Re: SSM Plebiscite
Reply #381 –
To be clear as well LP
My commentary in no way advocates incest or polygamy or anything else.
I also don't for one second believe that it is a natural conclusion that allowing SSM means society will end up forced to allow other forms of marriage that are not defined.
My only commentary is that we as humans always pass judgment based on our experience and knowledge and what makes sense to one, might not make sense to another.
That it is laughable to me that some people (not stating here), don't believe that people have a right to feel differently to what they do.
If there are other minority groups not out there, yes they might use this as a platform, but we are humans and boundaries can be drawn around what is acceptable to maintain society and so SSM doesn't lead to other forms.
I use the examples purely to show a hypocrisy in the debate (again, more in the public forums than here).
I wasn't meaning to give the impression I was making comment on yourself, I was commenting from a 3rd person perspective. Just observations like yourself.
I've had some very interesting conversations about these issues, having traveled a lot for business to countries that have very different perspectives on all this. For example the irony that exists in a society that sentences homosexuals to death but permits a 12 year old to be married to a 50 year old businessman like some sort of commercial transaction. Social libertarians would argue those cultures have their rights.
So I can understand the associative concern some have that the SSM debate will naturally lead to questioning of other traditional laws that seem to discriminate against individuals in our multicultural society. It really has nothing to do with the way some perceive the sins of one, it is more about the moving of a boundary. So it seems inevitable to some that those questions will be asked, and why wouldn't they ask them, it's a basic right in a free society that some are defending!