SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-08-2017, 11:16 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 09:17 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I think that was a horrible mistake, and that trans people should dump their involvement and make their own movement.

Cosplay. Drinking Beverage

[Image: gP2ytsh.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
29-08-2017, 01:27 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 09:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have empirical data to back up those assertions ?

I'm not making the argument I'm just saying that the perspective exists.

Quote: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.

When did I say sexuality is binary?

(28-08-2017 10:53 PM)MetasyntacticVariable Wrote:  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.

Well you can disagree, I think on some matters people should have a say.

Quote: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).

That's not entirely accurate, it's the policy that the right and left factions agreed upon, and then a few weeks back re-affirmed in a policy meeting. Do the right see it as a delaying tactic? Possibly. Or possibly both sides see it as a compromise. In any case the Uluru Bark Petition shows there can be perfectly cohesive, respectful, non-hateful arguments given from the "No" side - which is something that Labor, the Greens, and the SSM advocacy groups all vehemently deny. I think they're the ones that push hate and judgement. Like I said, I wish the advocacy groups would separate themselves from the SJW nonsense.

Here I'll give an example:

[Image: rA3rXha.jpg]

Both George Brandis and Sarah Hanson-Young issued extremely strong rebukes... Brandis said "how dare you mock the religious garments of other Australians", and Hanson-Young said "You are doing ISIS’s work for them. It is extremely dangerous. You’re putting the entire country at risk." And "The next attack in Australia will be on your head Pauline."

Neither of them have condemned this:

[Image: SzoYLvV.jpg]

What a complete fucking joke. People can mock whatever they want it's a free country. If you don't like it work to get One Nation voted out at the next election... I mean I don't like their protectionist garbage or their mono-ethnic, mono-religious ideals... but they can do whatever stunts they want.

Quote: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.

No, the federal Parliament changed the law with the full support of both the Howard Government and the Labor Opposition. Not that I'm saying it was the right thing to do, but just pointing out to you it was the full Parliament and not just the act of one side of politics.

The purpose of the 2004 Act was to ensure the law could only be changed through Parliament and not through the courts independent of the Parliament as has been happening in the USA for example.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 01:54 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(28-08-2017 09:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why shouldn't a movement evolve and advance, and why should they stay the same ?

Oops, sorry I should have clarified. I'm not saying the movement shouldn't have evolved - I think it should have moved towards same sex marriage absolutely. That is the natural progression, and you will never have full equality without it in many jurisdictions including in Australia.

But, that said I don't think it was wise for the Trans community to join the same movement - perhaps they could have been close allies, but I think that has really been to the detriment of both of the issues, but especially the case for Trans.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 03:22 AM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(29-08-2017 01:27 AM)Aractus Wrote:  I wish the advocacy groups would separate themselves from the SJW nonsense.

Here I'll give an example:

<image of Pauline Hanson wearing a burqa to imply that burqas are a security threat>

Both George Brandis and Sarah Hanson-Young issued extremely strong rebukes... Brandis said "how dare you mock the religious garments of other Australians", and Hanson-Young said "You are doing ISIS’s work for them. It is extremely dangerous. You’re putting the entire country at risk." And "The next attack in Australia will be on your head Pauline."

Neither of them have condemned this:

<image of some men wearing habits for dress-up>

What a complete fucking joke. People can mock whatever they want it's a free country. If you don't like it work to get One Nation voted out at the next election... I mean I don't like their protectionist garbage or their mono-ethnic, mono-religious ideals... but they can do whatever stunts they want.

The Government will be most effective at preventing Islamic extremism in Australia if it does not alienate Muslims by banning their garments. Hanson is either too stupid to recognise that or simply more interested in drawing fire and claiming victim status; either way the stunt was a dick move and the criticism from other senators was on point.

You've got a long way to go if you aim to convince anyone of the equivalence between Hanson's fearmongering and men dressing up as nuns.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 08:55 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(29-08-2017 03:22 AM)MetasyntacticVariable Wrote:  The Government will be most effective at preventing Islamic extremism in Australia if it does not alienate Muslims by banning their garments. Hanson is either too stupid to recognise that or simply more interested in drawing fire and claiming victim status; either way the stunt was a dick move and the criticism from other senators was on point.

You've got a long way to go if you aim to convince anyone of the equivalence between Hanson's fearmongering and men dressing up as nuns.

I would support a ban specific to the burqa. And guess what - so would most Aussies. I think the burqa is a complete affront to our values.

(28-08-2017 11:01 PM)ZoraPrime Wrote:  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.

I think there's a problem with the trans community wanting to own the word "gender" for themselves. The word gender has the exact same definition as sex - and yes it might have a different interpretation to a biologist as to a geneticist as to a psychiatrist. What the trans community appears to want is for "gender" to be completely synonymous with "gender identity"... I personally don't think that's appropriate, and I think you'd find plenty of trans people who don't see that as being central to their plight at all. It's far more important that people are treated with dignity and respect.

Now anyway, back to the point of this topic. There's no intrinsic right to "marriage". Marriage is just a made up human institution with whatever arbitrary confines that society deems appropriate. The problem with SJWs is that they behave as if homosexuals have a fundamental right to be a part of this invented human institution, and I think that argument is completely absurd. I think the only reason that gays should be a part of it is because society thinks that they would like the institution to include them... and I guess that goes to why I think a plebiscite was appropriate. The other benefit to a plebiscite is that people can't complain and protest the result like they can with an act of parliament.

That said, the postal survey is a complete joke and nothing like a plebiscite - if it has less than an 80% response rate I would say it has no credibility at all. It's a stupid policy put forward by a government who's not willing to hold the Senate to account - there was no pressure put on Labor, the Greens, or the crossbench like I said it's been a joke. They should have put the pressure on, put the bill back before the Senate, done that again and if it still fails call another double-dissolution election and then pass it with a joint sitting of the houses. And if they lose government then fine, that would be what the people want. I don't think they would lose a double-dissolution held on that issue, since the support for the plebiscite was up around 60-70%, and that includes Labor voters who don't like being told that they're full of hate by the leader of the party. The Senate is not there to obstruct like the US Senate, it's there as a house of review. One of the things I agree completely with Abbott on is that Australia is heading towards an Americanised system with the way the Senate behaves.

We have had a solid 10 years now of weak governance in Australia. Both sides have some good polices, both sides have some terrible policies, and both sides have been as weak as anything in governance. Today, Turnbull is trying to trim the fat off the Energy market profits to "ease energy prices". It's a complete joke, that's not how capitalism works. How it works is you make the market more competitive. Yet the reason prices are high is because the government charges energy companies for carbon credit units, and those cost somewhere around $90 per household per year at present, and of course that cost is passed on to the consumer. And by the way offsets have been shown to be a waste of money and nothing but a mirage. So customers are being charged an additional $90 per year and who knows what that money is actually "achieving". Like I said, it's completely ridiculous weak governance.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 09:18 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(29-08-2017 01:54 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(28-08-2017 09:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why shouldn't a movement evolve and advance, and why should they stay the same ?

Oops, sorry I should have clarified. I'm not saying the movement shouldn't have evolved - I think it should have moved towards same sex marriage absolutely. That is the natural progression, and you will never have full equality without it in many jurisdictions including in Australia.

But, that said I don't think it was wise for the Trans community to join the same movement - perhaps they could have been close allies, but I think that has really been to the detriment of both of the issues, but especially the case for Trans.

I think it is fair to say that assuming transgender and the "LGB"s face the same sorts of issues is kind of like saying the experiences of all people of color are the same. Gender identity seems to me at least to not be the same thing at all as sexual orientation. Gay people do not have to worry about which bathroom they can use and do not have to worry about transition treatments. The T in LGBT has always seemed a bit of its own group.

Now, to the question of whether the T in LGBT "should" be its own thing--I think their problem is one of numbers. They are a minority of a minority, and I don't know how they can be a credible political force all on their own. So while imperfect, maybe it's the best option to lump the T in with the LGB.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 09:21 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
Our values.

Seeing as I am Australian, I am curious what those values might be?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 09:52 PM
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.

Quote:I'm not making the argument I'm just saying that the perspective exists.

It appears you are quite specifically doing something. Facepalm

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
29-08-2017, 10:10 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
By the way, how exactly are silent voters going to get a survey form? Silent voters are voters who do not have an address registered alongside their name on the electoral role - there are several reasons for that, two of them are homelessness or fear for their safety (eg people who have escaped domestic violence).

(29-08-2017 09:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Our values.

Seeing as I am Australian, I am curious what those values might be?

Inclusiveness, multiculturalism, democracy. Things that idealise values like Sharia Law have no place in Australia.

(29-08-2017 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Gay people do not have to worry about which bathroom they can use

Well nor do trans people, at least not here in Australia anyway. I think it always hurts these movements when they claim to face the barriers that might exist in less tolerant countries, but are not issues here - and I say that of course in the broader context of things. There might well be barriers here in Australia that don't exist in other places.

In Indonesia gays are publicly flogged:





And before those men were publicly flogged, they were first beaten and dragged to a police station by members of the public - and those violent thugs were not even arrested for assault!

Now I've mentioned this before, but one of the benefits to Australia opening an offshore detention facility in PNG was the fact that we required PNG lift their human rights standard, and that involved them passing a law in 2013 IIRC that for the first time in history makes domestic violence a crime in that country. Australia continues to accept something like 20-30 women per year who are PNG refugees fleeing domestic violence. So yeah, I think the LGBTQ movement has generalised itself way too much, and they really need to focus on what specific problems there are in each specific region of the world where there are LGBTQ people.

(29-08-2017 09:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Now, to the question of whether the T in LGBT "should" be its own thing--I think their problem is one of numbers. They are a minority of a minority, and I don't know how they can be a credible political force all on their own. So while imperfect, maybe it's the best option to lump the T in with the LGB.

I don't think trans people have ever really been as intentionally persecuted as gays. I'm not saying they don't face stigma and discrimination, but those have arisen mostly out of people's lack of understanding not out of their specific dislike for a group that challenges their social ideals.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2017, 10:13 PM
RE: SJWs and Same Sex Marriage movement
(29-08-2017 08:55 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I would support a ban specific to the burqa. And guess what - so would most Aussies. I think the burqa is a complete affront to our values.

"our values" ? really ?
Except when it's worn by very attractive white women who call themselves Christians.



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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: