The moderates and the conservatives - the state of the NSW Liberal Party (1 Viewer)

[transcendent]

What I wonder is why the hard-right Liberal Party members don't form their own party or join One Nation or something similar.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Isn't the whole point of a conservative party to be socially as well as economically conservative?

Those of us who believe in traditional conservative values, such as opposing gay marriage, should be able to rely on our mainstream conservative party to do so as well.

But you cannot rely on conservatism when it fundamentally undermines liberalism -- and the most important aspect of the Liberal Party is its adherenace to liberalism. Menzies didn't call it the "Conservative Party", he called it the Liberal Party. Adopting values that oppose gay marriage severely undercut a supposed adherance to liberalism.

(It also doesn't mean you rely on conservative values when it would be completely irrational to do so. Opposing gay marriage, I'm afraid to tell you, is plainly irrational.)

 

[transcendent]

Hahahaha Moonlight, telling a conversative their views are irrational is like telling Cardinal George Pell that his belief in God is irrational.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well, personally, I believe in gay civil union but not gay marriage. I see marriage as an instrument for ensuring children's rights mainly. So really, shouldn't we be debating gay adoption? I can't see what 'marriage' adds that civil union doesn't grant gays.

It recognises equality, for one. Moreover, at the present time, gay couples are not equal before the law in Australia.

May I ask, if there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union, why would you object to gay marriage?


(Adoption of children is another issue, although I am generally in favour of that also.)

 

[withoutaface]

It recognises equality, for one. Moreover, at the present time, gay couples are not equal before the law in Australia.

May I ask, if there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union, why would you object to gay marriage?


(Adoption of children is another issue, although I am generally in favour of that also.)

Because marriage shouldn't be legislated for at all

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Hahahaha Moonlight, telling a conversative their views are irrational is like telling Cardinal George Pell that his belief in God is irrational.

It may be hard to stomach!

But the thing is, conservatism isn't really tied to any particular moral end, necessarily. Conservatism is about the processes of change -- ensuring that change is carried out cautiously and lawfully, and preserving the good values that we have traditionally established. Deficiencies are to be carefully removed, but the focus is not on change.

It follows that the values of a 'conservative' are entirely relative to the cultural and social values already established. If the Netherlands were extremely opposed to any change, they would be very conservative, but their views would go against many conservative views in Australia, where our cultural and social establishments have a less tolerant and less relaxed social order.

Conservative societies have the potential strength of being stable. However, critics of conservatism (like myself) would point out that the content of the social order may be stable, but utterly flawed. Contrasting perspectives of socio-political ideals (think Rawls and contractarians) are in a far better position to lay claim to what is morally justifiable than conservatives, whose reliance on tradition can (and often does) obfuscate progress towards a more enlightened moral standpoint. I mean you only have to look at the history of mankind to see horribly bad values that have endured far too long because of tradition. Racism, slavery, discrimination towards people based on sexuality, medieval ideas about the role of women, class, merit, religion -- progress has been hard-fought.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think that marriage has validity as a social construct in rearing young. It's the best way to ensure survival. It is my opinion that defining marriage as just an embodiment of love (which I think letting gays marry would do) would further destroy its reputation as a binding agreement for life.

Marriage is about committing to a binding relationship with one's partner. It may have the effect of securing a family bond through which life can be nurtured, fair enough. The state has a good interest in fostering life. However, I don't see how allowing couples to marry who cannot physically have children would inhibit the production of offspring in other marriages? If anything, I would have thought (with the allowance of adoption) it would encourage the production of life, because it would set up more families.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why does the state need to get involved to tell people they love each other?

Ok, but we know that the state IS getting involved in such a practice. Now that you know they are, do you think allowing gay marriage is acceptable? Sure maybe you have a problem with marriage, but let's just say marriage is always going to be the state's responsibility - now what's wrong with allowing gays to marry?

 

[consul]

This seems to have evolved into a gay marriage debate. I think I'll add my two cents.

So, why not gay marriage? I ask why is it necessary? De facto relationships prove that marriage is not needed to show love and trust. The same goes for legal issues, and a number of states allow civil unions if this is a concern.

Marriage has a higher purpose, as wiki mentioned, and that is to bind the partners together in order to provide stability to their children. What is the point of providing a device to ensure proper child-rearing to couples who cannot create them?

 

[Xayma]

It's a sneaky way of arguing for gay adoption by promoting the equality arguments. That's why, it serves NO purpose other than adoption rights.

Same sex couples can already adopt in Western Australia and single people.

 

[Xayma]

Western Australia is almost South Africa. I don't support it.

No but it illustrates that going for the Federal government to grant marriage rights to be able to use the argument to adopt is illogical when they can loby the state governments to extend a "marriage like relationship" in terms of adoption to same sex couples.

 

[gnrlies]

Because marriage shouldn't be legislated for at all

Couldn't agree more

You get married under god (whichever one you believe on) or through commitment to one another (if you dont believe in any religion).

The government should not be involved in such policy.

There should howevor be some sort of formal recognition of couples only so that things like superannuation and other benefits can be sorted - although many loopholes get opened...

 

[loquasagacious]

eg the idea of seperating what we know as marriage into its two component parts: the civil aspect (that is the legal part) and the religious part (eg church ceremony).

Basically I think thye state should have no part in legislating who can and can not participate in the religious aspect as this is a decision that should be made by religious authorities. Conversly various religious authorities should have no role in determining who can and can not be joined in a legal union.

eg Marriage in the legal sense should be open for all and marriage in the religous sense should be as open as any given religion so desires.

 

[Xayma]

That is what I meant when I supported gay civil union as opposed to gay marriage, just to clarify for Moonlight Sonata.

This however fails to deal with the question of gay adoption rights, would you propose that state parliaments pass their own legislation on the matter, or should it be incorporated in the bill?

The states seem to be getting iffy on anything that takes away their power. While the last legislation contianed clauses that stated that they couldn't adopt from overseas, I believe each state has its own state ward system. Given the very few numbers adopted within australia chances are the parents knew the gay people adopting them. Would you be satisfied if it required the people giving a child up for adoption to state if they were happy for a same sex couple to have the child? It might be better for the child to go with a same sex couple if they are the closest relatives (for example an uncle) and their parents die.

Would you believe that the psychological harm to a child would be greater if they were forced to move in with strangers or if they had two same sex parents whom they already knew?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You get married under god (whichever one you believe on) or through commitment to one another (if you dont believe in any religion).

Um, gay people can be committed to another person. How should they be prevented from marrying?

And marriage is no longer a religious institution by the way. Do not try and impose your archaic and irrational religious views on others who do not share them.

I'm wondering..Does Moonlight Sonata support Polygamy? He must.

No. Why must I?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Actually gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else, marriage only means one thing, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Whatever you want to call it, if you want to define gay marriage as only between a man and a woman than fine... obviously we're after a definition marriage that allows same sex couples to be married.

Also please present a valid reason as to why the average taxpaying, voting citizen on the street should be expected to cede special rights to people whose one destinction is the sexual desire to root another mans ass.

Because it won't affect them much at all. Some gay people are suffering (take the word however you want) because they can't marry their loved one, the rest of society isn't going to be affected AS negatively by allowing them to marry. Therefore society as a whole recieves a net gain in happiness.

We dont accord people who are brown haired, blue eyed, short, smart, stupid, christian, jewish, tall etc. special rights, and suddenly rooting asses gives one the right to special codes in the law? You must be kidding, what a sham and joke.

Because those people aren't asking for something that can be given to them to ease their detriment at less of a detriment to society...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Actually gays have the same marriage rights as anyone else, marriage only means one thing, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

That is the whole point of the debate. There is no reason why marriage should not include gay partners.

Also please present a valid reason as to why the average taxpaying, voting citizen on the street should be expected to cede special rights to people whose one destinction is the sexual desire to root another mans ass.

It is not a "special right". All straight people already have the right to marry those who they are physically attracted to. Gay people do not.

We dont accord people who are brown haired, blue eyed, short, smart, stupid, christian, jewish, tall etc. special rights, and suddenly rooting asses gives one the right to special codes in the law? You must be kidding, what a sham and joke.

Again, you are incorrect. It is not a "special right", it is a right already afforded to heterosexual citizens.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think we've diverted the subject of this thread a little too much -- gay marriage discussion should take place here:

http://community.boredofstudies.org...litics/104133/gay-marriage-nsw-australia.html

(apologies Generator)

 

[transcendent]

Actually I should have stepped up and stated that, but I was only assigned to report abusive posts. Please understand the implications of my response and do not question it further.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Actually I'm not really that upholding of marraige as an institution, however marriage is solely an act b/w a man and woman. What you're refering to is a legaly binding act that accords two persons of the same sex the same rights as married, child producing couple.

No here's the thing, despite what you think the word means, the argument is about changing the legal definition and allowing gay's the right to marry.

Think about this carefully, and then rethink, giving special rights to blue eyed people wont effect people much either, but we dont do it, becuase it seems rediculous and unfair that a minor demographic segment of society dictate the greater whole.

I have. As I explained, there are 2 elements. a) That people are suffering a detriment without that 'special' right and b) That their detriment exceeds the detriment of the rest of society if that right was granted - Thus we have a net loss in detriment to all of society.

I advise you to look up some gay union statistics in countries where it is legal (first people married in Mass. annuled after 4 years, in Canada 4.5 for example), so surely that "suffering" is only temporary. And again it is their problem, and the average citizen should not have to bail out people whose problems are self created.

We are a society where are goal is to maximise happiness for our citizens. If by taking some detriment away from some citizens, we slightly detriment others, then we have to look to see whether there would be a net loss or gain in detriment to the WHOLE of society.

I'll be, firstly by having to listen to whiny homos and overtly overzealos christian fundies, plus if the state allows something like this, it will be reguarded as "normal", some people still place minimal value in the mental and social future of their children, please realize.

The people whom will feel a similar loss as you, together, will have had your lives less negatively impacted than the gay people whom cannot marry.

No, we leak whatever little common sense and fairness this society still has.

How so? It is common sense for a society to look for a net gains in happiness and make policies to ensure this so that the whole of society is happier.

No they're asking for speical rights due to their preference for rooting other men, too rediculous for logical contemplation. This isnt even a morality debate, its a common sense issue.

I don't think you get what I say.