Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

2,that's not what this thread is about.

You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.

 

[Tisme]

You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.

I remember reading an article written by a pastor and paraphrasing :" marriage is not merely an expression/demonstration of love, it's intended to be a life long commitment that reflects the biological duality, the twoness of the human race and the desire to produce children, even if children don't eventuate the duality is preserved." I think went on to say that removing the duality is removing a large part of the pretext of marriage.

Of course it all gets back to depreciation of perceived value of marriage and willingness to sell it's residual worth off to the lowest common denominator before it gets written off as scrap.

 

[Value Collector]

You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.

You said you were worried that giving gays the right to marry would make them feel like they had the right to have children, this is irrelevant firstly because they already have that right, and secondly that is called the slippery slope fallacy, if you want to regulate who can have children, then regulate that, marriage rights are not the same thing as parental rights.

 

[Value Collector]

even if children don't eventuate the duality is preserved." I think went on to say that removing the duality is removing a large part of the pretext of marriage.

.

I can see how a same sex marriage based on love is any different to a straight marriage, as you said you can have a marriage without children.

 

[SirRumpole]

if you want to regulate who can have children, then regulate that, marriage rights are not the same thing as parental rights.

I generally agree with that and I would be more likely to vote for SSM (if I get the chance) if there was a restriction on same sex parenting.

 

[Tisme]

I can see how a same sex marriage based on love is any different to a straight marriage, as you said you can have a marriage without children.

Yeah I'm not a fan of marrying as some kind of boredom circuit breaker, as a totem of everlasting love, as a stunt, for wills and estates, etc. I only married after many years of cohabiting bliss for the sake of my clucky wife to be (i.e. kids)..... the love and lust component was not enhanced or consolidated and the bond lasted strong for long......I was also one of those few who had to run the gauntlet of "living in sin". I preferred spending money on property and investment than feeding the chooks.

I certainly didn't do the deed as a look at me exercise in mockery.

I wonder if men were allowed the freedom to speak of such matters, how many of them would have married if they weren't leveraged into it? LOL

 

[Tink]

Well that is what it is all about, Tisme, destroying it.

Agree with what you said, Rumpole, a hotch potch.
Some one will probably marry their brother or sister, and wouldn't even know it.

Junior, I have already said that it over rides traditional marriage. It is not an extension, it is changed completely.
Genderless etc.

VC, so you think same sex marriage should over ride traditional marriage?
You see that as superior to the family unit?
Family unit moves down to 'hate speech'.

The family unit is the TRUTH, and what Marriage stands for.
In no way are the two equal.

The next question should be -- what is family?
In my view, not any mix of people make a family, family IS blood related.
You may say -- like family -- but they are not family, directly.
You can be a guardian, step father, step mother, but naturally, you have your own biology, your own parents.

They even have shows about where did I come from.
Mothers, fathers, grandparents, the list goes on - their history.

------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I have to explain the difference between a mother and a father and two men in Marriage, when one needs no intervention.
They are the GOLD standard.

The other needs the taxpayer to provide for their lifestyle.

A man and a woman is natural -- BOTH are valuable, BOTH are different, BOTH give a sound background and foundations for their children.
That is THEIR responsibility, and they are accountable to their children.

Small governments and less involvement in families, they should be self sufficient.

Marriage should be told as is -- a mother and a father raising their children, a stable home, laying stable foundations, where they have responsibilities to their children.
A man and a woman make a difference in a child's life as I have said.

I agree, qldfrog, that a plebiscite is needed for this, as we all have pretty strong views on this topic -- one way or the other.

 

[Tisme]

Riiiight, the A is for Aliens ? Mustn't leave them out.

A = ABCTV?

 

[SirRumpole]

A = ABCTV?

I haven't seen much evidence of the No case on ABC, I don't know about the other channels.

 

[Value Collector]

Yeah I'm not a fan of marrying as some kind of boredom circuit breaker, as a totem of everlasting love, as a stunt, for wills and estates, etc. I only married after many years of cohabiting bliss for the sake of my clucky wife to be (i.e. kids)..... the love and lust component was not enhanced or consolidated and the bond lasted strong for long......I was also one of those few who had to run the gauntlet of "living in sin". I preferred spending money on property and investment than feeding the chooks.

