Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[dan964]

Well learning about SSM is important as it's important to learn that we cannot discriminate against the LGBTI community (as they were born that way). I think the only rights it would infringe on are those who are religious (learning about SSM in schools).

yep, I am not saying that it cannot be covered in the classroom. but I think it be best handly safely and as sensitive as possible, for the sake of both those who agree or disagree with whether it should be legal/moral including cultural/religious reasons.

give parents informed information about what is actually being said about it in the classroom. if parents feel the need to withdraw their child, then the child should not be mistreated for that, since that would be counterproductive and ironically hypocritical.

A similar review needs to be taken as they did for other parts of the curriculum and also as they did for SRE.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

Hey, part of the reason why my parents married is because their company had a policy that provided newly-wed employees an apartment. I'd totally get married asap if something like this was offered to me.

I think mostly everyone nowadays would agree that the important and meaningful part of a romantic relationship isn't about getting married, but being in the relationship in the first place. So marriage in and of itself, if anything, should be seen as a means to securing certain legal rights, since it doesn't necessarily add anything meaningful to a relationship that isn't already provided by simply being in the relationship (unless, of course, if the persons come from religious upbringing).

Religious individuals may not necessarily enter a marriage for the sake of romantic love either. If you ask a religious individual who isn't married yet, you can probably bet your HSC that they absolutely plan on getting married and having children, whereas secular individuals are much more hesitant on both of those topics. Religion can be an overriding force behind a person's decisions in that area, but this is derailing from topic lol.

that's interesting but why spend so much money for an apartment that costs so much for couples? I probably wouldn't take it if it was far away from a CBD

But yes regardless of legal rights or whatever I see no entitlement for additional rights, I mean look at heterosexual partners in a relationship who aren't even married

 

[Jaxxnuts]

yep, I am not saying that it cannot be covered in the classroom. but I think it be best handly safely and as sensitive as possible, for the sake of both those who agree or disagree with whether it should be legal/moral including cultural/religious reasons.

give parents informed information about what is actually being said about it in the classroom. if parents feel the need to withdraw their child, then the child should not be mistreated for that, since that would be counterproductive and ironically hypocritical.

A similar review needs to be taken as they did for other parts of the curriculum and also as they did for SRE.

I agree

I'm not sure of how it exactly work in a catholic school/islamic college but I believe the approach would be like this

For e.g.

Learning about SSM in PDHPE class the teacher would probably start off talking about this history of marriage, then marriage in a religious context, marriage in a legal/societal context and then SSM

But then when religious schools are teaching SSM they must do it in a legal/societal context and not so much a religious context (although it has been taught in a religious school)

IMO religious schools should be teaching that at birth we cannot pick our sexual orientation (not sure what religion says about sexual orientation and whether people are born hetero/homo sexual but it's obvious they oppose SSM) hence that's why there needs to be legal rights for SS couples

But I'm sure one day (regardless of whether SSM is taught in schools or not) students will learn about SSM but I guess learning about it earlier is more important and needs to be done carefully otherwise it may infringe on the religious/those from backgrounds who oppose SSM

I'm not sure if religious schools teach about abortion and divorce and all those religious issues but if they do a similar approach should be done

Just my 2 cents

 

[dan964]

I agree

I'm not sure of how it exactly work in a catholic school/islamic college but I believe the approach would be like this

For e.g.

Learning about SSM in PDHPE class the teacher would probably start off talking about this history of marriage, then marriage in a religious context, marriage in a legal/societal context and then SSM

But then when religious schools are teaching SSM they must do it in a legal/societal context and not so much a religious context (although it has been taught in a religious school)

IMO religious schools should be teaching that at birth we cannot pick our sexual orientation (not sure what religion says about sexual orientation and whether people are born hetero/homo sexual but it's obvious they oppose SSM) hence that's why there needs to be legal rights for SS couples

But I'm sure one day (regardless of whether SSM is taught in schools or not) students will learn about SSM but I guess learning about it earlier is more important and needs to be done carefully otherwise it may infringe on the religious/those from backgrounds who oppose SSM

I'm not sure if religious schools teach about abortion and divorce and all those religious issues but if they do a similar approach should be done

Just my 2 cents

>> I agree that marriage should be more taught in a societal context or legal context, or perhaps recognising that in relationships kind of course.

>> Age-appropriateness is always important, marriage isn't really something that should be taught in school for instance to kindy/year 1 children in great depth.

>> Transparency about what is actually going to be taught. I've heard of people who are happy to support/allow SSM as a principle, but are opposed to the way it has been promoted in the classroom especially through Safe Schools.

