Gay Marriage

[Logique]

Not specifically about marriage per se,

but the poor girls, what a bolshie cop! Let's have none of such discrimination in our country.

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/les...kissing-in-a-supermarket-20151029-gkmewn.html
Lesbian couple allege a Hawaiian police officer arrested them for kissing in a supermarket - October 30, 2015

A police department in Hawaii has been accused of discriminating against a lesbian couple after a confrontation with an officer while the women were trying to enjoy a romantic holiday.

Courtney Wilson, 25, and Taylor Guerrero, 22, had been on holiday in Oahu for just two days when they were arrested, put behind bars and forced to live on the streets after spending their trip budget on bail......

 

[Tisme]

Sorry mate, its you that's making the claim that Marriage is solely about procreation, so why don't you point out the part in the marriage act stating marriage is for the sole reason of procreation.

Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value, as I said just because you saw marriage as nothing more than a vehicle for procreation doesn't mean that the way everyone looks at it.

Can't answer the question eh? That's because the marriage act is only about who can marry whom and who can celebrate, etc.

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR "LOVE" AND OTHER QAUNDARIES IN THE ACT ..... THAT YOU WANT CHANGED ON THE BASIS OF MUTUAL ATTRACTION AND "LOVE/LUST"

You need to go back to early colony days and see how marriage was used as a means of preventing procreation amongst convicts and very importantly to prevent miscegenation between aboriginals and the non indigenous. Love never came into it as far the law was concerned.

 

[Value Collector]

That's because the marriage act is only about who can marry whom and who can celebrate, etc.

[.

Exactly, which is why I said the quoted paragraph below, hence you question is a stupid question, Because its not up to an act of parliament to layout what people enjoy about certain rights.

Its not up to the Marriage act to stipulate what people value about their marriages anymore than its up to the property ownership acts to stipulate what people value about owning their own home, there would be a whole host benefits to both property ownership and marriage that different people value,

 

[Tisme]

Exactly, which is why I said the quoted paragraph below, hence you question is a stupid question, Because its not up to an act of parliament to layout what people enjoy about certain rights.

Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.

The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.

The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc

 

[Hodgie]

Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.

The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.

The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc

I'm pretty sure VC is saying that the marriage act wouldn't and shouldn't have anything to do with Love/lust etc. Just the same as it won't have anything to do with creating offspring. Those are things you brought up which VC has never argued.

The marriage act is simply about who can get married not the reasons for why people get married because the reasons can be different and are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that the gays should be offered the same opportunity to get married for whatever reason they choose to the same as a hetero couple can.

 

[Value Collector]

Why are you resorting to slurs VC? My questions are perfectly valid and you haven't debunked any of my quarrel, preferring to skirt around the core facts and talk up all the subjective touchy feely stuff, even through in fallacious arguments about southern fried blacks for goodness sakes.

The act you want changed is not predicated on LOVE, LUST, EROTICISM, et al it is a parliamentary act that enables a state authorised celebration of two recognised hetrosexual people coupling to be recognised in law as married.

The reasons it was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc

lets do a brief recap.

You said marriage is solely about procreation.

I said that it wasn't, it was about many things, because people value many things about there marriage not just procreation.

you then said show me where in the marriage act it mentions love.

Now apart from the fact that I didn't claim the marriage act mentioned love, it is a silly question to ask, because as I pointed out people might list many different benefits to property ownership that are not listed in the property ownership laws, so it would be silly to ask "Show me where in the property ownership act it says property ownership is about having a stable family home"

But really you are skipping the burden of proof on your claim that marriage is solely about procreation, why don't you find that in the marriage act

 

[Value Collector]

I'm pretty sure VC is saying that the marriage act wouldn't and shouldn't have anything to do with Love/lust etc. Just the same as it won't have anything to do with creating offspring. Those are things you brought up which VC has never argued.

The marriage act is simply about who can get married not the reasons for why people get married because the reasons can be different and are irrelevant to the topic. The point is that the gays should be offered the same opportunity to get married for whatever reason they choose to the same as a hetero couple can.

+1

exactly

 

[pixel]

The reasons it [the marriage act] was enacted was to provide a basis for stable community, tracking, organising, taxation relief, financial, welfare, etc

Now we're getting somewhere.
From a secular constitution, one should expect no more and no less than a framework that provides such a basis, simply ensuring that couples can live together peacefully, enjoying equitable treatment wrt taxation, welfare, and mutual assistance. Seeing that we're no longer allowed to be racist and sexist, it's an anachronism to discriminate against couples because one partner has the wrong gender.

Isn't it curious that most of our elected parliamentarians have a background in Law, yet never mention the discrepancy between anti-discrimination and family law. Could it be that a religious affiliation renders one incapable of rational thought, and that's the real reason why Rudd and Abbott were doomed to fail?

 

[Tisme]

lets do a brief recap.

You said marriage is solely about procreation.

I don't recall that...can you refer me to where I stated that?

I'm thinking you are back peddling VC

 

[Tisme]

Now we're getting somewhere.
From a secular constitution, one should expect no more and no less than a framework that provides such a basis, simply ensuring that couples can live together peacefully, enjoying equitable treatment wrt taxation, welfare, and mutual assistance. Seeing that we're no longer allowed to be racist and sexist, it's an anachronism to discriminate against couples because one partner has the wrong gender.

Isn't it curious that most of our elected parliamentarians have a background in Law, yet never mention the discrepancy between anti-discrimination and family law. Could it be that a religious affiliation renders one incapable of rational thought, and that's the real reason why Rudd and Abbott were doomed to fail?

I think I have made it fairly clear I think western marriage has become an anachronism due to many reasons, keeping it going and adding different brand spokes to replace the ones that are falling off ain't gonna save it IMO. The welfare state already provides the same benefits for defacto and even pings defactos with the same weight as married couples.

I don't think religion comes into it, rather instinct to dismiss and distrust the oddity that might dilute the integrity of the tribe.....religion probably arises as a totem from the confluence of the multiple oddities.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't recall that...can you refer me to where I stated that?

Not sure if your memory is short or just selective.

Surely marriage should be reserved for those who have fulfilled their intended developmental maturation as nature intended i.e. e.g. procreation?

Because that is what is was invented for.

:

when couples marry, their intention is to create a nest and a family.

There was a time when people had to have medicals, virginity and fertility tests before they could be married in various institutions.

I won't link them all, but if you go back through you posts you are constantly linking marriage to procreation, and using the fact that a same sex couple can't procreate naturally as a reason for them not to be allowed to marry, when I point out that there are other reasons people value marriage, you seem confused and unable to understand that there are other reasons people marry, so yes your arrguement is that marriage is solely about procreation, other wise you would have to admit that it its not solely about procreation, and your arrguement using procreation as a reason to deny Ssm falls apart.

 

[Tisme]

Not sure if your memory is short or just selective.









I won't link them all, but if you go back through you posts you are constantly linking marriage to procreation, and using the fact that a same sex couple can't procreate naturally as a reason for them not to be allowed to marry, when I point out that there are other reasons people value marriage, you seem confused and unable to understand that there are other reasons people marry, so yes your arrguement is that marriage is solely about procreation, other wise you would have to admit that it its not solely about procreation, and your arrguement using procreation as a reason to deny Ssm falls apart.

According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ... I sprang it at a party and the place erupted in gaffaws

So you disagree that marriage isn't inclusive of an attempt at (natural) procreation? Didn't I make a post about marriages for alliances, chatels, etc....damn I must be losing it?

I could have sworn you were cherry picking ............

No seriously you honestly think that people who are more likely than not virgins should marry so they can continue too be virgins and never consummate the marriage therefore nullifying the bann? And let's not mince words about what real sex is please.

Do you honestly have so little little regard for you own family that you treat your ancestor's belief in the institution of marriage with not only contempt, for which I am guilty too, but you then rub their faces in it by ridiculing it and defacing it with shambolic logic that people, who have an obsession playing with same gender pinky bits and wastelands, should be afforded govt recognition . That was a rhetorical question thus the absence of question mark .

 

[Value Collector]

According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ...
D

Ok, now can you provide a link to where I said that?

I sprang it at a party and the place erupted in gaffaws

No doubt they did, because that's a strawman you invented yourself, so they are laughing at your Idea, not mine.

So you disagree that marriage isn't inclusive of an attempt at (natural) procreation?

No I don't disagree some people marry to procreate, I disagree that it is the sole or even the most important reason.

Using procreation as a reason to restrict gays, assumes its the only reason, so if you admit its not the only reason, your arrguement falls apart

No seriously you honestly think that people who are more likely than not virgins should marry so they can continue too be virgins and never consummate the marriage therefore nullifying the bann? And let's not mince words about what real sex is please.

more than likely virgins???? what world do you live in.

either way, people have sex for more reasons than procreation.

Do you honestly have so little little regard for you own family that you treat your ancestor's belief in the institution of marriage with not only contempt,

I have more regard actually, You claim their marriage was only valuable as a vehicle for breeding, I say there were many benefits that they valued, I a bet they would agree with me.

 

[Tisme]

more than likely virgins???? what world do you live in.

.

Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse? The word is an old one and sexual intercourse is an old practice too.

A few decades back the used to call homo men bachelor boys

 

[Value Collector]

Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse? The word is an old one and sexual intercourse is an old practice too.

But were you saying that people that get married are more than likely virgins?

If not the meaning of that paragraph is lost on me.

According to you homosexuals invented marriage ( I still can't hold back the uncontrollable laughter at that pearl) ...
D

Don't forget to provide a link to where I said that.

 

[Tisme]

But were you saying that people that get married are more than likely virgins?

If not the meaning of that paragraph is lost on me.



Don't forget to provide a link to where I said that.

No I'm saying true and faithful homosexuals must by definition be virgins, because they have not had sexual intercourse.

I'll have to troll for it, but I'm pretty sure it was you .... now you have me second guessing, maybe it was that other guy from Perth ....


Honest truth, I just looked up stuff about marriage and found a few interesting tidbits:

Marriage in England was given state control in the mid 1700's to stop couples in prison getting a backdoor bann and doin' it.:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/1753.htm

the courts even reckoned marriage was/is primarily for procreation and child rearing, family value systems, etc (go grandma for teaching me correct!!). Of course that's all flotsam and jetsam now, but I AM A GOD!!!!

http://marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/ave maria 1.pdf

 

[Value Collector]

No I'm saying true and faithful homosexuals must by definition be virgins, because they have not had sexual intercourse.

I still have no Idea what you are talking about or what it has to do with marriage.

I'll have to troll for it, but I'm pretty sure it was you ....

It wasn't me, and I can't remember anyone saying anything like that.

the courts even reckoned marriage was/is primarily for procreation and child rearing,

lol, you lot and your Christian fundamentalist sources. That link is from a Catholic law school, and its published by students.

So the "courts" don't agree with you, some students at a catholic school agree with you, and the high court of the USA disagrees with you, because they recently allowed same sex marriage.

The Ave Maria School of Law, founded in 1999, is an ABA-accredited Roman Catholic law school, located in Naples, Florida

.

 

[Value Collector]

.Well what do you call, say a woman who has never had sexual intercourse?

]

Sounds like you are in favor of this logic.

 

[Tisme]

Holland after 12 years of gay abandon:

2013 Homophobia remains
Twelve years of same-sex marriage did not wipe out homophobia from society. For instance, Yunus, now 9, and his adoptive mothers had to go into hiding, fearing for their safety.

Bullying and victimisation also still occurs on a daily basis. A recent study by Dutch and American scientists concluded that lesbian, gay and bisexual youths are still victims of stigmatisation in their families, schools and neighbourhoods.

These words and acts have tragic consequences: almost 64% of the surveyed LGBT 18-24-year-olds in the study reported thinking about suicide and almost 13% of them attempted suicide. For straight Dutch youths of the same age group, the figures are respectively 10.3% (thought about suicide) and 2.2% (attempted suicide). The study suggests that ongoing persecution, especially at school and by the parents, are linked to increased risks in suicidal thoughts and attempts.

Chambon notes that there have been a handful of lesbian couples who had to move because of negative and aggressive reactions from their neighbours. But, he says, those are “marginal epi-phenomena”, equivalent in numbers to the occurrence of migrant families who had to move because of racism in their neighbourhoods. However, he recalls that, when looking for a new flat with his husband, several people strongly recommended against moving to a few districts in Amsterdam because they fear the locals’ reactions. Proof, if need be, that equality is only real when the mindset, not only the legal framework, changes too.

Can't legislate out primal bias

 

[Tisme]

Sounds like you are in favor of this logic.

That's what the greeks girls have practiced for millenia... they obviously know the difference .... I think Bill Clinton used a similar defence for his beloved Gurkha Grand Reserves.