Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.
]

Why bother with different names, call a spade a spade, and a marriage between two people a marriage

Otherwise you redefine the name Marriage and so remove its value

How exactly does extending its use to couples of the same sex cause it to lose value

And I also think a referendum should be mandatory for items of society change;

It's probably necessary when you have gutless politicians not willing to bite the bullet and make a decision, atleast with a referendum we get what we want and the politicians don't get blamed for the minority backlash.

 

[Value Collector]

I think it's only a matter of time before, incest, paedophilia, zoo sex, polygamy, unmitigated pornography; any taboo or depraved act will become acceptable in first world countries lest hurting hurting the love and bond feelings of individuals in some lobby/interest group. Society will be considered robust enough to ignore history, because history is for old people who have no idea about anything except pagan worship and phonograph records.

Meanwhile the powerless few who cannot abide thecodes will migrate to comparatively nuance social consciousness' like Islam, eventually a cleansing war, religious power clock reset and 1-2k years later another reset, another reset, another reset, etc

Marriage became redundant ages ago, as technology took the place of "honey I'm home". Much easier having a relationship with a solid state media player or computer than the tedious task of justifying the human condition to a, hand on hip wildcat, other half. A wedding is just another show off event and excuse to break the boredom of a stalled or stale relationship IMO.

Man, that post really shows how hysterical you guys can get.

You should really learn about the slippery slope fallacy.

loss of moral and ethical codes

There is nothing immoral or unethical about homosexuality.

A wedding is just another show off event

I agree it can be, But a wedding and a marriage are not the same thing are they.

 

[Tink]

I would disagree on that:
I have the same stance on both subject: incest should not be illegal, nor should gay couple: as long as you do not hurt any unwilling person, do as you please but procreation as a result of incest should be forbidden due to the obvious proven risks to the kids.
Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.
Otherwise you redefine the name Marriage and so remove its value
but who should oppose the Kardashian of PC and society politics;
In a world where coloured american are named african americans, we will have Peter married to Paul...who cares as long as the next Big Brother is still on
While Rome is burning....
And I also think a referendum should be mandatory for items of society change; [where I would vote null on Gay marriage as in Australia, we can not express our " I do not care feeling" otherwise due to the evil compulsory voting]

+1, well said, though I would vote no.

 

[Value Collector]

But don't you believe the earth was populated by incest, twice.

Tink

Just thought I would point out, that according to your "Moral book" the bible. not only did the world get populated twice by incest, once by Adam and Eve's children and then again by the few people on noahs ark.

But, there is also a whole host of incestuous relationships,

In Genesis 4:17, Cain has a wife, she was either a full sister of Cain or she was Cain's mother Eve.

In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father Noah's nakedness. The Talmud suggests that Ham may have sodomized Noah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a).

Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah, the daughter of his other brother Haran.

In Genesis 19:30-38, living in an isolated area after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's two daughters seduced their father due to the lack of available partners. The two children born were directly Lot's sons and indirectly his grandsons, being his daughters' sons. Likewise, their sons were also their half-brothers, having the same father.

In one of the tales of a wife confused for a sister, Abraham admitted that his wife Sarah is also his half-sister, on his father's side.

Abraham's son Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin once removed,

Isaac and Rebekah's firstborn son Esau married his cousin Mahalah,

while their second son Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his mother's brother Laban.

.
In Genesis 35:22, Jacob's firstborn son Reuben committed incest by sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah.

In Genesis 38, Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a prostitute while she was veiled, and had sex with her.

The biblical character Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochebed, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

In the book of 2nd Samuel, Amnon, King David's eldest son and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar

 

[luutzu]

Tink

Just thought I would point out, that according to your "Moral book" the bible. not only did the world get populated twice by incest, once by Adam and Eve's children and then again by the few people on noahs ark.

But, there is also a whole host of incestuous relationships,

In Genesis 4:17, Cain has a wife, she was either a full sister of Cain or she was Cain's mother Eve.

In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father Noah's nakedness. The Talmud suggests that Ham may have sodomized Noah (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 70a).

Abraham's brother Nahor married his niece Milcah, the daughter of his other brother Haran.

In Genesis 19:30-38, living in an isolated area after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's two daughters seduced their father due to the lack of available partners. The two children born were directly Lot's sons and indirectly his grandsons, being his daughters' sons. Likewise, their sons were also their half-brothers, having the same father.

In one of the tales of a wife confused for a sister, Abraham admitted that his wife Sarah is also his half-sister, on his father's side.

Abraham's son Isaac married Rebekah, his first cousin once removed,

Isaac and Rebekah's firstborn son Esau married his cousin Mahalah,

while their second son Jacob married his cousins Leah and Rachel, daughters of his mother's brother Laban.

.
In Genesis 35:22, Jacob's firstborn son Reuben committed incest by sleeping with his father's concubine Bilhah.

In Genesis 38, Judah, the fourth son of Jacob, mistook his daughter-in-law Tamar for a prostitute while she was veiled, and had sex with her.

The biblical character Amram married his paternal aunt, Jochebed, the mother of Miriam, Aaron and Moses.

In the book of 2nd Samuel, Amnon, King David's eldest son and heir to the throne, raped his half-sister Tamar

Yea... but it has always been Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Wait... wouldn't the world according to the Bible meant that all human procreation are incestuous? And that we are one messed up family?

----

Saw some doco, I think it was "Zeitgeist" or something, where they compare Christ's birth and his miracles to similar, almost identical, stories from other cultures and religions that came before. And all of them seem to derive their saviour's birth and biography based on Ancient Egypt's Ra - the Sun God.

 

[sptrawler]

Simple, put it to a referendum.

 

[Tisme]

Wait... wouldn't the world according to the Bible meant that all human procreation are incestuous?
.

It certainly accounts for some people's inability to think for themselves

 

[luutzu]

It certainly accounts for some people's inability to think for themselves

Thinking original thought is overrated.

Unless you got a fancy title, a fancy degree or two, or a few hundred plus millions... your original thought are just your opinions, and everyone has at least a few of that.

But if you quote from others... it show you're well-read, scholarly, intellectually something... even if you quote them uncritically and verbatim

 

[luutzu]

Simple, put it to a referendum.

Shorten is going to table a bill for it - so our Budget will save a few bucks



I find it strange though, that consenting adults who love each other would need anyone's permission to get married.

The only thing that needs permission from me is being my neighbour and buying a bloody car with sport exhausts and driving in and out of your driveway anytime you feel like it! dam kid! Karma my wife said. But my Supra was awesome!

 

[SirRumpole]

Simple, put it to a referendum.

Referendums are for changing the Constitution. You don't need a referendum to change an Act of Parliament ie the Marriage Act.

A public vote on the issue would be a plebiscite, which is non binding on Parliament, but would give them a fair indication of public opinion.

 

[Tink]

Rather than shutting down debate and forcing an outcome by intimidation and exhaustion, Australian same-sex advocates need to make the case for why redefining marriage to disconnect it from children would make society better and not worse.

It’s in everyone’s best interests to strengthen marriage as the foundational institution of civil society, in which a man and a woman raise solid citizens, gay or straight, to replenish the moral capital of the future.

That’s where our energies should be focused, rather than this relentless legislative “marriage equality” merry-go-round that comes up every six months.

Bill Shorten must be on the nose, and ready to be thrown out.
Whenever they are drowning, they put up the Gay Marriage card for survival.

The last person that did this was Kevin Rudd, and he was tossed out.

Agree, Rumpole - as qldfrog said, I think it should be mandatory when it is society change.

 

[Tisme]

I find it strange though, that consenting adults who love each other would need anyone's permission to get married.

It's not enough just to cuddle up for many. In the hetro world there's a tradition and peer pressure at play. The circus includes a try before you buy engagement which is supposed to take the couple off the market and out of temptation's way. There's even a conjugal rights clause in some instances that can nullify a marriage after a short warranty period.


I suspect in the homo world there is protest, recognition, destruction of norms, financial gain, etc that are major factors, because marriage is not a tradition for them and I suspect monogamy is also a sham given the different value systems that inspire the promiscuous homosexual behaviour in the first place.

The whole push for "equality" of a sect that is obviously different is ridiculous, simply because an apple is an apple and cannot be an orange, but there are obviously a lot of oranges in Ireland who can spot a green and shoot it, but mistake an apple for a citrus fruit.

I know that there is a load of poly waffle about declaration of love, rings that bind, God blessing and any other June Alllison mush factor and mockery that Hollywood can think up, but we lads know the never to be spoken truth on who generally wants the marriage thing and a ring on finger to show her GFss

I say that if the govts have historically written bills and legislation to financially encourage a nation of naturally conceiving families and they are now being modified to embrace impossible to naturally conceive couple, then why not just scrap the whole govt interfering in marriages and hand that back to Churches who thought up the idea in the first place for fun and profit:-.

No taxpayer incentives for people who are stupid enough to have kids, silly enough to get married and dumb enough not to write a will. No widows style pensions, no family tax concessions,....... nothing left but a level playing field and the love that apparently needs a population to appreciate via the ballot box, a love that will keep 'em together. Let's see how quick the bleeding hearts will give up their support of gay rights, let's see how the gay marriages evaporate .. it's basic child rearing tactics, but effective to get to the core of nonsense.

Think of the debt reduction if we did away with govt interference and incentives for married people.

 

[Tisme]

I more I think about it the more I ponder why marriage is regulated by the state and if it is really needed to be regardless of its diminution as a nuclear family thing in recent times.

So I have embarked on a quest to find out what the drivers were for legislators to interfere in the first place.

Here is one viewpoint from an American blogger's perspective:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/01/14...e-state-for-permission-to-get-married-anyway/

 

[trainspotter]

I would disagree on that:
I have the same stance on both subject: incest should not be illegal, nor should gay couple: as long as you do not hurt any unwilling person, do as you please but procreation as a result of incest should be forbidden due to the obvious proven risks to the kids.
Marriage in either gay and incest cases should not be legal or use another name..like civil union which exists already.]

I am having trouble with this statement ...

 

[Value Collector]

Rather than shutting down debate and forcing an outcome by intimidation and exhaustion, Australian same-sex advocates need to make the case for why redefining marriage to disconnect it from children would make society better and not worse.

Marriage has nothing to do with children, because

1, You don't have to get married to have children

2, It's already legal to get married if you don't intend on having children

3, It's legal to get married if you are not physically capable of having children

It's up to you to prove that Allowing gays to marry would cause damage to society, So far no one has been able to supply a rational reason to disallow gay marriage.

 

[Tink]

Do you know what standards are, VC?

That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.

Why should we downgrade marriage for a few that don't fit the mold.

No, it is up to the Gay Lobby to convince us that changing Marriage is better for society than what is the GOLD standard.

I think it should be left as it is.

 

[Value Collector]

Do you know what standards are, VC?

That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.

Why should we downgrade marriage for a few that don't fit the mold.

.

How does straight Marriage lose value by allowing gay Marriage?

Your not downgrading anything, your actually encouraging the formation of committed relationships.

No, it is up to the Gay Lobby to convince us that changing Marriage is better for society than what is the GOLD standard.

I think it should be left as it is

creating a society based on equal rights makes society better. it's common sense.

But the burden of proof is on you, If you want something outlawed, you have to show that it is harmful.

 

[Value Collector]

I think anyone who thinks gay marriage some how devalues "traditional Marriage" needs to listen to these two shorts videos.

Basically it is two brothers, the first is an atheist and the second is religious, both are pro gay marriage, but both bring up topics that counter the arguments made by some of you here.

the second video talks about gay marriage from a religious prospective.

 

[sydboy007]

Do you know what standards are, VC?

That is exactly what qldfrog was talking about in his post, when you drop the value.
Clarify that if I am wrong, qldfrog.

Why should we downgrade marriage for a few that don't fit the mold.

No, it is up to the Gay Lobby to convince us that changing Marriage is better for society than what is the GOLD standard.

I think it should be left as it is.

Tink

can you tell me something a gay couple could do to devalue marriage that a straight couple hasn't already done?

 

[bellenuit]

Tink

can you tell me something a gay couple could do to devalue marriage that a straight couple hasn't already done?

It's pretty clear that those who think gay marriage somehow devalues marriage or that homosexual sex is somehow a lowering of morality are really saying that gay people are a lower form of life than heterosexuals or are morally not on a par with heterosexuals. It is exactly the same argument that was being used before interracial marriage was allowed and when interracial sex was frowned upon.

The truth is that a society that embraces gay marriage and treats sexual relations between gays the same as between heterosexuals is more moral than those that don't. One only has to look at those countries that resist most this evolution in human understanding to realise the backwardness of their thinking.