Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415
Results 351 to 367 of 367
Like Tree141Likes

Thread: Same Sex Marriage Debate

  1. #351
    Member Jaxxnuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    266
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Queenroot View Post
    Honey have u seen Sydney prices i would take it in a heartbeat lol
    Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?

  2. #352
    I complete the Squar3 Queenroot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    My bathtub
    Posts
    7,460
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxxnuts View Post
    Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?
    Yes

  3. #353
    Senior Member sida1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxxnuts View Post
    Well truth is we don't pick our sexual orientation do we? also u mentioned "there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched." how does this make sense? Does that mean people can automatically convert themselves from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa?
    dan964 doesn't mean that he thinks people change their sexuality consciously.

    We don't pick our sexual identity (or at least most of us would believe so), but that doesn't mean it's god-given at birth. Your environment, experience, interactions, et cetera, all play a role in determining your sexuality (and everything else about you). So naturally, it means that throughout the course of one's life, one's sexuality may change any number of times due to factors outside of their conscious decision. The vast majority of individuals who are homosexual would say that at some point earlier in their lives, they would have considered themselves straight. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't make the switch consciously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxxnuts View Post
    Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?
    Why give people healthcare when kids are struggling to be fed in third-world countries, right?

    Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics) III, USYD

  4. #354
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,924
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaxxnuts View Post
    I'm sure kids as young as 5 or 6 will already learn about marriage, whether that would be through attending weddings, reading books about a prince and princess getting married, watching tv shows, etc
    Yes, and it all has to do with age appropriateness. Until recently (last 15 years), no political issues were (as closely) tied to the topic
    Didnt safe schools end because SSM was legalised?
    No it was ended for other reasons.

    Well truth is we don't pick our sexual orientation do we? also u mentioned "there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched." how does this make sense? Does that mean people can automatically convert themselves from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa?
    I think sida1049 captures what I would have said (to some degree)
    But I get the point of consenting to a romantic relationship

    But yes kids are too young to learn about romatic relationships and sexual identity
    yep, and that is why many oppose safe schools (not because they are opposed to SSM)

  5. #355
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,924
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by sida1049 View Post
    An interesting thought, but SSM is a fundamentally a push against discrimination, which naturally places its advocation on the agenda according to the policy.

    I think this is one of those things where even if a person comes from a cultural or religious background that is incompatible with SSM, the only compromise that works in contemporary society is for them to simply let it be. This is for the same reason why different cultures and religions must acknowledge one-another and coexist, despite having fundamentally conflicting tenets (that is, multiculturalism).
    Although I would add "discrimination" is nowadays a very loaded word, so I would use the fact that some prefer to distinguish/or make a distinction because for some reason or another, marriage by definition for them is between one man and one women. It was quite acceptable to hold that view in our society up to about 10-15 years ago.

    (Although that in our society in a legal sense has recently updated such definition).

    It is easy to say that the previous definition was discrimination and hence this is step in favour of anti-discrimination (due to an assumption of equality trumping definition). Although it is not that straight forward either.

    But the whole point of the 'no' argument was to enshrine specifically the man-women sexual union (marriage as you would say) as being better for our society. (Whether that is convincing or actually true is another story of course)

    While the 'yes' side was they felt they were been unfairly discriminated against. Hence the push.

    (Hence why I think both there was a lot of heat on the debate. One side was saying they were being discriminated, the other was saying no, this distinction between same-sex vs. man-women is by design/principle good and helpful for society, no harm meant for those who want the other)

    Because at its heart was a disagreement on the definition:
    - Yes side thought they (ssa people) were being discriminated against (using the principle of 'equality')

    - No side did not agree that they (ssa people) were being discriminated against because by definition (for good reason), marriage was enshrined as specifically gendered (male-female) in nature*.

    *by nature here: I refer to the design/principles behind it, both morally and conceptually.

    ** it is a interesting question (but different topic mind you), in our current climate, to ask whether one can marry another if one is not same sex attracted to them, yet they are of the same gender.

  6. #356
    Member Jaxxnuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    266
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by sida1049 View Post
    dan964 doesn't mean that he thinks people change their sexuality consciously.

    We don't pick our sexual identity (or at least most of us would believe so), but that doesn't mean it's god-given at birth. Your environment, experience, interactions, et cetera, all play a role in determining your sexuality (and everything else about you). So naturally, it means that throughout the course of one's life, one's sexuality may change any number of times due to factors outside of their conscious decision. The vast majority of individuals who are homosexual would say that at some point earlier in their lives, they would have considered themselves straight. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't make the switch consciously.



    Why give people healthcare when kids are struggling to be fed in third-world countries, right?
    TBH I dont really agree with that one's sexuality is influenced by external factors, mainly because it doesn't seem to make logical sense to me

    And with regards to your second statement, healthcare comes from our taxpayers money (well our taxes to be more specific) so we are sort of paying for it in the sense that we are being taxed after we earn income

    There are a number of charities and NGOs that are dedicated to helping kids struggling to be fed in third world country though

    Australia is a "wealthy nation" (compared to the rest of the world) and can afford to help people in need. Third world countries don't have the money to do so (I dont believe they do) hence that's why there's charities and NGOs

  7. #357
    Senior Member sida1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Because at its heart was a disagreement on the definition:
    - Yes side thought they (ssa people) were being discriminated against (using the principle of 'equality')

    - No side did not agree that they (ssa people) were being discriminated against because by definition (for good reason), marriage was enshrined as specifically gendered (male-female) in nature*.

    *by nature here: I refer to the design/principles behind it, both morally and conceptually.

    ** it is a interesting question (but different topic mind you), in our current climate, to ask whether one can marry another if one is not same sex attracted to them, yet they are of the same gender.
    I agree with your analysis; fundamentally it really boils down to the conflict between the worldviews of progressives and conservatives, such as how equality is defined and so forth.

    That said, I still can't sympathise with the "no" camp. At the end of the day, playing semantics with the issue is just another tactic to avoid discussing the core reasons why we may want to make these changes. What the argument should have been on is whether same sex marriage is beneficial for individuals and society. This is quite controversial, but I personally think that the "yes" dudes did much better in this respect than the other side (even if there are some hysterics here and there). Though this could be my own bias.

    So just to make sure, I did a quick google search for why some people might believe same sex marriage is bad, and I came across this website. (I have no idea whether this website is actually credible, but I googled "is same sex marriage good for society" and this was the second result. I picked this over the first one on the basis that this has direct opinions from people.)

    The first poster on the "no" side first mentions that kids are starting to question their own sexuality. Unsurprisingly, this kind of contradicts their preceding statement about not being homophobic, and their succeeding statement which I read as a belief of god-given sexuality. Their second and third arguments seem to be long-hanging fruits against the progressive movement as a whole, so you know, invalid.

    The third poster seems to be confused; they hold the belief that same sex marriage is not good nor better than heterosexual marriage. But given that the latter is legal, this is actually an argument for "yes".

    The fourth poster has the same argument about making people question their sexuality, yada yada yada. They mention that marriage is defined to be heterosexual, but their real thesis is this: SSM is anti-family because same sex couples are unable to procreate, and "the things they do to one another's bodies are not exactly the epiphany of love". This person would be shocked if you tell them that a lot of heterosexual married couples don't procreate, and other heterosexual married couples partake in wild shit.

    The fifth poster makes the same (confused) argument as the third poster. But somehow this person additionally has the misguided belief that the SSM somehow has anything to do with claiming homosexual couples are more moral, and being offended by "yes" voters, they will vote "no". Regardless, this person isn't arguing the proper topic either.

    The rest (of the first page) "no" posters are anti-SSM because it's perverse and/or against "god's will".

    I didn't bother going through any more.

    So attempting to go through the opinions and arguments of those who vote "no" paradoxically reinforces one's support for SSM - majority of the arguments/reasons are either off-topic, completely invalid or weak.

    Unfortunately for the "yes" side, there is that one hysteric spamming the same message at least 5 times, and though badly put, they at least have some kind of a relevant thesis on the issue: homosexual individuals have been and are suffering without societal acceptance.

    10/10 would not recommend googling political opinions again
    Last edited by sida1049; 5 Aug 2018 at 12:11 AM.
    SammyT123 likes this.

    Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics) III, USYD

  8. #358
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,924
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Like many things on the internet, i feel with that particular site, neither side provided any justification for their beliefs.
    And both sides threw mud at each other as well.

    Arguments for 'no'
    The main arguments for 'no' case that have some basis in reality, usually deal with the direct/indirect implications of same-sex marriage as a principle:

    - Traditionalist arguments or keeping the status quo (argument for stability).
    Many see same-sex marriage (in principle) as destablizing society, particularly as they draw implications for "love"
    Some are simply not convinced of the merits of same-sex marriage, or others see it as devaluing what is for them a sacred/honoured institution.

    - Moral arguments that man-woman marriage is moral/natural and same-sex marriage isn't (in some way by its very design or practice) or while itself may not be moral/immoral it might encourages immoral behaviour.
    These may be morals derived from a common history/culture, "Western values", or may be religious or multiculturally derived values, particularly around what the family is.

    Aside: Often I have seen that most Australians, couldn't be bothered too much about whether same-sex marriage is legal or not. Reassurances that such issues don't tie have been given in previous cases, but unfortunately for the most extreme people, same-sex marriage isn't enough (or as some say it is just the beginning, For e.g. a professing Christian university, a private institution, in Canada was recently denied the right to issue law degrees due to its code of conduct related to this issue).

    - Libertarian arguments. These are often those who will vote 'no' because of how the 'yes' case has become coercisive or become ironically bigoted.
    Often these ones are tied into freedom of speech and freedom of religions. These probably are the most strongest arguments for many.

    - Supposed Slippery slope argument - Now I call this supposed, because it is often accused. People will argue that same sex marriage leads to, (and what they really mean I think; is empowers) the wrong voices in their mind who push for extreme opinions and beliefs on human sexuality, the family, under the supposed guise of tolerance and equality.

    Arguments for 'yes'
    While personally have not found this compelling, these are some of the better arguments I've seen:

    - Case of mistreatment
    Same-sex marriage is I guess a way of addressing what people see as a injustice/misbalance or to use the loaded word discrimination
    Some see marriage without same-sex marriage is inheritly (in a bad way that is) discriminating or withholding rights.

    - Equality/Human Dignity
    Argues along similar lines to before, but uses the language of equality (all love is equal, that is romantic love I presume)
    Also argues using the same arguments, which are compelling regarding equality of genders and sexual orientation.

    - Trend of Western nations/culture
    Arguments along the lines of progress and this is the way society is going (implied: it is good)

    And there are a couple of other ones as well.
    If I have the time, I'll address the pros and cons of each.

  9. #359
    Senior Member sida1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    - Libertarian arguments. These are often those who will vote 'no' because of how the 'yes' case has become coercisive or become ironically bigoted.
    Often these ones are tied into freedom of speech and freedom of religions. These probably are the most strongest arguments for many.
    This is precisely the issue I have with the more rational "no" voters: their strongest argument and motivation for voting "no" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is therefore an invalid argument entirely. And even if we excuse this fallacy (which we absolutely should not if we want our society to work like a proper educated democracy [and there's a layer of irony somewhere since this is the argument used by "no" libertarians voters]), their basis for the "argument" is a composition fallacy, where they cherry-pick the most obnoxious people on the "yes" side and claim that they are representative of the SSM movement as a whole and everyone else who supports SSM.

    The other arguments against SSM you've mentioned are essentially the same, but dressed in different colours: regardless of the motivation behind each of those arguments, they all lead to a slippery slope argument, which is the desperate man's favourite fallacy. I really don't want to argue on this point (because it's tiresome and I've done so more than I'd like), but I also don't want to be accused of fallaciously ignoring the argument, so I'll offer a quick rebuttal here: everything about the slippery slope can be reversed and applied as an argument for SSM; that instead of saying "if SSM passes then society will be run down to the ground by sexual confusion and by filthy SJW leftist commie cucks", I could spin the story by saying that "if SSM does not pass then society will be run down to the ground by divisive intolerance and hostility towards those who are different and by problematic fringe right-wing individuals", which demonstrates that slippery slope arguments don't add anything of substance to any debate, ever.


