Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: SSM Plebiscite (Read 113088 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #285 –
Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.  

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #286 –
I feel there is some confusion in the religious arguments, in that religion is about faith, and it would seem to me that by definition faith in a scripture from any religion therefore means a literal belief. If there is human interpretation, that implies undeniable doubt because there is more than one possible understanding.

Didn't a human "interpretation" of the Quran lead to Daesh?

Maybe this is too big of an issue to discuss here.

I studied logic as part of my scientific/engineering training, in the olden days science was a natural philosophy and philosophy included logic as in Mr Spock style logic. If there are theological students here they would have also studied logic as part of philosophy. Lots of these "Yes" and "No" arguments are full of contradictions and ambiguities which proponents of both sides choose to conveniently ignore or introduce for their own purposes.

I'm against the concept of a vote because it's going to bring a lot of those issues to the surface and will not really help anybody who needs genuine help. A lot of people think this change in the law is going to make things better, I doubt it as the problems run much deeper. The question also seems binary, but it's far from it because the debate surrounding it allows participants to infer so much more. The problem is people, we are not binary.

Is it likely that someone suffering anguish or illness will see two simple choices?
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #287 –
Quote from: hotspur on
Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

If that's true, then yes, Labor should be subjected to the same scrutiny as the Libs. But I don't recall Labor ever being anti ssm. If you have any links to this effect, please post them. Penny Wong is a lesbian, if by chance you weren't aware.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #288 –
Quote from: hotspur on
Can someone please tell me why is the Liberal govt getting all the flack ,if i remember rightly didnt Wong and company say no when the LABOR govt was in power.

iirc, Labor said no to a public vote, they wanted a parliamentary conscience vote and for the politicians to take responsibility, but the coalition wouldn't agree to it.
The Force Awakens!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #289 –
Quote from: PaulP on
Yes, but gay people exist. Gay people in long term relationships exist. Gay people with children exist. You have gay work mates, gay neighbors etc. Gayness is here to stay. And if I've followed your logic, you're saying the non-religious no voters will vote that way because they reject gayness in its entirety, or that they're trying to send a message / teach gays a lesson. All of which is beyond disgusting.

I know this.

We all (people who are logical) accept this hence why I'm leaning towards Yes, but you have to remember that I have experienced a homosexual at school as young as age 6 (I would have been similar age andhe probabaly didnt know it himself at that age) who couldn't possibly be that way aside from them being born that way.

I have also spent a considerable amount of time working down Commercial road in a hospitality environment.  This gives me perspective that not everyone does.  It normalises the community, because you are with the community more often than not in these settings.  Working in hospitals also leads me into the LBGTI community frequently as it is true that the majority of male nurses are that way inclined, and a lot female nurses prefer the company of females too.  It is what it is.

Not everyone has such extensive normalisation, and I don't think they intend to teach gays a lesson, but rather that they don't accept homosexuality as "normal" (which is a misnomer as the only thing that is normal is the word normal) and tend to believe that homosexuality lives in the realm of mental health issue.

Now, I am stating the arguments on here, and I don't agree with them, but I state it because many of these people will not get these points across and on this forum is the only place I can write it fairly anonymously.  If I even began discussing this publically, I would be branded and outcast and that has far reaching repercussions proffesionally and socially that frankly, would be unfair for me to wear.

Why?  I went to the christening of a little girl less than 6 months ago.  Her two female parents, and the Anglican church they had the christening in and had I not been happy to accept the LBGTI community, I would not have gone.



"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #290 –
Thry, thanks for your post.

To put what you are saying into blunt language, the non religious no voters are voting that way because they don't like poofs and dykes. Whether the dislike is based on fear, lack of education, incorrect information, laziness, social convenience etc. I can't say. Maybe they all play a part. I'm not in any way suggesting that such people are bad, but if the possible reasons I list here are valid, their position on this issue most certainly is.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #291 –
I agree Thry - ideology is the driving force, which is not easily changed.  I have had some quite long conversations with some no voters, talking about homosexuality as being immoral.  These people are otherwise very good, rational thinkers, who i respect.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #292 –
Quote from: PaulP on
Thry, thanks for your post.

To put what you are saying into blunt language, the non religious no voters are voting that way because they don't like poofs and dykes. Whether the dislike is based on fear, lack of education, incorrect information, laziness, social convenience etc. I can't say. Maybe they all play a part. I'm not in any way suggesting that such people are bad, but if the possible reasons I list here are valid, their position on this issue most certainly is.

Paul, no worries.

If thats the way you interpret that, then so be it, but I assure you that is not what is intended by myself here, or any person who votes no.

Odds are they actually don't care if someone is gay.  That doesn't mean they agree with it.  It's why people only change tune when family "comes out".

That's when it effects them.  Until that point, they can live in denial and simply disagree with that way of life.

Its only now that they will likely vote no. 

Some will genuinely be homophobic, others will just fail to understand what impact these comments have.


I think I should stop commenting here.  Ive written enough, I don't want to be hurtful, and if anyone takes exception with anything I've written, feel free to call me out on it, and I will happily rephrase and if necessary retract, but its important to acknowledge that the majority of people will absolutely not say the above anywhere that is linked to their real life persona, and I hope that these conversations will not reflect poorly on me, even though I'm a yes voter.  Ive simply been able to write something here that I feel many people never would openly state anywhere and as a consequence the debate is not public.



@Dodge, the hardest thing to change is someone's ideology.  Its linked to the way they see their reality.  This is the point I was trying to communicate with DJC yesterday but failed.



"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #293 –
Quote from: dodge on
I agree Thry - ideology is the driving force, which is not easily changed. I have had some quite long conversations with some no voters, talking about homosexuality as being immoral. These people are otherwise very good, rational thinkers, who i respect.

But if this is true, then they're not voting on ssm, they're voting on homosexuality full stop. Which to my mind is playing the man and not the ball, and is IMO, slightly immoral.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #294 –
The AFL's support for marriage equality has apparently earned a bomb threat from the bullying right  ::)
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #295 –
The left wing nut job that headbutted our former PM has been charged.
2012 HAPPENED!!!!!!!

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #296 –
Yes, Paul - agree and that to me is where some of the 'argument' is being lost because passages about homosexuality in the Bible are about that and not marriage.

Interesting that there are some Biblical scholars that are talking about the society then no having the sophistication to know about LGBQTI, which makes it much harder to understand when trying to put it in today's context.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #297 –
Quote from: dodge on
Yes, Paul - agree and that to me is where some of the 'argument' is being lost because passages about homosexuality in the Bible are about that and not marriage.

Interesting that there are some Biblical scholars that are talking about the society then no having the sophistication to know about LGBQTI, which makes it much harder to understand when trying to put it in today's context.

dodge. That's a fair post. So far as I can tell, what the Bible says about ssm and which genders are allowed / not allowed to marry, is at best ambiguous, and at worst, non existent.

The other issue as Mav has already highlighted, is that the church and religion are now completely separate from the legalities and laws of marriage. A separation of church and state, as it were.

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #298 –
@PaulP I am directing this this question respectfully to you as you seem to be very passionate about this debate however if anyone else can chime in and answer it, I would be grateful.

Can anyone tell me what arguments/rationale (non religious) the "no" voters have put up? I cant say I have followed every debate on this topic as I think its an utter wast of time and money, but I have not heard a single, rational argument that is non religious supporting a "no" vote.

Not trying to be a smart ass here, just asking a question as respectfully as I can. I appreciate everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just havent heard any supporting a no vote.

2017-16th
2018-Wooden Spoon
2019-16th
2020-dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time

Re: SSM Plebiscite

Reply #299 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton on
@PaulP I am directing this this question respectfully to you as you seem to be very passionate about this debate however if anyone else can chime in and answer it, I would be grateful.

Can anyone tell me what arguments/rationale (non religious) the "no" voters have put up? I cant say I have followed every debate on this topic as I think its an utter wast of time and money, but I have not heard a single, rational argument that is non religious supporting a "no" vote.

Not trying to be a smart ass here, just asking a question as respectfully as I can. I appreciate everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just havent heard any supporting a no vote.

So far as I can tell, there isn't any. It seems to come down to personal ideology / beliefs. An axiomatic position that is seemingly beyond justification or rational discourse. At least that what it seems like to me.