Maybe I am naive, but with a 50-60% divorce rate, what's the big deal on marriage rights anyway?  Let's talk climate change and critical species loss and you'll have my serious attention...!  Most politicians are probably completely stressed out with the number of items on their todo list, such that the most important ones are being side tracked.  But yes, they do say some of the dumbest things at times but then we are getting to be so good as a society to take small snapshots and then decide on that basis a person's full worth, as if nothing else that the person did mattered.

The difference kkc is that (correct me if I am wrong) but gay marriage rights has no real bearing on your life, right? But climate change and species loss etc do. 

But marriage equality still directly affects people right? in fundamental ways. In instantaneous ways. In ways that only if you are gay would it affect you in an obvious way.

Climate change and species loss is not instantaneous, and affects us all in some obvious way but mostly sometime in the future. You dont feel the difference from day 1 of "lets fix the planet" to day 2, but "Lets have total equality in marriage rights" would be felt immediately on day 1 by those invovled in it.

So I understand this not being directly your business, and therefore lacking your serious attention. But given that climate change wont really affect the crazy rich power players, who are 50+yr, then why should they give it their "serious attention"? which is why they dont.... and why they carry on doing what they do.

We have to get to everyones problems, not just those that have only to do with ourselves. We can fix climate change over the next however many years, but fixing inequality of this kind usually just takes a simple vote. 

I'm glad you give a damn about the planet the falling numbers of species but we can do both comfortably. 

Also you say "they say the dumbest things at times" and claim it is a small snapshot... If I spent decades studying medicine, practicing medicine and reading about it, and came out with the statement:

"Oh the female body has some kind of mechanism for shutting it down during rape"

- then there is no need for a snapshot excuse. 

What they come out with is so ignorant and downright stupid that it does not matter how much of a snapshot it is. People with those views should not be anywhere near power, and it is more likely that their "real" views accidentally showed themselves.

Oh and marriage rights are not just about divorce rates, it is about the rules and regulations that differentiate civil partnerships and marriage. It is just the name that drives religious types nuts...despite not being their creation.

But anyways, great whataboutery kkc

 

Hi there.  Thank you for your comments.  Yours is a long post, so I'll just pick a couple of points:

You say "We can fix climate change over the next however many years, but fixing inequality of this kind usually just takes a simple vote."

Well where's the simple vote?  I guess it's not that simple after all. For 30 years there have been talks on climate and still each treaty revision is diluted down not resolved stronger.  The truth is we don't have that many years.  Just read about polar melt caps and the increasing amplitude of weather extremes.  Spring is increasingly littered with icy drops that kill off young hatchlings whilst ignorant people are talking about their right to gay marriage.  We don't even understand why our bees are dying out.  Next time you bite into a juicy strawberry consider that without bees, you'll be living off artficial space food.  Once a species is gone, it's gone FOREVER - PERIOD.  And species are going extinct every week now, so forgive me if I don't give a monkeys (no pun intented) about secondary and tertiary rights.  Atleast gay people have the right to live comfortably together, freedom of speech in fact all the rights that other heterosexuals do except for a piece of paper (which religious people call an institution and young people don't care about, because unlike us adults, they mostly accept differences in each other, in lifestyle, attitude etc without having to worry about legislation). 

You say: "But given that climate change wont really affect the crazy rich power players, who are 50+yr, then why should they give it their "serious attention"? which is why they dont.... and why they carry on doing what they do."

It's easy to blame rich people.  Truth is they are a minority.  It's all of us that cause climate change not just the rich, or someone else who is just as bigted, might say "it's the gays"...!

You say:  "People with those views should not be anywhere near power, and it is more likely that their "real" views accidentally showed themselves."

Mahatma Gandhi, in his struggle in South Africa, at one point sided against the native Africans. This little known fact does not sit comfortably against what he stood for in terms of ethics, nor in terms of what he achieved, but it shows he was a man and the end result shows that he fought his way to truth.  Of course I don't compare MKG with the Aussie politician.  But still if I had to, I would judge someone, not on a soundbite but on the sum of his/her works.  Otherwise, I can look only at one part of gay and lesbian behaviour and conclude that truly this behaviour is despicable.  When you take one sound bite and deride someone out of context its the same as me calling you a "wog" because of the colour of your skin - and I would be wrong to do that.

My point, which was missed completely, is that we as a species have our priorities.  For me the top three would be climate, species preservation and education for the poor.  These have been in the top 10 for decades and none have been "fixed".  They can only be fixed if politicians and voters work together.  Low priorities simply sap energy away from that which is essential.  This is simple logic.  And if you don't believe me, try doing two full time jobs and see how you get on.

I thought Mahatma Gandhi was Indian ? Am I mistaken ? 

Gandhi lived and worked in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, i.e.,  21 years.

Thanks Ritchie....I never knew that. And I thought my general knowledge was reasonable !!

kkc I think you just showed your true colours in all its glory. Exceptionally whataboutery too.

You are sat there staunchily defending someone who, clearly due to their homophobic mindset, has serious issues with marriage equality, and is making his point by using racism.

Bird of a feather ay? 

To compare someone saying something truly idiotic, not just an errand word, but several sentences, to judging someone on their skin colour, really does show what you are about. One person has said nothing and is just existing, the other opened their mouth and showed their personality... and it was horrible, and they got called on it.

Also you are diluting the conversation by jumping onto all matter of other topics. The point is that you're idea of important is not the same as others, but you feel that you are obviously more important or intelligent than others because you are focusing on the "real" issues not the silly stuff. Not true buddy, not even close.

It's ok kkc, this is a safe place, we can talk about why you feel you should have secondary or tertiary rights that others dont? Is it because you have an internal unpleasant reaction to homosexuality? which could lead to you using the word "despicale"?

The point you seem to not be able get is that if tomorrow we voted for green practices across the world, it would still take us:
x amount of time to do anything
y amount of time for any results
z amount of time for any visible results (thats we work off not threats of future results) and there is no way of making sure people don't do what they like. As it is a global issue. 

Marriage rights is country by country. So when a country votes it in, there is no room for dilution, because it is a case of "the same for all". And it is easy to point out when someone is breaking it, and just as quick to remedy it. One country, beyond political pressure, has no say over another.

Each country can fix its inequality in marriage itself, it cannot fix its climate issues itself, there it needs the help of everyone else. Pretty simple stuff really. Has there ever been anything that has had full 100% global commitment? No? so that should give some idea of the mountain to climb, and that it wont happen in the near future.

Which bring to the rich who you clearly hold so dear. They may be a minority, but it again shows either your blatant disregard or ignorance, to claim they dont have serious power. Have you heard of th Koch brohters? Everything non natural bad that happens on a large scale is profiteering by rich people. In fact, have you heard of the US as a whole, or Australia? It isn't spritely 20 somethings running about ruining the planet, it is 40-50yr + men, usually white, and definitely rich.

It is funny, because a lot of the 50yr+ old rich politicians tend to staunchily defend uising fossil fuels, but you seem to give them a pass on that too. which means, that it really is about the marriage equality for you, in the sense that you clearly dont want it.

"Atleast gay people have the right to live comfortably together, freedom of speech in fact all the rights that other heterosexuals do except for a piece of paper" -

so, you dont even know what the arguement is about? It is just about a piece of paper...wow. There are multiple laws tied up to differentiate between marriage and civil partnerships... oh and you know the simple matter of just being fair...

It doesnt matter  you believe it is secondary or tertiary, you have something others dont but should, and that is ok with you, and when they ask for equality, your response is: "what about x, y, z?"

Just admit your prejudices and we can deal with them like adults.

"Otherwise, I can look only at one part of gay and lesbian behaviour and conclude that truly this behaviour is despicable."

Thats right, let your real feelings out in thinly veiled, incompatible analogies. Well done you.

Nir, 

Why isn't there a button to press when one completely disagrees with something someone has said i.e. kkc k!

There is a "groan" button on the "other forum" but this tends to be constantly misused IMHO as people push the button for what they perceive as the slightest infringement or just as a matter of habit when they do not agree with what is being written. In many ways, it is good that Glocals does not have this facility - I once read that the contributors to the other forum were "a bunch of nasty cyper-warriors". Sums it up well. Heaven forbid that it should happen here

For the 1st point the politician raised (about the Irish): either he's commiting public political suicide, or we're missing some aussi cultural background that signals to his local listerners that he's only joking and that he says it all with a huge grain of salt (and non-locals like us miss that so we take his words as is). I don't know, maybe an Aussi will jump in here.  

For the 2nd point he's raising: it's his right to oppose same-sex marriage and express his views about it. There's some oppostion to it everywhere in the world, that's not new. 

Come on Nir. I would like to think you aren't that sheltered. Scramlbing to excuse racism, as culturally acceptable racism? We dont do black face, we look down upon swasitka use, and we no longer have slaves. These were all culturally acceptable at one point. If we kept making excuses, we would have all three.

Firstly racism in jest as a politician, is still racism, and to say oh, its just a cultural thing is the same as the confeferate flag/slave era general named streets in the US, both are outdated and need to go. When culture is based on racism or the fact that you killed a whole bunch of the same people who you now live with and subjugate... it is no longer acceptable.

On to the more surprising attempt at diplomacy on his right to an opinion. He is, but he isnt allowed to subjugate any political discussion because he feels his ideas are more important. Then we would never get anything done, because everyone has their own priorities. You split almost any ideology and it has more shades than that shitty book. 

The thread was about the out-there-ness of the excuse for inequality. His comment was :
but what about x, y, z, and why the f we are even talking about inequality when he has everything he needs... despite majority disagreement with him.

Thats right, it is a majority, so the quicker people get over it and move on, the better for everyone.

It is people like this that we have this current reality.
- Telling people they have basically what you have....but not the same
- so they should be just as happy as you... if not more happy, is the core or most veiled -isms

I suppose the same excuses were pumped out when interracial marriage was fiercely fought against. 

Why should they have let black people marry white people? they had "basically" the same rights, right?

In fact the two "separate but equal" drinking fountains: one for whites and one for coloured people, was a complete non issue right?

"hey you still get water like we do?! what are you complaining about!?" 

"I mean Rosa Parks still got to ride the bus didnt she??.... what was she complaining about when there was war, poverty and climate issues to deal with!"

Disappointed Nir. It even states in the article at the bottom , that the last vote garnered 72% approval for marriage equality. I think the use of the phrase "some opposition to it everywhere" is misleading and besides the point.

It isn't about there being x people in each country who dislike/despise/hate it, because now in most countries the number of people for equality is >x. It is about logic, reasoning, and compassion.

Until they come up with any kind of reasonable/logical explanation as to why it shouldnt be allowed, they are just throwing their homophobic toys out of their homophobic pram.

Farzam: you're disappointed with everyone except those who share your opinion. Relax. You can agree, you can disagree, and do it all without the need to be so disapointed all the time...

@Farzam: I tried hard, but I fail to understand your post. I think you'll get more people to enagage in the discussion with you if you use shorter, more focused posts. This is not criticm but just honest feedback meant in a constructive way. You seem to have a lot to say but you say it in a way that is hard to understand and that doesn't encourage replies. 

we tested that a long time ago, it led to bad results and to overuse.  I read that Facebook also tested a "dislike" button at some stage, and reached the same conclusions.  

So if you dislike something you'll just have to post about it, ideally with some rationale why...(-;

I second that. Keep it focused with clear points, it's the internet...

Thats more than fair enough, i'm going to and from this while doing other things. Will try to be more succinct.

Essentially racism is racism is racism, whether cultural or not. So straining for an excuse to make it less than it is, is an age old tactic, but one we need to get rid of. 

Having an opinion doesnt mean it can be forced into a completely separate issue and expect to get any real attention, and for the conversation to moved onto that topic. 

You wouldnt go to a discussion group about poverty, and try and move the conversation to climate change... telling them that they are ignorant.

These are the same conversations & tactics that were used for interracial marriage, and general equality for african americans and a whole host of other issues.

Detract, belittle, and silence.

Also, I'm still waiting for a sound arguement against marriage equality. Uncomfortableness doesn't count.

Most of the references were to give examples of places where we had similar but unequal standings, like:
- segregation
- whites vs colours in the 50s
- interracial marriage
- slavery
- "blacking up"
- FGM
- binding girls feet
- human sacrifices
- child marriages

(plus countless more)

These were all culturally accepted (and some still are in some places) norms at one point. Should we have stayed back there? 

So for the sake of arguement, lets say that gay people only have 80% of the marriage rights that hetero people have.

kkc claimed that it was enough, and they should move on already, while he holds 100% of the rights.

That is not so disimilar to someone on the bus saying to Rosa Parks that she still got from A to B using the bus. So why did it matter where she was made to sit? Move on Rosa, jeez.

Death by a thousand paper cuts

Farzam, I love the fact that you are passionate, but facts should be what drive decision making.  Lest I forget, I am neither anti-gay nor pro-gay, so please don't leap to that.  You should also calm down and re-read my original response to you and not take my very specfic and pointed remarks out of context just like the OP may have done with the Aussie politician.  Those who know me personally, would laugh if anyone called me a racist (enough said on this point)...! 

If you had a $100 to spend and I said to you that for that amount, I can either solve the climate crisis thus ensuring a future for humanity or gays can have their equal rights, what would you choose?  I am not tying to distract or derail the discussion.

I am talking priorities.  There are now parts of the world that are permanently under water and affected communities have had to move (to where and to what).  Greece has 25% unemployment.  Spain is close.  In Europe, our generation will retire at a time when the working (pension paying) population will be at it's lowest and retirees highest.  My forestiere told me the other day that one species of tree common in CH, is being cut down to stop the spread of a certain disease. It will take about 1-2 yrs to cut down the trees and 100 years to replace their CO2 absorbing power.  The list goes on.

Frankly, for me gay rights are a moot point for three reasons: (0) 50% of marriages end up in divorce in other words, marriage as an institution seems to be on it's way out,  (1) the younger generation are on the whole all accepting making it a non issue and (2) as a society we have much more urgent things to sort out and this isn't happening because our political leadership is spread too thin.  It's not enough to vote and then forget until the next election.  We need to support and guide our political leaders actively.  Not shoot them, especially when the guy is in Australia and we are here in Europe.

I am talking priorities, whereas it seems, you are talking idealogy. 

KKC:

I think your argument misses 2 points:

1. Different people have different priotities, and there's no concensus what's more important than what (and espcially when politics come into the picture). For you, global warming is top. For others, other issues are more important.  

2.  You're assuming that politicians can just focus on 2-3 big things and let go of everything else. Even if by some miracle the whole world agrees that a certain issue is priority 1+2+3, other issues will still need to be worked on. No society can progress if it's leaders are only focused on 3 things and they drop all the rest. 

This is seen as a major precedent...which is a 25% cut by ...2020  (woop woop! slowly but surely)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33253772

This is seen a just progress along the current progressive line. And is immediate. Across 50 states. Through one vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/26/gay-marriage-legal-supreme-court 

So I hope you see what my point was (blimey, who could have asked for such apt literal examples to fall out of the sky) that there is quite a difference between the two AND most importantly that 2 different issues can be handled in the same week.

I get what you mean, but you strolled into a totally non climate convo, and said: This is not important, do you not see that? Talk about what I want. While trying to explain away that politicians racism. (that is him, it isn't his first non-pc comment, and unlikely to be his last).

(the reason i do not tolerate the really stupid comments, is that if your electrician told you that you didnt need to ground anything because there was a special mechanism in electricity which would just stop you from getting electrocuted, would you let him wire your whole house? You'd be mad to because he clearly doesnt know his stuff.)

Climate control is insanely important, but if 25% cuts in the next 5 years in one country is seen as such an insane precedent... then we have a long way to go, and should give you some idea of the time it will take...

No one likes messing up the planet, unless you profit from it, then they seem to not get enough of that polluting. Everyone else seems to falls into ambivalent, do some things, and then the more hardcore types. I applaud the effort, but it is like vegetarianism; they dont win meat-eaters over by climbing up on their high horse and telling them that meat is murder bla bla bla (even if it may be considered by some to be fair, since it is more moral - debate for another time)

Now i get trying to convince people of something so simple should be a no brainer. But the history of most countries show that push has to come to shove, before they do anything without absolutely having to.

To be honest, the only way I see this happening soon, is if China/US/Russia/India/Japan/Germany all sudden have entire revamp of their politicians and leaders. A whole convincing conversation is missing from climate change, twinned with the right wing nutjobs leaving the planet.

(that 50% divorce rate is for hetero couples, right? So I'm not sure its fair to tar newcomers to marriage before they've even had a chance :) )