• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just saw this ...

T

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Most likely because I have not had anyone close to me that is gay or lesbian I never gave the issue of civil unions much thought beyond ... of course we should all have the same legal rights and no discrimination should be allowed.Harassment for ones sexuality just struck me as completely wrong and should not be tolerated.

Beyond that ... I never gave it much thought ...!

I saw this clip ... well it just struck me as I was viewing it ... complete love. I did not realize until the end what the ad was about.

Anyway it is an ad for Australian television.

What do you think?

 
Last edited:
There was already a thread about this video a few weeks back. It's a good vid, and shows that we are just like everyone else.
 
Your Star said:
There was already a thread about this video a few weeks back. It's a good vid, and shows that we are just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Ahhh maybe a mod can combine the threads.
 
Luckily, despite the idiocy at the recent ALP conference, a third of the Labour party and most of the Coalition will vote against it and defeat any such attempts. Unfortunately our side has been terribly poor at putting our arguments across.
 
Wessexman said:
Luckily, despite the idiocy at the recent ALP conference, a third of the Labour party and most of the Coalition will vote against it and defeat any such attempts. Unfortunately our side has been terribly poor at putting our arguments across.
Click to expand...

Which side exactly is yours?
 
Wessexman said:
Luckily, despite the idiocy at the recent ALP conference, a third of the Labour party and most of the Coalition will vote against it and defeat any such attempts. Unfortunately our side has been terribly poor at putting our arguments across.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for all the enlightened people, SSM will be law very soon in all of the civilized world very soon.
 
Politics of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Major parties

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) is a social democratic party founded by the Australian labour movement and it broadly represents the urban working class, although it increasingly has a base of sympathetic middle class support as well. As of November 2010, the Australian Labor Party has formed a minority government with the support of four cross-benchers.

The Liberal Party of Australia is a party of the centre-right which broadly represents business, the suburban middle classes and many rural people. Its junior coalition partner at national level is the National Party of Australia, formerly the Country Party and widely known as "The Nationals"; a conservative party which represents rural interests. These two parties are collectively known as the Liberal/National coalition.

The counterpart of the National Party in the Northern Territory is the Country Liberal Party.
Click to expand...

I would say that analysis is a little out of date. Like the recent changes in the US, with the Reagan democrats, the working classes and lower middle classes in Australia, 'Howard's battlers', are increasingly up for grabs among both parties and trendy, inner city lefties are increasingly the backbone of the ALP.
 
Last edited:
So am I right to say that your against SSM?
 
Wessexman said:
I don't even recognise the term as anything but an oxymoron or plain contradiction.
Click to expand...

Ill take that as a yes then. Did you ever consider that the reason you cant get your arguments across is because your arguments are wrong? Tell me why should SSM be illegal.
 
Omgitsme said:
Ill take that as a yes then. Did you ever consider that the reason you cant get your arguments across is because your arguments are wrong? Tell me why should SSM be illegal.
Click to expand...
Well this thread is about Australia, so I think we should try and analysis the discussion here. The anti-homosexual marriage side here has been terrible at putting its points aside, at least in the mass media. It of course doesn't help that the media tends to be socially liberal. But our side has tended to rely simply on appealing to tradition and vague talk about Christian heritage. These are valid points, social customs expressed very well and linked to the importance of traditional religion should be more than a match for the social liberals, but in current conditions it won't simply sweep the field. For that we need philosophy and metaphysics, not in highfalutin terms of course though some need to put such arguments forward, but we need to intelligently, but in a way that resonates with the public at large, recall notions of traditional, objective gender roles, sexuality and relationships and that sort of thing and deftly intersperse these with the social customs and religious heritage points. Obviously we need to pull apart our opponents positions better as well and show their assumptions, inconsistencies and nonsense which scream out for a lot more attention.

We have utterly failed even to make decent points on tradition and religion, let alone the more philosophical side or counter our opponent's cliches.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Well this thread is about Australia, so I think we should try and analysis the discussion here. The anti-homosexual marriage side here has been terrible at putting its points aside, at least in the mass media. It of course doesn't help that the media tends to be socially liberal. But our side has tended to rely simply on appealing to tradition and vague talk about Christian heritage. These are valid points, social customs expressed very well and linked to the importance of traditional religion should be more than a match for the social liberals, but in current conditions it won't simply sweep the field. For that we need philosophy and metaphysics, not in highfalutin terms of course though some need to put such arguments forward, but we need to intelligently, but in a way that resonates with the public at large, recall notions of traditional, objective gender roles, sexuality and relationships and that sort of thing and deftly intersperse these with the social customs and religious heritage points. Obviously we need to pull apart our opponents positions better as well and show their assumptions, inconsistencies and nonsense which scream out for attention in the media.

