[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[GladstoneTim]

I wouldn't be so sure as to say the majority "want" it to happen. I expect that most are in the ambivalent category - ie they don't care and don't object to it happening.

So true, Dajop. The vast majority do not have a strong opinion contrary to what the SSM proponents tend to say. If anything, most people would be saying "whatever". The Coaltion committed to a plebiscite in the last election campaign hence so,e strong support for them. Let's have it....give the people the vote and be done with it.

 

[Hvr]

I wouldn't be so sure as to say the majority "want" it to happen. I expect that most are in the ambivalent category - ie they don't care and don't object to it happening.

Yes, a much better way to word express I was saying.

 

[burmans]

Finally, it needs to be remembered that same sex marriage will not be compulsory. It will be voluntary between consenting adults only.

Classic comment given some people think that gay marriage is being "forced" on them.

 

[burmans]

Yes. I think so too. Which is why I think that saying the last election determined that the same-sex equality issue had lost, is nonsense.

This idea that if we vote for a party we accept all their policy is also nonsense. We don't get to vote on the individual policies (unlike say Switzerland), we get one vote only and given it's a compulsory vote it doesn't really offer much insight on our views on individual policies, too often it may come down to who we like best, or I suspect for many who we dislike least.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Margaret Court’s radio rant on lesbians in tennis and transgender children

Sigh. I think the argument that she is entitled to broadcast her views, no matter what, are getting tenuous?

Still possible to separate her sporting achievements from who she is as a person? I dunno.

 

[dajop]

Margaret Court’s radio rant on lesbians in tennis and transgender children

Sigh. I think the argument that she is entitled to broadcast her views, no matter what, are getting tenuous?.

Of course she's entitled to broadcast her views. The more she does, I think the more marginalised those views would seem to become.

But, also I tend to agree, calls to rename the Margaret Court Arena because of her views are not appropriate in a democratic society.

 

[Hvr]

Surely this latest series of comments by Ms Court must be seen as totally offensive and cannot be justified in any way?

Far from modifying her denouncement of gay marriage, tennis champion Margaret Court has broadened it, saying that it was causing huge problems in countries where it was legalised, that homosexuality was an ungodly "lust for the flesh" and that LGBT tendencies in young people were "all the devil".


"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did," Court said, "get in the minds of the children. There's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get in the minds of the children."

'The devil's after our kids': Margaret Court's second serve

I don't know why she's bagging Hitler? She seems to have the same views on homosexuals as Hitler who rounded them up and put them in prison or the concentration camps.

 

[Deleted member]

She is being offensive, and whether or not she is justified or not, she is at least exercising free speech, something many of us here support for those members of the gay and lesbian community who for so,long were denied the right to live, think and speak freely.
I do vehemently disagree with her, and frankly she seems a bit more looney than I first imagined.

Surely this latest series of comments by Ms Court must be seen as totally offensive and cannot be justified in any way?



I don't know why she's bagging Hitler? She seems to have the same views on homosexuals as Hitler who rounded them up and put them in prison or the concentration camps.

Very good point !

 

[Pushka]

Definitely loony now. And others like her will emerge during the plebiscite debate. And given air time. Guess the proverb 'live and let live' was never mentioned during her religious indoctrination.

 

[burmans]

Surely this latest series of comments by Ms Court must be seen as totally offensive and cannot be justified in any way?

Personally I'm in favour of her showing us exactly what offensive and extreme views she has. Sure there is a small proportion who will lap it up and agree with her, in most cases though the outcome will be that people think poorly of her rather than of the gay community. This can only help the SSM advocates to have her appear so loopy and extreme.

 

[drron]

Definitely loony now. And others like her will emerge during the plebiscite debate. And given air time. Guess the proverb 'live and let live' was never mentioned during her religious indoctrination.

Do you think it would be any different if the parliament votes in SSM.Unfortunately I think it would be even worse than now.

 

[Pushka]

Do you think it would be any different if the parliament votes in SSM.Unfortunately I think it would be even worse than now.

Yes, I think it would die down. There is no longer any reason for the SSM people to say or do anything other than marry if they wish; their battle is done. And if the other side keeps posturing, well there is no one who wants to bother with it as its a done deal. I dont think even the media would bother reporting it as there is no general public interest.

Its certainly a non issue in Canada now.

 

[samh004]

Personally I'm in favour of her showing us exactly what offensive and extreme views she has. Sure there is a small proportion who will lap it up and agree with her, in most cases though the outcome will be that people think poorly of her rather than of the gay community. This can only help the SSM advocates to have her appear so loopy and extreme.

She's in a glass house, let her throw the stones and see what happens

Do you think it would be any different if the parliament votes in SSM.

Unfortunately I think it would be even worse than now.

There'd be a bit of chatter and then we'd all move on to the next major social issue that is affecting the country. I would hazard a guess it'll be the Indigenous Referendum... however the question is whether that comes first or not. I think a lot of people involved in SSM would be happy to fight for better Indigenous recognition once their issues have been sorted.

 

[Melburnian1]

....There'd be a bit of chatter and then we'd all move on to the next major social issue that is affecting the country.

Lefties might think that one could 'move on', but unfortunately allowing homosexuals and lesbians to 'marry' leads to all sorts of other social problems.

Such as children growing up without a mother and a father, even more than is the case at present.

Funny how proponents of these radical changes omit that.

