Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

One of the observations I made in this debate so far (other debates too but more so in this one than normal) is how quickly some people make the leap to generalise, especially when it confirms their own beliefs - even though it is not logically correct to do so.

For example, a number of people have claimed that anyone who supports the 'No' vote is homophobic. In a similar vein, a number of people have also claimed that anyone who supports the 'Yes' vote are impeding on the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them.

Um...newflash, not everyone who supports the 'No' vote is homophobic and not everyone who supports the 'Yes' vote is trying to shut up those who disagree with them. I daresay the majority of those on either side do not have those characteristics.

Whilst there may be a handful of examples that support these statements, I fail to see how the actions of a small number of people can be generalised to the entire population of each side. It is not only logically incorrect to make such generalisations about the opposition, but it clearly shows the confirmation bias and cherry picking people are doing in this debate.

 

[therealslimshadi]

I was interested in this reply especially as it comes from a supposedly well educated person (an assumption I made based on your chosen subjects) and I'd just like to reply with some notes and maybe start a debate:

1. This shouldn't be a matter of religion, as our government is meant to be keeping religion and state separate - this is a state issue, not a religious one. If it were, we wouldn't be having atheists getting married.

This is absolutely correct and I stand for a secular society that can function morally and still uphold the traditional values that make up its foundation.

2. Legalisation of same sex marriage will not even affect you unless you yourself are planning on entering a same sex marriage.

I believe this assumption is incorrect. Firstly, the traditional values of parenthood and family will be threatened by schools who will promote homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexual relationships. Even as a non-religious person, I still wish for my children to uphold these traditional values however the fragility of children's minds will be taken advantage of and if they do not conform to this educational overhaul, they will be subject to bullying and discrimination. If you don't believe so, take a look at the horrendous behaviour of many of those who support gay marriage in response to people who do not agree with them. And gay marriage isn't even legal yet!

3. Your point on freedom of speech

I agree with some of what you say. In Australia you can still be fired from your job if the things you say do not uphold the values of the organisation and whether this is fair or not is another argument. However, freedom of speech is very much at risk and this is a significant factor towards the no vote argument. Like I stated above, people are already being attacked for voicing their opinions against gay marriage and no laws have even been passed yet. One more thing for this point, recently a bill has been proposed which states that those who speak against homosexual relationships could be fined a significant sum. These are all significant ramifications to those who aren't even in a homosexual relationship.

I'd just like to add one more thing. Straying away from the issue of marriage for just a moment, gay intercourse is extremely dangerous and unhealthy to both parties. Just look up the HIV and other STD rates in gay couples. I am very much for the privacy of couples in a consensual relationship however these rates in STDs means billions of Dollars for treatment. This effect you and me.

 

[dan964]

Australia does not have any laws explicitly giving citizens the right to free speech. Whilst the constitution does contain implied political free speech, this only goes to the extent that the government cannot arrest you for stating a political opinion. This does not mean that Australians can simply say what they want without fear of punishment or censorship, whether it be by law enforcement or the public. This is why we have legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act - it protects certain groups from defamation. As summarised by this:

"However, this is the extent to which the implied freedom of political speech provides protection. It does not protect from an acquaintance shutting you down in conversation, a forum administrator deleting your comments, or an event organiser denying you a platform to speak due to your subject matter. Even if your statements concerned political matters, you are not being rejected due to a law restricting your speech, so your implied right of political speech is inapplicable. You can say what you want, but others are under no obligation to listen or give you a platform.

The Australian government cannot legislate to restrict your freedom of political speech, but you cannot use "freedom of political speech" as a defence." (Source: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/09/australia-does-not-have-freedom-of-speech/)

That being said, arguments by the No campaign involving a "restriction of free speech" as a result of SSM are redundant

(1) It is more so an observation of the way the Yes campaign is arguing. If particular vocal members of the Yes campaign weren't so quite to label "homophobic" or "bigot" those who respectfully disagree, and not slander religious people for simply holding consistently to their views, maybe the argument of "restriction of free speech" could be then ignored.

(2) The Sex Discrimination Act 1984, and related legislations do not say that it is "discriminatory" to hold to the idea which has been commonly accepted since federation and even before that, that marriage is between a man and a woman. In fact it says the opposite, specifically highlighting the Marriage Act 1961 (which until 2004 had a implied rather than written definition) as consistent with the 1984 legislation. As Orwell mentioned, nothing in the UN charter of rights, requires for a country to recognise same-sex marriage. In fact not all Western countries do.

(3) I think the debate is a definition of marriage one. I think to bring up gay-rights or even children, while these are flow-on issues, the real issue, is what purpose does marriage have?

If that purpose is not extendable to generic loving couples, then the definition should not be changed.

The rights afforded within marriage can be given to same-sex couples in better ways than changing the function and purpose and definition of an institution that is fairly important as it stands currently for society. Most people who vote no, once you strip back their religious, conservative or other views on the topic, basically their view is dependent on what marriage actually is for them, and for many it is one man and one woman. These people don't mean to be "bigots", but simply because apparently marriage is actually only about love, they are wrong to deny loving people the chance to marry. While it is a very emotive argument, I personally think that it is a terrible reason to change the definition.

Recognition of same-sex couples, or celebration of same-sex couples, and as I have mentioned on a previous thread (which was a reply to a thread which has been removed), in the view of some (not me though), same-sex relationships are better and can be celebrated as unique. Why conform it to marriage? Especially when some of the most high profile advocates are claiming they really hate marriage and want it removed.

(4) To argue it won't affect others is wrong. At the very least, it has and will effect sex education in classrooms. Look at case studies overseas. It will change discrimination legislation. This is the concern. Will it be illegal to not accept same-sex marriage as a good thing? That are the concerns raised within 'free speech'.

 

[Queenroot]

That's exactly my point; we don't acknowledge it as a malady. We know that depression is unbearable, we know that being crippled is a severe handicap but as far homosexuality is concerned, it's normal.

This is caustic because legitimising homosexuality and levelling it with heterosexuality could entail irreversible problems. We've already allowed homosexuals to adopt because it's the 'right thing to do', yet we do not consider the potential psychological ramifications this has on a child. We are not considering what they are being made witness to and the type of perception they have on certain societal structures.

Let's say we did treat it as a mental health issue. Does that mean those with mental illnesses e.g. bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression etc. should be unable to get married and/or raise children?

 

[Queenroot]

That's exactly my point; we don't acknowledge it as a malady. We know that depression is unbearable, we know that being crippled is a severe handicap but as far homosexuality is concerned, it's normal.

This is caustic because legitimising homosexuality and levelling it with heterosexuality could entail irreversible problems. We've already allowed homosexuals to adopt because it's the 'right thing to do', yet we do not consider the potential psychological ramifications this has on a child. We are not considering what they are being made witness to and the type of perception they have on certain societal structures.

Let's say we did treat it as a mental health issue. Does that mean those with mental illnesses e.g. bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression etc. should be unable to get married and/or raise children?

 

[Queenroot]

Should I be exempt from legally marrying my boyfriend due to my mental health?

 

[Queenroot]

Should my autistic friend be exempt from raising a child of his own?

 

[Queenroot]

Ramifications:

1. Child grows up in a home with autistic/schizophrenic/depressed/bipolar environment
2. Schools push the "agenda" to not discriminate against those with such disorders
3. Churches may be subjected to marry such people

This is essentially the basis for all "no" arguments replaced with "mental health disorders"

 

[Orwell]

Let's say we did treat it as a mental health issue. Does that mean those with mental illnesses e.g. bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, depression etc. should be unable to get married and/or raise children?

I'm not quite following the thought process here.

Firstly, to answer your question (although I don't see it's relevance to the debate at hand), it would depend on the severity of the disorder and the propensity for that disorder to endanger the child.

Secondly, there's therapy and medication for depression and bipolar disorder, which can either help suppress or terminate the condition. In the case of homosexuality, the termination would come in the form of a cessation of such a relationship and thus, there'd be no basis for marriage and/or the raising of children.

 

[Orwell]

there are very likely none.

this isnt bc gays are necessarily just as "good" as parents as heterosexual couples. its more bc the home environment asserts next to no lasting influences on an individual's psychological development. this is a very controversial and seemingly counter-intuitive statement but it has been corroborated extensively in observational research to the extent that it can be characterised as the "explosion without a bang" of modern behavioral science

I'd definitely appreciate some evidence to support this claim. There are way too many questions and variables for me to take this on face value.

 

[Squar3root]

Should I be exempt from legally marrying my boyfriend due to my mental health?

no cos he loves u :/

 

[BLIT2014]

there are very likely none.

this isnt bc gays are necessarily just as "good" as parents as heterosexual couples. its more bc the home environment asserts next to no lasting influences on an individual's psychological development. this is a very controversial and seemingly counter-intuitive statement but it has been corroborated extensively in observational research to the extent that it can be characterised as the "explosion without a bang" of modern behavioral science

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...n/news-story/c40a3a3697bcf278a361874963c58caa

"LESBIAN couples make the best parents, with research showing their children have higher levels of health and wellbeing."

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publicatio...hildrens-wellbeing-same-sex-parented-families

 

[BLIT2014]

its sad when the unis send an email to defend the yes but wont do the same for no

MQ just sent a "neutral" email encouraging people to check that their electoral address was up-to-date.

 

[Trebla]

I'm not quite following the thought process here.

Firstly, to answer your question (although I don't see it's relevance to the debate at hand), it would depend on the severity of the disorder and the propensity for that disorder to endanger the child.

Secondly, there's therapy and medication for depression and bipolar disorder, which can either help suppress or terminate the condition. In the case of homosexuality, the termination would come in the form of a cessation of such a relationship and thus, there'd be no basis for marriage and/or the raising of children.

I believe her point was about equal opportunity of raising a child.

People with mental health issues have the opportunity to raise a child. If the responsibilities of nurture are taken on then there is no issue. It is only when the mental health issue inherently hinders the responsibility of a parent does it become a issue. However, that is at an individual level and is no way reflective of every single person that has a mental health issue whilst raising a child.

A similar argument can be made for same-sex couples having equal opportunity in raising a child. As long as the nurturing responsibilities are fulfilled there is no issue. Any issues are at the individual parent level, not the general population.

Where the disagreement lies is whether nurturing responsibilities can only be fulfilled by a mother and father (biological - one or both, adopted, or single parent) or whether same-sex couples are also capable of fulfilling their nurturing responsibilities.

Either way, this point is not really relevant because same-sex couples will still have the right to raise children (whether you like it or not) regardless of this marriage outcome.

 

[pikachu975]

http://truthuncensored.net/2-millio...ixion-of-jesus/#sthash.ZJmt9c8E.qrkBITlK.dpbs

Hope these people in Brazil know that Australians will see this and half of Australia is Christian

 

[Queenroot]

lol what does that even have to do with australia

 

[pikachu975]

lol what does that even have to do with australia

The LGBTQ people are ridiculing the Christian religion and most of Australia is Christian

Also it's dumb how people are writing in the sky "Vote no", yeah people are gonna look in the sky and instantly change their vote

 

[sida1049]

http://truthuncensored.net/2-millio...ixion-of-jesus/#sthash.ZJmt9c8E.qrkBITlK.dpbs

Hope these people in Brazil know that Australians will see this and half of Australia is Christian

Why bring up something from over two years ago and halfway across the world...?

Also this is a general rule of thumb, but "news" websites with "truth" are probably not good ones to source.

 

[pikachu975]

Why bring up something from over two years ago and halfway across the world...?

Also this is a general rule of thumb, but "news" websites with "truth" are probably not good ones to source.

My bad should've checked the date haha

Both 'yes' and 'no' are going over the top anyway with protests, writing in the sky, violence, etc it's not helping anything

 

[cosmo 2]

I'd definitely appreciate some evidence to support this claim. There are way too many questions and variables for me to take this on face value.

the evidence comes from a convergence of twin studies, adoption studies and observational consanguinity studies

the basic logic underlying all of these research designs is to compare individuals who share varying %s (whether 100% in the form of monozygotic twins to 0% in the form of an adopted child to their adopting parent) of their DNA raised in different environmental circumstances to attempt to parse the extent to which different behavioural traits can be attributed to either environmental influences or genotypic influences

so a strong co-incidence of a particular trait (such as homosexuality) between pairs of monozygotic twins (who are 100% genetically similiar) raised apart suggests that that trait has a genotypic etiology; similarly, a trait that demonstrates no co-incidence on twins raised apart, but is co-incident in monozygotic twins (or dizygotic twins or regular siblings) raised together suggests some sort of environmental etiology

behavioral geneticists further parse 'environmental' influences into home, or shared, influences (as in the influences that siblings raised in the same environment share between themselves), and non-shared influences (influences affecting different siblings individually, such as peer group, specific nutritional regimes, and womb specific effects such as chemical exposure and maternal age)

take home message from the data: shared environmental influences dont seem to matter very much, and most psychological development can be attributed to genotypic differences and some non-shared environmental influences. you could squabble about methodological problems with any of the observational research designs that have lead to this conclusion, and while there are certainly variables the data doesnt capture or account for, the convergence of evidence cannot be denied.

homosexual parents are prob not going to be any different than straight parents in determining the psychological outcomes of their children. there might be a study here and there that could show some incidence of X or Y (positive or negative) in whatever sample but it'll mostly be noise. that isnt to say that there might not be reasons for restricting adoption for homosexual relations, but i don't think this is one of them.