Not to be provocative or anything, but . . .

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, Wilzc said:

Glad to know almost 100% of the forum members here are free thinking human beings with loads of basic common sense.
 

aren't you new!!

and welcome to the forum.

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, toofargone said:

Ken's got so much common sense he takes regular holidays from the forums to relax and unwind :-)

absolutely!

it is wasted here.

[Ken Gargett]

4 minutes ago, toofargone said:

Yes, you are completely unappreciated around here Ken. If you were in charge i'm sure things would be different!

you have no idea!

but, as has been explained to me, i am a good little team player and fully support the current regime.

[tigger]

10 hours ago, PigFish said:

I think the questions you should all be asking is why is marriage a concern of government in the first place? In the states, this started as a racist practice of licensing those whom wish to marry interracially. Why should there be any difference in the eyes of government if you are single, married, straight or gay? Licensing implies, at least in my perspective, that marriage must be sanctioned by the State.

Marriage then, without state involvement becomes a tradition, or a civil covenant, or whatever you want it to be. It is none of their business really. Nor is it the business of your neighbor. This then becomes a debate over the definition of terms, again largely not a state issue.

Get government out of the affairs of individuals and these issues solve themselves. Take bias out of the tax code and the law, eliminates survivor taxation and there is nothing left to fight about.

Forcing those who believe that this is morally wrong to perform services on the behalf of others is every bit as wrong as unequal taxation and standing as individuals. Neither should be tolerated.

As usual, this is a case for less government and more freedom. This is a case for less law, not more law.

-Piggy

No more need be said...

[Fugu]

11 hours ago, PigFish said:

I think the questions you should all be asking is why is marriage a concern of government in the first place?

A: Because today and quite factual, this question comes with an array of legal aspects. It is about equity of rights and closely linked with personal rights, tax equity, family and adoption law, right of succession etc., etc.. Much less so a mere matter of faith or pure tradition anymore. Therefore, of course, today it is an innate political question. If you don't want it be that, you'd have to turn back time by at least one century.

11 hours ago, PigFish said:

Get government out of the affairs of individuals...

Our libertarian anarchist Piggy again.....

[Danimalia]

16 hours ago, Fugu said:

This is about rights of a minority. Not at all a good move (funny idea I should say) to have a majority poll on that. You simply can't make a plebiscite of such a question, where near 90% of the populace is not directly affected, and - seriously - shouldn't have a say in it. It is a classic democratic no-no. Think about it what you may, but that question certainly calls for an ethics commission of qualified people of some kind and a subsequent parlamentarian debate and legislation.

Agree completely. Our Supreme Court basically had to bail us out here in the U.S. States kept passing laws codifying discrimination. Who knows how long it would have taken for marriage equality had we relied on each and every state coming around. The Supreme Court gave us the kick in the ass we needed, just as it did in the 50's with segregation and Jim Crow, and many other times throughout our history.

[peanutpete]

just having a vote on  this shows me how far we have to go as a race before we can get rid of bigotry,the fact that politicians are asking people to vote on something so obvious shows me how inapt they really all are (irrelevant of country) 

[clutch5150]

12 hours ago, PigFish said:

I think the questions you should all be asking is why is marriage a concern of government in the first place? In the states, this started as a racist practice of licensing those whom wish to marry interracially. Why should there be any difference in the eyes of government if you are single, married, straight or gay? Licensing implies, at least in my perspective, that marriage must be sanctioned by the State.

Marriage then, without state involvement becomes a tradition, or a civil covenant, or whatever you want it to be. It is none of their business really. Nor is it the business of your neighbor. This then becomes a debate over the definition of terms, again largely not a state issue.

Get government out of the affairs of individuals and these issues solve themselves. Take bias out of the tax code and the law, eliminates survivor taxation and there is nothing left to fight about.

Forcing those who believe that this is morally wrong to perform services on the behalf of others is every bit as wrong as unequal taxation and standing as individuals. Neither should be tolerated.

As usual, this is a case for less government and more freedom. This is a case for less law, not more law.

-Piggy

Boom, drops microphone.  You could of just said that Ray and saved your fingers heartache.  Great post as we see more and more Government interference in our personal lives all around the globe.

