(Editing)

Edited by Aljay: 11/8/2015 03:35:21 PM

Oh I'm not I'm just saying the only difference is that there seems to be a precedent for homosexual marriage where as there isn't one for Polygamy.

I wouldn't say I'm against it I just feel for any bloke who thinks it wouldn't be hell :lol:

Ads are the reason my family ditched Foxtel wholesale.

When we signed up to Austar way back in the mid 90s there were 0 ads and that was the point.

Now it's no different to commercial TV with albeit a bit more content.

-PB

In some countries, polygamy is legal so there's precedent. However, it's just a typical hijack that happens in these threads, "sure issue x is bad/good, but issue y is worse/should also be good".

Exactly. Funniest are those who label people 'bigots' simply because they disagree with their personal opinion, completely unaware of how ironic it is for them to make such a statement.

Being a bigot because you're intolerant of bigots.

It's not a thread highjack it's an interesting intellectual conundrum. If "A" is OK why isn't "B".

Like I said I'd like to hear those in favour of one but not another argue exactly why.

I don't have a strong opposition to polygamy but I think there are issues from a gender equality standpoint that I don't like.

The strongest reason it's not relevant to the current political debate is that it would impact heaps of legislation that only recognises couples. If people really feel strongly about polygamy then they can campaign for it in it's own right.

2 sheilas and 1 bloke?



Like I said I'm for same sex marriage but I find it hard to discriminate against polygamy even though I think it's probably not the right way to go.

I find myself considering exactly the same arguments (not the natural order, what about the kids) that advocates against same sex marriage use and then I'm forced to dismiss them which leaves me in the position that, if I'm being fair, it's OK to be in a polygamous relationship that is recognised as valid under the marriage act.




Edited by munrubenmuz: 11/8/2015 05:25:27 PM

Oh of course. The most common one I hear is "well when can I marry my dog" which is an absolute cop out.

Incorrect. Being intolerant of somebody because they hold a differing opinion to yours (in this case, on the definition of marriage) is bigotry.

And if that opinion is bigoted, then you're a bigot because you're intolerant of bigots.

Who cares.

Probably a dumb move by foxtel, given the pack/herd mentality when it comes to this issue. But hey, there was nothing homophobic and mean about this add - it merely offered a different perspective to the predominate one.

I'm apathetic towards the issue by the way.

Tried reading what both of you said and just got obliterated :lol: can you two just agree that everybody is a bigot (no idea what a bigot is anyway)

if same sex couples want to get married that badly why dont they just do it in a country that does recognise it? Its not exactly rocket science is it?

In the meantime I dont see why theres anything wrong with leaving it as is, a civil union

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXnM1uHhsOI

Pretty sure their marriage is not recognised in Australia although I may be wrong.

bigotception

The easiest way to solve this issue and move on is to have a referendum on it.

The conservatives on both sides in parliament clearly don't want this because they know what the outcome would be, so they think its more appropriate that "they" vote on the issue and not us mere plebs.

Just marry the opposite sex :lol:

Yes... about that, what about that aspect of adaptation for human survival? People who were gay, adapted and passed on gay genes by adaptation. Whether or not they were "living a lie" is completely subjective

Or, how about this solution? No marriages for all? Have it free for all? Screw all this malarkey! :lol:

Technically it would be a plebiscite as referendums are only for polls to affect the constitution. The easiest way to solve the issue would be to just go into parliament tomorrow and pass the bill :)

I don't think that add was that bad. It's just calling for people to have thoroughly thought through opinions...

A family friend of mine has a really interesting view on this, and I kind of like it.

He's all for homosexual marriage, but he hates the term 'marriage equality'. Every single person in Australia has the right to marry a non family member of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation, and that is equal.

He is all for homosexual marriage, but he just wants people to admit that they want it because it'd be nice, not because it's a breach of anyone's rights to disallow it.


I'll admit that I sort of see where he's coming from on the issue, even if the name of the movement is somewhat trivial.

Surely you have to ask yourself for what reasons do most people marry and why would a homosexual person marry someone of the opposite sex? It's not equal if a homosexual person can't marry someone for all the same reasons a heterosexual person can.

Honestly, the only non-bigoted way you can be against homosexuals marrying is if you are against marriage of all forms. Any other argument boils down to varying degrees that homosexual couples are lesser to heterosexual couples. If you believe that embrace your bigotry and don't try and hide behind "political correctness gone mad" arguments.

Yep. That's pretty fair for the most part.

When I actually read what he was saying I didn't read it all, so I'm interested now to go back and see how be responded to people who made that point.

Found the quote I was looking for. For a bit of context, this guy is a Sydney Anglican minister in the Newtown/Erskineville/Surrey Hills area... So he has to deal with very progressive people for a living. Obviously the two guys here are Christians, so it's somewhat hard to relate to for most of us, but it's a good read I thought.

First guy:
------ "I may be mistaken, but I'm not sure that the liberal party have threatened to remove people from the party based on having a different view on marriage.

I'm all for equal rights - and will apologise unreservedly for the way some Christians have talked about and treated people in the LGBTQI community.

I'd love for us to be a country where two things can work together: Firstly, where people are treated equally in the eyes of the law regardless of their sexual preferences. And secondly, where we don't call two things that are different, equal.

I may be missing something, but just want to keep saying these two things can operate together. A same-sex relationship is fundamentally different to a heterosexual relationship. Not of differing value or importance in our society, but different.

It seems that "equality" is not really the best way of expressing everything that we want to say about the nuances involved in speaking about marriages and codified relationships in the public sphere." -----

2nd guy's response:

------ "An overly long response on the underlying issue:

“I'd love for us to be a country where two things can work together: Firstly, where people are treated equally in the eyes of the law regardless of their sexual preferences. And secondly, where we don't call two things that are different, equal.”

I think this is a really important sentiment, because it’s both well-intentioned, and very common. I think we need to dig a little deeper though, because the broad language of “difference” steps around the heart of what we’re talking about. In the case of same-sex marriage, we’re talking about whether the relationships of same-sex couples are different in a way that is relevant to excluding them from the civil institution of marriage, and also whether that difference is sufficient enough to justify their exclusion.

So, by way of example, interracial marriages, once outlawed, were institutionalized once it became apparent that although different in some way to same-race couples, that difference was not sufficiently relevant to justify their exclusion. This example also tells us why a “separate but equal” approach to this issue won’t work: segregation inflames prejudices and exacerbates social injustice. This isn’t really a controversial conclusion, even if the example is controversial because of its implications. I think this narrower definition of “difference” is probably accepted based on the way the debate is being conducted (by those elements that actually try to engage with the other side).

We might look at the question of children and child rearing, which has become more central to the debate in recent months and years (and some might say, once naked prejudice could no longer carry the issue). Conservatives argue that the ability to create a safe and stable home for the rearing of children is central to the idea of marriage, and that because they cannot procreate, and/or because the nature of their relationship inhibits their parenting capacity, the exclusion of same-sex couples is based on a sufficiently relevant difference to heterosexual couples. The problem for that argument is, in part, as Penny Wong recently reminded Eric Abetz and others, same-sex couples are already rearing children, and have already established families, making the sufficiency of procreation somewhat questionable. And while some research, like that conducted by Mark Regnerus, might seek to demonstrate that these family units are sub-optimal for child-outcomes , the weight of scientific opinion seems to be behind progressives on this aspect of the debate, in the sense that the research supports the position that same-sex homes are producing comparable outcomes for children to those of heterosexual households (I’ve included a couple of links about the Regnerus research and why it is also highly problematic, if not outright bogus).

At a certain point of the discussion, usually after religious belief enters the picture, it starts to become apparent that there is going to have to be some element of agreeing to disagree if we are going to get anywhere on this issue. In essence, there are core disagreements between the different sides on this issue that are not going to change, but as a society we are going to have to find a way past the impasse we are currently arrived at.

For me, within the general scope of society and public life, it seems fundamentally unjust to restrict the freedoms of those with whom I disagree, when the beliefs that underpin my opinions are not shared by them, , or perhaps even directly communicable to them. Appeals to scripture and to tradition will not win over or convince those who value neither, and often such moralizing cuts against or undermines the work of mission. We are not talking of something like theft or murder, where harms are obvious and demonstrable, and we are not talking about the closing down of churches or the co-opting of sacraments. We are talking about a pluralist country that has acknowledged, and protected at law and in war, the right of its people to seek their own idea of the good where that idea is not harmful to others. If we, as Christians, expect those protections to be extended to us, then we should be willing to extend them to others." -----------


Dude nailed it I reckon.

Here's the options.

A) Rely on opinions of people who value faith over evidence
B) Rely on opinions and values that are outdated
C) Neither.

I don't think religious opinions should be ignored, but thank goodness we have a separation of church and state :lol:

Foxtel should screen this instead:

[youtube]otXIaIxkWTI[/youtube]

Featuring a cameo by Jimmy Barnes.