Congratulations to Victoria and Daniel Andrews

[John53]

That was not specifically about a same sex household but I would say that there is harm done in every environment, iow there is no perfect environment.

Sorry I misread that.

However if there is a choice of a heterosexual couple for parents and a gay couple for parents the heterosexual couple should get the tick over the gay couple simply because it can offer male and female parental roles to a child.

I think it should be judged on who will make the best parents. Being heterosexual doesn't make someone a good parent.

 

[Brian2]

I won't comment on all of this because I'm not Victorian myself and don't really know the intricate details of victorian politics and it mostly seems like a gish gallop to me anyway, but can you explain what a "full term abortion" is? It sounds like a baby that is actually ready to be born to me. So what is another name for that, like a cesarian or something? Are you objecting to babies being born by C section? Are you claiming that full term babies are getting ripped to pieces without anasthesia by qualified medical professionals? It sounds suspiciously like right wing slander to me. If you want to be taken seriously you should at least cite reputable sources of information.

In my opinion.

A full term abortion is when a pregnancy can be terminated just before birth. It is a baby ready to be born.
This is an abortion however, where the baby dies and is left to die.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3
It is amazing that such discussions need to be had. A dog is given anaesthesia for pain, how much more should a pain feeling unborn be given anaesthesia even if the object is to end up with a dead fetus.
The next site is the Legislative Council Hansard for NSW. A speech by Christian Member Fred Nile. It appears that the Martin Lyles video the 2nd Video from the ACL that you did not want to hear took some of his information from this Fred Niles speech. I suspect that what was presented in Parliament was the truth.

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Hansard/Pages/HansardResult.aspx#/docid/HANSARD-1820781676-85327

I doubt that full term babies were being ripped to pieces (I'm sorry if what I said sounded that way, I do not know if that happens but would be surprised if it did) but that is how some abortions happen and anaesthesia for fetuses to which this happens is something that Daniel Andrews opposed.
I'm not sure why you say that the video is not a reputable source just because you don't feel inclined to believe it. (Not that you listened anyway).

 

[Brian2]

I'm not Victorian so can you give some examples of the prejudice?

If you listened to the Sky video you might have seen some.
If you read the Hansard report by Fred Niles you might see some.

I've never heard of this happening. Got any examples of it?

Here are a few sites. The first has a has a section (Section 3.1 C which seems to say that the slippery slope argument is rubbish.
The next site is just interesting to read.
The third site shows that the slippery slope argument is true and gives examples of it happening.
It is interesting to read what becomes acceptable in society over time once the ice is initially broken.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/euthanasia-human-rights-and-law
The right to die in Belgium: An inside look at the world's most liberal euthanasia law
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls

Good luck to him if he can reduce bullying, it's a difficult problem to tackle.

Yes it is a good aim but using gender fluidity theory to do it and legislating against councelling that is not affirming of the gender that a young person has decided on, or making praying with a person who has asked for prayer about it, illegal, seems to have taken the whole thing of bullying a little too far.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What particular ethic?

One would be the hypocrisy in wanting religious institutions to tow a line in hiring based on somone's opinions but not applying the same rule to themselves and political hiring and firing based on opinions of the person who is applying. That sounds discriminatory to me.

I've heard the issue mentioned but don't know the details.

There was something about it in that Sky video I'm sure, but it probably assumes some prior knowledge and was probably just aimed at Daniel Andrew's anti religious bias based on his calling normal Christian views bigoted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as many people do these days of course.

 

[Brian2]

How are you determining that the heterosexual couple are automatically better? Would for example a largely absentee father be better than a lesbian couple with two mothers and close male relatives such as uncles or brothers? And do you have any evidence that such a choice even presents itself? I mean there is probably a shortage of decent parents anyway, so is the market for adoption as competitive as you are making it out to be that such a choice is required?

In my opinion

I have not read widely on the subject and note that many studies show that homosexual parents give good outcomes for kids. I have heard of studies that show heterosexual couple give a better outcome than homosexual couples but I don't really know.
It seems like common sense that a heterosexual couple would be better but maybe not.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry I misread that.