We have utterly failed even to make decent points on tradition and religion, let alone the more philosophical side or counter our opponent's cliches.
Click to expand...

Tradition is never a good argument for discriminating against a group of people. And I would like for you to expand on the idea of Christian Heritage if you could.

What about philosophy or metaphysics would show people that SSM is bad?

Also in todays world why are traditional gender roles important? And you realize that homosexuality has been a part of humanity since humanity existed right? And even if you show that traditional gender roles are somehow important that doesnt change the fact that homosexuality is going to be a part of this world. The only thing banning SSM does is stop same sex couples from getting certain benefits.

What inconsistencies and nonsense are part of the pro-SSM argument exactly?
 
You simply want a straight-out debate on the issue, which I cannot be bothered to get into here.

The argument of the pro-'homosexual marriage' side tends to rely, particularly in the media here where such assumptions are treated as unquestionable, by simply appealing to sentimental love and equality. There is no attempt to investigate whether this sort of affection is always the basis for such institutions or what equality, in this context, really means.

If you're interested in what I generally mean by the philosophy of such issues and their relationship between policy, these articles may be of interest.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/some-thoughts-on-prop-8-decision.html
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2006/01/the-metaphysics-of-conservatism.html
 
Last edited:
The problem with the anti-SSM crowd is that there argument at it's crux relies on the false premise that SSM will harm opposite sex marriage, make less people join it, weaken it, and somehow make people who would otherwise enter an opposite sex marriage, join a SSM. Which isn't the case, and can't be proven because all of those arguments are absurd.
 
I loved that video. Mostly because I thought it was sweet, though. I don't think it made any great arguments or anything.

Maybe that's because there is no logical or intelligent arguments against allowing any two people to be married. It's hard to argue something when your opponents have no arguments.
 
Your Star said:
The problem with the anti-SSM crowd is that there argument at it's crux relies on the false premise that SSM will harm opposite sex marriage, make less people join it, weaken it, and somehow make people who would otherwise enter an opposite sex marriage, join a SSM. Which isn't the case, and can't be proven because all of those arguments are absurd.
Click to expand...
This isn't quite the case, but good arguments can be constructed to show it may and likely will hurt it, and even that it may hurt other areas of social morality, cohesion and culture as well. Now this is social debate and we don't need to have 'scientific' proof, which in society is always open to question, we simply need rational and intellectual argument, so statistics may sometimes be of some limited use certainly. Also marriage is under attack everywhere we seem to turn, making such 'scientific' proof even harder.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Fortunately for all the enlightened people, SSM will be law very soon in all of the civilized world very soon.
Click to expand...

If that's what you call "civilization", I vote we all return to the Stone Age.
 
Your Star said:
The problem with the anti-SSM crowd is that there argument at it's crux relies on the false premise that SSM will harm opposite sex marriage, make less people join it, weaken it, and somehow make people who would otherwise enter an opposite sex marriage, join a SSM. Which isn't the case, and can't be proven because all of those arguments are absurd.
Click to expand...

No, many of us are against it on the basis that homosexual relations are improper and immoral in all cases and should not be supported in any way, shape, manner or form.
 
Wessexman said:
You simply want a straight-out debate on the issue, which I cannot be bothered to get into here.

The argument of the pro-'homosexual marriage' side tends to rely, particularly in the media here where such assumptions are treated as unquestionable, by simply appealing to sentimental love and equality. There is no attempt to investigate whether this sort of affection is always the basis for such institutions or what equality, in this context, really means.

If you're interested in what I generally mean by the philosophy of such issues and their relationship between policy, these articles may be of interest.

Edward Feser: Some thoughts on the Prop 8 decision
The Metaphysics of Conservatism - TCS Daily
Click to expand...

If you dont want to debate this issue thats fine.

Just know that to this date I have not seen one good reason to ban SSM. And that includes in your links.
 
Wessexman said:
This isn't quite the case, but good arguments can be constructed to show it may and likely will hurt it, and even that it may hurt other areas of social morality, cohesion and culture as well. Now this is social debate and we don't need to have 'scientific' proof, which in society is always open to question, we simply need rational and intellectual argument, so statistics may sometimes be of some limited use certainly. Also marriage is under attack everywhere we seem to turn, making such 'scientific' proof even harder.
Click to expand...

Then why havent we seen those arguments?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom