Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

It has been dealt with a number of times and the answer was no. Why not leave it at that ?

Daylight saving, republicanism, gay marriage... three pests that just won't accept the umpire's decision. Two have already been sent to the weary public and rejected. It's important the public actively participate in determining if a we obliterate marriage, considered a solemn pledge by many, and succumb to the relentless propaganda being spread by rebels looking for a cause.

Being flippant about marriage, and I am guilty myself, does not preclude our collective responsibility to treat the issue as having ramifications that may not be in our best interest down the track. We already allowed ourselves (majority) to be muzzled with legislations protecting the vulnerable at the expense of our freedoms of expression as we try to assimilate those who will never, by choice, give up their individuality and lifestyle choice. We shouldn't wreck society to try to save it from itself.

 

[luutzu]

Let's say you are right...is that that grounds for stable marriage and stable parenting?

Heteros marriages are all stable and won't at all break down half the time? There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers until the gays come around?

 

[SirRumpole]

There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers ...

They could just as easily be gay.

 

[luutzu]

They could just as easily be gay.

heee

 

[Tink]

It has been dealt with a number of times and the answer was no. Why not leave it at that ?

Agree.

So what are you -- a cisgender going by their new rules book, Luutzu, that we have to take on for the changes.

Have you looked at what the changes are?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193

 

[pixel]

Daylight saving, republicanism, gay marriage... three pests that just won't accept the umpire's decision. Two have already been sent to the weary public and rejected. It's important the public actively participate in determining if a we obliterate marriage, considered a solemn pledge by many, and succumb to the relentless propaganda being spread by rebels looking for a cause.

Being flippant about marriage, and I am guilty myself, does not preclude our collective responsibility to treat the issue as having ramifications that may not be in our best interest down the track. We already allowed ourselves (majority) to be muzzled with legislations protecting the vulnerable at the expense of our freedoms of expression as we try to assimilate those who will never, by choice, give up their individuality and lifestyle choice. We shouldn't wreck society to try to save it from itself.

Nobody stands in your way when you want to keep your "solemn pledge" or consider the "sacrament of marriage". But don't YOU stand in the way of others that wish to evolve the English language. Nobody appointed you to be the arbiter of the meaning of any particular word. As long as I know what my own marriage means to me and my partner, another man's interpretation of his liaison is no skin off my nose.

Otherwise: What's next? Would you want to redefine "human" in the biblical sense, as "created in His Image"? As a good many "Christians" believe that "God is an American", would that then deny all others the "human" label?
Less than a century ago, a chap from Austria tried that very stunt, equating Human with Aryan, thus considering all non-Aryans as sub-human. Check how successful that turned out to be...

 

[Value Collector]

Agree.

Women wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be legal if we just "Left it at that", pretty much all the big wins for civil rights have had trouble getting through at first, then a few years later we can't believe there was even a debate.

 

[Tisme]

Heteros marriages are all stable and won't at all break down half the time? There are no drunk fathers and abusive mothers until the gays come around?

That's an irrelevant argument. Abusers should be persuaded not to marry and copulate to populate too.

 

[Tisme]

Nobody stands in your way when you want to keep your "solemn pledge" or consider the "sacrament of marriage". But don't YOU stand in the way of others that wish to evolve the English language. Nobody appointed you to be the arbiter of the meaning of any particular word. As long as I know what my own marriage means to me and my partner, another man's interpretation of his liaison is no skin off my nose.

Otherwise: What's next? Would you want to redefine "human" in the biblical sense, as "created in His Image"? As a good many "Christians" believe that "God is an American", would that then deny all others the "human" label?
Less than a century ago, a chap from Austria tried that very stunt, equating Human with Aryan, thus considering all non-Aryans as sub-human. Check how successful that turned out to be...

I'll use my freedom of speech whenever I can, until the govt takes it completely away from. Like me, no one appointed YOU as the moral guardian and owner of the sceptre of etymology. No one gave YOU the voice to talk for the majority ... that will be decided by plebiscite or parliament, in the meantime debate requires confrontation with truth....my truth.

I can't talk for other nations and the impact of their actions, but Germany, Japan, Russia, Austria, Italy, Deep South USA et al seem fairly prosperous these days?

You really want to take me on with the english language?

 

[Tisme]

Women wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be legal if we just "Left it at that", pretty much all the big wins for civil rights have had trouble getting through at first, then a few years later we can't believe there was even a debate.

I think it took 4 hundred years for occidental slavery to be abolished, its continues in many places including the east and Africa.

I took working class Australia and NZ to give women the modern vote after they themselves were denied that opportunity. Gays were not denied either of those milestones.

Marriage was defined as a particular coupling for the purpose of govt regulation and nation building, complete with incentives denied those who did not marry, children from wedlock, etc. Back then people were too busy making a crust than argue the toss about not abiding by the rules of society.

 

[luutzu]

Agree.

So what are you -- a cisgender going by their new rules book, Luutzu, that we have to take on for the changes.

Have you looked at what the changes are?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=29219&page=11&p=906193&viewfull=1#post906193

I half understand what you said there. I think we all agree that you mean well Tink, just it also seem you take what others do as either with you or against you or your religion personally. We're not all VC you know

Sometime people just do things that don't align with your beliefs for no other reason than they're just exercising their freedom - or demand what ought to be their right under law and liberty and all that. And if that offends your sensibilities or go against the traditional good old value, well they didn't mean to offend you and co personally - just sometimes the old ways aren't all as good as it's cracked up to be.

But like VC have said before, how does giving other people their due rights and equality mean the taking away of someone else's rights and equality?

If homosexuals are equal in marriage, does it mean the Christian value, though shall not cheat or abuse children marriage be devalue in any way?

What would Jesus do? He'd probably burn down the Vatican and all those palatial churches and their trust funds before he'd bother to hug his Father's queer creations too.

 

[luutzu]

That's an irrelevant argument. Abusers should be persuaded not to marry and copulate to populate too.

I'm definitely sure that if a partner know their potential partner to be abusive, they won't be engaged and risk it in marriage. So unless we can prove that all gays are bad partners and parents, we can go and watch tv and leave people's personal business to them alone.

I mean, no body ask another stranger whether they could marry this guy or that gal; why must the homosexuals be forced to do prove to people that they'd be good partners and parents?

Heck, judging by the going ons with Catholic priests, we should put the onus on all Catholics wanting to raise a family. They must prove that they won't drink, won't have more kids than they can fee, and definitely prove that whatever hyms and hallelujah they sing every weekend in their Church from certain priests didn't infect their moral standing.

But that'd be wrong right?

anyway, why am I arguing with you? dam it.

 

[Tisme]

I'm definitely sure that if a partner know their potential partner to be abusive, they won't be engaged and risk it in marriage. So unless we can prove that all gays are bad partners and parents, we can go and watch tv and leave people's personal business to them alone.

I mean, no body ask another stranger whether they could marry this guy or that gal; why must the homosexuals be forced to do prove to people that they'd be good partners and parents?

Heck, judging by the going ons with Catholic priests, we should put the onus on all Catholics wanting to raise a family. They must prove that they won't drink, won't have more kids than they can fee, and definitely prove that whatever hyms and hallelujah they sing every weekend in their Church from certain priests didn't infect their moral standing.

But that'd be wrong right?

anyway, why am I arguing with you? dam it.

OK let's get this out in the open..... a man who batters his wife and children is committing a criminal offence, which should feel the full weight of the law. It in no way give impetus to the notion of homosexual marriage.... it's a nonsense argument designed to fool the fools.

 

[luutzu]

OK let's get this out in the open..... a man who batters his wife and children is committing a criminal offence, which should feel the full weight of the law. It in no way give impetus to the notion of homosexual marriage.... it's a nonsense argument designed to fool the fools.

How?

What are the arguments against gay marriage/parenting?

Gays are more promiscuous; gay parents are bad for the children; gays will ruin society's value and moral etc.

If gays shouldn't be permitted to equal marriage and parenting rights based on those "evidence" and concerns... let us then see if non-gay people are more chaste; straight parents are all good; traditional marriage are all sweet and uplift and moral.

Since you can't prove the opposite, the case against gay marriage based on such argument doesn't stand.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

 

[Tisme]

How?

What are the arguments against gay marriage/parenting?

Gays are more promiscuous; gay parents are bad for the children; gays will ruin society's value and moral etc.

If gays shouldn't be permitted to equal marriage and parenting rights based on those "evidence" and concerns... let us then see if non-gay people are more chaste; straight parents are all good; traditional marriage are all sweet and uplift and moral.

Since you can't prove the opposite, the case against gay marriage based on such argument doesn't stand.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

All been proved, but ignored.

On a segue watch Foreign Correspondent tonight to see our future for children without a family and rationale where the gaybies fit in between.

 

[Macquack]

I think it took 4 hundred years for occidental slavery to be abolished, its continues in many places including the east and Africa.

I took working class Australia and NZ to give women the modern vote after they themselves were denied that opportunity. Gays were not denied either of those milestones.

Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.

I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?

 

[Tisme]

Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.

I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?

What lesbians were denied the vote? Fact pls

Why would I deny all gays the right to vote? Fact pls

Why don't you just ask a direct question instead of couching in an abstract designed to infer a guilt of some sort?

 

[SirRumpole]

Well, the lesbians were denied the right to vote.

I suppose you would be happy to deny all gays the right to vote?

Let everyone vote in a plebiscite, the politicians are obviously not qualified to judge mere issues of social will.

 

[Macquack]

What lesbians were denied the vote? Fact pls

Obviously, the women lesbians.

 

[moXJO]

Hey Tisme
What does your wife think about the subject?
Not trolling, serious question.