[Fugu]

1 hour ago, Weaponiz'd1 said:

I'm not sure I understand this.

Are you saying governments should legislate morality? If so, based upon what, or rather, whose set of rules? 

Nobody is talking of morality - if you take another look at my above post, it is about rights primarily. Above all ethical questions (I prefer this term in lieu of "morale"), you can't address this issue without considering all legal aspects that are coming with it. And this is then "individual affairs" that call for legislative (= state) regulation. You should keep morale out of this governmental equation completely, I agree. But Piggy makes a wider statement out of his general rejection of governmental (inter-)action in all things individual. That simply is something I do not agree with.

13 hours ago, PigFish said:

Get government out of the affairs of individuals...

Addressing that statement again -  folderol, I say (sorry mate)! Before you can do such, you have to liquidate the state. To put it simple, the cardinal task of the state (through its government, whatever form it may take, at times more at times less felicitous...) is to organize and handle the friendly coexistence of individuals who agreed upon a common regulative entity. All else is libertarian anarchy. I know you know, we'll never agree on that. But I didn't want to let that be totally uncommented, as it seems you even got credit for that by KB the G... 

I get your stance and I even share it partially (as you may know) in particular aspects. But the libertarian approach I don't share, I even abominate it. Radicalism which brings more problems than it will bring real solutions. You may criticise government, you may change government, and that is in fact what is continually to be done, for it to be controlled, for it to better and evolve, but you need a sort of....

No harm intended Ray, as always!

[PigFish]

7 minutes ago, Fugu said:

Addressing that statement again -  folderol, I say (sorry mate)! Before you can do such, you have to liquidate the state. To put it simple, the cardinal task of the state (through its government, whatever form it may take, at times more at times less felicitous...) is to organize and handle the friendly coexistence of individuals who agreed upon a common regulative entity. All else is libertarian anarchy. I know you know, we'll never agree on that. But I didn't want to let that be totally uncommented, as it seems you even got credit for that by KB the G... 

I get your stance and I even share it partially (as you may know) in particular aspects. But the libertarian approach I don't share, I even abominate it. Radicalism which brings more problems than it will bring real solutions. You may criticise government, you may change government, and that is in fact what is continually to be done, for it to be controlled, for it to better and evolve, but you need a sort of....

No harm intended Ray, as always!

C'mon mate... this is fear mongering.

Liquidate the state.... well, the socialist state, maybe, quite possibly! Socialism ultimately requires full control over all aspects of ones life.

Me, anarchist, a convenient and inaccurate advertisement of my position. I am a lover of freedom and a lawful society governed by natural law. As such, no such entanglements were necessary before government became overreaching. Lord, what did people do before the God Government decided who could marry whom...? 

Freedom is the novel successful approach here. Overlords and governments, theocracies are noting new, they are exactly what the 'enlightenment' proved was not positive for man's highest and best achievements. Theocracies, kings, lords, politburos, and oligarchs, and might I add seeking his neighbors permission, are all inferior to letting man lift his wings and serve his own best interests.

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. Why change it? Consideration of the race, sex and sexual preference of an individual and differential treatment by government is oppression. I say remove the oppression... No more problems. What really requires a change here, is old world government oppression!

Freedom is not allowing the minority to change the definition of words... That is silliness. Freedom is removing the archaic barriers set in place making some inferior by rule of law. The definition of words is not the problem here. The rule of law, creating first and second class citizens based on their sexual preference is the problem.

Stop marriage licensing and civilization will fall, the state must be liquidated.... balderdash! You have joined the ranks of people who believe they were set on earth to rule man and burn witches at the stake. Did civilizations fall when some decided they wanted to eat meat on Friday??? Not exactly!

Whom one loves is none of governments business. The tax code should not be used to 'enforce' traditional nor religious beliefs, sins against God verses damages to other men. People should be free to follow their own hearts and their own beliefs and make these decisions for themselves without coercion. Sin is between God and the individual. The sins of others is not my affair, nor are my sins theirs.

