Open Forum: April 5, 2014

This entry was posted in Open Forum. Bookmark the permalink.

786 Responses to Open Forum: April 5, 2014

  1. Yobbo

    Yeah I know it’s been a while since I updated the blog, mostly because I do most of my posting/arguing on facebook nowadays rather than blogs.

  2. Yobbo

    Where does it SPECIFICALLY state words along the lines of “gay couples are prohibited from marrying.”?

    “Exclusion of all others” does not mean what you think it does.

    Yes it does, according to the high court.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/high-court-decision-on-act-same-sex-marriage-laws/5152168

  3. Yobbo

    The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same
    sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only
    between a man and a woman and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between a same sex
    couple must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia. That Act is a comprehensive and
    exhaustive statement of the law of marriage.

    http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf

    I don’t see how that could be any more clear. I’m sure you’ll find a way to keep on ‘tarding though.

  4. Token

    Just in case anyone wants to know what really is concerning about the way Gay Queda’s push to re-make society is causing damage (thanks to Richard Fernandez for articulating this so well):

    The Gannet newspapers declared open season on gun-owners by publishing a map showing the names and addresses of registered New York gun owners, as a kind of dinner bell for burglars. “Come and rob … me”.

    In fact, the Wall Street Journal points out that a similar database was used to ferret out Eich. “Eich’s support for Proposition 8 became public knowledge because of a California law requiring disclosure of personal information–name, address, occupation and employer’s name — of anybody who gives $100 or more to a campaign for or against a ballot initiative. The secretary of state’s office is required to post this information online, and, as HotAir.com’s “AllahPundit” notes, the Los Angeles Times made it available on its site as an easily searchable database.”

    To continue: in 2012, “American fast-food chain Chick-fil-A was the focus of controversy following a series of public comments made in June 2012 by chief operating officer Dan Cathy opposing same-sex marriage”. For those who still remember it (along with the forgotten episode of the Benghazi consulate), the 2013 IRS scandal was all about investigating people who held the wrong political views.

    At least I can say that the Libertarians who backed Snowden are being consistent by being angered by the way Eich was “outed”.

  5. twostix

    According to the Internet:

    Thai law currently does not recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    I wonder if Yobbo the Western Tourist denounces what, by his and the gay lobby’s metric must be supremely bigoted Thai’s who in 2014 still refuse to even recognise Civil Unions? Or does he keep his mouth shut in what he keeps telling us is a land of milk and honey? The place he fled from supposedly tyrannical Australia.

    Oh and:

    Many Thai Buddhists believe homosexuality is a punishment for sins committed in a past life.

    How to reconcile Yobbo’s constant spruiking of Thailand as a glorious paradise with its bigoted institutionalised Hate toward gays, shooting squads for drug traffickers, bans on abortion, porn and gambling, state funding of religion, overt internet censorship, etc, etc. Why it almost seems that Thailand – outside of the carefully contained money making westernised tourist and ex-pat districts – sounds like a veritable Atheist Australian “Libertarian’s” nightmare. And what to make of his raging denouncements of what in comparison to the very politically powerful and deeply conservative Thai Buddhists are supremely tolerant and politically impotent Western “Christians”? Thai Buddists, mind, are societally protected from the sort abuse Yobbo heaps out upon supposedly bigoted “Christians” here. Why in 2007 Thailand very nearly got blasphemy laws with punishments of up to 25 years gaol for critisising Buddha and Buddist monks.

    So many contradictions for the Athiest Leftist “Libertarian” in Thailand, no wonder he’s angry. Living in a deeply Conservative religious state like Thailand and being unable to critisise the ruling religious cultural power he, like every leftist luvvie before him again and again bravely turns his attention and pent up abuse machine toward…Western Christians.

  6. dover_beach

    Yeah nah. The Jim Crow laws applied to government institutions.

    The federal civil rights act is what added the ability to prosecute private businesses.

    I very much doubt diners were government institutions. But setting that error aside, the repeal of those laws was followed by the ability to prosecute business is precisely my point.

  7. Token

    I don’t see how that could be any more clear. I’m sure you’ll find a way to keep on ‘tarding though.

    Your link does not explain what “marriage” means. Like all similar posts in defense of “equity”, it is about the label and not the legal rights.

    Note how Yobbo’s quote doesn’t point out how many adults (when does someone become an adult) are involved in this “marriage”.

  8. johanna

    So, where are all the opponents of homosexual marriage who are getting successful CEOs fired because of their contrary beliefs?

    Personally, I don’t care who marries whom. But I care very much about people (whichever side they are on) being monstered and bullied and fired because of their opinions and beliefs. And I’m not seeing supporters of homosexual marriage suffering this fate.

  9. Fer Chrissakes, Yobbo’s decision to domocile in Thailand does not make him accountable for every last quirk of Thai culture/custom/law/life.

    Gab, didn’t mean the Roman Catholic slur (good word, coz that is how I meant it) to be in the context of gay marriage, so much as the whole site.
    The Roman Catholic teaching on just-about-anything seems (note: “seems”) to be the line pushed by a very vocal segment of the commentariat on here. Whenever Roman Catholic teaching has a conflict with libertarianism, then libertarianism is cast to the wind, or so it seems (note: “seems”).
    Once Roman Catholic teaching is brought in to discussion, it becomes nothing more than a shouting match, as if the Roman Catholic viewpoint is some sort of trump card.

    Anathema to any libertarian.

    I could drone on, but y’ve likely got the message I’m attempting to convey.

  10. Mr Rusty

    Nope, you’ve answered the question Yobbo without actually admitting what you already know (that there is no specific law written in black and white that prohibits gays from marrying).

    “The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same
    sex couples.”

    Not “providing for” is not equal to banning or prohibiting.
    And FYI “Exclusion of all others” is to rule out polygamy, not same sex.

  11. dover_beach

    From http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf:

    with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.

    So, it isn’t banned, it simply isn’t provided for by law.

  12. dover_beach

    The Roman Catholic teaching on just-about-anything seems (note: “seems”) to be the line pushed by a very vocal segment of the commentariat on here. Whenever Roman Catholic teaching has a conflict with libertarianism, then libertarianism is cast to the wind, or so it seems (note: “seems”).
    Once Roman Catholic teaching is brought in to discussion, it becomes nothing more than a shouting match, as if the Roman Catholic viewpoint is some sort of trump card.

    There are as many Protestants on here as Catholics. As for the trumping issue, can I have an example, given the frequent criticisms of certain remarks made by the Catholic hierarchy on global warming, immigration, asylum seekers, economics, etc.

  13. There are as many Protestants on here as Catholics. As for the trumping issue, can I have an example, given the frequent criticisms of certain remarks made by the Catholic hierarchy on global warming, immigration, asylum seekers, economics, etc.

    You protest a little too hard & a little too fast, and with a piece of bullshit that either says you are being obtuse, or aren’t real smart.
    You’re not this stupid, surely:

    You really are unable separate opinions of clergy from church doctrine?

  14. Token

    The Roman Catholic teaching on just-about-anything seems (note: “seems”) to be the line pushed by a very vocal segment of the commentariat on here. Whenever Roman Catholic teaching has a conflict with libertarianism, then libertarianism is cast to the wind, or so it seems (note: “seems”).

    SATP, Libertarian ideas lead heavily on natural law built upon the works of Thomas Aquinus & the Scholastics as they interpreted the work of Aristotle. Fundementally they are linked.

    Sorry if that runs against some inner need you have.

  15. Gab

    As far as I can see, the only one bringing religion into the discussion is SATP.

  16. Token

    Link to a detailed piece on St Thomas Aquinas at Mises.org discussing how his writings form a critical bridge in terms of philosophy for Libertarian & Austrian economics.

  17. Token

    There are as many Protestants on here as Catholics.

    …and jews, agnostics, athiests and people from other backgrounds. I don’t see why catholics get picked out from the mob for special treatment?

  18. Yobbo

    So, it isn’t banned, it simply isn’t provided for by law.

    Wow, you sure got me there.

  19. dover_beach

    You protest a little too hard & a little too fast, and with a piece of bullshit that either says you are being obtuse, or aren’t real smart. You’re not this stupid, surely:

    You really are unable separate opinions of clergy from church doctrine?

    I wasn’t protesting; and I’m not sure why you’re being aggressive either. But, anyway, I’m not sure why you think I or any other Catholic would jettison Catholic doctrine in favour of libertarian doctrine. BTW, when do I, at least, shout or present in a dispute between the two the former as a trump card?

  20. dover_beach

    Wow, you sure got me there.

    No, the Justices got you.

  21. Yobbo

    Thailand – outside of the carefully contained money making westernised tourist and ex-pat districts – sounds like a veritable Atheist Australian “Libertarian’s” nightmare.

    It does, on paper.

    In practice there is virtually no law in Thailand and it’s a libertarian’s wet dream compared to the stuffy nanny state that Australia has become.

  22. JC

    STFU stevie. Go pour drinks. You talking philosophy and equivalent stuff is like chalk screeching.

  23. C.L.

    Whenever Catholic teaching has a conflict with libertarianism …

    Provide me examples of such conflicts.

  24. dover_beach

    It does, on paper.

    In practice there is virtually no law in Thailand and it’s a libertarian’s wet dream

    Much like our marriage laws.

  25. Combine_Dave

    I don’t have any problem with free association among private citizens. The correct response to people who hang signs on their doors like “no blacks” is to shun them.

    It’s very different when the government that is supposed to represent those people hangs those signs though

    The gov in this scenario shouldn’t be hanging these signs, nor declaring that others either hang or not hang these signs. What this means for gay marriage:

    * Criminalisation of offensive speech needs to be repealed.
    * Religious entities (whether christian, muslim or jew) need to be guranteed continued religious freedom including discrimination; can hire members of your religious denomination above others, can refuse to marry gays, nonbelievers etc on your (or your religious entities) property.
    * Deregulate marriage to allow SSM and whatever else is desired (beagles?).

    There’s your Libertarian Solution.

  26. Yobbo

    * Criminalisation of offensive speech needs to be repealed.
    * Religious entities (whether christian, muslim or jew) need to be guranteed continued religious freedom including discrimination; can hire members of your religious denomination above others, can refuse to marry gays, nonbelievers etc on your (or your religious entities) property.
    * Deregulate marriage to allow SSM and whatever else is desired (beagles?).

    There’s your Libertarian Solution.

    No arguments here. The issue is that none of these things are actually likely to happen. I would prefer marriage to be deregulated but until the day it is I don’t see why we should keep preventing gay couples from marrying.

  27. Combine_Dave

    Link to a detailed piece on St Thomas Aquinas at Mises.org discussing how his writings form a critical bridge in terms of philosophy for Libertarian & Austrian economics.

    Very cool. I’ll take a read.

  28. Combine_Dave

    I would prefer marriage to be deregulated but until the day it is I don’t see why we should keep preventing gay couples from marrying.

    Gay catholics/Anglicans using the state to force priests/pastors to marry them in their churches? – Thus infringing on others ‘freedom of religion.

    I am not picky about the order of events just very doubtful that the LNP will bring us more freedom (aside from their very very good work in liberating the tax payer from funding generations of country shopping boat people, and attempting to free us from the Carbon/Mining Taxes).

  29. dover_beach

    I don’t see why we should keep preventing gay couples from marrying.

    No one is; it simply isn’t provided for by law. Gay couples can live together, hold hands, whisper sweet nothings in each other’s ears, hold a ceremony before friends and family and self-identify as married, and so on, nneo of which is ‘prevented’ as a matter of law.

  30. Token

    Very cool. I’ll take a read.

    When you do you’ll understand my disappointment when the latest pontiff took the name Francis instead of Dominic, and what it warned us about his likely actions .

  31. Dan M.

    Re homo marriage, why this burden shifting people?

    Haven’t you noticed that the burden of argumentation always is placed upon those satisfied with the status quo? But why is that?

    Doesn’t it seem more equitable that those looking to overturn 2000 plus years of distilled human experience and reasoning on the subject should be the ones carrying the burden of argument? Instead of whining, in some plaintive tone, some sing-song voice, “why can’t they get married,” shouldn’t they be advancing arguments ON THE MERITS as to why specifically they should be allowed, again, specifically, why accepted human wisdom on the subject is wrong, has been wrong, and was always wrong. Shouldn’t they be carrying the burden of demonstrating to us that such a change will not be adverse for society?

    But instead of that, all we get is this gay whining about “why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry……?” I suppose its all too much expecting them to man up as it were. But still, at the very least, we should insist upon the proper placement of the burden of argumentation!

  32. Combine_Dave

    Very cool. I’ll take a read.

    When you do you’ll understand my disappointment when the latest pontiff took the name Francis instead of Dominic, and what it warned us about his likely actions .

    Having a leftist pope from socialist South America was not a good sign neither.

  33. Driftforge

    I would prefer marriage to be deregulated but until the day it is I don’t see why we should keep preventing gay couples from marrying.

    It’s not marriage that needs to be deregulated first, its discrimination.

  34. Combine_Dave

    It’s not marriage that needs to be deregulated first, its discrimination.

    Would the LNP’s proposed changes to the Discrimination Act meet this requirement?

  35. dover_beach

    Would the LNP’s proposed changes to the Discrimination Act meet this requirement?

    What are these?

  36. egg_

    It’s not marriage that needs to be deregulated first, its discrimination.

    How does the marriage contract go if say the husband decides to change his gender?

Comments are closed.