    Not gonna lie: the main reason why I personally would vote "yes" is because that I haven't heard a single good argument against SSM and it's easy to come up with simple arguments for why it's good, not necessarily because I've heard an overwhelmingly good argument for SSM per se. I think this in and of itself becomes a good argument when you apply ethics to it, e.g. we are bound ethically to vote "yes" because the expected good outweighs the expected bad (based on the arguments from both sides).

    But it isn't difficult to give a decent reason to support SSM either; if we as a (modern Western) society deem that what makes a marriage a marriage is the romantic love and companionship between two people, then same sex marriage should also be legal and the individuals involved should be entitled to the same legal rights and recognition as heterosexual married couples. This is logically valid, meaning the only way to refute the conclusion is to reject the antecedent. But even including minority cultures and religions, this is the majority view on what makes marriages special. And while there is the "no" argument based on protecting religious freedoms, the other side of the same coin is that we also have an obligation to not allow individuals' lives and rights to be trampled on by other people's religions.
    Last edited by sida1049; 5 Aug 2018 at 6:28 PM.
    SammyT123 likes this.

    Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics) III, USYD

  10. #360
    Kosovo is Serbian RenegadeMx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    HSC
    2013
    Uni Grad
    2017
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,321
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    only a matter a time before the gays accept and start pushing pedophilia mainstream

    love is love is their slogan, can apply that same logic

    Australia is already doomed by accepting this abomination



    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowdude View Post
    other bos-ers have a penis pic sharing club and i'm debating whether i want in on it or not


    ~just so i belong~
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowdude View Post
    who cares about your timetable - you should be going into uni every day to study and do whatever regardless

  11. #361
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,924
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by sida1049 View Post
    This is precisely the issue I have with the more rational "no" voters: their strongest argument and motivation for voting "no" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is therefore an invalid argument entirely.
    To be honest, this is my biggest concern, apart from religious views which view the purposes of marriage in a different light to society.

    Addressing the so-called fallacies #1:
    - I would respectfully disagree, many people who have publicly advocated for same-sex marriage, even excusing the extreme and obnoxious people - the completely frank ones, have always been honest that same-sex marriage is just the start of it.

    - The reason why this argument holds some weight and isn't as irrelevant is because we can actually (in Australia) study countries who legislated same sex marriage before especially Canada. We have noted that universities and businesses are under pressure to give into a new morality, of which same-sex marriage is perceived as the tool that empowers a radical social change that some people are frankly either opposed to (because they can), or are uncomfortable with.

    Because, it is this radical social change/movement that people are opposed to, and same-sex marriage is the tip of the iceberg in this change/movement.

    - It is also a tiny bit dishonest to say that it hasn't nothing to do with the issue at hand, even if the only people who "really" actually want to silence for instance Christians or sue them are the extreme ones. Some people have thought deeply about the issues at hand, and still think it is an issue, and voted 'no'.

    - Secondly, if in order to get the recognition you have to shut down opposing views (which to be honest, are mostly religious/cultural minorities) then there is a problem.

    And even if we excuse this fallacy (which we absolutely should not if we want our society to work like a proper educated democracy [and there's a layer of irony somewhere since this is the argument used by "no" libertarians voters]), their basis for the "argument" is a composition fallacy, where they cherry-pick the most obnoxious people on the "yes" side and claim that they are representative of the SSM movement as a whole and everyone else who supports SSM.
    Addressing the so-called fallacies #2:
    - Yep and as you can acknowledge and agree on, the same caricature can happen for 'no' supporters as "desperate men" who are appealing to supposedly completedly unrelated issues?
    - I agree it is appalling and dishonest to say that all SSM supporters are obnoxious and filled with hate and dissent. Many are not.

    - I would argue it is not dishonest, but maybe it is maybe not wise to assume the worst of people. Many who do *actively* support SSM aren't that caricature. It would be concerning that the role models and supposed leading advocates in the movement are some of these people. There will lie the problem. (I am not personally really going to be argue this point beyond this, because I haven't had too much exposure to it personally)

    The other arguments against SSM you've mentioned are essentially the same, but dressed in different colours: regardless of the motivation behind each of those arguments, they all lead to a slippery slope argument, which is the desperate man's favourite fallacy.
    Obviously, I don't think so. They need not necessarily be a slippery slope argument: SSM has empowered a movement. The question is what social changes will be pushed for next. Especially in our case, we can actually look at the slope. Where is the next stop?

    Now an obvious slippery slope would be:
    "if SSM passes then society will be run down to the ground by sexual confusion and by filthy SJW leftist commie cucks"
    if SSM does not pass then society will be run down to the ground by divisive intolerance and hostility towards those who are different and by problematic fringe right-wing individuals
    Not gonna lie: the main reason why I personally would vote "yes" is because that I haven't heard a single good argument against SSM and it's easy to come up with simple arguments for why it's good, not necessarily because I've heard an overwhelmingly good argument for SSM per se. I think this in and of itself becomes a good argument when you apply ethics to it, e.g. we are bound ethically to vote "yes" because the expected good outweighs the expected bad (based on the arguments from both sides).
    This is where it reveals, it is an ethics question. Your ethic system is consequential (make decisions based on consequential), while mine influenced by my faith of course, isn't.

    ASIDE: To give an alternative perspective on the issue:
    - Christians will appeal to God designing marriage as being between man and woman (reflecting complimentary relationship between Jesus and the church) and also for the natural offspring. (There is more to the Christian ethic).
    - So therefore Christians are at least (if appealing to their authority and beliefs/culture) are not bound to the same ethics

    And similar for other religions and non-Western cultures... (including microcultures that are present in our Australian society).

    Different cultures for instance have different structures:
    1. Guilt and innocence (think inner lawyer). Do not do something because it is unlawful
    2. Honour and shame (think inner grandma). Do not do something because it brings shame as opposed to honour.
    3. Fear and power (think inner demon): Seek power in the face of fear

    While the West is trending towards
    4. Pleasure and pain (think inner therapist): Do what feels good.

    I can understand why Western society wants same-sex marriage (and yes I don't have to agree) as you have noted:

    But it isn't difficult to give a decent reason to support SSM either; if we as a (modern Western) society deem that what makes a marriage a marriage is the romantic love and companionship between two people, then same sex marriage should also be legal and the individuals involved should be entitled to the same legal rights and recognition as heterosexual married couples. This is logically valid, meaning the only way to refute the conclusion is to reject the antecedent.
    Yet our culture is not mono-cultural, not adopt a single set of ethics, nor a single morality. The law courts then have to decide what to legislate on (democratic society has voted for yes for instance). It doesn't agree that marriage is simply just romantic love and companionship but is the backbone of families. For some marriage has indeed a different meaning.

    For e.g. to give a religious perspective


    What we have to recognise in this debate is a messy clash between an old morality ("loosely" based on "Christian" values) and a new incoming morality of sexuality. This is where the conflict and debate lies. The previous definition maybe unwisely, was this old morality, which had a different understanding of marriage.

    For me, the only argument that has held any significance from the yes side, is recognising that "if society wants SSM, it can have it." - recognising that is the trend for people's opinions, so that should be what is in law.

    But now that same-sex marriage is legal? What next for the LGBTIQ movement? Will same sex marriage be enough? Or in the sake of personal freedoms will they coerce churches and businesses (run by minority) to go against their own moral convictions?

    =====
    Aside:
    It is worth mentioning that I think slogans like "love is love" etc. were not helpful for the 'yes' case.

    Sorry if that was a bit messy, as it is currently 0;00am

    SUMMARY OF WHAT I WAS HOPING TO SAY ABOVE:
    1. It is important to recognise, many people like myself, aren't specifically rejecting SSM necessarily by itself, but rejecting a wider movement of which SSM is seen as the crown jewel (or capstone) or cornerstone; of which there are serious issues. This is where our arguments and "supposed slopes" are coming from, it is observing the advocates of the movement and the issues they promote as a whole. (Unfortunately the most vocal ones have sometimes been the most obnoxious on both sides) and the way that particular issues fuel other issues.