I agree that the reason these radical individuals opposed a plebiscite was that they knew that in a secret ballot, most Australians - provided they heard both sides of the argument and not simply that of the vociferous lefties - would vote against this sort of unnecessary and undesirable change.

 

[Pushka]

It is impossible the predict the divorce rate for same sex marriages. Might even be better than heterosexual couples. Then there are those heterosexual couples who have kids, never marry and separate that aren't even in the divorce statistics. Heaven help us - allowing same sex marriage might even reduce the divorce rate Its a guessing game.

And I am most certainly NOT a leftie.

 

[BacchusMarsh]

Lefties might think that one could 'move on', but unfortunately allowing homosexuals and lesbians to 'marry' leads to all sorts of other social problems.

Such as children growing up without a mother and a father, even more than is the case at present.

Funny how proponents of these radical changes omit that.

I agree that the reason these radical individuals opposed a plebiscite was that they knew that in a secret ballot, most Australians - provided they heard both sides of the argument and not simply that of the vociferous lefties - would vote against this sort of unnecessary and undesirable change.

I respect your right to express such odious views.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

Lefties might think that one could 'move on', but unfortunately allowing homosexuals and lesbians to 'marry' leads to all sorts of other social problems.

Such as children growing up without a mother and a father, even more than is the case at present.

Funny how proponents of these radical changes omit that.

I agree that the reason these radical individuals opposed a plebiscite was that they knew that in a secret ballot, most Australians - provided they heard both sides of the argument and not simply that of the vociferous lefties - would vote against this sort of unnecessary and undesirable change.

I used to respect many of your postings - that view just changed.

 

[Hvr]

Lefties might think that one could 'move on', but unfortunately allowing homosexuals and lesbians to 'marry' leads to all sorts of other social problems.

Such as children growing up without a mother and a father, even more than is the case at present.

Funny how proponents of these radical changes omit that.

I agree that the reason these radical individuals opposed a plebiscite was that they knew that in a secret ballot, most Australians - provided they heard both sides of the argument and not simply that of the vociferous lefties - would vote against this sort of unnecessary and undesirable change.

So to continue your argument to its illogical conclusion only people who plan to, and actually do have children, therefore failure to have children would lead to the marriage being declared void.

Parents would be forbidden from separating or dying before their children reach adulthood and so on. All impossible premises that you seem to ignore.

Marriage is not owned by the church. They just want it to be.

As for social problems I wish the church was even as slightly concerned about priests who had non-consensual sex (i.e. rape/abuse) with children as they are about consenting adults who wish to formalise their relationship.


There are two simple ways to end this discussion:

1) Allow two consenting adults who are not already married and are not close family, to marry. Or.

2) Abolish the marriage act and not allow anybody to marry any more.

The church has repeatedly proven that they have no moral authority over the people, they like to tell us, "do as I say, not what I do".

We'd be a much better society without the church and religion imposing their will on us without contributing to society.

 

[ermen]

So to continue your argument to its illogical conclusion only people who plan to, and actually do have children, therefore failure to have children would lead to the marriage being declared void.

Parents would be forbidden from separating or dying before their children reach adulthood and so on. All impossible premises that you seem to ignore.

Marriage is not owned by the church. They just want it to be.

As for social problems I wish the church was even as slightly concerned about priests who had non-consensual sex (i.e. rape/abuse) with children as they are about consenting adults who wish to formalise their relationship.


There are two simple ways to end this discussion:

1) Allow two consenting adults who are not already married and are not close family, to marry. Or.

2) Abolish the marriage act and not allow anybody to marry any more.

The church has repeatedly proven that they have no moral authority over the people, they like to tell us, "do as I say, not what I do".

We'd be a much better society without the church and religion imposing their will on us without contributing to society.

You raise a good point HVR.

The church is meant to voice a moral authority here on earth. Unfortunately, there have been many egregious abuses throughout history, which have diminished that, which, any true Christian should be sorry for. And again, let us ignore the positive contributions for the moment. And you are confounding the different pockets of the church (and if you think about Margaret Court, she has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church and the rape/abuse of children)

But this debate is not between a church and society. You will see throughout societies (irrespective of their judeo-Christian heritage or not - just look at Asia) , that marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. It just so happens, that leaders in the church are the easiest targets for abuse.


But the central question still remains: Is marriage defined as between a man and a woman (as it has for milienia, throughout different cultures and societies). And is this a question of absolute or relative morality?

If it is an issue of absolute mortality (absolute right and absolute wrong) then the debate is really the source of absolute morals.

If not, then this becomes an issue of relative morality (and really, then who are you to judge my morals?)

I happen to think that marriage being defined as between a man and a woman, a question of absolute morals (and as evidenced through common law, and by and large through time, through different cultures and societies).


But on your point to end the discussion: the simplest way (which appeals to the notion of relative morality) is

(i) Hold the plebiscite, and let the will of the people decide (and politically speaking, this will diminish greatly the chance of any reversal of any decision, through any future changes of government). But, cynical me thinks why a large part of the LGBT lobby does not want this, is that there is a high chance it gets voted down, leaving them with little ammunition to continue their militant tactics. Mind you, there are supporters of SSM that want this plebicite to happen, so it is not a uniform view across the LGBT community

 

[Melburnian1]

....We'd be a much better society without the church and religion imposing their will on us without contributing to society.

On balance, 'The Church' (by which I assume you mean 'The Catholic Church', since it alone is a bulwark) makes an enormously positive contribution to Australian and worldwide society.