I think it should be judged on who will make the best parents. Being heterosexual doesn't make someone a good parent.

Yes I concede that. All I have is bias and a common sense approach I guess.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think Daniel Andrews has good motives but does tend to go too far in his law making and makes laws that end up being prejudicial against the rights of Christians and other religious groups.
I suppose you did not listen to the video as far as his laws on full term abortion and allowing abortions of feeling fetuses without anaesthetic where the fetuses are ripped apart and allowing them to slowly die if they are aborted alive. Imo that sort of thing is not something to be proud of for anyone. (It might be a logical conclusion of the way someone views a fetus however)
Victoria it seems is pretty much the most socially "advanced" state in the world because of Andrew's laws.
I don't think euthanasia should be banned. But I can see how some people would feel that way, given the way euthanasia laws tend to slide into easier options over time and can can end up as things that unscrupulous people can take advantage of.
I can see that he wants to stop bullying of kids at schools (esp gay inclined kids) but that imo has gone too far and has ended up with the state taking over parental roles and with the legal right to prosecute parents who council their kids against seeking gender transfer therapy and with the legal right to prosecute anyone to whom a someone might come to for guidance and who prays with them about the issue.
This also has gone to targeting religious schools who want to hire people based on their suitability for a job of teaching their particular ethic and who now cannot do if a person is gay. It would be better if the hypocrisy was not there and they brought the same law to political parties who can discriminate on a person's political beliefs when hiring.
Interesting the Victorian law says that employers cannot discriminate against people because of their religious views but when recently a CEO of a football team was sacked for his religious views that was OK according to Daniel Andrews who called the views bigoted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and they were just normal Christian views about the abortion and about homosexuality that his church expressed years before.
It seems Christianity and other religions are not really welcome in Daniel Andrews Victoria if they express their beliefs.

Certainly there are plenty...myself included...who do not think religious beliefs should be given primacy over other rights and responsibilities.

For reference, Victoria's abortion laws are accessible via this link.
Abortion in Victoria

What is it you take issue with here?
I have no doubt that some will disagree with the laws as they stand, and such is their right. But if you could indicate what it is you believe in this area, that might be a clearer path forward than the video you linked to.

We would also be far apart on euthanasia. The part I don't get is that no one is forcing the religious to access these services. And yet it's commonly the religious attempting to restrict general access.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What had the losing side done to earn the reference to "hate"?

I'm Victorian and pretty invested in politics, so I'll have a crack at this.

Some of it dates back to the long lockdowns here. There was pretty heated opposition to them by the end, and some pretty interesting groups aligning to organise opposition. As well as plenty of 'regular' Victorians who opposed them, as is their right.

But also the main conservative opposition party (The Liberal Party) here ran a pretty negative campaign. Of course, an element of that is expected. But I think they mistakenly attacked Daniel Andrews directly, rather than the record of the government in certain key areas whilst under his stewardship.

In Australia, it's the local member you're electing, not the leader. Apart from the few people in Daniel Andrews electorate, no one actually voted for Daniel Andrews. His party can replace him, he can resign, etc...it makes no difference (in terms of the legitimacy of the government) because it's effectively the Labour party we've voted into power.

Overly focusing on the figurehead at the top, and not running strong, centre-left campaigns at the local electorate level was a major mistake in my opinion, and one the Libs appear slow to learn from, at both State and Federal level.

To me, there is plenty of dissatisfaction with State Labour they could have taken advantage of. But for better or worse, Labour has a direction, showed leadership, and has a clear plan for the next 4 years. That was enough to get them a clear majority government, and this is their third term in a row.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes the ACL is right wing but you probably switched it off too early. That was in the first 4 minutes.
Kids actually can be brought up in any environment and not be harmed too much probably imo but the other side is that the best environment is where there is a mother and father and imo if there is a choice the mother and father environment is usually the best choice for adoption.

As long as you understand that bold one as not an absolute, because there is more at play, then I agree.

