SSM postal vote

[Biffen 12,441]

7 hours ago, Jara said:

Yoicks, Biff - that's a whopper post. Things must be quiet in Altona. No time to answer it all, but one quick question - based on the (relatively few) friendships I've had with gay or transgender people, I'd say they've led very stressed lives (one transgender woman I know has been beaten in the street a couple of times, and constantly cops abuse). The simple fact that no AFL footballer has come out is similar evidence of this.

 

One of the arguments in favour of ssm is that it will, hopefully, encourage the wider community to accept gays and reduce the amount of crap they have to put up with. Think of a gay teenager in a country town, how he has to hide the instincts he was born with, the stress this must cause (I grew up in a country town - was amazed, when I was in third year uni, when the guy who'd been my best friend all my life told me he was gay - I may be a bit thick, but I had absolutely no idea - I felt so ashamed of all the homophobic banter the rest of us had engaged in in the playground, the footy club, etc).  

 

Given all of the above, how can you say that the legal recognition of ssm will not reduce the suicide rates?   

Marriage itself is not going to normalise homosexuality.Nothing ever will.It's a deviation from the norm ,though one we all consider "normal" in Western culture.Nothing will stop the suicides of children in the bush who realise they are same sex attracted.No grand social engineering or public information campaign will stop homophobes and homophobes themselves are fairly pitiful, often self-hating gays.

I'm against politics entering the personal sphere-the rights they seek already exist.This is a political football and nothing more-the shrill cries from both sides  of the debate are a battle for moral high ground-look at your Facebook and see how many people want to show their all-inclusive hearts off.I see it for what it is-a grab for money using an oppression that does not exist .It's an attack on traditional families and religion, pushed by inner -urban yuppies .

[dieter 3,325]

 

48 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Marriage itself is not going to normalise homosexuality.Nothing ever will.It's a deviation from the norm ,though one we all consider "normal" in Western culture.Nothing will stop the suicides of children in the bush who realise they are same sex attracted.No grand social engineering or public information campaign will stop homophobes and homophobes themselves are fairly pitiful, often self-hating gays.

I'm against politics entering the personal sphere-the rights they seek already exist.This is a political football and nothing more-the shrill cries from both sides  of the debate are a battle for moral high ground-look at your Facebook and see how many people want to show their all-inclusive hearts off.I see it for what it is-a grab for money using an oppression that does not exist .It's an attack on traditional families and religion, pushed by inner -urban yuppies .

The bottom line is marriage isn't normal anyway. Many married couples are having/had the same sex relationship since they met. How boring is that?

Jara and I aren't inner-urban yuppies, by the way. I live in Box Hill, unfortunately a long way from Carlisle Street and bagels and Poppy Seed cakes.

I grant that homophobia won't die. The fact that most churches preach homophobia  - ironically often the preacher is a pedophile homosexual himself  - doesn't help.

The bottom line is the question of how a person's sexuality can make any difference to anybody else's life. Who gives a flying fluck about a person's sexuality????????

The bottom line is we're all essentially the same, made from flesh and blood and bones and mainly H2 O. Some of us are black, some of us are white, some of us have hair, some of us are patient, some of us pedal bull shite, some of us pedal bikes. It''s a motely crew in the end, who just keep finding ways to kill and hate each other. Makes no sense to me.

[Earl Hood 5,831]

9 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

If you believe in god and read the bible then it is written he does not like gays, sorry but  obviously you haven't read it,  it is written when a man Lies with another man it's an abomination, like I said man changes his mind, but God does not. If you  can find any passages where he say's he does not care please find them.

Angry are you quoting Old Testament or New Testament? Old Testament tends to hate everybody and was written three or four thousands of years ago by understandably very bigoted, insular and insecure people.

The New Testament is supposedly composed of Christ's teachings that form the basis of the Christian beliefs you adhere to supposedly. My memory is that these teachings were much more liberal and understanding about people than the tripe you are espousing! Are there any references to gays in the New Testament and where does Mary Magdeline, a consort of Jesus fit in to all this? 

[Jara 1,149]

4 hours ago, Biffen said:

Marriage itself is not going to normalise homosexuality.Nothing ever will.It's a deviation from the norm ,though one we all consider "normal" in Western culture.Nothing will stop the suicides of children in the bush who realise they are same sex attracted.No grand social engineering or public information campaign will stop homophobes and homophobes themselves are fairly pitiful, often self-hating gays.

I'm against politics entering the personal sphere-the rights they seek already exist.This is a political football and nothing more-the shrill cries from both sides  of the debate are a battle for moral high ground-look at your Facebook and see how many people want to show their all-inclusive hearts off.I see it for what it is-a grab for money using an oppression that does not exist .It's an attack on traditional families and religion, pushed by inner -urban yuppies .

Do you have any empirical evidence for your opening claim?  When I was a kid cops would beat gays up (sometimes kill them, as in Adelaide); now they march in the Mardi Gras. That seems to me to be a gradual acceptance - a "normalisation" - of homosexuality. Good thing, too. I look at my gay friends and I think - these are good, kind human beings, exactly like the rest of us in the vast majority of things. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the rest of us? What have you got to fear?

 

Politics enters the personal sphere every day of the week, every minute of the day. Were you jumping up and down when Howard (with a simple parliamentary vote) passed a law restricting marriage to members of the opposite sex? 

 

Attack on traditional religion and families? All a matter of opinion, I suppose, but I personally reckon traditional religion deserves a good kick in the goolies. Traditional famiies? How long have they been around? Wasn't that long ago, even in the west, when marriage was more of a business deal than an expression of love. Read Jane Austen - women were raffled off like livestock. 

 

I wish I was an inner-city yuppy - my house would be worth a lot more. 

[bing181 8,228]

On 9/23/2017 at 1:38 PM, don't make me angry said:

This is the fact, all who believe in god if you vote yes then you are condemn to hell, but if you vote no you may still go to hell, God never changes his mind and is never wrong, man might change his mind God never does, sorry if this offend people, but that's the way it is.

OK, that's God covered.

How about the Tooth Fairy?

[nutbean 8,837]

8 hours ago, bing181 said:

OK, that's God covered.

How about the Tooth Fairy?

The tooth fairy supports same sex marriage as long as the couple have teeth.

[mauriesy 6,860]

I claim the right to stone to death those people who wear cotton-polyester shirts. Or to take into slavery the first New Zealander I can find.

On a personal level, I have very close friends in four different same-sex relationships (2 x FF, 2 x MM) and the descriptions here of "abnormality" and an "abomination" are to me deeply hurtful. It's straight from the 18th century, or before. And if you are going to (disgracefully) define homosexuality as "abnormal", then do the same for left-handedness, blue eyes, dimples and red hair and see how ridiculous it sounds.

All my friends are over 50 and have been in continual relationships with their partners for well over 20 years. They want to marry to confirm their relationships to their family and friends, and gain the legal rights that every MF marriage has. I thought society would want to promote love and enduring relationships.

Their position also has nothing to do with children, procreation or safe school programs (or any other concocted diversion from the main issue). They (and I) again find those absurd connections with their desire to get marriage deeply offensive. 

And if marriage has "consequences" and is solely about procreation and bringing up "good" kids, 1. why on the one hand do we allow childless couples to remain married, and 2. on the other hand why don't we allow same-sex couples who already have children (it's not iilegal for them to have kids and plenty do) to cement their relationship through marriage for the benefit of their kids?

[Biffen 12,441]

37 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

I claim the right to stone to death those people who wear cotton-polyester shirts. Or to take into slavery the first New Zealander I can find.

On a personal level, I have very close friends in four different same-sex relationships (2 x FF, 2 x MM) and the descriptions here of "abnormality" and an "abomination" are to me deeply hurtful. It's straight from the 18th century, or before. And if you are going to (disgracefully) define homosexuality as "abnormal", then do the same for left-handedness, blue eyes, dimples and red hair and see how ridiculous it sounds.

All my friends are over 50 and have been in continual relationships with their partners for well over 20 years. They want to marry to confirm their relationships to their family and friends, and gain the legal rights that every MF marriage has. I thought society would want to promote love and enduring relationships.

Their position also has nothing to do with children, procreation or safe school programs (or any other concocted diversion from the main issue). They (and I) again find those absurd connections with their desire to get marriage deeply offensive. 

And if marriage has "consequences" and is solely about procreation and bringing up "good" kids, 1. why on the one hand do we allow childless couples to remain married, and 2. on the other hand why don't we allow same-sex couples who already have children (it's not iilegal for them to have kids and plenty do) to cement their relationship through marriage for the benefit of their kids?

They are abnormal because they deviate from the norm-which is heterosexuality.It's a fairly simple concept.