IMO religious schools should be teaching that at birth we cannot pick our sexual orientation (not sure what religion says about sexual orientation and whether people are born hetero/homo sexual but it's obvious they oppose SSM) hence that's why there needs to be legal rights for SS couples

I agree and disagree:
>> Firstly, it doesn't help that religious groups, especially different Christian denominations are highly inconsistent on this, in terms of what they say. (which means sometimes they do say unhelpful things).

>> Secondly, I don't think religious schools or in fact that any school, should be teaching that "we cannot pick our sexual orientation at birth", because sexual orientation isn't necessary a pre-assigned thing at birth fixed thing to do with genetics; there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched.

It is certainly not an explicit choice, but that said, there are different factors which *might* contribute to one's sexual orientation, but it is hard to determine which ones come into play:
* There may be some genetic or biological factors either in the person or in the person with whom they are attracted to.
* Childhood and other experiences/practices

But none of these are deterministic, and so as much as I have read into it, most studies so far are inconclusive or heavily biased at best.

What I mean by this, babies aren't born with a sexual orientation, nor is it a choice made at birth or later on.
Yet at the same time, there are choices involved: people choose whether they wish to pursue a sexual relationship or not (otherwise 'consent' would not be a thing).

TBH, the whole idea of "falling in love", is kind of a silly phrase.

I think instead encouraging children not merely to pursue their desires or make their identity in their attractions whether it be to the same/opposite sex; but to make good choices about which kind of people they wish to be friends with, but making it obvious that they make their own choices about the kind of sexual lifestyle they do want to life.

Afterall, sex is not the end all of be all of human existence (even if you aren't religious)

===
In summary: I don't think we need to be explaining to kids the cause of same-sex attraction, in a biological sense because we simply haven't worked it out.

Yes, one does not chose to be same-sex attraction, but it still involves choices about whether to feed that attraction/identity.

I don't think especially the younger kids, should be encouraged to partake in this identity politics business, of making their sexual identity their biggest defining thing about them.

 

[Queenroot]

that's interesting but why spend so much money for an apartment that costs so much for couples? I probably wouldn't take it if it was far away from a CBD

But yes regardless of legal rights or whatever I see no entitlement for additional rights, I mean look at heterosexual partners in a relationship who aren't even married

Honey have u seen Sydney prices i would take it in a heartbeat lol

 

[enoilgam]

Honestly, the curriculum is crowded enough as it is - I dont see why we need anything beyond "Respect all people" in schools in this respect. It should be left at that, stuff like morality, sexuality, gender, religious belief are really best left for personal/familial exploration.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

>> I agree that marriage should be more taught in a societal context or legal context, or perhaps recognising that in relationships kind of course.

>> Age-appropriateness is always important, marriage isn't really something that should be taught in school for instance to kindy/year 1 children in great depth.

>> Transparency about what is actually going to be taught. I've heard of people who are happy to support/allow SSM as a principle, but are opposed to the way it has been promoted in the classroom especially through Safe Schools.



I agree and disagree:
>> Firstly, it doesn't help that religious groups, especially different Christian denominations are highly inconsistent on this, in terms of what they say. (which means sometimes they do say unhelpful things).

>> Secondly, I don't think religious schools or in fact that any school, should be teaching that "we cannot pick our sexual orientation at birth", because sexual orientation isn't necessary a pre-assigned thing at birth fixed thing to do with genetics; there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched.

It is certainly not an explicit choice, but that said, there are different factors which *might* contribute to one's sexual orientation, but it is hard to determine which ones come into play:
* There may be some genetic or biological factors either in the person or in the person with whom they are attracted to.
* Childhood and other experiences/practices

But none of these are deterministic, and so as much as I have read into it, most studies so far are inconclusive or heavily biased at best.

What I mean by this, babies aren't born with a sexual orientation, nor is it a choice made at birth or later on.
Yet at the same time, there are choices involved: people choose whether they wish to pursue a sexual relationship or not (otherwise 'consent' would not be a thing).

TBH, the whole idea of "falling in love", is kind of a silly phrase.

I think instead encouraging children not merely to pursue their desires or make their identity in their attractions whether it be to the same/opposite sex; but to make good choices about which kind of people they wish to be friends with, but making it obvious that they make their own choices about the kind of sexual lifestyle they do want to life.

Afterall, sex is not the end all of be all of human existence (even if you aren't religious)

===
In summary: I don't think we need to be explaining to kids the cause of same-sex attraction, in a biological sense because we simply haven't worked it out.

Yes, one does not chose to be same-sex attraction, but it still involves choices about whether to feed that attraction/identity.

I don't think especially the younger kids, should be encouraged to partake in this identity politics business, of making their sexual identity their biggest defining thing about them.

