SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2017, 09:17 PM
Rainbow SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Hi, I'm looking for some input here from others. I would especially like to hear from any trans members that might see this thread.

As some of you will know, in Australia there will shortly be a postal survey carried about the ABS to determine whether Australians want the law changed or not. It was supposed to be a plebiscite, but since the federal opposition and cross-bench chose to obstruct that we're stuck with a survey instead.

But there are several issues I want to raise here and get opinions on. And the main issue is not that of same sex marriage - I think most of us will agree that SSM should be legislated. Instead I want to talk about two things - the SJWs and the LGBTQQIP2SAA (LGBTQ) movement in general.

So firstly about the LGBTQ movement - I don't like it at all. I think it grew way beyond the scope of its original intention which is equal rights for people who are homosexual or in homosexual relationships. What happened, at least from what I understand, is that originally if you go back to the 80's the LGB movement didn't want anything to do with trans issues, and they were just as stigmatising to trans people as everyone else was. trans people didn't really have their own movement for anti-discrimination, so they eventually joined this one instead. I think that was a horrible mistake, and that trans people should dump their involvement and make their own movement.

Why do I not like it? Because it promotes the flawed idea of gender fluidity. Now, I'm not saying that some people's gender identity doesn't change as time goes on - but hey guess what half of those people then become critics of transgender theory altogether saying "I wish I never thought I was trans". So it's a slippery slope, and at the end of the day if you're not prepared to validate that point of view which is actually the POV held by many people who return to a cisgender identity, then you shouldn't promote the idea. That's just one criticism I have with it, I'm not going to go through everything, but the last thing I think that trans people need is to have a bunch of SJWs forcing their ideas on others.

Now that brings me back to how this relates to SSM. When the LGB movement started they didn't want marriage - they didn't care about it - they just wanted not to be discriminated against, not to be criminally prosecuted for being in homosexual relationships, and to have the same rights as everyone else. I think though that it is true that some rights, even here in Australia, do not extend to same-sex partnerships... so in a way it is necessary to get to that point. And even it it wasn't it is the international Western society standard now anyway.

The majority of Australians wanted a plebiscite. Around 60% according to numerous Newspolls (some higher, some lower). And there would have been overwhelming support - we're talking up around 70% or more - and then the LGB community can be confident that people support the change. I think the plebiscite was always a great idea - the Federal parliament has only been the custodian of the Marriage institution for 116 years - but the institution itself is thousands of years old and developed directly from different society's ideas and social norms. It's not some idea that the federal parliament came up with, so I think it's entirely appropriate to let the people have their say on it.

That said, the LGBTQQIP2SAA organisations and the SJWs strongly opposed it. Now of course the SJWs would oppose it, but I think it was a huge mistake for the LGB organisations to oppose it and support the claim that ordinary Australians ignorant bigoted monsters who will descend into hateful campaigns. Of course there are going to be some hate messages put forward (in fact the SJWs are the ones putting out at least half of the hate as it is), but the way you counter that is by presenting facts and educating people - not by daemonizing them for their views, beliefs, or even misunderstandings.

To give just one example - the federal leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, said that he doesn't understand why people would be opposed because he "doesn't understand hate". Well I've got news for you Bill - around 80% Indigenous Australians are opposed to it. In fact they sent a petition which had unanimous support of the 70 senior Indigenous leaders that took part and even has its own website. To quote a passage from their petition "It is therefore an affront to the Aboriginal People of Australia to suggest another definition of marriage". Are you labelling our First Australians as a hate group Bill? Those kinds of belittling statements that denigrate and stigmatise people who are opposed to SSM have absolutely no place in the debate as far as I'm concerned. You want to call out the ACL for being a hate group? Go right ahead - god knows I've called them a hate group for YEARS... but actually Bill has never had the balls to do anything other then give his "casual support" to them. Now I don't want this to sound too partisan, I would call out Turnbull too if he made this statements, and I think Abbott has made some particularly awful comments that are on par with Bill's, however it's really the SJWs that I'm concerned about more than a few disorganised conservatives that aren't backed by a huge lobby movement.

Anyway, I would love to hear thoughts on this. In a nutshell I do agree that people should have equal rights, unlike the majority of Australians I do not think there should be "religious protections" for priests/celebrants who don't want to marry same sex couples, but I think the LGB movement AND the trans movement would do very well to separate themselves from each other and renounce the hate-speech and intolerance coming from the SJWs.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 28-08-2017 10:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 09:17 PM)Aractus Wrote:  Why do I not like it? Because it promotes the flawed idea of gender fluidity. Now, I'm not saying that some people's gender identity doesn't change as time goes on - but hey guess what half of those people then become critics of transgender theory altogether saying "I wish I never thought I was trans". So it's a slippery slope, and at the end of the day if you're not prepared to validate that point of view which is actually the POV held by many people who return to a cisgender identity, then you shouldn't promote the idea. That's just one criticism I have with it, I'm not going to go through everything, but the last thing I think that trans people need is to have a bunch of SJWs forcing their ideas on others.

