The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Plebiscite for Same Sex Marriage. Options
Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:28:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
On the platform of our last Federal Election, the Liberal National Party said they would hold a Plebiscite for the people to vote on the change

to our Constitution allowing Same Sex Marriage.

When successful in the Fed Election the Liberal National Party took the motion to the Senate, where it was defeated by the Labor and Greens

Parties.

As a Plebiscite could not be held by the Electoral Commission, a 'survey' postal vote would be sent to all on an electroll role.

The Postal Plebiscite is not compulsory as is our normal voting system process.

It says, Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

YES .......................No...............................
Tick a box


When this was first raised, the overall population was in favour of the motion.

Since the Yes Party and the No Party started electioneering the feeling in the community is turning towards the No Party.

We Aussie's are a funny lot, we don't like being bullied and we are being bullied to vote Yes.

This is not a good move for a community that is notorious for voting No in any Referendum.

A past Prime Minister was head butted on a public street, a Christian's for Traditional Marriage meeting was mobbed by women kissing and

chanting down with Christians.

I do wonder why the Labor and Greens Parties voted against a vote by the people in the Senate preferring a vote within Parliament.

Both these Parties are in favour the motion as is the Prime Minister and his wife.

Told you we were a funny lot.

Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 7:19:31 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
I don't know anyone who was prepared to vote No, now I know people who are going to bin the survey in protest of the both the Yes and No parties behavior.
SouthernCross
Posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 7:12:21 PM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/29/2016
Posts: 5
Neurons: 23
Tovarish wrote:
On the platform of our last Federal Election, the Liberal National Party said they would hold a Plebiscite for the people to vote on the change

to our Constitution allowing Same Sex Marriage.

When successful in the Fed Election the Liberal National Party took the motion to the Senate, where it was defeated by the Labor and Greens

Parties.

As a Plebiscite could not be held by the Electoral Commission, a 'survey' postal vote would be sent to all on an electroll role.

The Postal Plebiscite is not compulsory as is our normal voting system process.

It says, Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

YES .......................No...............................
Tick a box


When this was first raised, the overall population was in favour of the motion.

Since the Yes Party and the No Party started electioneering the feeling in the community is turning towards the No Party.

We Aussie's are a funny lot, we don't like being bullied and we are being bullied to vote Yes.

This is not a good move for a community that is notorious for voting No in any Referendum.

A past Prime Minister was head butted on a public street, a Christian's for Traditional Marriage meeting was mobbed by women kissing and

chanting down with Christians.

I do wonder why the Labor and Greens Parties voted against a vote by the people in the Senate preferring a vote within Parliament.

Both these Parties are in favour the motion as is the Prime Minister and his wife.

Told you we were a funny lot.




Hi Tov

Firstly, The most recent motion in the senate was defeated (31-31) with opposition from Labor, Greens AND The Nick Xenophon Team.

The justification for this was not that they were opposed to Same-Sex marriage but the process to legalise it. It was their fear that the same sex marriage debate would turn toxic causing undue pain in the community, particularly to young gay people many who are already struggling with identity and mental health. It was argued that parliament had the power to change the laws without the need for a plebiscite so why waste a huge amount of money ($120+ million)and cause pain in the community.

It should be noted that John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 to specifically state that marriage is "a union of a man and a women". This change was made through parliament without the need for a plebiscite or postal vote.

Poll after poll has shown the community is in favour of same sex marriage


Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:04:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Thank you for answering SC, was beginning to think I had committed a Faux Pas, or crossed some invisible line.

Yes I forgot Nick voting against the Pleb, always something important to spend money on, however people also like to have their say or vote and traditionally referendums are

voted down.

We will see how the numbers swing form the pre-Pleb polls to the actuals, fascinating spectator times.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 11:16:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
I will never understand what the big deal is. If you don't agree with same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Whistle

A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Tovarish
Posted: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 4:37:17 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
My family of three will each vote with our hearts and how we would expect to be treated, without the barrage of electioneering.

TheParser
Posted: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 6:58:53 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2012
Posts: 4,674
Neurons: 22,062
Tovarish wrote:


A past Prime Minister was head butted on a public street, a Christian's for Traditional Marriage meeting was mobbed by women kissing and

chanting down with Christians.






When, oh when, are activists of every stripe going to learn that you do NOT alienate people whom you are trying to convince?

Here in my city yesterday, many motorists were late to work.

Why?

Because some obnoxious protesters had blocked the freeway (express highway). I am pretty sure that those protesters did not win any new supporters among those motorists.

And when a police officer is forced to shoot a young male who was defiant and violent, do the marchers who start looting and burning down buildings in protest think that people are going to support their cause?










tunaafi
Posted: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 8:12:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
TheParser wrote:
when a police officer is forced to shoot a young male who was defiant and violent


Was the 'defiant and violent' young male armed? Was he attacking, or threatening to attack the police officer who shot him? Was someone in clear and imminent danger of death or serious injury from the male?
Tovarish
Posted: Sunday, December 03, 2017 11:32:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
The votes are in and counted, the constitutional change has passed the Senate and is to go to the House of Representatives before it will officially be Australian law,

this has been promised to be enacted before Christmas.

The results should come up in the site below, so I will keep you in suspense.

https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/
Romany
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 6:13:18 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,342
Neurons: 40,648
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Tov - in 1999 when I fled back to Oz with the kids, my mentor and his husband were going to join us. They-d been married for 15 years (by a Bishop, no less!)....and none of us had realised, when they first started the process, that when they came to Australia their marriage wouldn't be recognised.

I can remember being absolutely gobsmacked - the Australia I had left had been a progressive, laisse-faire place, where being gay was accepted: it hadn't even entered my head that gay marriage wouldn't be legal. It had a profound effect on all of us for a heap of reasons. And I was bitterly disappointed that such a draconian law was still in place. It seemed as though the country had let us down, at first.

And now it's nearly 2018 and the question still isn't settled! Bizarre!
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 6:51:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
I will never understand what the big deal is. If you don't agree with same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Whistle

The big deal is that there is a burden put on the society and the state - first you need to register all those marriages then you have to deal with all those divorces. What for?

With traditional marriages it is done to create a nest where children would be born and to protect the interests of those children.

The other question is if you are ready to go as far as to accept bestial marriages? After all if you do not agree to those just do not marry to a dog.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Lotje1000
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 7:30:07 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 897
Neurons: 391,738
Location: Gent, Flanders, Belgium
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:

The big deal is that there is a burden put on the society and the state - first you need to register all those marriages then you have to deal with all those divorces. What for?

With traditional marriages it is done to create a nest where children would be born and to protect the interests of those children.


What for?

To allow consenting and loving adults to share a life together within the stability offered by the legal framework of a country. And to extend that same stability and framework to any children they chose to have/adopt.

If marriages were purely about producing children, you'd have to disappoint a lot of people who either through biological issues can't or through informed opinions choose not to have children.

Also, a dog is not an informed and consenting adult, so we won't have to worry about accepting that.
progpen
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 7:45:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,537
Neurons: 208,044
Location: Princeton, Minnesota, United States
I'd heard the "dog" strawman far too many times before Minnesota voted to legalize gay marriage. Comparing human beings to dogs was actually one of the least disgusting things that was said.

@Tovarish I think the hand wringing over referendum versus legislation tends to be more about accountability and not so much about money. Even political parties and politicians who actively support a cause will often not want to put it to a legislative vote because they feel it could adversely affect their next election.

And congratulations to Australia for this wonderful victory. It looks like a very healthy majority by the voting results.

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ― Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
thar
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:00:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 16,015
Neurons: 64,147
I agree about the problems with campaigning - I think sometimes activists get so focused on converting the recalcitrant opposition they lose sight of the kind of people who actual!y support them. The malaise of general politics, in fact - dirty or aggressive campaigning puts everybody off and leaves everyone feeling a little less convinced in the rightness of their cause.


I am wary at entering a debate where some people have such fixed views - but I think it is important to point out that there are places same-sex marriage is accepted and society did not fall into the chasm
(apart from the banking crisis, and the revolution, and the volcano, and losing to France...Whistle ). Hmmmm. Think


The whole 'procreation' argument seems specvious to me. As said, does that mean older people shouldn't marry, or those who can't have kids, or don't want them?
It is a commitment - the essence of society. Whoever chooses to make that commitment is strengthening all of society.

People in Iceland tend to marry after they have been in their relationship a long time - 60% of children are born outside marriage - but that is often before marriage, with a stable couple. Women don't change their name or their role. There really is no justification for excluding anyone.
When the law was put forward it seemed like a natural expression of a society that everyone is part of. All parties supported it, the Church supported it. There are also laws for same sex adoption equal rights, so that whole 'marriage is to raise children' holds even less water.


The same-sex marriage laws, open to anyone, led to a lot of foreign ciouples coming to Iceland to get married. But apparently they forgot to change the laws on divorce to match, so foreigners have to come back and be resident to get one! d'oh!


The law changed to make all marriages equal in 2010 (you need to be over eighteen, not related, and have two witnesses). Before that there was civil partnership with all the same rights but not 'marriage'.
The genderless marriage law was passed unanimously in parliament. It probably helped to have a gay female PM. Or, the other way, it was an indication of public support that a gay female politician was elected. She was already in a civil partnership with her long-term partner, and they got married after the law changed.


Initially the Church had a 'freedom of conscience' right to refuse (although I don't think priests had any problems celebrating all weddings), but the (female) Bishop of Iceland announced after a few years that should end as the Church serves the people, and the people wanted equal marriage.

Quote:
“No limits on human rights”
Rev. Helgudóttir reminded the Synod that Church of Iceland clergy had been actively involved in drafting and supporting the 2010 legislation.

Back in 2007, the Synod passed a resolution stating that “the freedom of clergy in these matters must be respected”, but Rev. Helgudóttir feels now is the time to “take things the whole way and place no limits on human rights”.

Duty of the Church to serve everybody
“The Church is the channel for Christ’s love and celebrates life in all its diversity,” concludes the Bishop’s letter.

“Christ’s love is wholly incompatible with prejudice, discrimination and discord. I trust that we shall be unanimous on the need for clear legislation and rules placing the duty of the Church of Iceland to serve everybody – regardless of their sexuality – above any doubt.”


Actually it is very popular to have pagan/humanist weddings, and particularly popular with foreign gay couples who may have issues with their own Church.

I'm not actively Christian, but that seems a pretty good definition to me!
Frankly, and I know there are some very nice, friendly and honorable people on the forum who disagree fundamentally with me here, and believe me I am not trying to pick a fight or cause trouble - if two people want to make a public commitment to love and honour each other, it seems none of my business whose penis goes where, or even if there is one at all. Whistle
Romany
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 11:37:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,342
Neurons: 40,648
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Like Hope and Thar, I don't see any reason to take a stand on a question that has never and will never, affect my life.

And of course the fact that none of the countries in which same-sex marriage is legal have turned into screaming hell-holes. There is certainly no aspect of their society - economic, political, trade, war-mongering, social unrest - was/is any different.

However, this is an international forum and Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 is Russian. He lives in a country where homosexuality is a huge crime and is considered evil, animalistic (yeah: I know, But if that's what you've been taught...:) threatening, and degrading. It's unlikely that anything said here would influence him: it's the law of his land.

However, when people in other societies where homosexuality isn't any big deal start down the "downfall of society" path I itch to set them down with a comprehensive history book!
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 11:51:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Romany wrote:
However, this is an international forum and Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 is Russian. He lives in a country where homosexuality is a huge crime and is considered evil

It is not considered a crime in Russia. Furthermore homosexuality was not considered a crime in the USSR - it's an actual male homosexual intercourse that was considered a crime.

Here in Russia we do not care about what they do behind the doors - it's just that we do not want marriages, protests and parades.

It is probably considered evil by the Orthodox church but I'm not a Christian.



აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Hope123
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:20:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Romany wrote:
However, this is an international forum and Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 is Russian. He lives in a country where homosexuality is a huge crime and is considered evil

It is not considered a crime in Russia. Furthermore homosexuality was not considered a crime in the USSR - it's an actual male homosexual intercourse that was considered a crime.

Here in Russia we do not care about what they do behind the doors - it's just that we do not want marriages, protests and parades.

It is probably considered evil by the Orthodox church but I'm not a Christian.



Hi Xap.

So anyone can be a homosexual in Russia but homosexual males just can't have sex with another male. Abstinence in other words. Females can have homosexual sex? Or did you mean the crime is for male sex in public places such as public washrooms as opposed to behind closed doors?

A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:42:50 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
So anyone can be a homosexual in Russia but homosexual males just can't have sex with another male. Abstinence in other words. Females can have homosexual sex?

In Russia a homosexual intercourse is not a crime. In the USSR it was. Being homosexual never was considered criminal - you just forbear from actual physical relationship. There never was anything about female homosexuality in either Soviet or Russian Criminal Code.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
almo 1
Posted: Monday, December 04, 2017 11:00:33 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/16/2016
Posts: 1,023
Neurons: 4,618
Location: Fussa, Tokyo, Japan
Tovarish
Posted: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 5:09:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
The debates in the House of Reps is not about the Yes vote as the majority rules in our democracy, they are debating the obligations of church to refuse to marry same sex people,

weather civil law trumps cannon law, weather marriage celebrants can refuse to marry couples, can florists and bakers refuse where these opinions are are against same sex marriage.

The big question is where discrimination laws intercede in bigotry.
Jyrkkä Jätkä
Posted: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 5:24:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 39,971
Neurons: 307,075
Location: Helsinki, Southern Finland Province, Finland
Two leaders of their countries have announced that there are no homosexuals in their countries.
Putin in Russia and Ali Khamenei in Iran.

In the rest of the world, it's estimated that some 5% of the population are homosexuals.

For me, personally, it's quite indifferent whether Pekka and Olli living next door, are gays or not.
In Finland, gay marriages have been legal few years. The Church still meditates if it's ok to marry gay couples in church ceremonies.


In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 5:36:00 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Jyrkkä Jätkä wrote:
Two leaders of their countries have announced that there are no homosexuals in their countries.
Putin in Russia and Ali Khamenei in Iran.

If you do not provide a link to the actual words of our leader I will consider you a windbag. :)

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Andrew Schultz
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:23:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/7/2015
Posts: 406
Neurons: 890,003
Location: Chicago, Illinois, United States
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
I will never understand what the big deal is. If you don't agree with same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex. Whistle

The big deal is that there is a burden put on the society and the state - first you need to register all those marriages then you have to deal with all those divorces. What for?

With traditional marriages it is done to create a nest where children would be born and to protect the interests of those children.

The other question is if you are ready to go as far as to accept bestial marriages? After all if you do not agree to those just do not marry to a dog.


The first point seems flawed, because let's say there's a woman can't give birth. Maybe due to menopause, or maybe due to a genetic defect. Then, does she have a right to marry? "It's too much burden on the state" seems quite cruel.

The second point runs up against something I find a bit icky to discuss. Sex is part of many marriages and so marrying an animal and actually consummating the marriage would thus run foul to other laws. So it is a step beyond your, ok, don't do it in public argument, and the slippery slope argument doesn't work for me.

I'd also argue that gay marriage may have the effect of giving men a reason to settle down and thus cancel out any bureaucratic burdens on the state and social services. The AIDS epidemic of 1980 was due to men having lots of unprotected sex with other men. With gay marriage, men are less likely to do this.

And furthermore, childless marriages can help society--these adults may be willing to raise foster children who would be a burden on the state or have an unstable childhood otherwise.

Another point is this: your sexual orientation shouldn't dictate whether or not you can have someone around if you are dying in the hospital. Vanderbilt women's coach Stephanie White made this point first, so I'll link to the article talking about her.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/kravitz/2014/01/29/kravitz-bevilaqua-white-have-family-portraits-for-the-21st-century/5037717/

Also I don't think Putin has ever said there are no homosexuals in Russia, but his ally said so in Chechnya. So there may be confusion there and not just being a windbag.

And finally re parades, you don't have to attend them. I agree with the causes, and parades bore me. And for protests? If certain laws were passed, there would be no need for protests.

I particularly enjoy the idiom section of this fine website.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:59:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Andrew Schultz wrote:
The first point seems flawed, because let's say there's a woman can't give birth. Maybe due to menopause, or maybe due to a genetic defect. Then, does she have a right to marry?

Yes she does. I've read of women giving birth at 68. And we can always hope science and medicine would overcome other problems.

Andrew Schultz wrote:
Also I don't think Putin has ever said there are no homosexuals in Russia, but his ally said so in Chechnya.

That's very different. Chechnya is a very specific region and Chechens are very specific people - I would say a little savage. But when they live under Russia's sovereignty there's peace there, there's no kidnapping for ransom or slavery, no terrorist acts and basically people enjoy quiet life. So we are happy with Ramzan Kadyrov being the governor there.

If Jyrkkä Jätkä doesn't understand the realities of our life he should not talk about life and policies here.

By the way it appears that Ali Khamenei never said it either.


აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
March Hare
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 7:40:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/4/2014
Posts: 250
Neurons: 1,267,047
Location: Zedelgem, Flanders, Belgium
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:

If Jyrkkä Jätkä doesn't understand the realities of our life he should not talk about life and policies here.


On the contrary, I think if someone doesn't understand the realities of your life, they definitely should talk about it. Otherwise, how will they ever get to understand it?
I myself find this discussion very interesting, because news about Russia tends to be rather biased here. It's great to be able to hear an inside perspective, for a change.
Romany
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:57:45 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,342
Neurons: 40,648
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Right with you - March Hare - the whole purpose of a Forum is to discuss things and talk about them. No point getting angry when someone gets something wrong - that's the point where you can help them understand things a lot better.

I apologise for using the word "crime" when I know perfectly well that it is no longer actually against the law. In my head I was employing the colloquial use of "crime": i.e. we say "Oh, it's such a crime", or "It's a crime that the shops where you live are closed on Sundays". We know there is no likelihood of the cops coming to arrest shopkeepers and force them to open their businesses on Sundays: what we mean is "it must be awful for you not being able to do your shopping on Sundays, because it's your only day off." It's a figure of speech which I shouldn't have employed talking to a second-language learner.

I was only trying to point out, to people who who live in countries where being gay is about as remarkable as being blonde or being tall, that You live in a completely different environment.

Until he goes back to Spain next month, my son is teaching all his Russian students from (my) home. So all day long there are discussions and lots of talk about everything from poetry and prose to governments and finance. But one thing we've now learnt is not to even discuss the subject of homosexuality any more: we know their views; they know ours - but neither group of us will budge on our beliefs in this area.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:05:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
TFD - A Windbag - slang - a voluble person who has little of interest to communicate
I have always found JJ to be exactly the opposite of this over reaction. If I were to judge him at all and express my opinion openly, it would be to say he adds a great deal of information to the forum. (Edited - Romany posted while I wrote and addressed this point better.)

I agree with March Hare that I mostly am forming my impressions of Russians and citizens of other countries from my limited exposure to posters here, while trying not to generalize to entire populations. But the fact remains that we are all individual ambassadors for our home country no matter where we are.

(Digression - Do I read between the lines a little propaganda, Xap, about Chechens being a little savage and therefore needing Russian control for peace?)

I was no longer following this thread. Andrew and Lotje have answered well the objections to allowing same sex marriage. In addition:

Quote Xap : "first you need to register all those marriages then you have to deal with all those divorces. What for?"

The same could be said about heterosexual marriages. Having children is not a prerequisite for creating a family in 2017.

"Forbearing from actual physical relationship"? C'mon, Russia. These are real people, being condemned to denial of one of the main and few pleasures - and undeniable urges - of life.

It has been found that being in a legal same sex marriage has been a benefit to those involved. In Canada they get the same tax breaks as those married, so yes, that costs more in loss of tax revenue. Another benefit is that they are allowed actions of legal spouses such as hospital visiting rights. All people should have equal rights. Actually, being in any marriage has many benefits.

On the opposite side, HIV rates and mental health issues such as anxiety go down, costing much less in healthcare.

There is a great deal more that could be said, but my POV is always that the goal is being as equitable and civil to all humans as possible.

We all have our crosses to bear in this life, so the golden rule always seems to apply.


A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 1:11:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Digression - Bestiality is not really under discussion here, but after Xap mentioned it, I was curious as to the incidence. I thought it was long gone but that is not so. I found this interesting discussion on this link:

http://www.health24.com/Sex/Sexual-diversity/Bestiality-is-much-much-more-common-than-you-think-20150218

Note the diseases that can be transmitted from different species and also the higher incidence of penile cancer in men who engaged in bestiality. And it is quite legal in many countries, although the number of countries is dropping in the last 5 years or so.

I can't verify, but it seems bestiality is legal in Russia, while human homosexuality is not. Consistency is not a virtue?


A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 2:38:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
(Digression - Do I read between the lines a little propaganda, Xap, about Chechens being a little savage and therefore needing Russian control for peace?)

This is my opinion. They need an established state which they can be a part of. It could be some other state such as Turkey but Russia is closer.

Note that unlike Canada we do not confine them to reserves. It is the Republic of Chechnya with a Chechen as the head. And Russia is committed to preserving their culture, language, lore and mores.

Hope123 wrote:
"Forbearing from actual physical relationship"? C'mon, Russia.

I thought I made it clear that this pertains only to the USSR not to Russia.


აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 7:49:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Xap, You did. My bad on the reading. Just so I am clear - homosexual behaviour is frowned upon but still legal in Russia now (except of course in public places as usual). Correct?

::::

"Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was a legitimate sovereign democratic state, which in 1991 seceded from the USSR, in full compliance with the provisions of the USSR Constitution at the time and International Law...
On 1 November, the new President of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria signed a decree declaring its independence, which was ratified the following day... “The Chechen Republic is a sovereign democratic legal state created as a result of the self-determination of the Chechen people."
...In 1993, Russia adopted a new constitution to replace the old Soviet one. In this constitution, Russia includes the Chechen Republic as a part of Russia and, consequently, justifies the wars it waged against the Chechen people."


How do you justify in your mind that an independent state being declared part of another state by means of war compares with the history of Indigenous People in Canada?

The Indigenous are Canadian citizens. They now have full access to human rights protection of culture, identity, religion, language, health, education and community.

The reason they stay and work on reserves is to get tax free status, funding, free tuition for post secondary education of they qualify, (I think it is 1/16 blood ) and other perks the government is obligated to provide because of past treaties. The government transfers funding to them just as it transfers money to the provinces and territories for healthcare and so forth. The indigenous also have self funding from casinos, tobacco sales, and other enterprises. They may live and make a living wherever they choose in Canada.

The indigenous population in Canada is growing and is the fastest-growing segment of Canada’s urban population. I was not aware of this fact and am glad to see them becoming more integrated when they choose to do so.

A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Tovarish
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 9:37:24 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Bestiality is against the law in Australia, and the argument from the No Vote campaigners that the Yes Vote would open the door to this practice is ridiculous.

Ridiculous points of view that a baker could refuse to make a wedding cake with two women or two men on the top is equally so, and if our Parliament could pass a law against

stupidity, these people would be at the beginning of the queue.

None of this is a laughing matter, however I must tell you all a joke that I, as a horsewoman found hysterical, in a very Aussie humorous way.


"A man was locked up in an outback country police jail on a bestiality charge with his Shetland pony,

at dinner time the local copper took a bucket of water and a sheaf of hay to the man,

Whats the matter?, said the copper,

If it good enough for your girlfriend it should be good enough for you".

What makes this so funny is that was actually true, maybe its only Aussie humour, I know Rom will laugh.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:05:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
The Indigenous are Canadian citizens. They now have full access to human rights protection of culture, identity, religion, language, health, education and community.

I would listen to you if the Queen of Canada was a Cree lady and the Prime Minister was a Cree gentleman.



აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:34:37 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Hope123 wrote:
The Indigenous are Canadian citizens. They now have full access to human rights protection of culture, identity, religion, language, health, education and community.

I would listen to you if the Queen of Canada was a Cree lady and the Prime Minister was a Cree gentleman.


https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/who-are-indigenous-peoples-russia



A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:42:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,159
Neurons: 364,680
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Hope123 wrote:
"Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was a legitimate sovereign democratic state, which in 1991 seceded from the USSR, in full compliance with the provisions of the USSR Constitution at the time and International Law...

Yours are bad sources. Here's the Constitution:

http://constitution.garant.ru/history/ussr-rsfsr/1977/red_1977/1549448/chapter/8/#block_800

Quote:
Статья 72. За каждой союзной республикой сохраняется право свободного выхода из СССР.

Google Translate:
Quote:
Article 72. Each republic of the Union retains the right to freely withdraw from the USSR.

Chechnya never was a republic of the Union. You are welcome to scour the text of the Constitution for such a provision for Chechnya.

აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
Tovarish
Posted: Thursday, December 07, 2017 5:23:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,092
Neurons: 39,840
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
Well its official, as of the 7th January 2018 Same Sex couples can marry in Australia.

There were 6 attachments that I havnt read at this stage, it was only passed this evening, but it has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

The main sticking point was Free Speech, so will have to read the fine print.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.