Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

I often find a very helpful trick to prime my BS Detector with regard to a statement like Tisme's is trying to turn it around.
When Tisme claims we have been brainwashed into accepting Gays, Lebians, and others as humans deserving respect and fair treatment, I am turning it around and ask myself,
Could the opponents of recognition have been brainwashed into sticking with a concept that was preached as Gospel for Millennia? Is it possible that their brains are lost to accepting new ideas?
And that, my dear Watson, makes a lot more sense than claiming people capable of accepting new paradigms have been brainwashed and are lost causes for a decent and free society.

Along with "marriage is one man and his women", the Bible also contains rules for slavery, sale of one's daughters, and describes the earth as flat. Slavery and pimping one's daughters is meanwhile frowned upon by most civilizations. Flat Earthers claim to be gaining members "all round the Globe".
Case rests...

Absolutely, I often here the older generation boldly state there "ideals", but when asked to explain why they hold them, or why they think these concepts are true, they retreat to the "well, I was just brought up that way". To me that's a big cop out, if you are going to deny rights to another person or group, you should be able to clear state rational reasons why, without referring to logical fallacies.

So far I have not ever heard a single rational arguement against recognizing same sex marriages

 

[Tisme]

Absolutely, I often here (sic)........ "well, I was just brought up that way". ./

Who has posted that often and can you provide an example VC?

BTW the logical argument you think can be reversed can absolutely be switched by those who don't understand logic, but it is a flawed reasoning because it's predicated on making an incontestable truth a falsehood (e.g. homosexuality is not normal behaviour)

 

[Tisme]

 

[Value Collector]

but it is a flawed reasoning because it's predicated on making an incontestable truth a falsehood (e.g. homosexuality is not normal behaviour)

It's quite normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay, gay people are born everyday.

But who cares if it's not "normal" for something to be outlawed it needs to be shown that it is harmful.

 

[Tisme]

It's quite normal for a certain percentage of the population to be gay, gay people are born everyday.

But who cares if it's not "normal" for something to be outlawed it needs to be shown that it is harmful.

You are now bringing in your own emotional boundaries. That's abstraction and does not alter the facts of logic.

In 50 years you will be less inclined to voice the freedoms our Christian nation has afforded you, because your Islamic masters will be less empathetic to the sins you promote. You may pfft that statement, but history says that relaxing this sacrosanct social boundary invariably reflects the imminent arrival of war and sorrow. I don't know why it's an indice, but it is.

 

[Wysiwyg]

This is not same sex marriage, this is LGBTI the whole transgender movement.

Full on Orwellian, imv.

A micro percentage of the population determining what marriage should be. Two blokes kissing is visually offputting to me. Don't think it should be pushed mainstream.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The queers (homosexuals, cross dressers, sex changers etc.) should have their own formal arrangements. Call it "Gay Union" or something and leave the traditional "marriage" as is.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Re: QandA SSM debate - Can Sam Dastyari be removed from public voicing. The bloke talks so much nonsense. I think, I believe, I think, I believe blah blah blah. Idiot playing the air head court jester. No wise words out his scrambled mind.

 

[Tisme]

Re: QandA SSM debate - Can Sam Dastyari be removed from public voicing. The bloke talks so much nonsense. I think, I believe, I think, I believe blah blah blah. Idiot playing the air head court jester. No wise words out his scrambled mind.

Apparently Halal certification is the tool to defeat ISIS...according to Sam that is.

 

[Triathlete]

Why dont we just call one traditional marriage and call the other one Gay union marriage (or whatever)with its seperate laws and give them all the same rights and if the LGBT lobby then decides some years down the track they want to change something else they can just change the laws that relate to their issues.

 

[basilio]

That was priceless !Great editing. Well worth a look.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not quite the same

A civil union is a legal status that provides many of the same protections as marriage does to couples. However, these protections are only available at the state level. Federal protections, such as tax breaks and social security benefits, are unavailable to the civilly united.

So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage ?

 

[Triathlete]

So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage ?

This is what I think and believe if it is kept separate but with exactly the same rights this should keep everyone happy,(SSM and traditionalists) this way if SS couples have issue down the track they can just change the laws that apply to them and similar if their is issues with traditional marriage they can change the laws there...just my opinion though.

 

[Wysiwyg]

So there should not be a problem drafting Federal legislation similar to the Marriage Act, giving gay couples equal rights before the law, but keeping it separate from "traditional" marriage ?

This thought dawned on me. This whole show is not about family & children nor legal rights nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.

 

[Value Collector]

This thought dawned on me. This whole show is not about family & children nor legal rights nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.

That only just dawned on you? What did you think it was about before?

 

[Tisme]

This thought dawned on me. This whole show is not about family & children nor legal rights nor religion. It's about being recognised and accepted as the same. A natural bonding just like male and female.

Not true. It's about the legal rights they currently do not have in e.g. the family court. They want to get their paws on their partner's assets ahead of the partner's family.

https://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/

 

[Tisme]

That only just dawned on you? What did you think it was about before?

Last paragraph probably applies to many:

"A great many people enthusiastically participate in such movements, often with the noblest of motives, yet without the slightest idea that they have made of themselves useful idiots. "

http://morningmail.org/becoming-queer-society/

 

[Wysiwyg]

In regard to the news clipping, I think this is an exact view of the whole dramatisation.

Ian 05/08/2017, 9:10 am
If the ABC was not focused on this chapter of society then we wouldn’t care and we wouldn’t be hell bent on SSM. We might even be looking at budget repair and what’s good for the country. Instead we have mincing poodles swanning their ‘better than thou’ attitude and ‘I know better BS’ around, slapping the general public in the face.
Seems only the brainwashed and brain dead can’t see SSM for the crap that it is.
Kids to dykes and poofs IS NOT good for the child, no matter how you spin it. Darwin could have told you that SSM is a single generation event, with no chance of breeding through without some external help, (eg your tax dollar).
Be a gay couple by all means but get your mits off marriage, it’s between a man and a woman.

 

[sptrawler]

Is this the next discrimination barrier, to be taken down?

'Biologically repugnant': Parent's legal battle to marry their child

A parent who wants to marry their biological child has filed a lawsuit to overturn laws barring incest.

au.news.yahoo.com

From the article:
A parent who wants to marry their biological child has filed a lawsuit to overturn laws barring incest.

The identities of the parent, from New York, and the child are unknown, along with their exact ages, but the filing does confirm the “proposed spouses are adults”.

“The proposed spouses are biological parent and child. The proposed spouses are unable to procreate together,” court papers filed in the Manhattan federal court on April 1 read, according to the New York Post.
The parent did acknowledge their request was “an action that a large segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant”.

However, they said barring them from marrying their child would “diminish their humanity”.

“Through the enduring bond of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy and spirituality,” the parent said, according to the publication.

Under New York law, incest is a third-degree felony and offenders face up to four years in prison.