A Political Thread

[McTallshort]

Lowering a voting age to 16 I tend to think is a bad idea. The fast majority of 16 year olds are not independent as a start. Voting at 16 without appreciating what it is to really pay taxes, have a reasonable awareness of full time employment or just generally have to participate in society outside of the very specific role of the student. It's much easier to be very idealistic when you're not actually have to support yourself. So yeah, I'd probably keep it as it is.

Which explains why most extremists/terrorists/over opinionated types come from comfortable back grounds where you dont have the worries of everyday life.

 

[Chikwa]

16 and 17 year olds voting (and 18, 19 and 20 year olds to an extent) would result in two different types of young voter. Those who go for extremist parties, not that we have any it would just be Sinn Fein a party without policy, or parents having two votes. It would be a pointless exceecise if you ask me.

A far more interesting topic in Irish politics is the gay marraige referendum. Until recently I was certain I was going to vote yes and I probably still will but there was a very interesting article in the paper from the point of view of a homosexual man, his name escapes me, on why he will be voting against it. His point being that, first of all a civil partnership isn't a "second class marraige" and that due to the fundamental differences between the relationships of heterosexual and homosexual couples the changing of the interpretation of article 41 of our constitution from the historical to the literal would be inappropriate.

As I said I'm still leaning towards voting yes but it has made me realise I will have to study the terms of the amendment far more closely and not just vote yes because I think I'm liberal and voting no makes the homosexual community a second class community which it certainly does not.

Democracy certainly gives citizens its right to choose! What is a marriage ? What is the importance of a couple heterosexual or otherwise being recognised as married? Is it fair on a child to be adopted by homosexual parents ? If a child's parents die or the conception is by rape & a single mother has to raise the child these are not the best circumstances. In which environment is it best to place the child.
Why is today's diet going back to organic? the answer is because irrespective of scientific breakthroughs what is natural is always the best.creation or evolution causes the natural birth of a child through the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. This act which can only be performed by a man & a woman is known as sexual intercourse . The two parties involved usually seek to raise a family . Their children carry a similar gene pool to their parents.. Is it fair to purposely take a child who has been abandoned for what ever reason and place them in an unnatural environment. Please note my example of organic foods. As you vote kindly consider the above. The impact of your vote will greatly affect your country.

 

[nickdnz]

Democracy certainly gives citizens its right to choose! What is a marriage ? What is the importance of a couple heterosexual or otherwise being recognised as married? Is it fair on a child to be adopted by homosexual parents ? If a child's parents die or the conception is by rape & a single mother has to raise the child these are not the best circumstances. In which environment is it best to place the child.
Why is today's diet going back to organic? the answer is because irrespective of scientific breakthroughs what is natural is always the best.creation or evolution causes the natural birth of a child through the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. This act which can only be performed by a man & a woman is known as sexual intercourse . The two parties involved usually seek to raise a family . Their children carry a similar gene pool to their parents.. Is it fair to purposely take a child who has been abandoned for what ever reason and place them in an unnatural environment. Please note my example of organic foods. As you vote kindly consider the above. The impact of your vote will greatly affect your country.

This was a hard post to follow - largely because on no level do your analogies work. Correct me if I am wrong here, but this seems to be your reasoning:

1. Humans are choosing to eat organic produce for health reasons. The reason for this is because 'natural' food is better than scientifically altered food.
2. In nature - heterosexual relationships are the only way of naturally conceiving children.
3. Therefore - we must conclude that nature has indicated that children should only be raised people who 'naturally' conceived them.

There is a kind of funny implication that sexual preference that deviates from the heteronormative is somehow excluded from nature. But what's interesting about these 'nature' arguments is that they're applied very specifically so as not to disadvantage the majority. People rarely argue with water fluoridation, immunization, artificial insemination etc, etc. People are happy that the average lifespan of humans has nearly doubled due to interference with nature. It's just not okay if it somehow doesn't validate ones choices as the only legitimate ones. There is no study which I have found at all compelling that same sex marriage or same sex partners adopting, results in a worse life for the child. I think these arguments just tend to be used to validate prejudicial arguments of sexual deviancy.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

One of the question's currently been discussed in Irish politics is whether the voting age should be dropped to 16. Among my parents and people of their demographic the answer seems to be an emphatic no. This being the internet I'm guessing there's a much lower average age on here so am interested in what you guys think? From the one semester of politics it is interesting to note that the literature we were made aware of suggests 18 is actually the worst possible age to have the vote at and 16 or 21 are the optimum ages.

I actually feel the voting age should be 21 and then subject to attending a course on politics prior to getting registered- nothing hectic but just something to weed out the guy who really couldn't give a toss (and has no idea what the different parties' actual policies are) as well as some reasonable attempt to inform the general public so that the choice doesn't simply come down to a popularity contest. Either that or decentralization on a huge scale so that smaller communities can to a large extent determine their own course within a bigger framework. IE nothing close to the model in the US where your choice is two sides of the same coin and even then the 'choice' of 1500000 people often has no consequence. I am grossly simplifying I know but that is how I see it.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This was a hard post to follow - largely because on no level do your analogies work. Correct me if I am wrong here, but this seems to be your reasoning:

1. Humans are choosing to eat organic produce for health reasons. The reason for this is because 'natural' food is better than scientifically altered food.
2. In nature - heterosexual relationships are the only way of naturally conceiving children.
3. Therefore - we must conclude that nature has indicated that children should only be raised people who 'naturally' conceived them.

There is a kind of funny implication that sexual preference that deviates from the heteronormative is somehow excluded from nature. But what's interesting about these 'nature' arguments is that they're applied very specifically so as not to disadvantage the majority. People rarely argue with water fluoridation, immunization, artificial insemination etc, etc. People are happy that the average lifespan of humans has nearly doubled due to interference with nature. It's just not okay if it somehow doesn't validate ones choices as the only legitimate ones. There is no study which I have found at all compelling that same sex marriage or same sex partners adopting, results in a worse life for the child. I think these arguments just tend to be used to validate prejudicial arguments of sexual deviancy.

Yes, but Chikwa is also missing the point that nature is a science.

Adoption is the best way in helping orphans. If a child is brought up in a home with caring parents (biological or adopted), the chance of him/her ending up on the streets, becoming a criminal/drug addict, decreases tremendously.

To say a child being adopted by homosexual parents are unfair, is a very biased viewpoint. Being adopted regardless by homosexual or heterosexual parents are irrelevant in my opinion. Both of them will care for the child, teach it manners and moral values and give the child a good home. It doesn't necessarily mean that if a homosexual couple adopts a child, that the child will also grow up to be homosexual, and vice versa for heterosexual families.

Also conception doesn't just happen through sex. In-vitro insemination has been the healthy alternative for many families who couldn't get pregnant through sex, and even assisted homosexual couples in becoming pregnant.

Science assisted here.

I think Chikwa needs to seriously look at his argument, as it makes no sense.

Most of the time children who are orphaned, aren't abandoned. Most of the time it's due to death of the biological parents.

 

[j'nuh]

This was a hard post to follow - largely because on no level do your analogies work. Correct me if I am wrong here, but this seems to be your reasoning:

1. Humans are choosing to eat organic produce for health reasons. The reason for this is because 'natural' food is better than scientifically altered food.
2. In nature - heterosexual relationships are the only way of naturally conceiving children.
3. Therefore - we must conclude that nature has indicated that children should only be raised people who 'naturally' conceived them.

There is a kind of funny implication that sexual preference that deviates from the heteronormative is somehow excluded from nature. But what's interesting about these 'nature' arguments is that they're applied very specifically so as not to disadvantage the majority. People rarely argue with water fluoridation, immunization, artificial insemination etc, etc. People are happy that the average lifespan of humans has nearly doubled due to interference with nature. It's just not okay if it somehow doesn't validate ones choices as the only legitimate ones. There is no study which I have found at all compelling that same sex marriage or same sex partners adopting, results in a worse life for the child. I think these arguments just tend to be used to validate prejudicial arguments of sexual deviancy.

There's another side to the "nature" argument: homosexuality is natural. Rareness of a trait doesn't make something unnatural. Orange hair is natural. Being a 5' man is natural. etc. People aren't changing their sexual preferences artificially.

Although I agree with you. Unnatural doesn't mean wrong.

 

[nickdnz]

There's another side to the "nature" argument: homosexuality is natural. Rareness of a trait doesn't make something unnatural. Orange hair is natural. Being a 5' man is natural. etc. People aren't changing their sexual preferences artificially.

Although I agree with you. Unnatural doesn't mean wrong.

Yeah, my point was entirely that. Homosexuality is entirely present in nature - in certain circumstances its not even all that rare.

There is a kind of funny implication that sexual preference that deviates from the heteronormative is somehow excluded from nature

Was very much what I was trying to say. I think he was pointing that natural childbirth only occurs in heterosexual relationships. It was this argument in which I was arguing against the virtue of natural.

My own very specific views on homosexuality and heterosexuality is that they probably exist on a spectrum anyway. I think a dichotomy of sexuality is a cultural construct as much as anything (which isn't to say it isn't real).

 

[Feicarsinn]

I actually feel the voting age should be 21 and then subject to attending a course on politics prior to getting registered- nothing hectic but just something to weed out the guy who really couldn't give a toss (and has no idea what the different parties' actual policies are) as well as some reasonable attempt to inform the general public so that the choice doesn't simply come down to a popularity contest. Either that or decentralization on a huge scale so that smaller communities can to a large extent determine their own course within a bigger framework. IE nothing close to the model in the US where your choice is two sides of the same coin and even then the 'choice' of 1500000 people often has no consequence. I am grossly simplifying I know but that is how I see it.

No chance of that happening. Can you imagine the uproar if the government of the day tried to introduce a mandatory course educating people about the political system that they'd need to vote? It'd be destroyed.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

No chance of that happening. Can you imagine the uproar if the government of the day tried to introduce a mandatory course educating people about the political system that they'd need to vote? It'd be destroyed.

A man can only dream (of educated, responsible voters).

 

[j'nuh]

UK government the first to pass "three-person babies". One of the few times I've actually felt positive towards our government.

No chance of that happening. Can you imagine the uproar if the government of the day tried to introduce a mandatory course educating people about the political system that they'd need to vote? It'd be destroyed.

And rightly so. It would be ethically and practically a nightmare to operate. At worst, it will empower dodgy governments and further solidify a ruling class.

 

[nickdnz]

Just on the issue of 'who should vote' and what should be required to vote. I think when it comes to national elections its just best everyone has the option to vote. If you can manage to get to a voting booth, your opinion no matter how potentially stupid, counts (my current job is in political polling and communications strategy, it is astounding the number of people who say they are voting for a party without being to name the parties leader...). However for things like local body elections (not sure if its similar outside New Zealand) - it boggles my mind that people are expected to vote on things like DHB appointments. Information to the public on who is qualified for these positions is not readily available, and so people are expected to make those decisions based on a small paragraph summary of their proposals - and their picture. I think outside of national elections, there generally needs to be a process, even if its as simple as making voters register an interest in order to vote per position, to show that selection of positions isn't just arbitrary.

 

[Chikwa]

Margaret Thatcher famously quoted that a family is the foundation of a nation. She was not the first to realise this and she is most probably not the owner of the quote . My point was to try to illustrate that the results and consequences of the referendum goes beyond giving legal rights to same sex couples . Whether they are homosexual or lesbian ?What will the impact be on a society or a civilisation when they pass or reject legislation ! Will it be the same as the abolition of slavery or the emancipation of women in regard to voting rights? Or will it have an adverse effect ? Any historians on the forum who would care to weight in.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Margaret Thatcher famously quoted that a family is the foundation of a nation. She was not the first to realise this and she is most probably not the owner of the quote . My point was to try to illustrate that the results and consequences of the referendum goes beyond giving legal rights to same sex couples . Whether they are homosexual or lesbian ?What will the impact be on a society or a civilisation when they pass or reject legislation ! Will it be the same as the abolition of slavery or the emancipation of women in regard to voting rights? Or will it have an adverse effect ? Any historians on the forum who would care to weight in.

What??

You do know that being lesbian and homosexual are the exact same thing?? Lesbians are homosexual females...

Also what does the sexual orientation have to do with your right to vote?? Being homosexual is not in any way in the same boundaries as slavery or the emancipation of women.

Slavery prevented people from being free, and also prevented them to vote. The same could be said about women.

Being homosexual doesn't prevent anyone from voting. And it's also a person's choice to make it public or not. A gay couple is still a family, so I don't know what you are trying to say by quoting the Iron Lady.

 

[Vladimir12]

It was just a joke mate from my time in Bosnia don't take me too seriously

In my opinion it is insulting joke, I do not know how it will react BalkanBoy especially when you consider that your country bombed his country for 3 months on false pretext ...

 

[McTallshort]

In my opinion it is insulting joke, I do not know how it will react BalkanBoy especially when you consider that your country bombed his country for 3 months on false pretext ...

What like your is shelling the Ukraine? Or Killing people with radioactive poison? do try taking the high ground with me mate. I was in the Balkans when it was very messy what have you done outside playing a keyboard warrior

 

[Draggs]

If you want to debate these things, take it to the political thread. Keep it off the rugby threads please!

 

[Vladimir12]

What like your is shelling the Ukraine? Or Killing people with radioactive poison? do try taking the high ground with me mate. I was in the Balkans when it was very messy what have you done outside playing a keyboard warrior

I am an officer of the Russian army in retirement, but instead their knowledge about Ukraine and "the radioactive poison" write better about rugby.

At least I'm going to do in the future ...

 

[McTallshort]

I am an officer of the Russian army in retirement, but instead their knowledge about Ukraine and "the radioactive poison" write better about rugby.

At least I'm going to do in the future ...

in the words of Jim Telfer "oh Speak English" and whatever that means

 

[Vladimir12]

in the words of Jim Telfer "oh Speak English" and whatever that means

This text I have not mastered ...

 

[McTallshort]

This text I have not mastered ...

Like Putin hasn't mastered diplomacy how are things with Georgia now after you invaded them?