A bigot maybe loosely defined as
Someone who refuses to properly consider the other sides case.: someone who sees things too simply ?
A"plebiscite" on the incorporation of Same sex marriage into the Marriage Act will be put shortly .October 2017,
There are other definitions , but I am listing this one because its not accusatory and I think its close to how many Yes promoters perceive the nature of the problem in No voters ( see Miriam Webster definition below ). I am happy to add from the original definition the idea that one's " religious beliefs act as a blind to even considering any logic"- provided that both sides recognise that this blinkeredness can happen to anyone on any group.
Bigots VS Libertarians ?
The yes case advocates have been pretty clear so far in making the simple highly personal claim that the no case people are bigots , and the yes case people are the libertarians . If only it was true and that simple.
I am suggesting that there are technically bigots and libertarians on both sides and anyone who is not prepared to answer questions is the biggest bigot of all.
I would suggest that the proper status and substance of Civil Marriage is a complex response to the variety of risks to children, mothers and widows when men fail to take responsibility for the products of their union . Civil Marriage is as much about framing responsibilities, as it is about rights.To date yes case advocates have just not answered the unintended consequences of this major language and law change.
As CM has little to do with the religious or other ceremonies ( which will always be their own )
the yes case focus so far has a distorted and incomplete focus - bigoted in the way it has so far framed itself around procedures in a ceremony that is not even necessary to have a union certified.
So why so much heat ? I suggest it derives from philosophical technical practical and emotional ( religious) view differences from two types of libertarians one who care about consequences and ones who don't want to face them .
Have we got enough time and information to make a reasonable decision?
Many of us think the time will be far too short considering all the real questions that are now coming forward since the decision has been implemented and since the ABC has been told to stop sitting on the case against .
Let me put some of the yes advocates REASONS for the change
Reason 1--- "to make them feel better" (A big reason put forth by one uniting church minister 18th aug)
If the only reason a minority wants us to change the language law and culture is to make them feel better, esp when they go near a church, the yes case are quite directly ignoring all the other reasons why thinking and professional people do not want to change civil marriages specific focus on protecting women and children.
You now have many doctors and aboriginals rejecting such simplicity and false focus on "the bigots in the church"
Reason 2 -10 ?
for you to add
Those saying we have years to consider this forget the public know that largely only one side has been put and put in a confusing way about what the LGBTI community want ?
THE case for yes case advocates being a little bigoted ( just a few thought)
Someone who refuses to properly consider the other sides case.: someone who sees things too simply ?
A"plebiscite" on the incorporation of Same sex marriage into the Marriage Act will be put shortly .October 2017,
There are other definitions , but I am listing this one because its not accusatory and I think its close to how many Yes promoters perceive the nature of the problem in No voters ( see Miriam Webster definition below ). I am happy to add from the original definition the idea that one's " religious beliefs act as a blind to even considering any logic"- provided that both sides recognise that this blinkeredness can happen to anyone on any group.
Bigots VS Libertarians ?
The yes case advocates have been pretty clear so far in making the simple highly personal claim that the no case people are bigots , and the yes case people are the libertarians . If only it was true and that simple.
I am suggesting that there are technically bigots and libertarians on both sides and anyone who is not prepared to answer questions is the biggest bigot of all.
I would suggest that the proper status and substance of Civil Marriage is a complex response to the variety of risks to children, mothers and widows when men fail to take responsibility for the products of their union . Civil Marriage is as much about framing responsibilities, as it is about rights.To date yes case advocates have just not answered the unintended consequences of this major language and law change.
As CM has little to do with the religious or other ceremonies ( which will always be their own )
the yes case focus so far has a distorted and incomplete focus - bigoted in the way it has so far framed itself around procedures in a ceremony that is not even necessary to have a union certified.
So why so much heat ? I suggest it derives from philosophical technical practical and emotional ( religious) view differences from two types of libertarians one who care about consequences and ones who don't want to face them .
Have we got enough time and information to make a reasonable decision?
Many of us think the time will be far too short considering all the real questions that are now coming forward since the decision has been implemented and since the ABC has been told to stop sitting on the case against .
Let me put some of the yes advocates REASONS for the change
Reason 1--- "to make them feel better" (A big reason put forth by one uniting church minister 18th aug)
If the only reason a minority wants us to change the language law and culture is to make them feel better, esp when they go near a church, the yes case are quite directly ignoring all the other reasons why thinking and professional people do not want to change civil marriages specific focus on protecting women and children.
You now have many doctors and aboriginals rejecting such simplicity and false focus on "the bigots in the church"
Reason 2 -10 ?
for you to add
Those saying we have years to consider this forget the public know that largely only one side has been put and put in a confusing way about what the LGBTI community want ?
THE case for yes case advocates being a little bigoted ( just a few thought)
- If the yes case advocates are not bigots why would they have not insisted on the questions raised by the non church groups before August 2017
- the insistence by them that its only a few people in church who are resisting change is clearly not true .there are others
- the failure of the movement to address the address the mental health risk associated with giving people what they want
- the failure of the movement to resist the bullying feeling that many in the australian audience feel is going on in relation to this issue ' you must decide soon " says Greenlabor
- Maybe the LGBTI community are not unified in what they want ( that they are just as diverse in ambition as any group and ARE not unified )
) therefore, the australian public don't know what this group wants and will spend more than a few more hundreds of millions confusing the next generation about what this civil marriage change is for
just to make a few people feel better ? Can they be expeceted to feel better as a result of this change ? not properly considering the other sides case
Other questions and empty rhetoric areas (this is not a complete list )
- What is meant by SSM in the LBGTI community ? ( see below)
- Which countries / states have adopted SSM into their marriage acts ( full list )
- Will SSM breakups go before family court automatically?
- Can the impact of changes on surrogacy be anticipated?
- Why would changes to superannuation and some pensions benefits be changed if children were not involved ....or even if they were?
- When will yes case address the questions doctors have about the proposed changes influence
- When will yes case address the questions aboriginals have about the proposed changes influence on another spate of stolen generation children /
- When will yes case stop saying that there are no ( additional ) risks and costs and address the questions thinking people have about the real impact in probability terms on already well known risks like those protecting of women and children from abandonment promiscuity and selef select sexual activities and poligamy
- Should children have a vote . Shorten says they should (Q&A21st Aug)
What is meant by Same Sex marriage? .
the LGBTI community have not clearly stated which sex with which sex they want . What would the contract say and what would happen to the contract if one of the Bi partners decided to change either sex or not be monogamous ? In what court would the names for decisions and status be made ?
From Merriam Webster
The current definition of bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” However, when the word first entered the English language (borrowed from French at the end of the 16th century) it had the meaning of “a superstitious religious hypocrite.”
The only part of the definition below I can accept is in bold , because Jesus Christ , I will assume from his own words actions and acceptance would not accept as Christ followers anyone who did not repent of the following when it applied "hypocrite, superstition , hatred or intolerance",
the LGBTI community have not clearly stated which sex with which sex they want . What would the contract say and what would happen to the contract if one of the Bi partners decided to change either sex or not be monogamous ? In what court would the names for decisions and status be made ?
From Merriam Webster
The current definition of bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” However, when the word first entered the English language (borrowed from French at the end of the 16th century) it had the meaning of “a superstitious religious hypocrite.”
The only part of the definition below I can accept is in bold , because Jesus Christ , I will assume from his own words actions and acceptance would not accept as Christ followers anyone who did not repent of the following when it applied "hypocrite, superstition , hatred or intolerance",
