Comments:Sydney plans loss of rainbow
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Insane||3||19:48, 2 May 2013|
|Government Should Be Viewpoint Neutral||16||03:10, 7 April 2013|
|Rainbow walkway||2||04:42, 5 April 2013|
When do sexually normal but not married people get their special rights or attention?
When they successfully implement their own coordinated public relations and political action campaigns. That would be my guess.
P.S. I think it's worth noting that, at least in the U.S.A where I reside, the rights/freedoms of "sexually normal (sic) but not married people" have greatly increased over the last few generations. It's not been so very long ago that unmarried consenting adults could be arrested for fornication (in general and/or a variety of specific sex acts) in a number of U.S. States.
My understanding is that "queer" refers to anyone who does not completely and always conform to the "marriage norm". The marriage norm states the rights and duties of a mated male and female, states that all should marry, and states that sexual behaviors outside of that context are perversions, i.e. immoral. Depending upon the culture, the marriage norm also includes sanctions to enforce conformance.
Taking this definition as given, "sexually normal people who are not married" are queer. Note also that ALL of us are queer, since practically none of us conforms perfectly and always to the marriage norm.
I speak of "the" marriage norm, which is an abstract general version of the various marriage norms that exist or have existed in human culture. The abstract concept is useful to the extent that the various norms are essentially similar, with the differences being unimportant.
Words are powerful things, and taking care to understand, and to agree upon, what they mean will eliminate a lot of the "us versus them" thoughts and feelings when discussing gender and sexuality.
We are all queer. We differ only in degree.
The queer community should promote its viewpoint using its own resources. There is significant opposition to that viewpoint. Government resources should not be available to either "side" in this battle of ideas.
I offer the following statements of the two competing viewpoints:
Viewpoint #1: The "marriage norm" defines the rights and duties of a mated male and female and asserts that all should marry and that sexual intimacy outside of that context is immoral, a perversion.
Viewpoint #2: Some sexual behaviors, such as necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, and exhibitionism, are perversions, but male-male and female-female sexual intimacy is not a perversion, is not immoral, and should be fully accepted by society.
I am attempting to write this in a way that does not promote either viewpoint or reveal my own opinion. Please do not debate the merits of each viewpoint here. Please also do not nitpick about the fairness of my statement of the two views.
Please DO comment on my opinion that government money and coercive power should not be used to take sides; government should remain neutral and let public debate and opinion take whatever course it will take.
How about you not telling people what they are and aren't allowed to comment on in response to your comment?
Hey, I said "please"! I posted in the hope of a pleasant, informative, and respectful conversation on this sensitive topic. My requests were intended to give some guidance that previous experience has taught me is often beneficial in these anonymous public forums. For example, I think that it is unrealistic and counterproductive to try to debate a sensitive topic when we don't know each other and most participants are hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms. The most we can probably accomplish is to develop awareness of opposing opinions and respect for those who embrace them.
Now, let's get on with it. I want to read what you think about my ideas, not what you think about me or the way that I communicate.
Except your opposing opinion is based on a faulty premise. The government painted the road in what was a major event held on a yearly basis that draws thousands of people to the area, including bringing in international and interstate tourists. If you are taking the neutral point of view: Painting over the road erodes community good will with the government, costs money to paint over and results in a loss of local tax revenue, and poses no safety concerns. This is not really a GLBT issue. Which part of that do you find particularly sensitive?
I don't have an issue with the expenditure. This is civic speech promoting the queer viewpoint, and civic speech is the most important kind of speech in a free society. What bothers me is that government is participating in civic speech in a nonneutral way. Worse, it is implicitly forcing taxpayers who oppose the queer viewpoint to pay for its expression. There are multiple reasons why government should NOT participate in the expression of viewpoints on the issues of the day, but should instead merely facilitate the conversation in a viewpoint neutral way.
This topic is not about the money. It is not about which viewpoint is better. It is only about whether you agree with me that there is something fundamentally wrong about government money and coercive power being used to promote a viewpoint.
I still want to know what the locals who oppose the queer viewpoint have said about it and whether the local press has covered their opposition. Is the Australian press just about mobbing, the way that the press in the United States is? When you open a newspaper in Australia, do you only see the politically correct viewpoint being covered, with competing viewpoints ridiculed, defamed, and silenced?
Er. The government paid for this to promote tourism in the area. If the government is implicitly supporting any viewpoint, it is one that encourages locals to run events that bring in outside money to the region. You really need to take your militant heterosexual agenda at the expense of the local tax base and goodwill towards the local police force and re-evaluate it. You are implicitly non-neutral because you are taking an issue that has little to do with any sort of political agenda, taking an economic issue, and turning it into a militantly heterosexual position. Try again. And yeah, I guess this piece is implicitly promoting an anti-communist/anarchist viewpoint by implicitly supporting a pro-business position. Why do you hate functional capitalism?
Oh, and just so you know: Equal time does not need to be given to be neutral. In fact, giving equal time to certain positions is in many cases patently non-neutral. You do not give equal time to holocaust deniers every time there is a conversation about the holocaust. You do not give equal time to Birthers every time Obama is mentioned. You do not give equal time to climate change denialists each to climate change is mentioned. You do not give equal time to people who believe the earth is flat every time some one talks about NASA. You do not give equal time to conspiracy nuts thinking vaccines are unsafe anytime a vaccine is not safe. The suggestion that giving equal time is implicitly neutral seems to be strange and an implicitly non-neutral way of giving crackpots equal footing in rational discussions. That you want to take a story that is fundamentally an economic one and community relations (for a community located in the heart of the gay neighborhood of Sydney) at its heart and pervert it to marginalize a group and present your marginalized minority viewpoint as a rational one IS an implicitly non-neutral effort on your part. Do try again at neutrality.
The "gay rights" vs. "gay is immoral" argument is rather widely known. I understand you'd not like it to be flamed about here.
I will discourage interpreting this news as a ground for painting government as a body which always opposes gay rights. Government is here to protect society and if you think it erred in its judgment, there is the courts system to look into it.
I'm familiar with the Australian courts system and law and personally find that painting roads for the sake of freedom of speech, while amusing, isn't a very easy thing to classify as a right guaranteed by the Australian constitution. I would personally find that it isn't, and sets a dangerous precedent for future cases, as next court cases rely on common law heavily.
Your post suggests a possible justification along the lines of affirmative action. If Australians perceive government to be an "anti queer" institution, it might make sense to spend tax money to change that perception.
It could probably be a better idea to not be biased against all governments in the entire world after you have a conflict with the USA one though. There already is a petition elsewhere and this page isn't meant to encourage fighting.
I have had an argument against the Australian government about human rights, and it went well, however I don't go and tickle other countries news audience about it. Asking for attention on the Internet is half-way acceptable if are selling or offering something in particular, but not otherwise.
Not sure I understand your last two posts. Am not ignoring them intentionally.
My interest here is not in the issue, but rather in whether you (anyone reading this) think that it is ok for government in a free society to promote particular viewpoints, i.e. the viewpoint held by the majority. "To the victor go the spoils." In a democracy, in which government action is theoretically chosen by the majority, should those spoils include the power to use the government purse to turn the majority view into the universal mob view?
As before, I will recommend against making wrong claims. I find that there is no evidence of Sydney majority being against gay rights nor of Sydney government being biased.
No, no. In all of the above I have assumed that the queer viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. The issue here is whether it is proper for the majority to capture the government purse and use those funds to expand their majority even further.
The point you appear to be making is this: You are lobbying for a militant pro-heterosexual/anti-human rights position, while ignoring the economic issues and community issues involved that actually have nothing to do with any sort of alleged homosexual agenda... you have failed to respond to any inquiries demonstrating knowledge of the negative economic impact to remove it, the additional government cost for removing it, and the issue of negative community response towards the police and government for removing it. You also appear to be pushing for a non-neutral point of view by suggesting equal time be given to a minority, bigoted position.
Also, and I may regret this, what majority? Almost every study I have seen indicates 1 to 10% of the population is non-heterosexual. These numbers have not changed substantially in any of the research I have read dating back 50 years.
Wow, talk about government waste. It cost over three times as much to paint over as it cost to paint the rainbow colors. I thought only we Americans pissed away money so frivolously! As to the negative publicity from the view point of a heterosexual male, way to shoot yourself in the foot Sidney Government.
Is the article saying that AU$46,000 was spent for ONE month of a rainbow, more than AU$1,000 per day?
I've seen ZERO coverage in the news media of the opposing viewpoint. What are the locals saying, both FOR and AGAINST, regarding this expenditure and this very visible statement?
The locals support it: It is good for local businesses by bringing additional tourist dollars and creates community goodwill following an ugly incident at Mardi Gras. The costs were for painting the road and then repainting the road. There is real coverage of "paint over the rainbow!" because outside the one or two people in the government, no one has this position.
And yeah, the major expense at this point, if you are wanting to save money, would be to paint it over. Suggesting you want the rainbow to go for monetary reasons is counterproductive because of that.