Did Ireland fall apart? “They (same sex marriage plebiscite) are corrosive, they are divisive, I think they will stain our parliamentary democracy and not improve it.” Liberal senator Dean Smith
Smith to release private member’s bill before Monday’s party room, The Australian, RACHEL BAXENDALE, August 4, 2017
This simply does not represent reality in fact it is the reverse. Why? We are not dealing with a decision either to build a bridge or employ more teachers, we are dealing with core ethical constructs which constitute a worldview which you simply cannot legislate away without enabling resident societal cultures to come to terms through an opportunity of firstly putting their case and then having a direct opportunity in having a say in the outcome.
Smith is committing the same sin as the Marxist-Socialist Lissagaray determining fellow citizens as “Thousands of mutes and blind are not fitted to conclude a social pact. Weak, unorganised, bound by a thousand trammels, the people of the country can only be saved by the towns, and the people of the towns guided by Paris.”
We are seeing once again large segments of citizens being determined by the Marxist-Socialist derived ‘virtuous elite’ as Philistines-Brutal Rurals-Populists ‘mutes and blind are not fitted to conclude a social pact’ you keep doing this what happened in France 1871 will happen in Australian streets for exactly the same reason. You stigmatise, apply a deviance paradigm to suppress-exclude from determining their societies worldview a significant segment of your citizenry what does social psychology determine as the affect.
It is time to reflect on what a Democracy is for, Democracy is not created so the religious/secular ‘virtuous elite’ tyranny holds sway. What is the use of a Democracy when it is determined by the ‘virtuous elite’ citizens are simply “not fitted to conclude a social pact”.
"It was one of Lincoln’s ways of working out his chief value to the country, and that value was his clear sense from the start it was our democratic scheme that was at stake, and that if it was to be saved, every citizen who could aid must help to give all that was in them.
Lincoln seems to have put it something like this to himself:
Everybody in the country has had a part in bringing this thing about; everybody feels they have a right to say how things shall be handled; everybody that is worth their salt is going to exercise that right, and they are going to do it according to the kind of person they are – according to their temperament, their training, their self-control, their meanness, and their goodness. If we are going to put this thing through and prove that citizens can govern themselves, we must get from them what they can give, and we must let them give it in their own way.” Source: The Life of Lincoln, Tarbell 1917
Yes! I am for same sex marriage.
More importantly than any single ethical construct, I am for Democracy-respect-justice process of negotiation relevant to the context - in this case a respect-justice process requires cultures to know they have had a chance to determine their societies worldview which clearly is not going to be satisfied by a simple vote in parliament.
Same sex marriage is simply a fabricated social construct as any other. There are ethical constructs which under one worldview have significance under others they do not, it is a matter of negotiating what is to be regarded as a deviance paradigm or not. The reason being there is no such thing as 'truth' no such thing as freedom of anything. As you strongly believe one way others in the same social/political space believe with the same affect or more in another way.