    It is the same reason for instance, why I would happily support the rights of refugees for instance even to the extent of closing inhumane detention/processing centres; but yet refuse to sign a petition from my uni's socialist society on that matter as I didn't want to associate with a group who in other areas (particularly bioethics)

    2. But also there are different ethical/moral and even definitions of key things are at play. So at its heart, it is something where people fundamentally disagree on, by principle even if you strip away all the good and poor arguments. This is why this particular issue has been quite divided (even if it isn't 50/50)

  12. #362
    Senior Member sida1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    In the following I will be quoting from your summary, but I have read and taken into account the rest of your (well-written) reply. (I don't agree with a few of the details you've written, but I'd rather focus on your core theses.)

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    1. It is important to recognise, many people like myself, aren't specifically rejecting SSM necessarily by itself, but rejecting a wider movement of which SSM is seen as the crown jewel (or capstone) or cornerstone; of which there are serious issues. This is where our arguments and "supposed slopes" are coming from, it is observing the advocates of the movement and the issues they promote as a whole. (Unfortunately the most vocal ones have sometimes been the most obnoxious on both sides) and the way that particular issues fuel other issues.

    It is the same reason for instance, why I would happily support the rights of refugees for instance even to the extent of closing inhumane detention/processing centres; but yet refuse to sign a petition from my uni's socialist society on that matter as I didn't want to associate with a group who in other areas (particularly bioethics)
    I understand this point perfectly well, and admittedly I too avoid petitions for things I agree with from my university's socialist alternative or other political societies, and for a much more selfish reason: I either find them obnoxious, or I'm simply too lazy.

    But when it comes to voting on policies that have a significant expected impact, I think there's little excuse to allow pettiness over voting on the right side of the issue. And you're right, this is the consequentialist part of me talking.

    But I think there is strong libertarian motivation too: if us as a society accept the idea of voting as a means to discourage and hence silence our political opponents rather than voting on the merit of the issue at hand per se, then we as a society have accepted a dysfunctional parody of democracy. While people have the right to vote however they like, if the majority votes as described, then issues themselves, even if the majority actually agrees, become lost and pointless in and of themselves. And in the long-run, by consistently voting based on prejudices over the issues themselves, this dysfunctional form of democracy would have produced a counterproductive outcome that runs contrary to the will of the people on the issues.

    Not to mention that this kind of way voting is very literally based on ad hominem: "regardless of what you believe, don't vote with these socialists/leftists/conservatives/members of movement [X]!" You might think that in the long-run the world may be better off by silencing certain political movements by voting against them on every turn regardless of the issue, but what you've actually accomplished is locking yourself into consistently placing the ad hominem fallacy in your decision process over your own views on the issue at hand.

    This is not a functional democracy; it's broken, counterproductive and leaves society worse and more divisive than it needs to be. Even if some of our political opponents may spur ominous statements like "this is just the beginning" or "we're only getting started" or whatever, it doesn't excuse us to engage in actions that run counter to how a functioning political system should work. If we really are people who believe in democracy, then we should vote like we ourselves intended and have faith in the system that when a destructive policy is being voted upon, your fellow voters will vote with the intention of doing so for the betterment of society (as you are), rather than robbing them of that opportunity.

    (I'm under no illusion that our current system of democracy is imperfect, but hey, no need to make it worse.)


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    2. But also there are different ethical/moral and even definitions of key things are at play. So at its heart, it is something where people fundamentally disagree on, by principle even if you strip away all the good and poor arguments. This is why this particular issue has been quite divided (even if it isn't 50/50)[/COLOR]
    I didn't mention this before, but I should: in my view, the biggest and most (and perhaps the only) valid argument for voting "no" is on the basis of one's personal ethical and religious beliefs. If anyone tells me that, I'd stop arguing on the issue with them. Assuming that their opinion against SSM is consistent with their ethical and religious beliefs, then voting "no" is indeed rational and not fallacious (regardless of my opinion on their ethical or religious belief system, which would be another conversation entirely).

