I'm not an ally or an enemy.
Those are military terms, and we're not at war.
I'm your friend; and as your friend it's time we had a talk.
The fuel propelling the viciousness on both sides of the same-sex-marriage debate is actually fear.
Fear of state control of relationships.
Either that the state will continue to keep gay couples from enjoying and benefiting from one of the best type of relationships;
or that the state will continue to force people into financial and professional relationships to which they don't consent.
It's fascinating and telling to see the pro's and anti's each reacting to the issue as if they themselves are backed into a corner, while it's the other side forcing an agenda.
It has nothing to do with you, or your marriage.
Just leave us alone.
You want to write an untruth into law, then drag unbelievers through the courts for thoughtcrime.
Just leave us alone.
So if both sides are acting defensively, who's aggressing?
Who won't, 'Just leave us alone'?
Who is it preventing relationships we want, and imposing relationships we don't?
Who has the power and willingness to attack the disobedient until they're either compliant or dead?
That politician you support, who's bravely fighting the good fight on your behalf, your great moral champion in a fierce battle for the wellbeing of society and the future of the country...
Does not care about you or your cause and never will.
He's not working tirelessly for your benefit.
He doesn't care about;
- LGBTQ people
- Christianity
- Families
- Civil liberties
- Freedom
- Equality
- Fairness
- The children.
All he's ever done and ever will do, is enrich and empower himself at your expense at every opportunity. This is just another opportunity.
He's an opportunistic coward, driving society apart while claiming to hold it together, and you know it.
The woman across the street who feeds your cat when you're away; or your cousin's boyfriend, with the goofy laugh; these people are not your enemy.
When they vote in the plebiscite, they're not trying to attack you, they're just trying to keep you from attacking them.
Nobody can defend themselves from politicians and their policemen.
If you try, you die.
The only way to avoid being attacked by the state is to control the state.
To band together into a warring tribe and try to influence the outcome.
Firmly grasping the smooth end of the stick, to avoid the sharp end.
The best thing you can do for society is to recognise that the state isn't it.
I'm not married because a clerk stamped some paperwork.
I'm married because I looked her in the eye and said, 'I do'.
You own yourself, we all do. Drop the pencil. Drop the ring of power into the volcano. Drop the pointy stick.
I am Negan
this is serious (-_-)
Most people miss the self-reinforcing activity of government. It sets up these "issues" to divide the populace and then drives BOTH supporters and opponents to the government for "redress."
Both sides think they're morally right; when the only right thing to do is to love your neighbour enough to leave them alone.
I think I know part of the reason why, people love authoritarian government:
https://steemit.com/teamaustralia/@louisbettong/the-day-i-became-an-individualist
apologies for the shameless promotion Matt
Hey Louis. I only just saw this. As it was a reply to geke, I didn't get a notification at the time, now it's too late to upvote the comment or your excellent piece.
Feel free to drop relevant links in my comments in future, we're all in this together :)
(Not in a socialism way)
No probs @mattclarke, actually if it gets a few extra people to read the message I'm happy too.
We all have crosses to bear in life. It depends if we consider it a cross or a human right. I believe that God made us all with some cross or weakness. Some may be addiction, shoplifting, alcoholism, sexual polygamy, abusiveness, workaholics, etc. I have been a vendor for gay weddings and have worked with many. I have even worked in a gay nightclub, HOWEVER I am as straight as they come and will always be. Obvious i have nothing against alternative lifestyle folks. The point I am making is if we accept gay marriage as acceptable then the polygamist will want five wives and the shoplifter will want to be able to do their thing. what about the child sexual predator will want his rights too. Well where do we draw the line and by what rule do we use? Society's bar of moral code has changed much over the past 100 years. What code do we use to say what is right or not. Should we even consider God's rule of moral code as the ultimate truth of how we should be? It has never changed yet man does. What have we gained it moving the bar of social moral code? The world is still messed up. Even more so for some. We all have crosses to bear. We all have our weaknesses that does not mean we have to submit to them.
I used to think that religious arguments are dumb, recently I have been thinking about the "meta" reasons behind the creation and following of a religion, which I think gets dismissed by ...well everyone. Perhaps they were created for control or out of a way to understand the world around them. This is something that requires furhter looking in to, on my part.
However, I am happy for people to do as they please, provided they are not in violation of the non aggression principle and any individuals rights. I am aware that currently these two principles are in violated on a day to day basis and that the previous is maybe an over simplification (done on purpose for this comment).
I am going to make a small alteration to the above, as food for thought:
Should we even consider God's rule of moral code as the ultimate truth of how we should be? It has never changed man yet.
p.s.
my weakness is chocolate & p..sy; I get more chocolate these days!
@mattclarke,
People will decide what they want to do! It's not a problem of government! Actually i hate same sex marriages, I feel that's "Weird"! :D
Anyway, people have different thoughts and we can't say this is the correct one! And no one want to force others you should get this decision! That's weird either!
Useful article and great discussion you have done! Thanks for sharing with us!
Cheers~
Nicely Said :) But im still for
Beautifully put on why you're married. Funnily enough I was having a conversation with someone just the other day about the same thing. The only reason for marrying legally is to have all the legal benefits which automatically make your spouse your next of kin. This can be done by other channels if need be. Common law man and wife used to be enough until legal started trumping law.
Come to an agreement, shake hands, kiss, however you want to formalise the contract, then get on with your life together.
The state doesn't get to decide whether or not I'm married.
Hello Matt - great post as always.
SirKnight heard on 2GB that some left-wing 'Globalist' parliamentarians were trying to slip in legislation through with the plebiscite the would allow all the transgender BS to be taught in the classroom - you know, teaching kids that there are more than two sexes and other garbage.
If this is the case - it is a definitive 'NO' from SirKnight. Because SirKnight knows that there are only two sexes and plenty of people in need of mental health support.
I am... keeping it real!
What they teach in public schools is only an issue because we have public schools.
My understanding is that, two acts need to be changed. The marriage act and the anti discrimination act. The later is my concern, and I have been informed that certain senators have made proposals on both amendments and that these issues will not likely be resolved in any clear way prior to the vote. Ordinarily it would be a yes (for free choice) however it will be a no from me until protections in place that protect people from anti-discrimination action if the amendments pass.
I think that people should be entitled to spend the rest of their lives with someone who they truly love. Marriage is something that should be shared between two people and that shouldn't be defined by gender @mattclarke
Politicians are there just to get to a higher status. They will jump onto anything 'trendy' or popular so they can get more power and have little disregard for their voters.
If anything they politician most likely won't fulfil your wishes and backstab you and all you can do is nothing. You are the one who fed this beast too much for their own good.
Government sanctioned marriage is not required to do this. Furthermore it is not necessary that the rest of the population provide validation for this; they only need to acknowledge that you can do it if you choose to. Lastly the goal of making this an entitlement is the problem. What we are saying is that we need this action to be legislated by the government for it to have meaning (scary).
I think that is only scratching the surface, and there is a much deeper and darker purpose to political & governance system. Some conspiracies are not theories.
People think they're using politicians, when it's clearly the other way around.
Great writeup.
I am at the same time deeply conflicted and apathetic about this issue.
On the one hand, as a libertarian I believe people should be able to live as they choose and I don't care if someone is gay, lesbian or whatever so if they want to get married and they're not hurting anyone that's fine.
On the other hand, I hate the way the left is bashing anyone opposed to their view. The demonisation of conservatives and churchies is way over the top. I see danger of supporting anything that empowers this mob. Whats next? Polygamy? All the same arguments can be used "If 3 people love each other very much, why can't they be married?" Well...why not...?
So I'm on the fence and inclined to abstain....but then I also believe in more direct democracy and people having more say about issues than letting the cronies in power just decide behind closed doors, so I support the idea of a plebiscite and I want to participate. I just wish it was a more important issue we were deciding on (brace for incoming abuse)
But really, I am in agreeance with you. The state has no place in legislating the status of peoples relationships and marriage actually has nothing to do with love. People arguing this is a plebiscite about love are being silly. You don't need any government to put a rubber stamp on certifying your commitment to another person.
How dare you! There is nothing more important than where one puts their Johnson. (so telling that you would expect backlash from that comment, a sign of the times.)
The bashing is one sided, without a doubt (I don't think they realise that they are the bourgeois establishment). We have so much to fix in this country too. You would think that these kind and empathetic people would put aside there own personal issues and concentrate on something that benefits everyone, like employment, the electricity crises or something. It should be a referendum on the establishment of nuclear policy. I can't wait to feel the full brunt of their empathy.
Next is, Echidnamory:
the practice of or desire for intimate relationships with more than one echidna, with the knowledge of all partners.
deep
amigo #resteemia at your service
'I'm married because I looked her in the eye and said, 'I do'.' respect you @mattclarke
ReSteemia
'UpVote ReSteem Comment'
@mattclarke - 'Just leave us alone' it describes everything Sir. Love your work. Therefore, I wish to ReSteem your post.
+W+ [UpVoted & ReSteemed]
everyone has their choice so i guess no one will have problem with that :)
this is a free world,. everyone has it is right to think. So no government can do it what ever they like, choice should be on people's hand.
what ever i do not support the same sex marriage.it makes me to feeling strange feelings.
I have to respectfully disagree.
Reasoning behind my decision for a no vote; From above comment: My understanding is that, two acts need to be changed. The marriage act and the anti discrimination act. The later is my concern, and I have been informed that certain senators have made proposals on both amendments and that these issues will not likely be resolved in any clear way prior to the vote. Ordinarily it would be a yes (for free choice) however it will be a no from me until protections in place that protect people from anti-discrimination action if the amendments pass.