I certainly didn't do the deed as a look at me exercise in mockery.

I wonder if men were allowed the freedom to speak of such matters, how many of them would have married if they weren't leveraged into it? LOL

I a man not sure who gave you the talk, but you know you can have kids without being married right?

 

[Junior]

God Doesn’t Give A F*ck Who Gets Married

By The Shovel on September 26, 2016

The Almighty Father couldn’t give two sh!ts which humans want to sign a piece of paper outlining their commitment to each other, it has been revealed.

In a wide-ranging interview about his work, which briefly touched on humanity, God said he really couldn’t care less what people do. “I literally don’t give a ****. I’ve got a million other things to worry about right now, and that’s just on Pluto. Next question please.”

Pressed further on the issue, God became visibly frustrated, saying he had only allowed time for one question per species. “Sorry, explain it again. Two humans want to be recognised by some law that you’ve made up and you’re bringing me into this? You guys crack me up”.

Reminded that there was a passage in the Bible that warned against homosexuality, God laughed. “I also said you shouldn’t cut the corners of your beard. But you guys don’t take that stuff seriously do you?”

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/09/26/god-doesnt-give-a-****-who-gets-married/

 

[Tisme]

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2016/09/26/god-doesnt-give-a-****-who-gets-married/

So you are saying the whole LGBetc marriage movement is farcical?

 

[Tisme]

I a man not sure who gave you the talk, but you know you can have kids without being married right?

Can I hazard a guess your father was labouring under the same impression ? Your mum might also have a point of view...or did your au contraire teens witness talking heads replaced with nodding ones to humour the boy?

 

[Junior]

So you are saying the whole LGBetc marriage movement is farcical?

In 93 pages of this thread, I don't think anyone has changed their view. So may as well add some kind of humour to the situation.

Yes, I personally believe it is farcical. But I'm in the minority, most people think this stuff is very important.

 

[Tisme]

So we are to be denied the democratic right to register our views about a fundamental moral/ethical issue. More political intrusion by the public service into our spiritual, family and cultural core.

Amazing how people are more than willing to give over their power to unrepresentative swill.

 

[SirRumpole]

You asked about possible effects of gay marriage on society. I made a relevant point that marriage might legitimise the production of children for gay couples and the consequent effects on those children.

There are going to be a lot of these kids growing into adults without knowing their biological parents, and suffering because of it.

Same-sex marriage: Woman raised by lesbian parents supports plebiscite, wants children to have right to know biological parents

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-...aised-by-lesbians-supports-plebiscite/7923516

 

[explod]

In 93 pages of this thread, I don't think anyone has changed their view. So may as well add some kind of humour to the situation.

Yes, I personally believe it is farcical. But I'm in the minority, most people think this stuff is very important.

Absolutely agree.Lets move on to substance like finding jobs for the 19 applicant's to one job (average across Australia)

 

[noco]

Absolutely agree.Lets move on to substance like finding jobs for the 19 applicant's to one job (average across Australia)

If the Greens would stop their disruptive nonsense and get out of the way there are a couple thousand jobs available in Queensland at two new coal mines.

 

[SirRumpole]

Another advertising job by the ABC this morning having two gay "parents" on the Breakfast show talking about what else ?

How many people in the ABC management are gay I wonder ?

 

[Tisme]

Another advertising job by the ABC this morning having two gay "parents" on the Breakfast show talking about what else ?

How many people in the ABC management are gay I wonder ?

It's the media/entertainment industry.... it has always attracted people who live outside the norms.

Insofar as the ALP putting the kybosh on a plebiscite; I'm guessing they consider their annual conference vote by the membership is representative of the population as a whole? As the union membership dwindles, we can expect an increase in neologists, who stereotype homosexual and dandy cultures, to fill the void.

P.S. I'm still sick in the stomach for that little girl and her future, the deprivation of a mother, her indoctrination into a counter culture, the grooming, etc