    The issue here is that it's surprisingly rare to hear people say it; even if someone is religious, there's a good chance that they'd rather appeal to one of the fallacies we've examined earlier, and only fallback to the issue of ethics and religion as a safety net. I kind of understand, but it'd save me a lot of trouble from repeating the same old rebuttals over and over.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Addressing the so-called fallacies #2:
    - Yep and as you can acknowledge and agree on, the same caricature can happen for 'no' supporters as "desperate men" who are appealing to supposedly completedly unrelated issues?
    It wasn't my intention to insult "no" supporters, and I wouldn't. (As far as I'm aware, I've generally steered clear of insulting people who vote "no".) What I mean with that statement is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy that anyone (from all political spectrums and across human history) will use if they don't have anything else.

    Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics) III, USYD

  13. #363
    Taking a break! dan964's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2014
    Uni Grad
    2018
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    South of here
    Posts
    2,924
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    It wasn't my intention to insult "no" supporters, and I wouldn't. (As far as I'm aware, I've generally steered clear of insulting people who vote "no".) What I mean with that statement is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy that anyone (from all political spectrums and across human history) will use if they don't have anything else.
    I realise and on a forum like this, easy to be misunderstood. So there wasn't any offence.
    My observation was more that I think you are very quick to pull out the fallacy card, which is my point. It can be a slippery slope but not necessarily, and that is the issue.
    But I understand what you mean.


    Not to mention that this kind of way voting is very literally based on ad hominem: "regardless of what you believe, don't vote with these socialists/leftists/conservatives/members of movement [X]!" You might think that in the long-run the world may be better off by silencing certain political movements by voting against them on every turn regardless of the issue, but what you've actually accomplished is locking yourself into consistently placing the ad hominem fallacy in your decision process over your own views on the issue at hand.
    I don't think this assessment is entirely reasonable. But I should have clarified a bit.
    The reason why I will not vote with socialists even if the cause they are fighting for [is agreeable], is because their means are wrong and it is a conscientious objection to the values on which the society stands on. So there is always an ethics or moral reason involved, not because of malice towards them (which is what the 'ad honimen' card can imply). I may agree with the ends but not the means of getting there, if you get what I am saying.
    (The means which can include the obnoxious-ness of it) (Which is why some would be ok with civil unions but not SSM)

    The biggest problem I have with the reasoning/rebuttals that is you seem to argue that the issue at hand is disconnected from all the other (even if they are unrelated) issues, that either side raises. I fundamentally disagree on that because of what marriage is as a concept (even it is just to me)

    For instance with marriage redefinition (as that is what it is):

    - You do have to redefine family
    - You do have to think children's rights and surrogancy
    - You do have to think ok, with SSM being part of embracing this "new dogma" of sexuality and sexual orientation**
    does that mean we should also embrace other things as a society (using the exact same arguments proposed by the 'yes' case)
    e.g. a recent TEDX talk which had to be pulled down: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/te...l-orientation/
    - You do have to think about education children on the matter for instance


    So there are a lot of changes with what not just a small contained issue, which raises of course all kinds of moral and ethical questions. We might not be 100% correct on all the details (as with all inductive reasoning) but we definitely have concerns and we (those who are opposed to this kind of change that is), are asking questions about what to expect. We can look to Canada and other countries for case studies and then we can ask what should we expect.

    The problem is I feel that neither side was willing to acknowledge the potential benefits (in the case of the no side) and the shortcomings (in the case of the yes side). People are zealous but lack reasonableness in their speech.

    We have observed that those of our viewpoint on this issue, have been put under enormous pressure to cave in, in other countries, to go against deeply held religious or ethical (cultural) values, morals and beliefs as well; this has been noted in the US and in Canada so that is obviously something to consider whether that is going to happen. (even if it is supposedly only by the extreme left),

    **Note: Many are opposed to this for moral/ethical reasons.

    There is I think good reason which this conversation is quite difficult to navigate, as mentioned previously it is fundamentally two things:

    - Definition debate about a moral practice.
    - A clash of worldviews on sexuality and family (and also rights and all that kind of stuff, which are ethical questions fundamentally)

    Aside:
    Now I think that SSM was somewhat accepted in principle well, by society in Australia before it was actually legislated, and that was evident in shifts in these areas (particularly with the advocation of LGTBIQ stuff in school through Safe Schools well before SSM was even a legal thing)

    Summary: It has always been a moral/ethical question. That is really the basis for many people. The other arguments are basically different expressions of rejection of a trend to what is seen to questionable or immoral ethics.