[mauriesy 6,860]

10 minutes ago, Biffen said:

They are abnormal because they deviate from the norm-which is heterosexuality.It's a fairly simple concept.

The definition of "abnormal" is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". Obviously in your quest for meaningless simplicity, you just prefer to ignore the last bit.

You can't say any genetic variation is "abnormal" just because there's a small number of them.

Some are just that ... variations. Like left-handedness or blue eyes.

[Biffen 12,441]

45 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

The definition of "abnormal" is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying". Obviously in your quest for meaningless simplicity, you just prefer to ignore the last bit.

You can't say any genetic variation is "abnormal" just because there's a small number of them.

Some are just that ... variations. Like left-handedness or blue eyes.

i didn't look up the definition but it is "not the norm" clearly.i am left handed ,but I have many gay friends as well.it doesn't worry me if people are [censored].That is not the issue as I keep repeating here.The issue is to do with the constant push to destroy religious rites while we support and include other cultures like China and the Islamic world  .nor am I religious btw.FWIW the issue itself does not bother me either but the way the YES vote has been campaigned is another "awareness raising" political appeal in what is a personal choice for the nation.

[dieter 3,325]

48 minutes ago, Biffen said:

i didn't look up the definition but it is "not the norm" clearly.i am left handed ,but I have many gay friends as well.it doesn't worry me if people are [censored].That is not the issue as I keep repeating here.The issue is to do with the constant push to destroy religious rites while we support and include other cultures like China and the Islamic world  .nor am I religious btw.FWIW the issue itself does not bother me either but the way the YES vote has been campaigned is another "awareness raising" political appeal in what is a personal choice for the nation.

Wouldn't have needed all this to and fro god bothering, 'definition debate', etc etc if the ultra fascist conservatives didn't have Turnbulldust by the scrotum.

[nutbean 8,837]

14 hours ago, Biffen said:

They are abnormal because they deviate from the norm-which is heterosexuality.It's a fairly simple concept.

Apparently not so simple that you have chosen to ignore that "norms" evolve over time. You are confusing norm with majority.

To suggest that homosexuality is abnormal because they deviate from the norm completely ignores that homosexuality has been "normalised" in most westernised countries including Australia, with most countries legislating the right to marry someone of the same sex (Australia excluded). 

 

[Jara 1,149]

14 hours ago, Biffen said:

i didn't look up the definition but it is "not the norm" clearly.i am left handed ,but I have many gay friends as well.it doesn't worry me if people are [censored].That is not the issue as I keep repeating here.The issue is to do with the constant push to destroy religious rites while we support and include other cultures like China and the Islamic world  .nor am I religious btw.FWIW the issue itself does not bother me either but the way the YES vote has been campaigned is another "awareness raising" political appeal in what is a personal choice for the nation.

Biff, I don't get it. You're worried about what you describe as the constant push to destroy religious rites but you say you're not religious yourself. Don't you understand that, by not being religious, you are doing your own bit to destroy religion?

 

Personally, I was ambivalent about organized religion - until the pedophilia business. Not so much the pervert priests themselves, but the official attempts to cover it up. Then I began to think of religion as something we'd be best evolving away from - which we are. 

[Biffen 12,441]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

Apparently not so simple that you have chosen to ignore that "norms" evolve over time. You are confusing norm with majority.

To suggest that homosexuality is abnormal because they deviate from the norm completely ignores that homosexuality has been "normalised" in most westernised countries including Australia, with most countries legislating the right to marry someone of the same sex (Australia excluded). 

 

The norm IS the majority-statistically speaking.

 

[Biffen 12,441]

7 minutes ago, Jara said:

Biff, I don't get it. You're worried about what you describe as the constant push to destroy religious rites but you say you're not religious yourself. Don't you understand that, by not being religious, you are doing your own bit to destroy religion?

 

Personally, I was ambivalent about organized religion - until the pedophilia business. Not so much the pervert priests themselves, but the official attempts to cover it up. Then I began to think of religion as something we'd be best evolving away from - which we are. 

I'm an atheist but I see the constant attacks on Christianity for what they are-another attack on conservative Australians from a main stream media frothing at the mouth to [censored] the whole country up so we can all march under the red star, the hammer and sickle, or a Che Guevara poster.

I'm a Libertarian and a patriot-I don't shyte in the tent when I don't like something the country is doing.

Edited September 25, 2017 by Biffen

[dieter 3,325]

47 minutes ago, Biffen said:

I'm an atheist but I see the constant attacks on Christianity for what they are-another attack on conservative Australians from a main stream media frothing at the mouth to [censored] the whole country up so we can all march under the red star, the hammer and sickle, or a Che Guevara poster.

I'm a Libertarian and a patriot-I don't shyte in the tent when I don't like something the country is doing.

Sure, that's bound to happen. Australia under their hammer and sicle while they read the Herald Sun and The Australian, spooning red sugar on their red weaties. 

[Biffen 12,441]

41 minutes ago, dieter said:

Sure, that's bound to happen. Australia under their hammer and sicle while they read the Herald Sun and The Australian, spooning red sugar on their red weaties. 

Hi Angela Merkel-the Stasi trained mother of "global warming" .Congrats on the re-birth of the Ultra right wing!!

[nutbean 8,837]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

The norm IS the majority-statistically speaking.

 

Disagree - A norm is measured by its acceptance  - not by the number within its group.  It was unacceptable many years ago for a child to be born out of wedlock. It is now accepted as a social norm although the number of children born out of wedlock would be below 50%.

Prefer the definition  below - interestingly  - norms may change or be modified over time.

Social norms or mores are the rules of behavior that are considered acceptable in a group or society. People who do not follow these norms may be shunned or suffer some kind of consequence. Norms change according to the environment or situation and may change or be modified over time
Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/social-norm-examples.html#m9jZUDGYrLE47DEY.99

[Biffen 12,441]

6 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Disagree - A norm is measured by its acceptance  - not by the number within its group.  It was unacceptable many years ago for a child to be born out of wedlock. It is now accepted as a social norm although the number of children born out of wedlock would be below 50%.

Prefer the definition  below - interestingly  - norms may change or be modified over time.

Social norms or mores are the rules of behavior that are considered acceptable in a group or society. People who do not follow these norms may be shunned or suffer some kind of consequence. Norms change according to the environment or situation and may change or be modified over time
Read more at http://examples.yourdictionary.com/social-norm-examples.html#m9jZUDGYrLE47DEY.99

[censored] with language as much as you like-it's a minority issue.Another one that dominates our Parliament and media.

[mauriesy 6,860]

Trouble with your argument on "religious rites", is that 1. marriage is a Commonwealth law and has no necessary link to religion, and 2. people are voting with their feet. Last year the majority of marriages in Australia were performed outside religious environments. For example, in 2016 in WA there were 15,500 marriages, and 79% were performed by celebrants, not ministers.

I got married, under a tree, by a celebrant, in 1977. I'm tired of religions claiming ownership of marriage.

[Biffen 12,441]

3 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Trouble with your argument on "religious rites", is that 1. marriage is a Commonwealth law and has no necessary link to religion, and 2. people are voting with their feet. Last year the majority of marriages in Australia were performed outside religious environments. For example, in 2016 in WA there were 15,500 marriages, and 79% were performed by celebrants, not ministers.

I got married, under a tree, by a celebrant, in 1977. I'm tired of religions claiming ownership of marriage.

yes and I'm aware that marriage begun as a way to keep wealth within the upper classes but was soon copied by the masses.

I'm not actually against it-just the way the YES vote has been prosecuted and agitpropped to death.

[daisycutter 28,704]

1 hour ago, Biffen said:

yes and I'm aware that marriage begun as a way to keep wealth within the upper classes but was soon copied by the masses.

I'm not actually against it-just the way the YES vote has been prosecuted and agitpropped to death.

besides, why should gay people be exempt from mothers-in-law?

[Biffen 12,441]

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

besides, why should gay people be exempt from mothers-in-law?

and sexual monogamy

[faultydet 7,593]

It's a no win argument, full of contradictions.

 

I voted no. Some will label me homophobe.

For 2 years while living in Muslim Mindanao, Philippines, I was proud sole sponsor of an all lesbian basketball team. Loved every minute of it. We lost the grand final both years to the team made up entirely of "bakla" or lady boys. 

 

It's a strange world, isn't it.

[nutbean 8,837]

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

[censored] with language as much as you like-it's a minority issue.Another one that dominates our Parliament and media.

Aren't most issues minority issues ? Surely by your reckoning  the refugee issue falls into exactly the same category ? Indigenous Australians make up 3% of the population  (abs 2011) - minority issue ?  

As I said  - it is not the number of people within these "groups"  - it is the way, we as a country, deal with these "groups".

But hey...that's just my opinion.