I'm sure kids as young as 5 or 6 will already learn about marriage, whether that would be through attending weddings, reading books about a prince and princess getting married, watching tv shows, etc

Didnt safe schools end because SSM was legalised?

Well truth is we don't pick our sexual orientation do we? also u mentioned "there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched." how does this make sense? Does that mean people can automatically convert themselves from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa?

But I get the point of consenting to a romantic relationship

But yes kids are too young to learn about romatic relationships and sexual identity

 

[Jaxxnuts]

Honey have u seen Sydney prices i would take it in a heartbeat lol

Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?

 

[Queenroot]

Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?

Yes

 

[sida1049]

Well truth is we don't pick our sexual orientation do we? also u mentioned "there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched." how does this make sense? Does that mean people can automatically convert themselves from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa?

dan964 doesn't mean that he thinks people change their sexuality consciously.

We don't pick our sexual identity (or at least most of us would believe so), but that doesn't mean it's god-given at birth. Your environment, experience, interactions, et cetera, all play a role in determining your sexuality (and everything else about you). So naturally, it means that throughout the course of one's life, one's sexuality may change any number of times due to factors outside of their conscious decision. The vast majority of individuals who are homosexual would say that at some point earlier in their lives, they would have considered themselves straight. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't make the switch consciously.

Yeah I get what you mean but like if it's in western sydney would u go for it? or if it was in an inconvienient location? why on earth would a company sponsor a married couple with a "free apartment" then there are others working their butts off to buy a house?

Why give people healthcare when kids are struggling to be fed in third-world countries, right?

 

[dan964]

I'm sure kids as young as 5 or 6 will already learn about marriage, whether that would be through attending weddings, reading books about a prince and princess getting married, watching tv shows, etc

Yes, and it all has to do with age appropriateness. Until recently (last 15 years), no political issues were (as closely) tied to the topic

Didnt safe schools end because SSM was legalised?

No it was ended for other reasons.

Well truth is we don't pick our sexual orientation do we? also u mentioned "there are many cases of people who have been initially sexually attracted to someone of the same gender/opposite gender and later in life have switched." how does this make sense? Does that mean people can automatically convert themselves from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa?

I think sida1049 captures what I would have said (to some degree)
But I get the point of consenting to a romantic relationship

But yes kids are too young to learn about romatic relationships and sexual identity

yep, and that is why many oppose safe schools (not because they are opposed to SSM)

 

[dan964]

An interesting thought, but SSM is a fundamentally a push against discrimination, which naturally places its advocation on the agenda according to the policy.

I think this is one of those things where even if a person comes from a cultural or religious background that is incompatible with SSM, the only compromise that works in contemporary society is for them to simply let it be. This is for the same reason why different cultures and religions must acknowledge one-another and coexist, despite having fundamentally conflicting tenets (that is, multiculturalism).

Although I would add "discrimination" is nowadays a very loaded word, so I would use the fact that some prefer to distinguish/or make a distinction because for some reason or another, marriage by definition for them is between one man and one women. It was quite acceptable to hold that view in our society up to about 10-15 years ago.

(Although that in our society in a legal sense has recently updated such definition).

It is easy to say that the previous definition was discrimination and hence this is step in favour of anti-discrimination (due to an assumption of equality trumping definition). Although it is not that straight forward either.

But the whole point of the 'no' argument was to enshrine specifically the man-women sexual union (marriage as you would say) as being better for our society. (Whether that is convincing or actually true is another story of course)

While the 'yes' side was they felt they were been unfairly discriminated against. Hence the push.

(Hence why I think both there was a lot of heat on the debate. One side was saying they were being discriminated, the other was saying no, this distinction between same-sex vs. man-women is by design/principle good and helpful for society, no harm meant for those who want the other)

Because at its heart was a disagreement on the definition:
- Yes side thought they (ssa people) were being discriminated against (using the principle of 'equality')

- No side did not agree that they (ssa people) were being discriminated against because by definition (for good reason), marriage was enshrined as specifically gendered (male-female) in nature*.

*by nature here: I refer to the design/principles behind it, both morally and conceptually.

** it is a interesting question (but different topic mind you), in our current climate, to ask whether one can marry another if one is not same sex attracted to them, yet they are of the same gender.

 

[Jaxxnuts]

dan964 doesn't mean that he thinks people change their sexuality consciously.

We don't pick our sexual identity (or at least most of us would believe so), but that doesn't mean it's god-given at birth. Your environment, experience, interactions, et cetera, all play a role in determining your sexuality (and everything else about you). So naturally, it means that throughout the course of one's life, one's sexuality may change any number of times due to factors outside of their conscious decision. The vast majority of individuals who are homosexual would say that at some point earlier in their lives, they would have considered themselves straight. And I'm willing to bet that they didn't make the switch consciously.



Why give people healthcare when kids are struggling to be fed in third-world countries, right?

TBH I dont really agree with that one's sexuality is influenced by external factors, mainly because it doesn't seem to make logical sense to me

And with regards to your second statement, healthcare comes from our taxpayers money (well our taxes to be more specific) so we are sort of paying for it in the sense that we are being taxed after we earn income

There are a number of charities and NGOs that are dedicated to helping kids struggling to be fed in third world country though

Australia is a "wealthy nation" (compared to the rest of the world) and can afford to help people in need. Third world countries don't have the money to do so (I dont believe they do) hence that's why there's charities and NGOs

 

[sida1049]

Because at its heart was a disagreement on the definition:
- Yes side thought they (ssa people) were being discriminated against (using the principle of 'equality')

- No side did not agree that they (ssa people) were being discriminated against because by definition (for good reason), marriage was enshrined as specifically gendered (male-female) in nature*.

*by nature here: I refer to the design/principles behind it, both morally and conceptually.

** it is a interesting question (but different topic mind you), in our current climate, to ask whether one can marry another if one is not same sex attracted to them, yet they are of the same gender.

I agree with your analysis; fundamentally it really boils down to the conflict between the worldviews of progressives and conservatives, such as how equality is defined and so forth.

That said, I still can't sympathise with the "no" camp. At the end of the day, playing semantics with the issue is just another tactic to avoid discussing the core reasons why we may want to make these changes. What the argument should have been on is whether same sex marriage is beneficial for individuals and society. This is quite controversial, but I personally think that the "yes" dudes did much better in this respect than the other side (even if there are some hysterics here and there). Though this could be my own bias.

So just to make sure, I did a quick google search for why some people might believe same sex marriage is bad, and I came across this website. (I have no idea whether this website is actually credible, but I googled "is same sex marriage good for society" and this was the second result. I picked this over the first one on the basis that this has direct opinions from people.)

The first poster on the "no" side first mentions that kids are starting to question their own sexuality. Unsurprisingly, this kind of contradicts their preceding statement about not being homophobic, and their succeeding statement which I read as a belief of god-given sexuality. Their second and third arguments seem to be long-hanging fruits against the progressive movement as a whole, so you know, invalid.

The third poster seems to be confused; they hold the belief that same sex marriage is not good nor better than heterosexual marriage. But given that the latter is legal, this is actually an argument for "yes".

The fourth poster has the same argument about making people question their sexuality, yada yada yada. They mention that marriage is defined to be heterosexual, but their real thesis is this: SSM is anti-family because same sex couples are unable to procreate, and "the things they do to one another's bodies are not exactly the epiphany of love". This person would be shocked if you tell them that a lot of heterosexual married couples don't procreate, and other heterosexual married couples partake in wild shit.

The fifth poster makes the same (confused) argument as the third poster. But somehow this person additionally has the misguided belief that the SSM somehow has anything to do with claiming homosexual couples are more moral, and being offended by "yes" voters, they will vote "no". Regardless, this person isn't arguing the proper topic either.

The rest (of the first page) "no" posters are anti-SSM because it's perverse and/or against "god's will".

I didn't bother going through any more.

So attempting to go through the opinions and arguments of those who vote "no" paradoxically reinforces one's support for SSM - majority of the arguments/reasons are either off-topic, completely invalid or weak.

Unfortunately for the "yes" side, there is that one hysteric spamming the same message at least 5 times, and though badly put, they at least have some kind of a relevant thesis on the issue: homosexual individuals have been and are suffering without societal acceptance.

10/10 would not recommend googling political opinions again

 

[dan964]

Like many things on the internet, i feel with that particular site, neither side provided any justification for their beliefs.
And both sides threw mud at each other as well.

Arguments for 'no'
The main arguments for 'no' case that have some basis in reality, usually deal with the direct/indirect implications of same-sex marriage as a principle:

- Traditionalist arguments or keeping the status quo (argument for stability).
Many see same-sex marriage (in principle) as destablizing society, particularly as they draw implications for "love"
Some are simply not convinced of the merits of same-sex marriage, or others see it as devaluing what is for them a sacred/honoured institution.

- Moral arguments that man-woman marriage is moral/natural and same-sex marriage isn't (in some way by its very design or practice) or while itself may not be moral/immoral it might encourages immoral behaviour.
These may be morals derived from a common history/culture, "Western values", or may be religious or multiculturally derived values, particularly around what the family is.

Aside: Often I have seen that most Australians, couldn't be bothered too much about whether same-sex marriage is legal or not. Reassurances that such issues don't tie have been given in previous cases, but unfortunately for the most extreme people, same-sex marriage isn't enough (or as some say it is just the beginning, For e.g. a professing Christian university, a private institution, in Canada was recently denied the right to issue law degrees due to its code of conduct related to this issue).

