+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: SSM Plebiscite (/thread-3461.html)
Re: SSM Plebiscite - blue4life - 09-28-2017
(09-27-2017, 11:44 PM)mateinone link Wrote:Ah, so by extension... You therefore agree that the public would have no right to a view on a marriage between siblings?
Or the right of a woman to marry two different men in a polygamous relationship?
I specifically stated that I have no objection "provided that such relationships don't adversely affect a third person or society as a whole".
This would rule out consanguinity, as the risk to children born of such a relationship is well documented.
Polygamy also affects a third person, although whether adversely or not is open to debate in some circumstances, but as far as I'm aware no one is proposing to legitimise polygamy so it's a red herring as far as the SSM issue is concerned.
What no one of the contrary opinion has been able to explain to me is how a same sex couple marrying will have any adverse effects on anyone else's marriage or how they live their lives, as far as I can see it would have none whatsoever.
Religious dogma is well and good for some people, but I fail to see why the rest should also subscribe to it or be governed by it.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - LP - 09-28-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:20 PM)mateinone link Wrote:To be clear as well LP
My commentary in no way advocates incest or polygamy or anything else.
I also don't for one second believe that it is a natural conclusion that allowing SSM means society will end up forced to allow other forms of marriage that are not defined.
My only commentary is that we as humans always pass judgment based on our experience and knowledge and what makes sense to one, might not make sense to another.
That it is laughable to me that some people (not stating here), don't believe that people have a right to feel differently to what they do.
If there are other minority groups not out there, yes they might use this as a platform, but we are humans and boundaries can be drawn around what is acceptable to maintain society and so SSM doesn't lead to other forms.
I use the examples purely to show a hypocrisy in the debate (again, more in the public forums than here).
I wasn't meaning to give the impression I was making comment on yourself, I was commenting from a 3rd person perspective. Just observations like yourself.
I've had some very interesting conversations about these issues, having traveled a lot for business to countries that have very different perspectives on all this. For example the irony that exists in a society that sentences homosexuals to death but permits a 12 year old to be married to a 50 year old businessman like some sort of commercial transaction. Social libertarians would argue those cultures have their rights.
So I can understand the associative concern some have that the SSM debate will naturally lead to questioning of other traditional laws that seem to discriminate against individuals in our multicultural society. It really has nothing to do with the way some perceive the sins of one, it is more about the moving of a boundary. So it seems inevitable to some that those questions will be asked, and why wouldn't they ask them, it's a basic right in a free society that some are defending!
Re: SSM Plebiscite - Thryleon - 09-28-2017
(09-28-2017, 12:04 AM)blue4life link Wrote:I specifically stated that I have no objection "provided that such relationships don't adversely affect a third person or society as a whole".
This would rule out consanguinity, as the risk to children born of such a relationship is well documented.
Polygamy also affects a third person, although whether adversely or not is open to debate in some circumstances, but as far as I'm aware no one is proposing to legitimise polygamy so it's a red herring as far as the SSM issue is concerned.
What no one of the contrary opinion has been able to explain to me is how a same sex couple marrying will have any adverse effects on anyone else's marriage or how they live their lives, as far as I can see it would have none whatsoever.
Religious dogma is well and good for some people, but I fail to see why the rest should also subscribe to it or be governed by it.
Red herring, agree.
Legitimising polygamy is definately a goal for one of the groups out there and Ill leave that at that, as that debate doesn't belong here.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - mateinone - 09-28-2017
(09-28-2017, 12:04 AM)blue4life link Wrote:I specifically stated that I have no objection "provided that such relationships don't adversely affect a third person or society as a whole".
This would rule out consanguinity, as the risk to children born of such a relationship is well documented.
Polygamy also affects a third person, although whether adversely or not is open to debate in some circumstances, but as far as I'm aware no one is proposing to legitimise polygamy so it's a red herring as far as the SSM issue is concerned.
What no one of the contrary opinion has been able to explain to me is how a same sex couple marrying will have any adverse effects on anyone else's marriage or how they live their lives, as far as I can see it would have none whatsoever.
Religious dogma is well and good for some people, but I fail to see why the rest should also subscribe to it or be governed by it.
I don't think that a same sex couple marrying will have adverse effects.
The matter of whether or not anyone is proposing a situation, isn't actually the point. I understand some in the "NO" area are suggesting one non-traditional marriage leads to another, but I don't buy into that and I agree that would be a red herring.
BUT to the argument of whether or not others judge the relationships of 2 consenting adults it is quite relevant.
I have bolded the point above as I find it particularly interesting as an argument.
Are you suggesting that because environmentally or genetically?
The reason I raise this is again simple.
I believe that people make judgments on many things in their life that they consider to be "right" or "wrong" based on their experiences in life.
I believe that people if called on to vote, have a right to determine based on their own judgments of what they consider to be right or wrong based on their thoughts and do not need to be attacked for their thoughts any more than one religious group should be attacked for their thoughts.
Whilst I believe all of these things, I don't believe that is the right way to make a decision.
It is almost like this discussion is too hard a discussion to hold in a forum as I don't believe intentions are easily portrayed.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - Thryleon - 09-28-2017
(09-27-2017, 10:59 AM)kruddler link Wrote:People were arguing that, and yes it is easy to shoot down. Just like it is most of their arguments. Its the fact the majority of them don't listen to and/or believe the alternative view that is the problem.
If people want to believe that marriage should be a union between a man and a woman, that is their right.
They should be well aware that despite that, same sex couple can and do exist. Same sex couple are also entitled to similar type 'benefits' to married people.
As for biology....pretty sure its widely accepted that animals can also be gay.
Hell, i used to have 2 male german shepherds that were always mounting eachother when i was a kid. I'm not sure how well that worked out for them though.
The most 'logical' argument against SSM that i can understand it is people want the word 'marriage' to be between opposite sex only. If there was a gay equivalent to the word marriage, that yielded all the rights of marriage, but simply went by a different name, then thats about the only argument against i could accept. Still don't agree, but accept.
Anything else doesn't make sense. to me.
The links between homosexuality in the animal kingdom and humanity are as tenuous as saying that SSM will open the floodgates for homosexual propaganda in schools.
Animals do display homosexual behaviour, but are not exclusively homosexual and we would at best be projecting human behavioural patterns onto animals rather than actual observed homosexuality as the reasons behind it are widespread and varying but ultimately have almost nothing to do with sexual preference but are sometimes related to gratification.
I.e. two male dogs hump each other, and this is about dominance, not gratification nor homosexuality.
IMHO the animals are irrelevant in this circumstance because you will analyse every species and get different answers as to how we as humans should behave, when we are discussing completely different biology and evolutionary influences. See the Sea Horse reproductive system for reasons why it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - blue4life - 09-28-2017
(09-28-2017, 12:20 AM)mateinone link Wrote:I have bolded the point above as I find it particularly interesting as an argument.
Are you suggesting that because environmentally or genetically?
Genetically, the adverse effects are well understood which is one reason why the practice isn't adopted in any culture which comes to mind.
Quote:It is almost like this discussion is too hard a discussion to hold in a forum as I don't believe intentions are easily portrayed.
I think it gets down to prejudice, religious conviction and conservatism.
As I said earlier, I'd like to hear anyone of the contrary opinion explain how a same sex couple marrying will adversely affect either themselves, their own marriage or society as a whole, because I've yet to hear an argument that holds water.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - mateinone - 09-28-2017
(09-28-2017, 12:36 AM)blue4life link Wrote:Genetically, the adverse effects are well understood which is one reason why the practice isn't adopted in any culture which comes to mind.
Hmm, so you realise that within Australia relationships between cousins, between aunts/uncles with nieces/nephews can in fact end in marriage right?
It is also legal in every country in Europe and around 1/2 of the USA.
Not only that, but a relationship between say an Aunt/Nephew would see the same amount of shared DNA as that between a Grandparent and Grandchild or that of half-siblings. Yet a relationship between aunt and uncle is the only legal relationship there.
Not only that.. But it is far more likely that someone with Down Syndrome will have a child Down Syndrome.
There are many other genetic defects that are genetic and have a higher likelihood of being passed down to offspring.
So again, I believe it is much more around what we consider acceptable, because surely no one is suggesting that people should be screened for the possibility of passing on genetic defects. That would seem a little Orwellian.
Also, what about when someone is infertile, should they then be able to marry a sibling?
As for historically, there is considerable data showing historical relationships between relatives.
Cleopatra married not 1, but 2 of her siblings.
Most of Europe was ruled by marrying cousins for about 200 years.
See I believe it is okay to say that the reason why there shouldn't be incestuous relationships is that I don't believe it is "right" or I consider it "wrong".
Based on what I have learned throughout life, it makes me feel "ewww". I know that isn't scientific and I am okay with that.
I pass that judgment. I don't think that is a good reason for the law to change or stay the same, because it is nothing more than how it makes me feel.
I don't apologise for feeling that way either.
AND that is the crux.
People can feel that same sex marriage is wrong and contrary to their beliefs, based on their upbringing.
But that shouldn't impact the law.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - blue4life - 09-28-2017
(09-28-2017, 12:56 AM)mateinone link Wrote:See I believe it is okay to say that the reason why there shouldn't be incestuous relationships is that I don't believe it is "right" or I consider it "wrong".
For what it's worth I agree with you, but surely incestuous relationships or possible marriages are wholly irrelevant to the current debate, as no one is proposing any change to the law in that regard, nor is it foreseeable that any change will be proposed in the future.
I have no problem with people opposing SSM for any reason which they see fit, the ability to hold an opinion is at the heart of a free society.
Re: SSM Plebiscite - LP - 09-28-2017
The fact that it's being raised here shows there is a associative connection, whether it's right or wrong!
Abbott knows this very well, he and his conservatives are depending on it!
Re: SSM Plebiscite - DJC - 09-28-2017
I worked with a bloke whose father had eight wives. Apart from having to remember the names of a great many siblings, he didn't seem to have any issues arising from his father's polygyny.
That practice has died out now as it was effectively the old men controlling access to the women and denying the younger men access.