Government Should Be Viewpoint Neutral

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.

You misrepresent what I've said so completely that it seems malicious. Since you complain that I've failed to respond to inquiries, I will converse with you as if this forum belongs only to us. (Answering all inquiries normally is not appropriate because the person doing that would be hogging too much space in the forum.)

>> You are lobbying for a militant pro-heterosexual/anti-human rights position

No. Nothing that I've said here takes sides. I'm saying that government should facilitate the civic conversation but not take part in it. Government should not be engaging in speech that is not viewpoint neutral. Displaying the world's largest rendition of the primary symbol of "Gay Pride" is civic speech and it is not viewpoint neutral civic speech. My point has to do with government participation in the civic conversation. My point has nothing to do with gender or sexuality; it would apply to a giant swastika painted on the pavement in an intersection. It would apply to ANY civic by government on ANY topic.

Even if you can guess which viewpoint above, #1 or #2, that I personally embrace, I haven't made a single statement here in favor of either one or against either one. I have merely summarized the viewpoints involved in this particular speech that we are discussing.

>> while ignoring the economic issues and community issues involved

This is not fair and it is not accurate. I have expressed an interest in these things and posted questions about them. But I began this conversation by opening it on the topic of whether government should engage in civic speech. The economic and community issues really are irrelevant to the question that I posed, except that there might be an "affirmative action" justification for the government to engage in speech, as I suggested when someone made me see that possibility.

>> demonstrating knowledge of the negative economic impact to remove it

What I know and do not know is of no relevance to this conversation. I just proposed a conversation and did my best to offer a clear statement of the topic. I have no special role here and what I think is of no more importance than what you or anyone else thinks.

>> suggesting equal time

You've said this twice. I have no idea where you got it. I never mentioned "equal time" or said anything about that. I don't even know what "equal time" would mean in this context. The crosswalk on the other side of the intersection?

>> minority, bigoted

Name calling does not advance us toward truth and it does not promote unity and brotherhood. Name calling is what children do. Viewpoints are not bigoted. They are just viewpoints. They are just ideas. Those ideas are either true or false, useful or useless. We are not debating the relative merits of viewpoints #1 versus #2 here. Even if we were, the debate should be about the logic underlying each viewpoint, not about the character of the people who embrace them. Ad hominem arguments are illogical and irrelevant and have the effect of destroying dialog and learning from one another.

>> what majority?

I am assuming that the crosswalk was approved because it is in a neighborhood that is predominantly queer and was thus approved because it is the will of the local majority as ordained by the local elected government officers who represent the people of that neighborhood.

To emphasize, I only want to raise a civic question here. The question that I am raising has nothing to do with the topic of the civic speech. It has nothing to do with the viewpoint of the speech. It only has to do with the fact that government is participating actively in the civic conversation by engaging in speech that is not viewpoint neutral. I don't think that government should do that, both because it would tend to bias the civic conversation and because it would violate the civil rights of those who oppose the viewpoint embraced by the majority.

WDYT? (What Do You Think?) I don't want to know what you think about either viewpoint. I don't want to know which viewpoint you embrace. I want you to limit yourself to telling me how you think government should operate, on general principle. Should the government stand on the sidelines, facilitating the civic conversation but not participating in it? Or should government join the conversation as a participant?