This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Gay Marriage

Jump to new

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
 
Value Collector said:
Absolutely, I often here (sic)........ "well, I was just brought up that way". ./
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Value Collector said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Full on Orwellian, imv.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Wysiwyg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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 ?
 
SirRumpole said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
SirRumpole said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wysiwyg said:
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.
Click to expand...

That only just dawned on you? What did you think it was about before?
 
Wysiwyg said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Heresy: What is it in the 21st century?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Smurf1976
The role of Private Equity
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
605
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...