- Libertarian arguments. These are often those who will vote 'no' because of how the 'yes' case has become coercisive or become ironically bigoted.
Often these ones are tied into freedom of speech and freedom of religions. These probably are the most strongest arguments for many.

- Supposed Slippery slope argument - Now I call this supposed, because it is often accused. People will argue that same sex marriage leads to, (and what they really mean I think; is empowers) the wrong voices in their mind who push for extreme opinions and beliefs on human sexuality, the family, under the supposed guise of tolerance and equality.

Arguments for 'yes'
While personally have not found this compelling, these are some of the better arguments I've seen:

- Case of mistreatment
Same-sex marriage is I guess a way of addressing what people see as a injustice/misbalance or to use the loaded word discrimination
Some see marriage without same-sex marriage is inheritly (in a bad way that is) discriminating or withholding rights.

- Equality/Human Dignity
Argues along similar lines to before, but uses the language of equality (all love is equal, that is romantic love I presume)
Also argues using the same arguments, which are compelling regarding equality of genders and sexual orientation.

- Trend of Western nations/culture
Arguments along the lines of progress and this is the way society is going (implied: it is good)

And there are a couple of other ones as well.
If I have the time, I'll address the pros and cons of each.

 

[sida1049]

- Libertarian arguments. These are often those who will vote 'no' because of how the 'yes' case has become coercisive or become ironically bigoted.
Often these ones are tied into freedom of speech and freedom of religions. These probably are the most strongest arguments for many.

This is precisely the issue I have with the more rational "no" voters: their strongest argument and motivation for voting "no" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is therefore an invalid argument entirely. And even if we excuse this fallacy (which we absolutely should not if we want our society to work like a proper educated democracy [and there's a layer of irony somewhere since this is the argument used by "no" libertarians voters]), their basis for the "argument" is a composition fallacy, where they cherry-pick the most obnoxious people on the "yes" side and claim that they are representative of the SSM movement as a whole and everyone else who supports SSM.

The other arguments against SSM you've mentioned are essentially the same, but dressed in different colours: regardless of the motivation behind each of those arguments, they all lead to a slippery slope argument, which is the desperate man's favourite fallacy. I really don't want to argue on this point (because it's tiresome and I've done so more than I'd like), but I also don't want to be accused of fallaciously ignoring the argument, so I'll offer a quick rebuttal here: everything about the slippery slope can be reversed and applied as an argument for SSM; that instead of saying "if SSM passes then society will be run down to the ground by sexual confusion and by filthy SJW leftist commie cucks", I could spin the story by saying that "if SSM does not pass then society will be run down to the ground by divisive intolerance and hostility towards those who are different and by problematic fringe right-wing individuals", which demonstrates that slippery slope arguments don't add anything of substance to any debate, ever.


Not gonna lie: the main reason why I personally would vote "yes" is because that I haven't heard a single good argument against SSM and it's easy to come up with simple arguments for why it's good, not necessarily because I've heard an overwhelmingly good argument for SSM per se. I think this in and of itself becomes a good argument when you apply ethics to it, e.g. we are bound ethically to vote "yes" because the expected good outweighs the expected bad (based on the arguments from both sides).

But it isn't difficult to give a decent reason to support SSM either; if we as a (modern Western) society deem that what makes a marriage a marriage is the romantic love and companionship between two people, then same sex marriage should also be legal and the individuals involved should be entitled to the same legal rights and recognition as heterosexual married couples. This is logically valid, meaning the only way to refute the conclusion is to reject the antecedent. But even including minority cultures and religions, this is the majority view on what makes marriages special. And while there is the "no" argument based on protecting religious freedoms, the other side of the same coin is that we also have an obligation to not allow individuals' lives and rights to be trampled on by other people's religions.

 

[RenegadeMx]

only a matter a time before the gays accept and start pushing pedophilia mainstream

love is love is their slogan, can apply that same logic

Australia is already doomed by accepting this abomination

 

[dan964]

This is precisely the issue I have with the more rational "no" voters: their strongest argument and motivation for voting "no" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is therefore an invalid argument entirely.

To be honest, this is my biggest concern, apart from religious views which view the purposes of marriage in a different light to society.

Addressing the so-called fallacies #1:
- I would respectfully disagree, many people who have publicly advocated for same-sex marriage, even excusing the extreme and obnoxious people - the completely frank ones, have always been honest that same-sex marriage is just the start of it.

- The reason why this argument holds some weight and isn't as irrelevant is because we can actually (in Australia) study countries who legislated same sex marriage before especially Canada. We have noted that universities and businesses are under pressure to give into a new morality, of which same-sex marriage is perceived as the tool that empowers a radical social change that some people are frankly either opposed to (because they can), or are uncomfortable with.