    (Some felt very strongly for instance that legislating SSM was equivalent to legislating immorality)

    Things like discrimination and rights are all ethical questions. This is why this debate is so hard to navigate.

  14. #364
    Senior Member sida1049's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    HSC
    2015
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    727
    Rep Power
    4

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    For the most part, I agree and have no issues with your discussion of the ethical aspect of the SSM debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    I don't think this assessment is entirely reasonable. But I should have clarified a bit.
    The reason why I will not vote with socialists even if the cause they are fighting for [is agreeable], is because their means are wrong and it is a conscientious objection to the values on which the society stands on. So there is always an ethics or moral reason involved, not because of malice towards them (which is what the 'ad honimen' card can imply). I may agree with the ends but not the means of getting there, if you get what I am saying.
    (The means which can include the obnoxious-ness of it) (Which is why some would be ok with civil unions but not SSM)
    While I sympathise with what you're trying to say, I still think this is a misguided argument.

    You mentioned that you will vote against socialists on every turn because of their means, from an ethical viewpoint. Let's assume that you voted purely on this basis. Now we have another problem: not everyone "yes" voter is a socialist. I don't have the data to back this up, but I'm willing to claim very confidently that the majority of "yes" voters are not socialist. This should highlight even vividly why this particular reasoning is flawed: even if you agree with the issue and even if you agree with you have no ethical quarrels with the majority of people on an issue, the reasoning you've described would lead you to oppose the issue if there are (for example) socialists associated with it. You are voting against a socialist minority and against a majority whom you may not necessarily have any problems with.

    Also, your problem isn't even really with socialists, but with people who advocate their agendas a certain way, of whom can be found in every spectrum of politics; not every socialist is necessarily obnoxious and uses unethical means to push their agendas.

    Now back to the issue of the ad hominem-ness of the decision making process you've described. The core of the ad hominem fallacy has nothing to do with malice and intent; it's just that when you recognise an ad hominem fallacy, chances are, it carries malice towards the opposition. The fundamental reason why ad hominem is a fallacious argument is because it reduces your decision process to associations with groups of people: "the issue X is supported by Y, and I do not like Y, so I will oppose X." So even if your motivation behind your decision making is an ethical one, it doesn't make it any less of an ad hominem.

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    The biggest problem I have with the reasoning/rebuttals that is you seem to argue that the issue at hand is disconnected from all the other (even if they are unrelated) issues, that either side raises. I fundamentally disagree on that because of what marriage is as a concept (even it is just to me)
    I don't think SSM is necessarily disconnected from many other issues. If the other issues are relevant, then it should be discussed. The problem is, is that many other issues that are dragged into the debate is done so underhandedly and invalidly.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    For instance with marriage redefinition (as that is what it is): ...
    Some of these issues are relevant, but not all. And just because I support SSM doesn't mean I support every issue that some other SSM supporters may also support.

    Bachelor of Science (Advanced Mathematics) III, USYD

  15. #365
    -insert title here- Paradoxica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    HSC
    2016
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Outside reality
    Posts
    2,440
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by dan964 View Post
    Things like discrimination and rights are all ethical questions. This is why this debate is so hard to navigate.
    It really isn't. Tolerating intolerance is never the answer.
    If I am a conic section, then my e = ∞

    Just so we don't have this discussion in the future, my definition of the natural numbers includes 0.

  16. #366
    the head cheese cosmo 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    HSC
    2023
    Gender
    Undisclosed
    Location
    chomp rock zone
    Posts
    300
    Rep Power
    2

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    zzzzzzzzzzz

  17. #367
    Member Jaxxnuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    HSC
    N/A
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    266
    Rep Power
    1

    Re: Same Sex Marriage Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by RenegadeMx View Post
    only a matter a time before the gays accept and start pushing pedophilia mainstream

    love is love is their slogan, can apply that same logic

    Australia is already doomed by accepting this abomination
    read this: http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/07/1...eserve-rights/

Page 15 of 15 FirstFirst ... 5131415

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •