Marriage equality (1 Viewer)

[nerdasdasd]

I would agree that in most cases; you would find they would happily bake the cake for gays in any other situation, just not for a SS wedding. That is the difference, it is because that would affirm same-sex marriage not because of their orientation. Now it just becomes a big legal dispute every time. Now does that make it less discriminatory?
In your eyes, probably not. The issue comes when a particular ideology that goes against the values of an organisation/business are being imposed unreasonably. And you would find that is what is happening.

The definition of discrimination - treat a person or particular group of people differently

So yes. It would be discrimination.

 

[dan964]

The definition of discrimination - treat a person or particular group of people differently

So yes. It would be discrimination.

If you analyse for instance the positive discrimination that is used for specific groups, for instance Indigenous Australians; or discrimination that means that men use men's bathrooms and women use women's bathrooms (or in sport for instance); such discrimination is permissible because it discriminates in favor of that. I would argue the same with marriage on a similar, but modified basis.

(just to requote myself)...
The question is whether it is justifiable. Obviously this is where most people will part ways...

 

[Rouz]

Do you have some source for that? (Buddhists are not that theistic technically)

That is very true especially in Europe and the Islamic World. Atheists were blasphemers and heretics and had no right to exist for a very long time. In Eastern Asia, things were a bit different because Asian religions are different than the Abrahamic ones.

In the Islamic World of today, maybe with the exception of Morocco and a couple of other progressive countries, being an atheist, declaring you're an atheist, and more broadly leaving Islam has serious consequences ranging from ostracism to torture and death.

In Europe, it wasn't until the 1700s that some tolerance began to rise and that was mostly amongst academia, the elite and private institutions. Before that atheists were ostracised and there exist cases of atheists being killed for their belief. Christians have never liked atheists but at least now they don't persecute them (although sometimes I wonder whether they would do so if they had the means, like they do in the Middle East).

The negative view still exists in the Western World of today. Just look at countries that have a large number of religious population. In the US, people use atheist (along with Marxist and communist) as an insult. Churches actually exercise their power of excommunication on agnostics and atheists! Best friends break off because one of them gives up faith. I have things similar things in Australia, albeit on a much smaller scale.

 

[Rouz]

Yeah I don't disagree with some of "Darwinism", even as one religious; Darwin himself though I disagree with...

Sorry to bring this up but I just noticed that... you disagree with Darwin? Like you think he wrong or what?

 

[dan964]

Sorry to bring this up but I just noticed that... you disagree with Darwin? Like you think he wrong or what?

You should see my post in does God exist thread, if you really want to discuss that. I can link if need be. I think Darwin, even for an atheist, some of things he said, and used his theory to justify what would not be acceptable by most people's standards today.

 

[BLIT2014]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/austr...sed-as-next-of-kin/ar-BBru2hV?ocid=spartanntp

 

[soloooooo]

A sad case although not really relevant to the broader issue of whether gay marriage should or should not be be introduced into Australia.

 

[Rouz]

That article is just another example of existing variants of discrimination in Australia and is very relevant to the current issue.

You cannot discuss whether gay marriage should or should not be introduced with wilful blindness to the impacts its absence has had on the gay community.

British law recognises gay marriage. Australian law does not recognise gay marriage, and that's exactly what's wrong in that article and in Australia.

 

[dan964]

That article is just another example of existing variants of discrimination in Australia and is very relevant to the current issue.

You cannot discuss whether gay marriage should or should not be introduced with wilful blindness to the impacts its absence has had on the gay community.

British law recognises gay marriage. Australian law does not recognise gay marriage, and that's exactly what's wrong in that article and in Australia.

I think it is also more so a matter of sovereignty, that these people are British citizens which is more of the issue.

 

[soloooooo]

and if Japan recognises marriage between a person and an inanimate object do you think Australia should then also if the couple visits Australia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

 

[Queenroot]

and if Japan recognises marriage between a person and an inanimate object do you think Australia should then also if the couple visits Australia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

yeah

 

[Squar3root]

 

[Squar3root]

can someone give me the tl;dr of all the arguments against gay marriage

 

[Squar3root]

http://www.mamamia.com.au/arguments-against-gay-marriage/

good summary

 

[dan964]

http://www.mamamia.com.au/arguments-against-gay-marriage/

good summary

I will comment and say that a lot of the counter-arguments are just as bolocks as well. The comparisons to slavery, Apartheid for instance are very much stupid as they claim these arguments against. Yes there are legimitate legal concerns.

Even the supposed slope is inaccurate, the big push now in the states is for transgender "rights", and there was a case in the US, recently, where these unfortunately have been exploited. And the same kind of attitude is shown, expectedly against states like NC, that seek to actually think some common sense and safety into that issue.

Some other comments about the arguments (strawmans and the non-strawmans; and their supposed refuttal):
#1 is not accurate, no one argues along those lines generally speaking.
#2 is also not accurate, you would find that most people care about this issue, because it affects one of the fundamental things in society, marriage.

The refuttal to #3 expresses a common misunderstanding about the fact that marriage isn't just about love, and certainly is not the sole quantifying factor. So more of an agree to disagree.

#4 is actually partially true, though considering that recently GetUp has shifted the issue lower in priority.

#5 - There are a lot of things that are in nature, so what?

#6 - The science is inconclusive, I know that many homosexuals would feel a certain way about it. But experience does not negate the fact that there is no conclusive evidence on being "born this way". The science does not conclude favourably in either way.

#7 - Polygamy is the next logical step. Clearly this person limits it to consent.
I will note that in some states in Aus (ahem Victoria), the consent age is actually 12*. So...? But the next step in the slope is actually transgender rights, we can observe that from the US/Canada. (*with a bit of other rules attached)

And you get the point...

 

[Rouz]

I will comment...

 

[dan964]

.

well... ok to you as well.
and good bidding.
(as a side note, uni has just chalked rainbow near the library, whenever something like that happens, I am like did I miss something?)

 

[Flop21]

I will comment and say that a lot of the counter-arguments are just as bolocks as well. The comparisons to slavery, Apartheid for instance are very much stupid as they claim these arguments against. Yes there are legimitate legal concerns.

Even the supposed slope is inaccurate, the big push now in the states is for transgender "rights", and there was a case in the US, recently, where these unfortunately have been exploited. And the same kind of attitude is shown, expectedly against states like NC, that seek to actually think some common sense and safety into that issue.

Some other comments about the arguments (strawmans and the non-strawmans; and their supposed refuttal):
#1 is not accurate, no one argues along those lines generally speaking.
#2 is also not accurate, you would find that most people care about this issue, because it affects one of the fundamental things in society, marriage.

The refuttal to #3 expresses a common misunderstanding about the fact that marriage isn't just about love, and certainly is not the sole quantifying factor. So more of an agree to disagree.

#4 is actually partially true, though considering that recently GetUp has shifted the issue lower in priority.

#5 - There are a lot of things that are in nature, so what?

#6 - The science is inconclusive, I know that many homosexuals would feel a certain way about it. But experience does not negate the fact that there is no conclusive evidence on being "born this way". The science does not conclude favourably in either way.

#7 - Polygamy is the next logical step. Clearly this person limits it to consent.
I will note that in some states in Aus (ahem Victoria), the consent age is actually 12*. So...? But the next step in the slope is actually transgender rights, we can observe that from the US/Canada. (*with a bit of other rules attached)

And you get the point...

Wait... do you think being gay is a choice? Does that mean that you yourself can decide to be sexually attracted to men if you want?

 

[dan964]

Wait... do you think being gay is a choice? Does that mean that you yourself can decide to be sexually attracted to men if you want?

No, I think what actually is responsible is inconclusive. I don't agree with either the "choice" or "born this way" logic. People aren't born with any sexual attraction really. People presume it is all because of genetics, but the science hasn't concluded in either favour.

In some cases, it can be (a choice, especially more so with bisexuality or in more so as an outworking of attraction*); but generally speaking, the attraction itself not really. Although sexual preference does change and is very fluid in some people.

(*like in cases where a guy decides to leave wife & family for a homosexual relationship for instance).

 

[Rouz]

Dan, do you think penguins are born either heterosexual or homosexual, or do they choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual?

Edit: or do they change their mind as they go, in yours words, is their sexuality "fluid"?