Labor party and gay marriage

[Norsefire]

Because it is an agreement between two consenting adults, and does not affect anyone other than those involved.

I might not care. I might think that I should impose my moral opinions on everybody else through law. You see?

And keeping my money doesn't affect you or anyone else. Why is consent ignored in this regard?

I already said that I'm not going to get into this with you here.

It's important, though, because you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom. If you say 'majority rules', then the majority can say you can't get married, and you can't complain about it.

That's why we have democratic votes, and society chooses what is and isn't acceptible based on majority.

Then so be it, why even bother debating? Let society vote. If they vote to ban it, then you have to accept it and can't complain. And you certainly can't bring up 'consent' bullshit.

And if they vote to teach religion in public schools, you have to accept it.

And if they vote to eliminate the undesirables [as decided by the majority], you have to accept it.

You see? It's inconsistent.

 

[Idle Mind]

I might not care. I might think that I should impose my moral opinions on everybody else through law. You see?

It is your right to express your opinion, and if enough people share the same opinion and get a law passed, making homosexual marriage for example, then so be it. This is how democracy works.

And keeping my money doesn't affect you or anyone else. Why is consent ignored in this regard?

You're persistent, I'll give you that. It does affect everyone, however. Social systems that are currently in place (I'm Canadian, for the record) to help people are available for everyone. Everyone pays into them. That's how they work. I know that you are not in favour of such systems, but I am. How you can democratically make your opinion heard is to vote for an administration that supports your point of view. If people with your opinion were in the majority, then social systems would be removed, since the administration of your choice would gain power.

It's important, though, because you can't have personal freedom without economic freedom. If you say 'majority rules', then the majority can say you can't get married, and you can't complain about it.

Of course you can't complain, if you did not vote. If you've voted and your "side" has lost, you can still campaign and debate to try and convince others to change their minds.

Then so be it, why even bother debating? Let society vote. If they vote to ban it, then you have to accept it and can't complain. And you certainly can't bring up 'consent' bullshit.

Just because it's majority rule does not preclude debate and discussion. People can have biases and other incorrect (subjective) preconceptions, and can change their minds if provided a strong enough argument. But, people need to be more open-minded and truly consider the other person's point of view.

And if they vote to teach religion in public schools, you have to accept it.

And if they vote to eliminate the undesirables [as decided by the majority], you have to accept it.

You see? It's inconsistent.

I agree with your points. If a vote were put up to eliminate undesirables, I would go vote against it. If it passed, the government would be free to do so.

It's not inconsistent.

 

[Norsefire]

It is your right to express your opinion, and if enough people share the same opinion and get a law passed, making homosexual marriage for example, then so be it. This is how democracy works.

Yes, and democracy is not freedom.

You're persistent, I'll give you that. It does affect everyone, however. Social systems that are currently in place (I'm Canadian, for the record) to help people are available for everyone. Everyone pays into them. That's how they work. I know that you are not in favour of such systems, but I am. How you can democratically make your opinion heard is to vote for an administration that supports your point of view. If people with your opinion were in the majority, then social systems would be removed, since the administration of your choice would gain power.

You miss the point:

You can pay into them without forcing me too.

Similarly, you can have gay sex without forcing me to. Or, someone can avoid gay sex without forcing everyone too.

Therefore it's entirely relevant; if you can do it without forcing me to, then you do it, and don't force me too.

Just because it's majority rule does not preclude debate and discussion. People can have biases and other incorrect (subjective) preconceptions, and can change their minds if provided a strong enough argument. But, people need to be more open-minded and truly consider the other person's point of view.

Whether or not they are openminded doesn't matter in the polls.

Democracy is not freedom.

It's not inconsistent.

It's not freedom, though.

 

[Idle Mind]

Yes, and democracy is not freedom.

I didn't say it was freedom. But it's the system that we currently use to govern the people living in both our countries.

You miss the point:

You can pay into them without forcing me too.

Similarly, you can have gay sex without forcing me to. Or, someone can avoid gay sex without forcing everyone too.

Therefore it's entirely relevant; if you can do it without forcing me to, then you do it, and don't force me too.

I'm not forcing you into anything. The majority is.

Whether or not they are openminded doesn't matter in the polls.

Of course it does. Just because someone has voted for "x" in one poll, doesn't mean they can't be convinced to vote "y" in the next.

 

[Norsefire]

I didn't say it was freedom. But it's the system that we currently use to govern the people living in both our countries.

Well in the interest of freedom the system needs revision.

I'm not forcing you into anything. The majority is.

Then the majority can stop people from getting married. And you agree; however, don't then say 'well who gives you the right to decide who I can love"
'Cause you just said it, the majority!

 

[Idle Mind]

Well in the interest of freedom the system needs revision.

I'm not sure I'm in favour of true freedom -- which system exists that grants that?

Then the majority can stop people from getting married. And you agree; however, don't then say 'well who gives you the right to decide who I can love"
'Cause you just said it, the majority!