Because, it is this radical social change/movement that people are opposed to, and same-sex marriage is the tip of the iceberg in this change/movement.

- It is also a tiny bit dishonest to say that it hasn't nothing to do with the issue at hand, even if the only people who "really" actually want to silence for instance Christians or sue them are the extreme ones. Some people have thought deeply about the issues at hand, and still think it is an issue, and voted 'no'.

- Secondly, if in order to get the recognition you have to shut down opposing views (which to be honest, are mostly religious/cultural minorities) then there is a problem.

And even if we excuse this fallacy (which we absolutely should not if we want our society to work like a proper educated democracy [and there's a layer of irony somewhere since this is the argument used by "no" libertarians voters]), their basis for the "argument" is a composition fallacy, where they cherry-pick the most obnoxious people on the "yes" side and claim that they are representative of the SSM movement as a whole and everyone else who supports SSM.

Addressing the so-called fallacies #2:
- Yep and as you can acknowledge and agree on, the same caricature can happen for 'no' supporters as "desperate men" who are appealing to supposedly completedly unrelated issues?
- I agree it is appalling and dishonest to say that all SSM supporters are obnoxious and filled with hate and dissent. Many are not.

- I would argue it is not dishonest, but maybe it is maybe not wise to assume the worst of people. Many who do *actively* support SSM aren't that caricature. It would be concerning that the role models and supposed leading advocates in the movement are some of these people. There will lie the problem. (I am not personally really going to be argue this point beyond this, because I haven't had too much exposure to it personally)

The other arguments against SSM you've mentioned are essentially the same, but dressed in different colours: regardless of the motivation behind each of those arguments, they all lead to a slippery slope argument, which is the desperate man's favourite fallacy.

Obviously, I don't think so. They need not necessarily be a slippery slope argument: SSM has empowered a movement. The question is what social changes will be pushed for next. Especially in our case, we can actually look at the slope. Where is the next stop?

Now an obvious slippery slope would be:

"if SSM passes then society will be run down to the ground by sexual confusion and by filthy SJW leftist commie cucks"

if SSM does not pass then society will be run down to the ground by divisive intolerance and hostility towards those who are different and by problematic fringe right-wing individuals

Not gonna lie: the main reason why I personally would vote "yes" is because that I haven't heard a single good argument against SSM and it's easy to come up with simple arguments for why it's good, not necessarily because I've heard an overwhelmingly good argument for SSM per se. I think this in and of itself becomes a good argument when you apply ethics to it, e.g. we are bound ethically to vote "yes" because the expected good outweighs the expected bad (based on the arguments from both sides).

This is where it reveals, it is an ethics question. Your ethic system is consequential (make decisions based on consequential), while mine influenced by my faith of course, isn't.

ASIDE: To give an alternative perspective on the issue:
- Christians will appeal to God designing marriage as being between man and woman (reflecting complimentary relationship between Jesus and the church) and also for the natural offspring. (There is more to the Christian ethic).
- So therefore Christians are at least (if appealing to their authority and beliefs/culture) are not bound to the same ethics

And similar for other religions and non-Western cultures... (including microcultures that are present in our Australian society).

Different cultures for instance have different structures:
1. Guilt and innocence (think inner lawyer). Do not do something because it is unlawful
2. Honour and shame (think inner grandma). Do not do something because it brings shame as opposed to honour.
3. Fear and power (think inner demon): Seek power in the face of fear

While the West is trending towards
4. Pleasure and pain (think inner therapist): Do what feels good.

I can understand why Western society wants same-sex marriage (and yes I don't have to agree) as you have noted:

But it isn't difficult to give a decent reason to support SSM either; if we as a (modern Western) society deem that what makes a marriage a marriage is the romantic love and companionship between two people, then same sex marriage should also be legal and the individuals involved should be entitled to the same legal rights and recognition as heterosexual married couples. This is logically valid, meaning the only way to refute the conclusion is to reject the antecedent.

Yet our culture is not mono-cultural, not adopt a single set of ethics, nor a single morality. The law courts then have to decide what to legislate on (democratic society has voted for yes for instance). It doesn't agree that marriage is simply just romantic love and companionship but is the backbone of families. For some marriage has indeed a different meaning.

For e.g. to give a religious perspective


What we have to recognise in this debate is a messy clash between an old morality ("loosely" based on "Christian" values) and a new incoming morality of sexuality. This is where the conflict and debate lies. The previous definition maybe unwisely, was this old morality, which had a different understanding of marriage.

For me, the only argument that has held any significance from the yes side, is recognising that "if society wants SSM, it can have it." - recognising that is the trend for people's opinions, so that should be what is in law.

