete it and ignore any future txts. What is the answer ? Our society will not accept the restrictions because they have had their taste of so-called freedom and like it, it makes them feel good. Political correctness, not wanting to call a spade a spade, and morality has a different face nowadays.
The illustration I gave re the USA Supreme Court ruling was only to show how a fundamental change in societies laws, can be made by a very few individuals. whether it is censorship, or any ethical issue, a seemingly small change can have disastrous consequences not foreseen by the populist ideologues who are ruling our public institutions.
I can read and understand English just as well as any wighead, but I don't see any reference, either direct or implied, to homosexuality or heterosexuality in that UN document. AISI, it simply states that a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of whether they are male or female. Perhaps the charter should be amended to explicitly include sexual orientation, but even if it were, I still wouldn't see it as a legitimate reason to redefine the institution of marriage to accommodate homosexual couples.
As for the US Supreme Court, I find it grossly offensive that a clique of 5 judges can pontificate on issues that affect a population of 300 million people. Instead of democracy, we have rule by diktat. It's pretty much the same here. In fact it's the same everywhere that British law applies, except that in the UK we also have that great bastion of unearned privilege, the House of Lords.
As for committed Christians such as William Wilberforce, he obviously never read the Bible. Had he read the Ten Commandments he would have found that God condones slavery ... twice.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 15th of November 2015 06:18:28 PM
You missed the point that Wilberforce and Newton were Christians and they hold to the New Testament and are not under the Old Testament laws anyway...
Agree with your comments re first part of post though 😀😀
Gday...
What a passionate expression of the various points of view. This has been a very interesting thread to follow - albeit not necessarily providing any new information or points of view.
However, may I please suggest all be frank and honest to each other ... and to one's self - your opinion on this subject is very unlikely to change despite any argument contrary to your own beliefs, no matter how rational or equally passionate as your own.
Same-sex marriage is a polarising subject and, as such, it is very rare that the views of either the 'for' or the 'against' will be changed or altered by any amount of tooing and froing in a thread on a caravaning/travelling forum.
Cheers - and let the games continue
- John
Simmo.
I don't honestly think it was anyone's intention to convert opinions.
Rather, to compare them.
Jim
I found this thread an interesting exercise in airing contrary views, I think that in a thread like ' I digress' we ought to allow for topics that digress from the strict caravan type topics, after all, we digress. May I congratulate the moderator on allowing the topic to continue.
My purpose has been to challenge thinking on what is a generally accepted view that anything goes as long as most folk agree.
I have found that we are generally apathetic as a nation, and do not want to be seen as out of step with current thinking, even if we do not fully agree with it. The media has hijacked the notion of what is right and wrong, and set the agenda for how we ought to think. They shut out any view that conflicts with their politically correct ideology, and so we are made to feel out of touch, insensitive and bigoted for daring to oppose the agenda they have set. I suspect they have their version of social engineering or what is best in mind.
Yes Jules, I think we are all surprised at the tone and tenor of what is a divisive subject, shame it does'nt happen more often on other controversial digressions.
-- Edited by usedtobe on Sunday 15th of November 2015 08:32:04 PM
Yeah congratulations all, an engaging post. A few more like this and maybe those hiding behind the rocks will dare to come out and have a say. As I said in an earlier post, if Cindy does not have the time to moderate a thread, and can only cut and shut, then maybe a couple of volunteer moderators could keep threads like this on the wavy straight and narrow.
I've lost interest.. besides I have to take the kids to the workhouse and get a service done on the pit pony...
I am always concered by any mention of moral value in debate about equal rights for all, in a discussion of same sex marriage. The immediate suggestion being that those who do not have a middle stream hetrosexual orientation are somehow of low moral values. Sexual preference can no more be chosen than can the colour of one's eyes or skin colour. Moral values are not connected in any way to sexual preferences or a want to marry another person. Tolerence, as mentioned above, demonstrates maturity in the society under review. Empathy and understanding underline tolerance and those two factors need to be at the forefront of debate about same sex marriage.
Iza