Exactly. Marriage and love are not dependent on one another, however, so preventing homosexual couples from getting married is not preventing them from loving one another. So the argument 'who are you to tell me who I can or can't love?' used in support of gay marriage is rather idiotic in the first place, in my opinion.

 

[Norsefire]

I'm not sure I'm in favour of true freedom -- which system exists that grants that?

Laissez-faire capitalism.

However, then why not strip all freedom, in the name of efficiency and greater control?

Exactly. Marriage and love are not dependent on one another, however, so preventing homosexual couples from getting married is not preventing them from loving one another. So the argument 'who are you to tell me who I can or can't love?' used in support of gay marriage is rather idiotic in the first place, in my opinion.

Killing them, though, is preventing them from loving each other. So if society voted on that...

Anyway, you're right; that's why here in Texas the people 'voted' and it's legally in the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[Idle Mind]

Laissez-faire capitalism.

However, then why not strip all freedom, in the name of efficiency and greater control?

I will read up on your suggestion.

Why not? Balance. Why is everything an extreme with you?

Killing them, though, is preventing them from loving each other. So if society voted on that...

Anyway, you're right; that's why here in Texas the people 'voted' and it's legally in the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I don't expect a majority to vote "yes" on a sexuality based genocide. But if that were the case, so be it.

 

[Norsefire]

I will read up on your suggestion.

Why not? Balance. Why is everything an extreme with you?

It doesn't 'have' to be, but because it's baseless, there's no point of reference from which to argue

I don't expect a majority to vote "yes" on a sexuality based genocide.

Not in Canada, maybe

But if that were the case, so be it.

At least you're consistent, then.

 

[Idle Mind]

And I may not be the best representative of my "side" to be debating about this, either. My knowledge of politics and alternative systems is most definitely lacking. I was always a science student, and have tended to bury my head in that sort of reading rather than branch out.

 

[James R]

Max:

Trolling again, I see.

Gays already have equal rights under the marriage laws ...hetero males can't marry males, gay males can't marry males. See? Perfectly equal.

We've been through this before. Disallowing gay marriage means that gay people who wish to marry cannot marry their preferred partners. The same is not true for heterosexual people.

It's a simple enough point. But you're just trolling, aren't you?

And as to denying certain rights, that's always been the duty and the right of societies all throughout history. And throughout history, marriage has been between a man and a woman. In some cases it's actually the law, in others it's most certainly the historical tradition. So denying things is quite normal in human societies.

But modern western nations claim to be ... modern.

IF....we allow same-sex marriage, how can we NOT allow incestuous marriages? ...or polygamy? ...or perhaps a whole slew of other weird, odd, strange sexual behaviors?

Incest mostly involves one party taking advantage of another, especially where there is a large age difference. Most incestuous marriages, it is probably fair to say, would not be entered into freely by both parties. Also, there is the issue of children being more likely to have birth defects and the like.

Polygamous marriage is not a major problem as far as I can see, as long as all parties give free, informed consent. On the other hand, the idea of marriage usually involves a concept of exclusivity, so large polygamous marriages are likely to be a contradiction in terms.

As for your slew of other weird behaviours, you'd need to be more specific.

Right now, the way it is, gays can do most anything they want in their own homes and no one seems to care. But ....and it's a big BUT ...if society permits same-sex marriage, they are, in effect, condoning/approving of same sex activities ...sexual perversions within their society.

Your personal disgust is not a good basis for law making. It's irrelevant whether you think gay sex is perverted or not. It's not even a rational reaction.

 

[Norsefire]

But modern western nations claim to be ... modern.

In order to be 'modern' you have to tolerate gay marriage?

Interesting. Explain.

Your personal disgust is not a good basis for law making. It's irrelevant whether you think gay sex is perverted or not. It's not even a rational reaction.

See, I agree with you here, but then on monetary policy you ignore consent and you ignore this 'your opinion is not a good basis for law making' thing.

 

[Asguard]

james the important part isnt that they are moden, the important point is that they are liberal democracies and banning something based on the "yuck" factor or the idocy that barron sprouts is not the way liberal democracies work

 

[Norsefire]

james the important part isnt that they are moden, the important point is that they are liberal democracies and banning something based on the "yuck" factor or the idocy that barron sprouts is not the way liberal democracies work

There is only one kind of democracy: democracy. "Liberal" democracy? Are there 'conservative' democracies?

 

[Asguard]

Definitions of Liberal democracy on the Web:
Liberal democracy (or constitutional democracy) is the dominant form of democracies in the 21st century. During the Cold War, liberal democracies were contrasted with the Communist People's Republics or "Popular Democracies", which claimed an alternative conception of democracy. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Liberal Democracy

A democratic regime based on the recognition of individual rights and freedoms.
www.accommodements.qc.ca/documentation/glossaire-en.html

A democracy in which majoritarian decisions (from direct or representative processes) prevail in many policy areas, subject to the restriction ...
www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/DC/glossary.html

 

[Asguard]

Liberal Democracy is a phrase often used to describe Western democratic political systems, such as Australia, the United States, Britain, New Zealand, Canada and other nations. It refers to political systems in which there are attempts to:
defend and increase civil liberties against the encroachment of governments, institutions and powerful forces in society restrict or regulate government intervention in political, economic and moral matters affecting the citizenry increase the scope for religious, political and intellectual freedom of citizens.