 

[Brian2]

Certainly there are plenty...myself included...who do not think religious beliefs should be given primacy over other rights and responsibilities.

For reference, Victoria's abortion laws are accessible via this link.
Abortion in Victoria

What is it you take issue with here?
I have no doubt that some will disagree with the laws as they stand, and such is their right. But if you could indicate what it is you believe in this area, that might be a clearer path forward than the video you linked to.

We would also be far apart on euthanasia. The part I don't get is that no one is forcing the religious to access these services. And yet it's commonly the religious attempting to restrict general access.

The topic is not really about my ideas on Victorian laws on abortion. The videos said what I wanted to say.
As I think I have said, I think people should be able to have access to euthanasia, but I have also said that the laws do slide into more liberal laws as time goes on and I have shown that happens also in a study I posted and of course that can always mean that euthanasia laws will be open to abuse for one reason or another.
It's not just a matter of, "people want it so we should give it to them" thing for responsible legislators imo.

 

[Brian2]

As long as you understand that bold one as not an absolute, because there is more at play, then I agree.

Of course "usually" means that the best environment is not always a heterosexual couple. There are certainly problems in heterosexual relationships usually.
But all things being equal (whatever that means) a heterosexual couple is more ideal imo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course "usually" means that the best environment is not always a heterosexual couple. There are certainly problems in heterosexual relationships usually.
But all things being equal (whatever that means) a heterosexual couple is more ideal imo.

Yes, and I have a different imo and then it gets run through a democratic process. And as long as the process is democratic I accept any in effect compromise. How you view that can be different and if you view it as a bug, I view it as a feature.
And yes, I am religious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The topic is not really about my ideas on Victorian laws on abortion. The videos said what I wanted to say.

If it's not about the actual laws, I'm not sure how it applies to the election results, but ok.

As I think I have said, I think people should be able to have access to euthanasia, but I have also said that the laws do slide into more liberal laws as time goes on and I have shown that happens also in a study I posted and of course that can always mean that euthanasia laws will be open to abuse for one reason or another.

Tax laws are open to abuse. The solution is to improve safeguards and close loopholes. Not toss aside tax law.

It's not just a matter of, "people want it so we should give it to them" thing for responsible legislators imo.

No, it's not. But federally we've come off a period of strong conservative right representation, and ended up with fun little outcomes like being one of the last nations in earth to recognise marriage equality. And despite the clear will of the people to have marriage equality, we needed to jump through the costly, pointless and ultimately toothless impost of a plebiscite due to pandering to the religious right.

But still, I agree it shouldn't be a matter of people wanting something, so we just give it to them. It's the very reason I thought the Religious Discrimination Act was a poorly thought through and rushed piece of legislation.

 

[John53]

If you listened to the Sky video you might have seen some.
If you read the Hansard report by Fred Niles you might see some.

Or you could save me hours of boredom and post a couple and as I'm not a mind reader it's unlikely I'd recognise from a video or and article what you consider to be prejudice.

Here are a few sites. The first has a has a section (Section 3.1 C which seems to say that the slippery slope argument is rubbish.
The next site is just interesting to read.
The third site shows that the slippery slope argument is true and gives examples of it happening.
It is interesting to read what becomes acceptable in society over time once the ice is initially broken.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/euthanasia-human-rights-and-law
The right to die in Belgium: An inside look at the world's most liberal euthanasia law
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls

It will take me hours to read it all and check sources. I will get round to researching euthanasia in Belgium but it will take a while.

Yes it is a good aim but using gender fluidity theory to do it and legislating against councelling that is not affirming of the gender that a young person has decided on, or making praying with a person who has asked for prayer about it, illegal, seems to have taken the whole thing of bullying a little too far.

Praying for someone is illegal in Victoria?

One would be the hypocrisy in wanting religious institutions to tow a line in hiring based on somone's opinions but not applying the same rule to themselves and political hiring and firing based on opinions of the person who is applying. That sounds discriminatory to me.

There was something about it in that Sky video I'm sure, but it probably assumes some prior knowledge and was probably just aimed at Daniel Andrew's anti religious bias based on his calling normal Christian views bigoted,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, as many people do these days of course.

I was actually watching Sky News as I hadn't heard the election result when @danieldemol posted his thread. Unfortunately the ridiculous Outsiders show was on and they were talking about the coach who got sacked but were only whinging about it and didn't mention the details. The whole business with the coach and the bullying issue seems to be religious people feeling they have the right to force their beliefs onto others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Praying for someone is illegal in Victoria?

Heh...nope. The supposedly highly anti-religious Daniel Andrews is Roman Catholic (albeit non-practising) and sends his kids to private, Roman Catholic schools.

 

[John53]

Heh...nope. The supposedly highly anti-religious Daniel Andrews is Roman Catholic (albeit non-practising) and sends his kids to private, Roman Catholic schools.

I strongly suspected it was incorrect. I could probably be described as highly anti-religious but I have no problem with anyone praying if they want. I would however object to someone being forced to pray and I suspect the real problem is some feel they should be allowed to force others to pray.

 

[blü 2]

I'm Victorian and pretty invested in politics, so I'll have a crack at this.

Some of it dates back to the long lockdowns here. There was pretty heated opposition to them by the end, and some pretty interesting groups aligning to organise opposition. As well as plenty of 'regular' Victorians who opposed them, as is their right.

But also the main conservative opposition party (The Liberal Party) here ran a pretty negative campaign. Of course, an element of that is expected. But I think they mistakenly attacked Daniel Andrews directly, rather than the record of the government in certain key areas whilst under his stewardship.

In Australia, it's the local member you're electing, not the leader. Apart from the few people in Daniel Andrews electorate, no one actually voted for Daniel Andrews. His party can replace him, he can resign, etc...it makes no difference (in terms of the legitimacy of the government) because it's effectively the Labour party we've voted into power.

Overly focusing on the figurehead at the top, and not running strong, centre-left campaigns at the local electorate level was a major mistake in my opinion, and one the Libs appear slow to learn from, at both State and Federal level.

To me, there is plenty of dissatisfaction with State Labour they could have taken advantage of. But for better or worse, Labour has a direction, showed leadership, and has a clear plan for the next 4 years. That was enough to get them a clear majority government, and this is their third term in a row.

Thanks for that.

"Freedom of speech" is a strange concept at election times, all around the world.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I strongly suspected it was incorrect. I could probably be described as highly anti-religious but I have no problem with anyone praying if they want. I would however object to someone being forced to pray and I suspect the real problem is some feel they should be allowed to force others to pray.

Victoria is a pretty progressive state, and I'd pretty confidently hazard a guess it's the most progressive Australian state. Whether progressive is good or not is upto you (I think mostly good).

Both major parties are losing votes, but the clearest trend is;

Labour losing votes to the Greens, who are now getting about 11% of the overall primary vote.

The Libs losing votes to Teal independents, who are going to take a couple of Lower House seats, and may very well take more than 2 after preferences.

Make of that as you will, but my hot take is that young voters and wealthy inner city suburban voters alike are more commonly looking for socially progressive planning around climate in particular. Some of the stuff the religious right would like focus on in a national sense is kinda done and dusted down here. Not to say we don't have strong conservatives...of course we do. But they're not carrying much electoral power down here.

One of the things that hurt Matthew Guy (albeit not enough to make much difference) was elements of more extreme right views being espoused by members of the Libs. Some electorates are okay with that, but as an overall branding thing, it just makes them look out of touch.

(Parties like Family First, or even the Nats are different in terms of branding, but if you're trying to appeal to a broad church...pardon the pun...the conservative right doesn't help much in Victoria imho.)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thanks for that.

"Freedom of speech" is a strange concept at election times, all around the world.

Agreed, and it's highly variable in relation to what that even means.

Disclaimer : Totally my opinion, please don't regard as gospel. Other Victorians (or people who study Vic politics) may have vastly different takes, but;

The main issue that occurred during the lockdowns which gave me pause was the extension of the government's ability to declare a state of emergency. For me, I understood why they wanted/needed this power, as even some pretty basic things most Victorians supported (workplace vaccine mandates, mask wearing in certain settings, and more extremely stay at home and even curfew orders we had here for a while) required a state of emergency to be declared, and the limitations on length for this weren't designed to cope with a long pandemic.

However, such powers are open to abuse (even though I personally didn't think they were being abused on this occassion) and once provided, they're available to all future governments.

I wanted some basic adjustments to be put in place on the emergency powers extensions, basically providing a level of independent oversight and sign-off separate to government.

So whilst I thought many of the initial protests on that legislation had been co-opted into simple anti-government protesting, I did agree somewhat that the particular legislation was not 'good'. Following consultation with Independents, it was adjusted and I felt more comfortable. The protests and arguments didn't change much, and lacked nuance, but I think they lost their mainstream support and momentum pretty quickly.

 

[John53]

Here are a few sites. The first has a has a section (Section 3.1 C which seems to say that the slippery slope argument is rubbish.
The next site is just interesting to read.
The third site shows that the slippery slope argument is true and gives examples of it happening.
It is interesting to read what becomes acceptable in society over time once the ice is initially broken.

https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/age-discrimination/publications/euthanasia-human-rights-and-law
The right to die in Belgium: An inside look at the world's most liberal euthanasia law
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls

I've done a fair bit of reading on euthanasia in Belgium this morning and it seems the extreme of both sides like to use and abuse the figures from Belgium to justify their position. I did come across a link where a human rights court had ruled in Belgium's favour on a case involving a depressed woman. The only thing they lost on was how they conducted a review of the case. I think it would be near impossible to make an informed decision just by going off the internet so I'll leave to the people of Belgium to decide what is best for them. I'm not even sure how we got onto this as it has nothing to do with the Vic election.

 

[Brian2]

Tax laws are open to abuse. The solution is to improve safeguards and close loopholes. Not toss aside tax law.

If that worked there would be no loopholes at this stage of history.
People always find loopholes and as time goes by with various things (pornography, acceptance of drugs, acceptance of abortion, euthanasia etc) people become desensitised and push for more and it sees, get it.

No, it's not. But federally we've come off a period of strong conservative right representation, and ended up with fun little outcomes like being one of the last nations in earth to recognise marriage equality. And despite the clear will of the people to have marriage equality, we needed to jump through the costly, pointless and ultimately toothless impost of a plebiscite due to pandering to the religious right.

But still, I agree it shouldn't be a matter of people wanting something, so we just give it to them. It's the very reason I thought the Religious Discrimination Act was a poorly thought through and rushed piece of legislation.

Marriage Equality Around the World
We were nowhere near last amongst the nations.
80% of eligible Australians voted in the plebiscite and 61.6% voted yes and 38.4% voted no.
It is a good thing that Christians like myself voted yes.
A 10% swing and it would not have got through.
The whole thing was pandering to a vocal minority and the vote was pretty close really. It was a needed reform to ensure justice in society imo but personally I think it would have been better to not change what "marriage" meant, but to just have a different word for gay unions and have the same laws around it. How simple that would have been and with no hoo har from religious groups probably and none of the unwanted debate that was meant to cause harm to people and which could have been avoided but for the demand by gays that they wanted "marriage" and nothing else, which they called "less".
So anyway, now gays have what many of them demanded and there is positive reinforcement for gays and religious groups are the ones who are prejudiced against in some ways it seems and now religious groups are bigots for teaching what their religious have taught for years and are breaking the law by praying for people who ask for prayer or by negatively counselling them and not positively affirming their choice of what sex they are. (something else which could have also been done in a more sane way than allowing people to just choose a sex and be whatever they choose with subsequent changes to passports etc)
I hope nobody is getting the impression that I am bigoted against gay people, that would be a wrong impression imo.

And yes Morrison should have done something about religious discrimination