While I don't want to get into overly complicated arguments, what does everyone think about the recent asylum seekers and their boat which exploded? Kevin Rudd's immigration policy? Immigration in general? People smuggling?It's a pretty big domestic issue now.
Also - Miss California's recent comments about gay marriage? Do you think more American states should follow Vermont and legalise gay marriage? Why, why not?~ Hurley Who?
11 comments:
since i don't watch the news and i'm not a fanatical debater, call me selfish but these issues do not concern me. i'm pretty sure my opinion does not matter. there's not much point in having a view without a way to change others'.
that's true too - relating to a post i think her cules posted last time about why we don't care, the fact that what's happening to those asylum seekers isn't directly relating to most of us just emphasises how we are more removed from the situation, and thus, are not as likely to affect what is going to occur there. However, there is no harm *I would think* to hold a view, and in a nutshell, I reckon that there'll always be a problem - so so long as we try to fix it, we'll always be disappointed, but we can always try.
BUT about gay marriages, I just don't think they're right - there is no hard-proof for such 'gay gene' & so there is no need for the legalisation of civil marriages for gay people based on the grounds that proof for the phenomena is evident.
BUT again, I wouldn't really care because I don't live in the US & am not gay.
in any case, i don't see why sexuality has to be legalised in the first place. evolution takes care of these things, guys!
louis - but homosexuality isn't a 'phenomena', it's just something which someone either chooses or feels that they are naturally more attracted to the same sex. in both cases, they shouldn't be denied any right to express how they feel. if it's love then no matter who is involved, the state should give the right to everyone to allow them to marry, have children, adopt, share finances etc with the person they love
i think allowing gay marriage is a big symbolic step and one for the better. I don't think it's any different to things like giving women or Indigenous people the vote - it may have been a big deal then, but in hindsight, it was a necessary step towards equality
and d-read... we CAN change things. if everyone in the world took that attitude, we'd be left in a sticky situation. it's only when someone cares enough that something happens.
in fact, i think these things are extremely important for us because govt policy now decides what happens to our lives in the future, and what kind of country we live in. personally, i don't want to be in a country where there is mandatory detention. in fact, my parents visited a friend who was in mandatory detention not too long ago - so these things actually DO have a personal connection. even if you don't personally know someone who is affected, it's the community who must be compassionate and caring - that's how we get greater awareness of the situation happening in the public.
ps. i forgot to add - louis, perhaps we should look towards a BETTER solution, not a perfect one. it is probably reasonable to say people will always break the law, but a law that is well crafted will have less problems
1. Equality is ultimately unachievable. What steps we have taken thus far, have only to make the notion of equality far more acceptable and pc. There is no such thing as true equality.
2. Plenty of people care. I'm not saying I don't care, but caring is ineffective, and for me, rather pointless. Nobody is going to know that you care, and frankly nobody really gives a damn. People in mandatory detention aren't going to sleep sounder at night, nor are their applications for visas going to be sped up any faster if they know that I care. Perhaps if I were processing their cases, then yes maybe that would help. But I'm not, so I don't see why I should pretend to have any influence over these particular matters. Do you think that if, say, even two thousand people march in the streets - that apart from some media coverage and a quote from politicians that they value the opinions of the aus. people and will most definitely take our views into account - do you think that doing even this will have a lasting effect? A hint of pressure may applied, yes, but overall the decisions of the govt. (and I realise fully that I am not qualified to make an educated statement, but again this being an opinion post) - I believe that the decisions of the govt are not so easily affected by the public. Regardless, you and I both know that the whole argument - "if everyone in the world thought like that, we'd still be in the dark ages..." - is invalid in practice. Since when has everybody thought the same way, unpressured and of their own volition?
3. You say "govt policy now decides what happens to our lives in the future" - do you really govt policy is working towards the needs of the people all the time? do you really believe that the dictates of the establishment, funding and all that crap don't take precedent over their political and moral obligation to us, the people who voted them in? The current system of politics in this country is more or less to maintain appearances, as with most countries - 90% of the people couldn't care less/don't think about the motivations behind policies (ie. money, money and more money which in turn buys certain individuals power, etc.) I'm beginning to empathise with whoever said that money is the root of all problems. What happened to good old bartering, a cow for a sheep, that kind of thing.
As for gays, personally I think they are a product of the times, and the society. Being the increasing prominence of gays and social attitudes, not homosexuality itself. People now have time and money to be gay. There is far less pressure to get married, be progenitors. As a species we've come to a point where the threat of extinction, the overbearing need to further our race is diminished, in our society at least. D'you think an idly remote village in the Cote d'Ivoire has a raging community of gays? Or in the wastelands of Siberia? Somehow I think it unlikely.
a jolly good discussion we're having here! and i must comment on d.read's style which i feel has most certainly been influenced by a certain Fay Weldon...
"about gay marriages, I just don't think they're right" and especially "there is no hard-proof for such 'gay gene'" has really stunned me! i certainly have never thought of the issue of legalisation of gay marriages on the basis of the existence of homosexuality or the need to verify it as a grand, sweepind epidemic. mortified i am! in regards to this 'gay gene', i really have nothing to say but if i may, where is the evidence of the 'straight gene'? oh but i do forget, homosexuality is a genetic disorder, you really must keep reminding me! 'gay gene' or not, it is about time people realised homosexuality is A PART OF WHO THEY ARE! it is just like preferring dark chocolate to white chocolate...
"proof for the phenomena is evident" i'm sorry i am not understanding, proof that homosexuality is a genetic disorder, or in the least an abnormality, or that homosexuality itself exists? or are we accepting the latter and simply ignoring their rights? if not, perhaps i could introduce you to a festival known as the Mardi Gras..
i find it absolutely repulsive that one need confirm the existence of the 'gay gene', as though homosexuality is a malfunctioning of the human body or the human mentality, so that they may given their, what i believe to be now in the 21st century, basic human rights. as such, i am rather curious about this anti-gay mentality.
"they are a product of the times, and the society", "People now have time and money to be gay" i am aghast! you utter, utter beast (how appropriate that i reference him here)! i cannot refute your statements regarding the gay community in the Cote d'Ivoire or the wastelands in Siberia (but then again, neither can you support your own...) so i will address this with what i am familiar with. you do ever so slightly make it sound as though homosexuality has become a fashionable trend, or in the least, a peripheral past-time and one especially for the wealthy. all i can say is that this is certainly a new way of looking at it...but sadly you too treat it like a 'phenomena'. and on reading your post again, i have gathered that you seem to think that men and women "in our society" are now of this mentality: "well what with the high rates of urbanisation and overpopulation, i, out of my infinite kindness, will do my bit to alleviate the problem by fucking my own kind"
how truly enlightening
my dear dissenter, an attempt to explain WHY things happen does not correlate in any way to an intention to DISMISS or TRIVIALISE the matter itself. so what if this "trend" (i forgot who started calling it that) in homosexuality is a "phenomona" or not? What is true is that this is on a rise, just as preferrences for a healthy lifestyle are on a rise, and why not? I am, we are all, attempting to find a reason (being of the sort of person who agrees with rational causes) in a benign, i stress, BENIGN manner! That is all! Again, like my opinion even matters. I could be completely wrong. In fact, my speculations are more often than not wrong.
Intense. I agree with d.read - I don't think equality can ever be achieved. I think the world is too broken for that. But I think we can still try, because that is the essence of hope, and really thus of living. If we are seriously apathetic beings that don't care about the future of the world, then I might ask what the point in living really is.
Also, I don't think that being against gay marriage means that you are anti-gay. I think the issue of legalising gay marriage is quite separate from acceptance of gay people.
I also dislike it when people use the argument, "Society needs to advance our attitudes - don't be narrow minded! Be liberlist, accepting of EVERYTHING!" Which is not to say, disciminate against everyone. But I think you need some boundaries, you cannot simply be so welcoming of any attitude/action.
And whilst some may say being gay is "a part of who they are", you could also argue that being a criminal is a "part of who they are" - an inherent characteristic of a person. What then? [Not suggesting that being gay is a crime, but merely giving an example.]
i think more often than not, criminals are a product of their environment eg. they have a lack of finances and turn to stealing/killing etc mostly as a last resort - and for those people who have that condition where they just 'steal' for no reason, i think it's a psychological thing. homosexuality isn't just a 'psychological abnormality', at least not for those who are really serious. there may be some people who want to be gay just because it's fashionable, but then again, they can do whatever they want to do - freedom of expression.
and on the issue of gay marriage - if we think homosexuality is OK, as we do with heterosexuality, why not extend the same rights we give to heterosexuals to homosexuals? it's just illogical to say, "ok we accept your choice, but we're excluding you from doing certain things"
people have been saying 'equality' can never be achieved - and of course perfect equality in society seems pretty impossible, but specifically, equality for people of all sexual orientations is possible! and it's happening!! Ohio, Connecticut, Vermont etc etc!!!
also on the issue of gay 'evolution' - i think that society has fostered a burgeoning sense of 'ok, maybe i'm NOT strange for being the way i am.... and i shouldn't get punished for it' kind of mentality. i mean, all sorts of groups have risen out of inequality in the past - women, Indigenous peoples, African Americans etc. and now they've BASICALLY got all the same rights as everyone else. Therefore, i think the growing gay community is a result of society being more tolerant. There were probably closet gay cavemen... who knows?!?! But now a homosexual in Australia knows it's not ILLEGAL to be gay and that's why he/she can be LOUD AND PROUD of it. ie. Mardi Gras
As always, long essay above is my opinion, and i'm happy that people have actually taken time to express opinions!! YAY! so happy to see freedom of speech/typing at work...
Post a Comment