Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[BarneyBent]

The analogy is unfair because Puke's point about procreation stands and trying to make his argument appear the same as that of a white supremacist is an unfair reflection on him.

But my point is that it doesn’t stand, or else the elderly and the infertile would be excluded.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

But my point is that it doesn’t stand, or else the elderly and the infertile would be excluded.

The elderly and infertile argument ignores what I added to Puke's not quite complete explanation for the marriage tradition which included the protection of women broadly. And it's a silly argument to make, really. Much like the rape and abortion one.

My personal view is that if same sex couples want to get married, they should be able to get married. But I'd have done it by simply removing the offending sections in the Marriage Act. Instead what they have done is require all members of society to recognise those same sex marriages, which is, in my view, a step too far.

 

[BarneyBent]

Everything you put there holds true, as long as children don't have a human right to an opportunity to have a biological mother and father at birth. I believe that is moot and we're probably on different sides of the fence on that one.

Thanks, and yeah, I don’t think children have any right to that - a right to loving parents, yes, but biology and orientation? Nah. Don’t see what they have to do with it. There’s zero evidence that outcomes are worse for children with same sex parents, aside from bullying they might receive for, you guessed it, having same sex parents. Most important factor is loving parents, not biological ones.

Question, do you oppose a person’s right to put their child up for adoption?

 

[Number37]

My personal view is that if same sex couples want to get married, they should be able to get married. But I'd have done it by simply removing the offending sections in the Marriage Act. Instead what they have done is require all members of society to recognise those same sex marriages, which is, in my view, a step too far.

You have twisted it to suit your position.

What has been suggested is that some people can choose whether or not they accept that somebody else has complied with the law.
The only reason for giving people that choice is so that they can engage in behaviour that would otherwise be discriminatory.

 

[BarneyBent]

The elderly and infertile argument ignores what I added to Puke's not quite complete explanation for the marriage tradition which included the protection of women broadly. And it's a silly argument to make, really. Much like the rape and abortion one.

Protecting women is one tiny part, and not the defining characteristic of marriage at all. To argue that that alone makes excluding same sex couples ok makes no sense because there are tons of other reasons marriage exists, and also doesn’t account for not letting women get married to one another.

If marriage were about procreation itself, then only procreating couples would marry. Marriage is about FAMILY, and it used to be that the only orientation that could reasonably have a family was heterosexual (because procreation plus already existing discrimination against homosexuals). But now homosexual couples can have families, so there exists no reason not to include them unless you believe homosexual families are somehow inferior.

As for the analogy itself, you still haven’t explained WHY it’s silly. It’s exclusion. Plain and simple. The hypothetical society had a purpose that initially only included certain people. Now that purpose can he served by a broader array of people, so it make sense that that broader array should be able to join.

My personal view is that if same sex couples want to get married, they should be able to get married. But I'd have done it by simply removing the offending sections in the Marriage Act. Instead what they have done is require all members of society to recognise those same sex marriages, which is, in my view, a step too far.

Nobody is being forced to recognise same sex marriages any more than they are being forced to recognise straight marriages.

 

[mtooler]

Thanks, and yeah, I don’t think children have any right to that - a right to loving parents, yes, but biology and orientation? Nah. Don’t see what they have to do with it. There’s zero evidence that outcomes are worse for children with same sex parents, aside from bullying they might receive for, you guessed it, having same sex parents. Most important factor is loving parents, not biological ones.

Question, do you oppose a person’s right to put their child up for adoption?

Totally disagree with the widesweeping statement of no evidence to the contrary as the SSM debate raised plenty and sociologist presentation I've seen also speaks against it and further highlighted the biased research that comes back to the origins of the generalisations you made. Even though it's a bit of a side issue.

Yes, support adoption for heterosexuality at point of adoption in that the child's human right to a mother and father is catered to. Also support giving up a child for adoption if the couple is a mother and a father, I see a child' human right catered to there as well. I see children' human rights trump that of adults.

I'm also accordingly anti abortion as I support a child's human right to life as well. Relationships regularly sadly break down so it is the relationship at point of conception through assisted reproductive technology use or who seeks to adopt a child needs uphold a child' human right to a.mother and father.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Nobody is being forced to recognise same sex marriages any more than they are being forced to recognise straight marriages.