You have empirical data to back up those assertions ?
Why shouldn't a movement evolve and advance, and why should they stay the same ? As they realized their power and validity, they saw they should have EQUAL rights. Too bad. They will eventually have EQUAL rights, even if Australia brings up the rear. Sexuality is not binary, and the ancients once thought. It's a Bell curve. Deal with it.
I too long for the good old days ... when men were men, and the sheep were nervous.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
28-08-2017, 10:15 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
I'm not sure I follow the disagreements other than... they were x then became y, and that is disliked by you. Why

Kinda goes to the flow that seems to happen for large people. The hot topic issues when people feel in the essence and young enough to care about they continue to say, yeah that's a battle to fight on... somehow stretching or altering that to other groups becomes something non enthusiastic for people. How so many civil rights activists weren't gay rights activists because that's way off from the interracial marriage blockages of their day

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-08-2017, 10:24 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
I will never understand the fascination, and need to pass judgement, on another person's sexuality, gender, and all the variations that involve two consenting adults. I might not understand it, but I also don't need to.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like Anjele's post
28-08-2017, 10:38 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
You lost me at SJW's.

Did not surprise me in the least bit though. Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Vera's post
28-08-2017, 10:51 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Bluntly, when I see some right winger or troglodyte slam them bad ol' SJWs, I root for the SWJs just to be ornery. SWJs or reactionaries? Choices, choices! I'll have to with the SJWs as the much lesser of two evils.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
28-08-2017, 10:53 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 09:17 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I think the plebiscite was always a great idea - the Federal parliament has only been the custodian of the Marriage institution for 116 years - but the institution itself is thousands of years old and developed directly from different society's ideas and social norms.

There is never a sound reason to hold a plebiscite in a representative democracy. Our elected representatives are there to make informed decisions on behalf of their constituents, who cannot. This was illustrated well by the Brexit referendum, where people had no grasp of the consequences of their vote.

This plebiscite in particular is nothing more than a delaying tactic for the benefit of the Christian conservatives in Government. The conservative bloc in the Coalition Government recognises that they can neither oppose marriage equality outright (which would cost them the next election) nor capitulate to the social liberals in Government (which would cost them their seats when their conservative base abandons them).

The Federal Government changed Australian marriage law to explicitly preclude same-sex marriage in 2004, at a time when society was becoming increasingly accepting of same-sex relationships. In 2017, marriage equality in unquestionably the social norm.

The Government doesn't need a plebiscite to tell them how to govern--they recognise that our society's idea of marriage is inclusive--but they can't afford to upset their socially-conservative base.

(28-08-2017 09:17 PM)Aractus Wrote:  It's not some idea that the federal parliament came up with, so I think it's entirely appropriate to let the people have their say on it.

If you applied that principle to other legislation then you would quickly recognise the absurdity of your position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like MetasyntacticVariable's post
28-08-2017, 11:01 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Gender was always a central part of the gay rights movement--there's a reason why the gender non-conforming community grew out of gay villages and not elsewhere. Here's the thing: back then being gay was seen as gender non-conforming in and of itself. True, most of the political movement focused on sexuality, but the members were not always gender non-conforming. Like, look at the second photo here or this photograph, the person second from right as well as organizations like STAR existing. True, the political movement and demands of 1970s up to... 1990s or 2000s were about sexuality and not gender identity. But the communities were always infused since inception. However so much has changed for queer people (even I can see a difference now between when I first came out as gay) that it's only natural the tides are turning towards gender, not because they were not part of the LGBT community, but because the gay rights movement did not include the.

Additionally, I'm more than willing to agree gender is a concept different from biological sex. Some people feel like they are man, woman, neither, etc. irrespective of their biological sex. I also have too many problems in this world to pass judgement on it. In the end though, I can agree that people shouldn't receive crap for traits of who they are.

And one more thing, I find it hard to take anybody seriously when they use social justice warrior unironically. I can't quite put into words why that is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like ZoraPrime's post
28-08-2017, 11:04 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Intentionally inflammatory much?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
28-08-2017, 11:11 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 11:04 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Intentionally inflammatory much?
He is consistent, that much is true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: