Freedom of Speech Part 2: Margaret Court and gay rights

[David]

[stui magpie]

Disappointed that you'd take that view, Stui. For me it's 100% about people, not gender..

gender isn't just a social thing. men and women are chemically and physically different. No amount of social brainwashing will change that.

Each add something different as a parent. I'm not saying 2 guys or 2 girls can't be good parents, they certainly can and would probably be better than single parent families and a lot of traditional families because of the people.

Don't forget, I raised 2 kids as basically a single dad. I've known single mums who were brilliant and i've known some who were utter crap. In that regard it's about people not gender as you say but the best possible result is a good one of each to provide balance.

You can get balance in differing personalities, life skills, interests, temperaments and so on. I don't really see that as being dependent in any way on genitalia and hormones, and it's also quite possible that heterosexual couples like that are not in the majority. Why can't we just say that the ideal is two dedicated, loving parents? Why treat same-sex parents like they're starting with a pre-ordained handicap?

You might think you're being fair, but imagine if someone said "sure, some interracial couples can be great, but at the end of the day the ideal is two parents of the same ethnicity". And yeah, you know, maybe there are hurdles related to cultural difference, racism and so on. But it doesn't sound great, does it?

maybe using the word 'gender" is confusing this. Leave gender identities out of it, men and women are different creatures.

You'll constantly hear from single mothers raising boys about the lack of a male role model. It has an impact.

2 loving parents is indeed the ideal, and one of each sex is the best possible arrangement.

I have no doubt that 2 same sex parents would make better parents than a large number of heterosexual parents, maybe even the majority, simply by virtue of the fact that they genuinely wanted children and have had to go to deliberate effort to have them, they haven't just got potted by accident. They wanted to be parents, they made a deliberate decision and they are usually in a financial and emotional good place to raise them.

[Pies4shaw]

Not as alone as you might feel if you find that you've done your best with them but they still grow up to be conservative bigots who would have been better drowned at birth.

[Skids]

[think positive]

All parents should need a licence.

I'd rather two committed dad's or mums than a pedophile in hiding or the mum from hell.

Case by case basis

So.....who issues the license?

VicRoads

Oh god help us! The bloody options 'push 1, push2, push 6, really miss people talking when you ring!

[Mugwump]

^ I never know what it really means, Skids. Marriage is a civil contract, and I think gay relationships should have equality in regard to property rights and civil statute, etc. But I am concerned that it'll be a prelude to militants invoking, or demanding change in discrimination law to force churches to perform gay weddings. I suspect it is deliberately being left obscure for that reason.

[HAL]

I don't know anyone named concerned that it'll be a prelude to militants invoking or demanding change in discrimination law to force churches to perform gay weddings.

[David]

^ I never know what it really means, Skids. Marriage is a civil contract, and I think gay relationships should have equality in regard to property rights and civil statute, etc. But I am concerned that it'll be a prelude to militants invoking, or demanding change in discrimination law to force churches to perform gay weddings. I suspect it is deliberately being left obscure for that reason.

I think that's absolute nonsense. Some gay Christians may well push for marriage to be possible in churches, and other gay activists may see it as a worthy fight to take up, but the vast majority of people are more than happy with marriage equality alone.

Your argument is the same as other slippery-slope warnings like same-sex marriage leading to a push for polygamy and legalised bestiality. Sure, some of those activists may feel emboldened by this. But you're dreaming if you think that the public enthusiasm for gay equality can be easily transferred to such fringe concerns. Why can't we let such arguments stand and fall on their own merits?

Whether it's enacted by a Liberal or Labor government, same-sex marriage legislation will be carefully crafted to ensure that it does what it's supposed to do and nothing else, and pisses off the religious lobbies as little as possible. Same-sex marriage activists have generally been extraordinarily clear about what they want and what they're willing to compromise on. Why make it out to be anything more sinister than it is?

[Pies4shaw]

Can't that be solved, in any event, by declaring religious belief to be a certifiable mental-health condition?

[Mugwump]

^ so it's absolute nonsense but then you go on to say that you can see the activism happening ? But it will be in vain, because an increasingly atehistic people will not wear it ? Just like they would not have worn gay marriage 25 years ago ?

Such a strange definition of absolute (!) nonsense.

If you can refer me to the "extraordinary clarity" you refer to, where this is written down, who authored it and with what authority they speak, and how this barrier will be guarded, that may ease my concern. I do not object to the concept in principle if this are triple-lock protected, though if history is any guide it will become the next battleground.

[Mugwump]

Can't that be solved, in any event, by declaring religious belief to be a certifiable mental-health condition?

No, the psychiatric hospitals will be full by then. It'll be straight to the gulag.

[stui magpie]

Can't that be solved, in any event, by declaring religious belief to be a certifiable mental-health condition?

Not necessarily mental health, just brain damage.

https://www.sciencealert.com/damage-to- ... amentalism

[David]

^ so it's absolute nonsense but then you go on to say that you can see the activism happening ? But it will be in vain, because an increasingly atehistic people will not wear it ? Just like they would not have worn gay marriage 25 years ago ?

Such a strange definition of absolute (!) nonsense.

If you can refer me to the "extraordinary clarity" you refer to, where this is written down, who authored it and with what authority they speak, and how this barrier will be guarded, that may ease my concern. I do not object to the concept in principle if this are triple-lock protected, though if history is any guide it will become the next battleground.

Why triple-lock protect it? Do you have such little faith in our society's ability to debate issues on their merits and come to a sensible conclusion? If so, perhaps your problem is with democracy.

Let me get this straight: I'm not telling you that I know for a fact that there will never be a major push to have same-sex marriages solemnised in churches. It seems unlikely that such a move would gain enough traction to be enshrined in law, but who knows how society will change in the future? Perhaps we will also one day be able to marry our pets. Surely you understand how ridiculous that argument is, though.

Any same-sex marriage bill that passes in Australia in the current climate will permit religious institutions to opt out of performing marriage ceremonies. We know this. No major marriage equality lobby is proposing otherwise. So why fear some activist movement in five, ten, thirty years time seeking to overturn that provision? Are you afraid that the majority of the population will one day support it?

I think belief in democracy requires a little more faith in the ability of the people to decide these matters on their own merits. Otherwise, slippery-slope arguments are considered a fallacy for a reason.

[stui magpie]

IIRC churches can already refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies if/when they don't want to.

Good luck getting a Rabii or priest to marry you if you aren't one of their congregation or they're sure you're part of their faith at least. You can't just rock up and demand to be married, I can see exactly the same with same sex marriage.

Some individual preachers will do it, some won't. They can't be forced.

[swoop42]

While I don't agree with her comments I respect her right to voice them.

People calling for a change in the name of the arena because of her beliefs are misguided especially if they believe in the right to free speech.