This is garbage. People have refused to recognise traditional marriages for years. Parents have refused to attend. Ethnic groups have declined to provide services to other ethnic groups. Only now are there penalties for refusal to do business.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Really? Goodo, continue to fantasise about your fairies at the bottom of the garden. The religious propositions are ludicrous. You are free to believe in Zeus and the Olympians, the Buddha or the Dreamtime, provided it is harmless.

However the controllers of the religions have used their nonsense to control the behaviour of others. Think about religioids sending folk off to war for goddies, kings and country. What a pox on humanity.

Think about contraception, abortion, assisted dying etc. All the fairies at the bottom of the garden have opposed such gains for humans.

Think about how religions have for centuries protected paedos, let alone sacrificed zillions on their altars.

Disrespectful? Get a grip on reality mate and have a crack at interrogating your delusions. I am sick of fantasists imposing their control on others.

Did I say I was religious at all? How do you determine I fantasise about other things? I'm an agnostic and quite the realist in fact.

I do however recognise that where there is no absolute objective truth then what is left is subjective opinion- yours that says faith is fantasy and the religious who says it's not.

My point is that when something is only subjective opinion it's sensible to not rubbish another's subjective opinion which has as equal weight as yours ie call it an opinion. You don't though you call it as though it's absolute objective truth and then deride a religious advocate for being a controlling fantasist.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Protecting women is one tiny part, and not the defining characteristic of marriage at all. To argue that that alone makes excluding same sex couples ok makes no sense because there are tons of other reasons marriage exists, and also doesn’t account for not letting women get married to one another.

If marriage were about procreation itself, then only procreating couples would marry. Marriage is about FAMILY, and it used to be that the only orientation that could reasonably have a family was heterosexual (because procreation plus already existing discrimination against homosexuals). But now homosexual couples can have families, so there exists no reason not to include them unless you believe homosexual families are somehow inferior.

As for the analogy itself, you still haven’t explained WHY it’s silly. It’s exclusion. Plain and simple. The hypothetical society had a purpose that initially only included certain people. Now that purpose can he served by a broader array of people, so it make sense that that broader array should be able to join.

You're trying to play the argument at the edges. "Some hetero couples can't procreate therefore all couples who can't procreate should be allowed to marry". That's a garbage argument and plays into the thin edge of the wedge game. And it allows the other side to then play the polygamy card.

Puke got sucked in to trying to summarise the marriage tradition into a simple form of "procreation". It is obviously not that simple and I got sucked into articulating an example as to why it was not that simple.

Family is the foundation stone of society. Families don't work (at least not very well) if there isn't a committed couple at its head. The institution of family is not something to be messed with lightly and whilst I broadly support the right of same sex couples to participate, I'm not without my suspicions as to the motivations some of those who seem suddenly very actively interested in the notion of marriage and families who seemed to be against them previously.

Now the reason why the argument is silly is because if natural procreation is a condition, then same sex couples don't meet that condition. That remains a matter of biological fact. Your race argument doesn't apply.

Now remember, I'm broadly on your side. But what I detest is the representation of those who are not as bigoted. Puke is not.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You have twisted it to suit your position.

What has been suggested is that some people can choose whether or not they accept that somebody else has complied with the law.
The only reason for giving people that choice is so that they can engage in behaviour that would otherwise be discriminatory.

See I think you have it twisted. "Engaging in behavior" is an active thing. Not engaging is passive. I believe all people, including bigots, should have the right not to engage in any activity they don't believe in for whatever reason, within reason (by that I mean society doesn't work if we don't all pay our tax). That doesn't mean they have the right to, for example, act to disrupt a same sex union. Just that they should have the right to choose not to be a part of it.

 

[Borough Blood]

Why is that "Lol"? And why did you only respond to the first phrase in a more detailed sentence?

Do you have any sources that show that further lecturing, themed rounds, virtue signalling by players and confected human rights commission prosecutions are going to stop the few remaining bigots from conducting themselves atrociously?

Hot tip, the phrase “virtue signalling” does nothing to help make your point and makes you look like a right dope.

 

[Number37]

See I think you have it twisted. "Engaging in behavior" is an active thing. Not engaging is passive. I believe all people, including bigots, should have the right not to engage in any activity they don't believe in for whatever reason, within reason (by that I mean society doesn't work if we don't all pay our tax). That doesn't mean they have the right to, for example, act to disrupt a same sex union. Just that they should have the right to choose not to be a part of it.

