The reports extrapolates figures from the USA and assumes they apply unequivocally here.
Reminds me of America pointing the finger at Australia and calling us racist!
The figures quoted are seen as relevant and accurate by several local organizations. I think I'll take their word over yours.
"The groups, which represent both the frontline and clinical side of mental health, say a "yes" result will "undoubtedly" change thousands of young lives for the better and avert as many as 3000 secondary school suicide attempts each year.
This claim draws on peer-reviewed research by some of America's top adolescent mental health experts, published in JAMA Paediatrics, that showed a strong correlation between same-sex marriage policies and high school suicide. The introduction of state same-sex marriage was associated with a 7 per cent relative reduction in suicide attempts."
I'm not sure that you can discriminate against one particular group because it may or may not open a Pandora's box for other groups. I'm no historian, but the evils that would supposedly be created by ssm have not come to pass. According to David Kirby, brother of Justice Kirby, ssm marriage is now legal in 24 countries, and no signs of animals or anything else. Similarly, the supposed evils that would occur because of improving the plight of women or Aboriginal people also never materialized.
Whatever the "bullying left" does, they must not be seen to be giving the no voters a bit of a nudge, a few gentle words of encouragement, to get them to think that a yes vote may actually make a meaningful difference to young people's lives. No siree, we must just sit back, and let the tragedy unfold before our very eyes. Because we mustn't tell anyone that they may actually be wrong, or making a very poor judgment. Tut, tut. We don't want to upset anyone, or be perceived as patronizing, or god forbid, paternalistic. It's all about my feelings, my opinions, my rights.
As I have learned many times over the journey, sometimes my feelings, opinions and beliefs may actually be wrong, or may have been right at one time, but not in the present.
Isn't that what is being demanded, is there irony in aggressively touting people to be respectfully attentive to someone desires?
I think the batteries in your irony meter might need replacement.
We have an opportunity to start the process of making our neck of the woods a better place, even if it's only slightly better. A happy LGBT group means our society has improved, and we all stand to benefit from that, not just gays and lesbians. More tolerance, more compassion and more equality.
Forget about the left, right and middle. Forget about shock jocks, christian groups and little old ladies in car parks. Forget about exchanging witless barbs with some idiot (i.e me) on a footy forum. Think of the bigger picture.
As heterosexual people, we may not see how this affects the LGBT mob, but affect them it most certainly does.
Yeah right. People voting no are not in any way influenced by religion, family, decades of indoctrination etc. It's all down to some loony in a rainbow onesie in a car park.
Penny Wong has been on Q+A about a dozen times over the last decade, each time debating exactly the same points, giving the same facts, the same answers, each time to a newly minted conservative, expressing exactly the same views, opinions etc. Rather tiring wouldn't you say ? At the same time, mental health issues and suicide attempts have spiked in the wake of the plebiscite.
Meanwhile, Abbott has declared climate change to be a third order issue, and has threatened to cross the floor if the government introduces clean energy targets.
But no matter what happens, we must at all times tip toe through the tulips very quietly, very daintily, very respectfully, and most of all, very slowly. Never must we even attempt to rush anyone, or say anything that may even slightly upset the apple cart. We must hear everyone's opinion, then debate, the hear those opinions again, then rinse and repeat. And proceed slowly at all costs. There is much thinking to do. Apparently several decades of climate science and several decades of gay equality isn't enough. there is still much thinking and much debating and much respecting of one anther's opinions, still to occur.
Shh. Be quiet. Keep still. Don't move. Someone is giving their opinion. We must all be respectful and attentive.
I have never once stated that people are not allowed to express their view. Expressing a view is one thing, being accountable for that view is quite another. I would not have the slightest problem if you told me my views were sh1t and wrong.
I have loads more to type, but I can't be bothered.
I've never said the no voters have no right to have an opinion. I've said their opinion is wrong and baseless, and I stand by that.
The debate regarding ssm is very real, and it was initiated by the LGBT lobby because they want to marry.
So far as I am aware, there is no group of people in Australia public acknowledging the practice of incest, and if there is, there is nothing I am aware of where such a group(s) is asking for marriage equality.
You keep mixing up your terms. Once minute you say marriage, then you say relationships. Make up your mind. People will practice what they want under the radar.The gay lobby wants public and official recognition that their relationships have the same status as ours. Is there an incest group that wants the same ?
It is not up to me to go searching high and low for any group that feels maligned, misjudged, hard done by etc. If they have a case let's hear it.
That is EXACTLY The point. People have to be allowed to debate, learn more information etc beforehand. You say that the current situation is more straight forward (and I agree), however is that not just because we have lived in a situation where we have become more accustomed? If we have the right to debate one non-traditional marriage, doesn't the country therefore have the right to debate another? If only to help confirm that the world won't end?
The debate needs to be initiated by those who want that type of relationship. If they believe they have a case, I'd really like to hear it, to start the process. The process won't get started by straight couples, or gay couples, or anyone else.
Paul My example isn't one that I or anyone I know I think would ever support But you see I can openly say that is where I draw the line personally on why I consider acceptable vs not acceptable.
That means I am potentially drawing a line that impacts people personal relationship. Also remember much like in the SSM debate, I am talking purely consenting adults.
So if I or others find it acceptable to draw that condemnation of a consensual relationship. Don't others have the right, especially when backed by current law and the environment they have grown up in, to determine what they do or do not support?
It is purely a devils advocate scenario. But it shows there is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy.
What about one a little less distasteful... polygamy. Arent those wanting to marry multiple partners restricted by laws passed making a moral judgement on their non traditional relationship? I wonder what the vote would be there? Regardless I am fairly sure it would not be 100% in favour
Actually, I wouldn't mind a few more wives, and despite requesting a harem for my last few birthdays, my wife keeps saying no.........
I could see a case being made for such a relationship between consenting adults, but not without an enormous amount of debate, information etc. beforehand. Nowhere near as straight forward.
In regard to MIO's er......interesting example, I'm hardly an expert on the subject matter, so can't comment too much. The situation is not nearly as simple as the ssm issue. There may be certain situations where the "we're not hurting anyone else" argument may be used, but there would need to be an enormous amount of debate, research etc. before anyone could speak with any sense on the matter, because those relationships throw up a whole range of serious issues that is not the case with ssm.
I'd be curious to know what would happen if the roles were reversed. If the same sex mob were the majority, and the heterosexual minority were not allowed to marry, and they used exactly the same arguments against us.
This debate highlights, albeit in a small way, the intersection point between morality/ethics and having an opinion/freedom of speech. Can every opinion be justified by freedom pf speech, irrespective of how disgusting ? Are there some things that are beyond "matters of opinion" ? I am not a post modernist, nor am I a cultural relativist, and I say that this issue is a basic human right and should not be a matter of debate.