question the demands made by vested interest groups seeking special privileges develop a society open to talent and which rewards citizens on merit, rather than on rank, privilege or status

frame rules that maximise the well-being of all or most citizens

It is generally agreed that liberal democracies are based on four main principles:

A belief in the individual, based on the idea that the individual is both moral and rational

A belief in REASON and PROGRESS, based on the belief that growth and development are the natural conditions of mankind, with politics the art of compromise

A consensual theory of society, based on the belief that society is a kind of mutual benefit association, based on the desire for order and co-operation, rather than disorder and conflict

A suspicion of concentrated forms of power, whether by individuals, groups or governments

Accordingly, liberal democracies are organised in such a way as to define and limit power in order to promote legitimate government within a framework of justice and freedom:

POWER
Efforts are made to define and limit power, usually by means of a written constitution. Checks and balances, such as the separation of legislative, executive and judicial power, are instituted. There are conventions of behaviour and an equitable legal system to complement the political system.

LEGITIMACY
The notion of a legitimate government with a mandate/authority to rule is crucial. Governments require a high degree of popular support, derived from an electoral system that allows for popular, free and frequent elections with the highest possible franchise.

JUSTICE
This is achieved by the full implementation of the equitable things already mentioned so that citizens live in a climate where representative democracy prevails, tempered by constitutionalism, free elections and restraints on power, so that all citizens are treated equally and accorded dignity and respect.

FREEDOM
For freedom to exist, there must be the freedom to make decisions. to learn from them and to accept responsibility for them. There must be the capacity to choose between alternatives and the freedom to do what the law does not forbid. Prohibitions should exist for the general good and there should be respect for political and civil liberties. Liberal democracies often experience disputation about the appropriate role of government in economic matters, some groups arguing for a totally free market, whilst others support varying degrees of regulation and intervention.

http://australianpolitics.com/democracy/liberal-democracy.shtml

 

[swarm]

i am not saying that homosexualality is wrong or bad in any way

Actually yes you are. You are accusing homosexuals of ritual pollution of marriage. Face it. You think they are unclean.

if we agree to gay marriage then we might has well agree

That's a load of crap and you know. Your real objection it gays are unclean and you preffer them to be oppressed as punishment.

You could at least stop lying.

 

[Baron Max]

Max: Trolling again, I see. ........
It's a simple enough point. But you're just trolling, aren't you?

I'm sorry that you see it that way, James, because I wasn't "trolling". But since you're the moderator, you can call me names, you can accuse me of "trolling", you can accuse me of being a closet gay, you can accuse me of...., and you can threaten me with banning if I object. Nice gig you have here, James.

We've been through this before. Disallowing gay marriage means that gay people who wish to marry cannot marry their preferred partners. The same is not true for heterosexual people.

The marriage laws are not about love or preferred partners or anything like that. Marriage is the legal union of two people ...they could hate each other, they could be marrying for purely financial reasons, or any other reason. The law doesn't ask if they love or if they are preferred partners in order to be married.

And thus, once again: heterosexual males can't marry males, and homosexual males can't marry males. Perfectly equal under the law.

Incest mostly involves one party taking advantage of another, especially where there is a large age difference. Most incestuous marriages, it is probably fair to say, would not be entered into freely by both parties.

Coercion, blackmail and marriage are different issues, different laws. Making such a connection is just skirting the issue. If a man and his daughter want to get married, as a supporter of gay marriage, you should support any and all consenting adults who wish to marry. How can you do otherwise and not be a freakin' hippo-critter???

Also, there is the issue of children being more likely to have birth defects and the like.

There's nothing in the marriage laws that says the couple must have kids.

Your personal disgust is not a good basis for law making. It's irrelevant whether you think gay sex is perverted or not. It's not even a rational reaction.

Sorry, James, but that's just one of many things that the members of society take into account when they make laws and rules. ...you've heard of "voting", right? Well, if a person is disgusted by some actions, don't you think that he'd vote to make it illegal to do that act?

So ...you think the above is trolling, James? If so, how? What makes it "trolling" as opposed to simply asking pointed questions?

And, no, James, I am not trolling. And more to the point, I don't like to be continually accused of it openly on the forums as a way to keep from answering my questions or discussing the points I make.

Baron Max

 

[swarm]

Are we invited to this considered marriages ?

Sure. If we find a like minded couple and move to a progressive state so it can happen.

 

[Baron Max]

james the important part isnt that they are moden, the important point is that they are liberal democracies and banning something based on the "yuck" factor or the idocy that barron sprouts is not the way liberal democracies work

Hmm, in a democracy or even a representative republic, all of that depends on the number of citizens/voters who feel the "yuk factor". See? In a society, there are many ways of making laws and rules. One of those methods is to determine if enough citizens feel "yukky" about something. If they do, then it's perfectly acceptable to make it illegal.

Or don't y'all believe in the ideals of voting??

Baron Max