There are many examples in the law where 'engaging in behaviour' = an act OR an omission.

If I am gay and go into your cake shop to order a cake for my wedding, but I don't tell you that I am gay, would you take my business?
By taking my business do you endorse my sexual preferences, even though you don't know about it?

I think it is fair to say that any business does not endorse the personal preferences of each of their customers.

For you to say, "I don't want do to do business with you because I don't want to give the impression that I endorse your personal preferences' is completely ridiculous.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This thread has kind of drifted off-topic, into the pros and cons of same-sex marriage (but that’s OK, it’s been fascinating, and thanks mods for letting it run. Not like there’s much else to talk about in the off-season).

So it was quite timely that I happened across a chapter about the first Gay Mardi Gras in the book I’m reading right now, Rowan Cahill and Terry Irving’s fascinating “Radical Sydney” (sort of a walking tour of Sydney’s turbulent past - you will never see your city the same way after reading it).

And I think it would be good to remind everyone of the circumstances of the first Mardi Gras. Because, after all, this thread is about the Swans entering a float in the Mardi Gras, not SSM per se.

In 1978, a legal, approved demonstration by gay activists was violently broken up by police. Eighty three protesters were arrested and taken to the East Sydney police station, where many had the crap beaten out of them. They were all charged with various offences, and on the day of their hearings, in a highly illegal act, the cops blockaded the court house to prevent the public and the press getting in. But it gets worse. The next day, the Sydney Morning Herald printed the names and home addresses of all eighty three, basically giving carte blanche to any homophobic meathead to drop in and have a quiet word with them about their sexual inclinations.

Despite this extraordinary level of official intimidation and violence, almost all of the charges were dismissed.

And so began one journey in the gradual, inexorable fight to extend, regardless of sexual inclination, full recognition and rights to all. We have come a long way in 39 years.

This is the origins of the Mardi Gras.

By participating in it, I think the Swans, based in the epicentre of gay life in Sydney, are showing a genuine awareness and empathy for universal rights, and are to be congratulated and commended.

 

[mtooler]

There are many examples in the law where 'engaging in behaviour' = an act OR an omission.

If I am gay and go into your cake shop to order a cake for my wedding, but I don't tell you that I am gay, would you take my business?
By taking my business do you endorse my sexual preferences, even though you don't know about it?

I think it is fair to say that any business does not endorse the personal preferences of each of their customers.

For you to say, "I don't want do to do business with you because I don't want to give the impression that I endorse your personal preferences' is completely ridiculous.

Good point you raise. Is that essentially how the US Army's former "don't ask, don't tell" policy kind of operated? I don't like the concept though gay people shouldn't be ashamed or sneak around their lifestyle just to buy a cake, nor should a cake shop owner be ashamed if they have religious beliefs or sneak around hiding their faith to operate a store.

Much rather everyone be in the open, advertise a religious conviction and lose sales for people who disagree with the convictions and gain sales for those that support them. Also is religious convictions aren't shared by anyone the shops close and the problem is solved.

 

[Number37]

By participating in it, I think the Swans, based in the epicentre of gay life in Sydney, are showing a genuine awareness and empathy for universal rights, and are to be congratulated and commended.

 

[mtooler]

This thread has kind of drifted off-topic, into the pros and cons of same-sex marriage (but that’s OK, it’s been fascinating, and thanks mods for letting it run. Not like there’s much else to talk about in the off-season).

So it was quite timely that I happened across a chapter about the first Gay Mardi Gras in the book I’m reading right now, Rowan Cahill and Terry Irving’s fascinating “Radical Sydney” (sort of a walking tour of Sydney’s turbulent past - you will never see your city the same way after reading it).

And I think it would be good to remind everyone of the circumstances of the first Mardi Gras. Because, after all, this thread is about the Swans entering a float in the Mardi Gras, not SSM per se.

In 1978, a legal, approved demonstration by gay activists was violently broken up by police. Eighty three protesters were arrested and taken to the East Sydney police station, where many had the crap beaten out of them. They were all charged with various offences, and on the day of their hearings, in a highly illegal act, the cops blockaded the court house to prevent the public and the press getting in. But it gets worse. The next day, the Sydney Morning Herald printed the names and home addresses of all eighty three, basically giving carte blanche to any homophobic meathead to drop in and have a quiet word with them about their sexual inclinations.

Despite this extraordinary level of official intimidation and violence, almost all of the charges were dismissed.

And so began one journey in the gradual, inexorable fight to extend, regardless of sexual inclination, full recognition and rights to all. We have come a long way in 39 years.

This is the origins of the Mardi Gras.

By participating in it, I think the Swans, based in the epicentre of gay life in Sydney, are showing a genuine awareness and empathy for universal rights, and are to be congratulated and commended.

If that is what the Gay Mardis Gras and Gay Activists lobby currently only focus on I have no dramas. The account of what happened to the gay community on that day is repulsive and distressing to be honest.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

There are many examples in the law where 'engaging in behaviour' = an act OR an omission.

If I am gay and go into your cake shop to order a cake for my wedding, but I don't tell you that I am gay, would you take my business?
By taking my business do you endorse my sexual preferences, even though you don't know about it?

I think it is fair to say that any business does not endorse the personal preferences of each of their customers.

For you to say, "I don't want do to do business with you because I don't want to give the impression that I endorse your personal preferences' is completely ridiculous.

You presume the business needs to articulate a reason for not doing business. I would defend that business' right not to give a reason.

I just think a line has been crossed that didn't need to be crossed, and we have headed into "thought crime" territory.

I'll give another example. In 2008 the Abortion law was changed in Victoria. Medical practitioners who object on moral grounds to abortion are allowed to not perform the procedure but MUST by law provide a referral to a practitioner that will. That crosses a line. They now must actively participate in the procurement of an abortion despite their objection. What was wrong with just leaving it as it was? Why can't the doctor simply say "I want no part in this?"

Same with conscientious objectors to same sex marriage. Why can't they say "I want no part in this?" Because it hurts the gay couple's feelings? FFS grow up.

Far too much in society now is finding grievances to object to. And it's starting to get really silly.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Hot tip, the phrase “virtue signalling” does nothing to help make your point and makes you look like a right dope.

Why?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why?

I wouldn't say using "virtue signalling" makes someone look a "right dope", but as a phrase, it's so meaningless as to be as good as useless.

Basically, when used against anyone who takes a stand on anything, it's a way to say (with no verifiable proof whatsoever, mind you; it's on the anonymous internet that it's mostly used) that the person is merely a showboater. Anyone can say that about anyone.

 

[mtooler]

I wouldn't say using "virtue signalling" makes someone look a "right dope", but as a phrase, it's so meaningless as to be as good as useless.

Basically, when used against anyone who takes a stand on anything, it's a way to say (with no verifiable proof whatsoever, mind you; it's on the anonymous internet that it's mostly used) that the person is merely a showboater. Anyone can say that about anyone.

Showboater

 

[Number37]

You presume the business needs to articulate a reason for not doing business. I would defend that business' right not to give a reason.

I just think a line has been crossed that didn't need to be crossed, and we have headed into "thought crime" territory.

I'll give another example. In 2008 the Abortion law was changed in Victoria. Medical practitioners who object on moral grounds to abortion are allowed to not perform the procedure but MUST by law provide a referral to a practitioner that will. That crosses a line. They now must actively participate in the procurement of an abortion despite their objection. What was wrong with just leaving it as it was? Why can't the doctor simply say "I want no part in this?"

Same with conscientious objectors to same sex marriage. Why can't they say "I want no part in this?" Because it hurts the gay couple's feelings? FFS grow up.

Far too much in society now is finding grievances to object to. And it's starting to get really silly.

You keep characterising it in a way that suits your argument, but it is completely see through.
The ONLY REASON the business is not doing business is because of the customers sexual preferences.
And you want to complain about thought police!
Does selling a cake to a gay couple make the cake baker complicit in the gay couple's personal choices?
Does selling a cake to a gay couple somehow diminish the cake bakers own personal choices?

If a protester went into a newsagent and tried to buy markers and cardboard in order to make a sign about e.g. global warming, would the newsagent be endorsing the protestors sign?
Should the newsagent be allowed to refuse service to the protester?
According to your reasoning, yes.

What about if a campaigner of a club like Hawthorn said they refuse to play against the Swans because the Swans endorse the Mardi Gras?
Would that be OK?
According to your reasoning, yes.

You talk about crossing a line, exactly where do you draw the line for when people can refuse service?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Same with conscientious objectors to same sex marriage. Why can't they say "I want no part in this?" Because it hurts the gay couple's feelings? FFS grow up.

Reducing active discrimination against LGBTQI people as simply 'hurt feelings' shows a real lack of any empathy or understanding on your part.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

This thread has kind of drifted off-topic, into the pros and cons of same-sex marriage (but that’s OK, it’s been fascinating, and thanks mods for letting it run. Not like there’s much else to talk about in the off-season).

So it was quite timely that I happened across a chapter about the first Gay Mardi Gras in the book I’m reading right now, Rowan Cahill and Terry Irving’s fascinating “Radical Sydney” (sort of a walking tour of Sydney’s turbulent past - you will never see your city the same way after reading it).

And I think it would be good to remind everyone of the circumstances of the first Mardi Gras. Because, after all, this thread is about the Swans entering a float in the Mardi Gras, not SSM per se.

In 1978, a legal, approved demonstration by gay activists was violently broken up by police. Eighty three protesters were arrested and taken to the East Sydney police station, where many had the crap beaten out of them. They were all charged with various offences, and on the day of their hearings, in a highly illegal act, the cops blockaded the court house to prevent the public and the press getting in. But it gets worse. The next day, the Sydney Morning Herald printed the names and home addresses of all eighty three, basically giving carte blanche to any homophobic meathead to drop in and have a quiet word with them about their sexual inclinations.

Despite this extraordinary level of official intimidation and violence, almost all of the charges were dismissed.

And so began one journey in the gradual, inexorable fight to extend, regardless of sexual inclination, full recognition and rights to all. We have come a long way in 39 years.

This is the origins of the Mardi Gras.

By participating in it, I think the Swans, based in the epicentre of gay life in Sydney, are showing a genuine awareness and empathy for universal rights, and are to be congratulated and commended.

I was 21 at the time and remember thinking predominantly "do they really need to be so in your face about it". It was only a half dozen years later I moved to a terrace in wollahra which was then and still is the epicentre of gay life in sydney and stayed there 15 years. At the time it was commonplace that gay bashings occur - reported in the news. It probably only got worse when the 'gay plague' as it was called for a while started to surface in around 1984.

I had completely erased from memory that it was met with such a negative resistance but seeing your words reignites that buried memory.

Like many minorities the struggle faced to achieve community acceptance and equality is hard won......occasionally with bruises, blood and definately scorn. I tip my hat to those initial warriors for the courage they showed to fight oppression and take the brunt of reprisal head on winning their change.

Somewhere along the way it stopped being about protest (which had invited confrontation) and started being about celebration (which invited participation). Perhaps that was merely a reflexion of how attitudes toward the gay community itself had changed over time. Either way the change is to be applauded

Change for an oppressed minority rarely occurs without revolution. For the gay community the Mardi Gras was the tipping point of that revolution and will forever take that preeminent position. Courage, equality, confronting adversity and oppression, fighting spirit. It's not difficult to see why the swans would connect with that ethos.

Thank you mate for that sobering reminder

 

[Kapanis]

Totally disagree with the widesweeping statement of no evidence to the contrary as the SSM debate raised plenty and sociologist presentation I've seen also speaks against it and further highlighted the biased research that comes back to the origins of the generalisations you made. Even though it's a bit of a side issue.

Yes, support adoption for heterosexuality at point of adoption in that the child's human right to a mother and father is catered to. Also support giving up a child for adoption if the couple is a mother and a father, I see a child' human right catered to there as well. I see children' human rights trump that of adults.

I'm also accordingly anti abortion as I support a child's human right to life as well. Relationships regularly sadly break down so it is the relationship at point of conception through assisted reproductive technology use or who seeks to adopt a child needs uphold a child' human right to a.mother and father.

What if the female was r*ped, packed r*ped, molestered by a male parent, uncle, family friend, you would still be anti abortion?

 

[mtooler]

What if the female was r*ped, packed r*ped, molestered by a male parent, uncle, family friend, you would still be anti abortion?

If there was also involvement of a fire breathing half unicorn/half dragon that drinks berocca mixed with the blood of Dory from finding Nemo (bless her forgetful mind) and Bambi, and the fire breathing half unicorn/half dragon was involved in the rape, pack rape, molestation including any male or gay couple seeking to impregnate her to have a child for them, I am still anti abortion.

I am pro children's human rights.