So to conclude.... freedom is radical you say. To a tyrant and to a mass of ignorant servants and slaves, I suppose you are right. I am none of the aforementioned! Even my creator insisted I have a free will. If it was important enough for God to instill in me, the choice to be gay or straight, to marry or to fornicate based on my freedom of choice in conjunction with a willing partner, it is damn well important enough that other men mind their own f'ing business about it... and this includes those at the State assembly! MHO...

...Oh and in my country...! The one that rejected Lords and Kings, the role of government was to protect individual liberty and provide a government that preserved society with the least possible impingement on it. Alas.... like yours, that is no longer the case.

Cheers, and with respect.... -Ray

[Dave O)))]

In spite of all the negative aspects of this plebiscite (that many seem focused on), the important positive aspect is the discussion it stimulates, like this one. It is encouraging to see that the great majority of people (that I come into contact with) agree with the proposed changes to the law.

 

I would be very surprised if the result turned out in the negative, but if so then that would prove the failure of a non-compulsory plebiscite, in as much as it has not harvested a truly representative sample of votes(some folks I know lean to the positive, but sadly don't care enough to vote). My opinion is that the non-compulsory aspect indicates that the federal government does not take the issue seriously. If they did, the would have changed the laws already (best case), but failing consensus within their own ranks, put it up as a mandated federal election issue (I believe that the Libs fear Labour would use it to their disadvantage at the next election, hence the plebiscite), or as a last resort a full referendum to decide.

 

 

 

 

[Fugu]

Hi there Ray. Seems you didn't get my point. I am referrig to - and only to - your broad statement "get government out of the affairs of individuals...". How do you expect that to happen in its full consequence, when that is - depending on the different definitions of state/govt - the prime idea and function of the civilized state (with government setting the rules and controlls)?!!
 

3 hours ago, PigFish said:

the role of government was to protect individual liberty and provide a government that preserved society with the least possible impingement on it.

Exactly, you said it! But still, protecting individual liberty won't function without intervening in affairs of individuals to a lesser or greater extent. The extent will be debatable, perhaps there we might agree... Cheers mate!

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Fugu said:

Hi there Ray. Seems you didn't get my point. I am referrig to - and only to - your broad statement "get government out of the affairs of individuals...". How do you expect that to happen in its full consequence, when that is - depending on the different definitions of state/govt - the prime idea and function of the civilized state (with government setting the rules and controlls)?!!
 

Exactly, you said it! But still, protecting individual liberty won't function without intervening in affairs of individuals to a lesser or greater extent. The extent will be debatable, perhaps there we might agree... Cheers mate!

I thought that might be the gist of it, but not really the way that I took it, based on the fact that we were discussing a specific aspect of government intervention. No foul...

Cheers mate! -R

 

[Fugu]

19 hours ago, PigFish said:

I thought that might be the gist of it, but not really the way that I took it, based on the fact that we were discussing a specific aspect of government intervention. No foul...

Cheers mate! -R

 

2 hours ago, Weaponiz'd1 said:

I never brought "morale" into,

Yep, sorry, morale questions! But sometimes seems it needs morale as well to stand those long-going debates. By coincidence, just happened to learn that law came into effect this very day today here in my country. There was a gay couple on radio, being with each other since 1961, they were finally getting married today!

[rcarlson]

On 9/30/2017 at 11:39 AM, Weaponiz'd1 said:

I'm not sure I understand this.

Are you saying governments should legislate morality? If so, based upon what, or rather, whose set of rules? 

Any group can establish what it accepts as union.  But the very discussion is about the legal status.  It's circular to say the government has to stay out of the business of establishing the rights and relations conferred on a legally recognized status.  Are you saying there should be no legally recognized marriage, however defined?       

[rcarlson]

p.s. if anyone wants to read a thorough and cogent analysis, have a look at Roberts' dissent in  Obergefell v Hodges.  FWIW, I don't have a problem with same sex marriage. In fact I think ultimately provides some stability to the gay community that is lacking from exclusively no binding relationships.  But I do understand the opposite view.  Marriage has been a near universally accepted heterosexual union in all cultures for all time.  And that is unquestionably tied to the primary function of marriage which relates to procreation and the benefits of stable households when it comes to child rearing.  If it has become something different, so be it.  But I think reducing it to ones subjective determination of "morality" misses the real issue.