But now that same-sex marriage is legal? What next for the LGBTIQ movement? Will same sex marriage be enough? Or in the sake of personal freedoms will they coerce churches and businesses (run by minority) to go against their own moral convictions?

=====
Aside:
It is worth mentioning that I think slogans like "love is love" etc. were not helpful for the 'yes' case.

Sorry if that was a bit messy, as it is currently 0;00am

SUMMARY OF WHAT I WAS HOPING TO SAY ABOVE:
1. It is important to recognise, many people like myself, aren't specifically rejecting SSM necessarily by itself, but rejecting a wider movement of which SSM is seen as the crown jewel (or capstone) or cornerstone; of which there are serious issues. This is where our arguments and "supposed slopes" are coming from, it is observing the advocates of the movement and the issues they promote as a whole. (Unfortunately the most vocal ones have sometimes been the most obnoxious on both sides) and the way that particular issues fuel other issues.

It is the same reason for instance, why I would happily support the rights of refugees for instance even to the extent of closing inhumane detention/processing centres; but yet refuse to sign a petition from my uni's socialist society on that matter as I didn't want to associate with a group who in other areas (particularly bioethics)

2. But also there are different ethical/moral and even definitions of key things are at play. So at its heart, it is something where people fundamentally disagree on, by principle even if you strip away all the good and poor arguments. This is why this particular issue has been quite divided (even if it isn't 50/50)

 

[sida1049]

In the following I will be quoting from your summary, but I have read and taken into account the rest of your (well-written) reply. (I don't agree with a few of the details you've written, but I'd rather focus on your core theses.)

1. It is important to recognise, many people like myself, aren't specifically rejecting SSM necessarily by itself, but rejecting a wider movement of which SSM is seen as the crown jewel (or capstone) or cornerstone; of which there are serious issues. This is where our arguments and "supposed slopes" are coming from, it is observing the advocates of the movement and the issues they promote as a whole. (Unfortunately the most vocal ones have sometimes been the most obnoxious on both sides) and the way that particular issues fuel other issues.

It is the same reason for instance, why I would happily support the rights of refugees for instance even to the extent of closing inhumane detention/processing centres; but yet refuse to sign a petition from my uni's socialist society on that matter as I didn't want to associate with a group who in other areas (particularly bioethics)

I understand this point perfectly well, and admittedly I too avoid petitions for things I agree with from my university's socialist alternative or other political societies, and for a much more selfish reason: I either find them obnoxious, or I'm simply too lazy.

But when it comes to voting on policies that have a significant expected impact, I think there's little excuse to allow pettiness over voting on the right side of the issue. And you're right, this is the consequentialist part of me talking.

But I think there is strong libertarian motivation too: if us as a society accept the idea of voting as a means to discourage and hence silence our political opponents rather than voting on the merit of the issue at hand per se, then we as a society have accepted a dysfunctional parody of democracy. While people have the right to vote however they like, if the majority votes as described, then issues themselves, even if the majority actually agrees, become lost and pointless in and of themselves. And in the long-run, by consistently voting based on prejudices over the issues themselves, this dysfunctional form of democracy would have produced a counterproductive outcome that runs contrary to the will of the people on the issues.

Not to mention that this kind of way voting is very literally based on ad hominem: "regardless of what you believe, don't vote with these socialists/leftists/conservatives/members of movement [X]!" You might think that in the long-run the world may be better off by silencing certain political movements by voting against them on every turn regardless of the issue, but what you've actually accomplished is locking yourself into consistently placing the ad hominem fallacy in your decision process over your own views on the issue at hand.

This is not a functional democracy; it's broken, counterproductive and leaves society worse and more divisive than it needs to be. Even if some of our political opponents may spur ominous statements like "this is just the beginning" or "we're only getting started" or whatever, it doesn't excuse us to engage in actions that run counter to how a functioning political system should work. If we really are people who believe in democracy, then we should vote like we ourselves intended and have faith in the system that when a destructive policy is being voted upon, your fellow voters will vote with the intention of doing so for the betterment of society (as you are), rather than robbing them of that opportunity.

(I'm under no illusion that our current system of democracy is imperfect, but hey, no need to make it worse.)

2. But also there are different ethical/moral and even definitions of key things are at play. So at its heart, it is something where people fundamentally disagree on, by principle even if you strip away all the good and poor arguments. This is why this particular issue has been quite divided (even if it isn't 50/50)[/COLOR]

I didn't mention this before, but I should: in my view, the biggest and most (and perhaps the only) valid argument for voting "no" is on the basis of one's personal ethical and religious beliefs. If anyone tells me that, I'd stop arguing on the issue with them. Assuming that their opinion against SSM is consistent with their ethical and religious beliefs, then voting "no" is indeed rational and not fallacious (regardless of my opinion on their ethical or religious belief system, which would be another conversation entirely).

The issue here is that it's surprisingly rare to hear people say it; even if someone is religious, there's a good chance that they'd rather appeal to one of the fallacies we've examined earlier, and only fallback to the issue of ethics and religion as a safety net. I kind of understand, but it'd save me a lot of trouble from repeating the same old rebuttals over and over.

Addressing the so-called fallacies #2:
- Yep and as you can acknowledge and agree on, the same caricature can happen for 'no' supporters as "desperate men" who are appealing to supposedly completedly unrelated issues?

It wasn't my intention to insult "no" supporters, and I wouldn't. (As far as I'm aware, I've generally steered clear of insulting people who vote "no".) What I mean with that statement is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy that anyone (from all political spectrums and across human history) will use if they don't have anything else.

 

[dan964]

It wasn't my intention to insult "no" supporters, and I wouldn't. (As far as I'm aware, I've generally steered clear of insulting people who vote "no".) What I mean with that statement is that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy that anyone (from all political spectrums and across human history) will use if they don't have anything else.

I realise and on a forum like this, easy to be misunderstood. So there wasn't any offence.
My observation was more that I think you are very quick to pull out the fallacy card, which is my point. It can be a slippery slope but not necessarily, and that is the issue.
But I understand what you mean.

Not to mention that this kind of way voting is very literally based on ad hominem: "regardless of what you believe, don't vote with these socialists/leftists/conservatives/members of movement [X]!" You might think that in the long-run the world may be better off by silencing certain political movements by voting against them on every turn regardless of the issue, but what you've actually accomplished is locking yourself into consistently placing the ad hominem fallacy in your decision process over your own views on the issue at hand.

I don't think this assessment is entirely reasonable. But I should have clarified a bit.
The reason why I will not vote with socialists even if the cause they are fighting for [is agreeable], is because their means are wrong and it is a conscientious objection to the values on which the society stands on. So there is always an ethics or moral reason involved, not because of malice towards them (which is what the 'ad honimen' card can imply). I may agree with the ends but not the means of getting there, if you get what I am saying.
(The means which can include the obnoxious-ness of it) (Which is why some would be ok with civil unions but not SSM)

The biggest problem I have with the reasoning/rebuttals that is you seem to argue that the issue at hand is disconnected from all the other (even if they are unrelated) issues, that either side raises. I fundamentally disagree on that because of what marriage is as a concept (even it is just to me)

For instance with marriage redefinition (as that is what it is):

- You do have to redefine family
- You do have to think children's rights and surrogancy
- You do have to think ok, with SSM being part of embracing this "new dogma" of sexuality and sexual orientation**
does that mean we should also embrace other things as a society (using the exact same arguments proposed by the 'yes' case)
e.g. a recent TEDX talk which had to be pulled down: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tedx-pedophilia-sexual-orientation/
- You do have to think about education children on the matter for instance


So there are a lot of changes with what not just a small contained issue, which raises of course all kinds of moral and ethical questions. We might not be 100% correct on all the details (as with all inductive reasoning) but we definitely have concerns and we (those who are opposed to this kind of change that is), are asking questions about what to expect. We can look to Canada and other countries for case studies and then we can ask what should we expect.

The problem is I feel that neither side was willing to acknowledge the potential benefits (in the case of the no side) and the shortcomings (in the case of the yes side). People are zealous but lack reasonableness in their speech.

We have observed that those of our viewpoint on this issue, have been put under enormous pressure to cave in, in other countries, to go against deeply held religious or ethical (cultural) values, morals and beliefs as well; this has been noted in the US and in Canada so that is obviously something to consider whether that is going to happen. (even if it is supposedly only by the extreme left),

**Note: Many are opposed to this for moral/ethical reasons.

There is I think good reason which this conversation is quite difficult to navigate, as mentioned previously it is fundamentally two things:

- Definition debate about a moral practice.
- A clash of worldviews on sexuality and family (and also rights and all that kind of stuff, which are ethical questions fundamentally)

Aside:
Now I think that SSM was somewhat accepted in principle well, by society in Australia before it was actually legislated, and that was evident in shifts in these areas (particularly with the advocation of LGTBIQ stuff in school through Safe Schools well before SSM was even a legal thing)

Summary: It has always been a moral/ethical question. That is really the basis for many people. The other arguments are basically different expressions of rejection of a trend to what is seen to questionable or immoral ethics.

(Some felt very strongly for instance that legislating SSM was equivalent to legislating immorality)

Things like discrimination and rights are all ethical questions. This is why this debate is so hard to navigate.