Gay Marriage

[Tisme]

". No intelligent person would seriously suggest gay people 'choose' to be gay or that it is a lifestyle choice.



.

I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.

Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth.

Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).

 

[sydboy007]

I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.

Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth.

Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).

I sometimes wonder if you're trolling or if your are serious when you say this blatantly wrong stuff.

I can picture you standing against changing marriage from polygamy to monogamous all those years ago. Claiming the world will end if married women are granted the right to own property. Gosh, why would you let a woman vote. She'll just confirm her husband's choice so there's really no need.

 

[trainspotter]

I sometimes wonder if you're trolling or if your are serious when you say this blatantly wrong stuff.

I can picture you standing against changing marriage from polygamy to monogamous all those years ago. Claiming the world will end if married women are granted the right to own property. Gosh, why would you let a woman vote. She'll just confirm her husband's choice so there's really no need.

The moral decay of society eh what old chum?

 

[luutzu]

I'm guessing you have an app that scores intelligence.

Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice. You aren't compelled to play with the pinky bits of people of your same sex, just as a hetrosexual isn't made to carry out the drive. Why even try to make out it's anything but an attitude driven by a desire...... which babies don't have at birth.

Similarly why do I have to act on your insistence you be allowed to clear fell a custom (marriage) so that we can get a good look at the alternative scene (sham marriage fad).

Why would you think homosexuality is a choice?

I mean, why would anyone "choose" to feel one way or another when they can just feel it? Say a male can find a gal in a bikini and like what he sees, or see another dude in a Bonds and like what he see... why does he have to choose to like one over the other? He just know who turns him on and that's that to him.

If there's a choice, the way societal norms, familial pressures and peers bigotry have it, people would choose "not" to be homosexual, not the other way around.

That and I think all scientists on the subject does not believe it to be a choice, or a mental illness either.

 

[sydboy007]

The moral decay of society eh what old chum?

The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.

Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries.

So why was it ok for the social construct of marriage to have changed so much in the past, but now it's to remain static in perpetuity.

When does kanut stop flogging a dead tide :-D

 

[trainspotter]

Why would you think homosexuality is a choice?

I mean, why would anyone "choose" to feel one way or another when they can just feel it? Say a male can find a gal in a bikini and like what he sees, or see another dude in a Bonds and like what he see... why does he have to choose to like one over the other? He just know who turns him on and that's that to him.

If there's a choice, the way societal norms, familial pressures and peers bigotry have it, people would choose "not" to be homosexual, not the other way around.

That and I think all scientists on the subject does not believe it to be a choice, or a mental illness either.

luutzu I am interested in this thesis of non societal normal boundary collapse. Where does it end ? All for recognition of prejudice in society and to whose standard do we apply? The current way of thinking is to allow this "marriage" to cohabitant with the straight community and we should tolerate it whether we want to or not.

Maybe our next discussion would be do we allow Downs syndrome people to marry and bear the right to child?

In no way am I comparing the same rights to either party ,, I am more interested are you an advocate of free speech because this is a minority vote or is it ideals you truly believe in? Or both?

 

[luutzu]

The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.

Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries.

So why was it ok for the social construct of marriage to have changed so much in the past, but now it's to remain static in perpetuity.

When does kanut stop flogging a dead tide :-D

because we all know the younger generations will always ruin everything. Centuries after centuries, it's always the young that ruin stuff.

Some things are worth ruining though.

 

[trainspotter]

The silly concept of marriage as a tradition of values that must be protected like a chaiste daughter.

Marriage is a social construct, and like the society doing the constructing, has changed dramatically over the centuries.

So why was it ok for the social construct of marriage to have changed so much in the past, but now it's to remain static in perpetuity.

When does kanut stop flogging a dead tide :-D

Then let it be exactly what you called it ... a chaiste daughter. If the LGBT lickalotofpussy wants the same rights then give it to them I say. What I fail to understand as to why you would want to call it "marriage"? As a gay person I would want my own rainblow unicorn day of self service (used to be called a wedding) day to call my special own and have the photos to prove it when it goes to court.

Andsofar to fit in with the rest of society I would demand it be called something else other than a marriage because this term is archaic and derogatory to the keepers of the realm. I would prefer to be recognised under "law marriage" subsection 2.12a appendix C to stipulate that irrespective of sex the property remains in a tenants in common split and you can nominate the percentage split in a pre nup. MAN AND WOMAN has the same rights and obligations as Xx & Yy definitions apply. (This would cover transgender and ANON's as well)

Now if you can find a celebrant or a gay priest (not many of them around now days is there?) to "marriage" you in a ceremony then who cares? As long as legally you are entitled to, under the law, that you have the same rights and OBLIGATIONS as a MAN AND WOMAN.

Joint Tenants = ERGO you can't nominate the amount to contribute to your partner. So when you say it is 50/50 as in a "marriage" and no probate then it is agreed to divide and conquer. Same rules apply if any children are involved. Love is blind.

Tenants in Common = COGNITIVE requires you to divvy up the dung heap and nominate a percentage split as in 73% / 24% and 3% to the dog/cat/hamster/whatever because we aint having kids ever. Very clear in it's intent and design don't you think?

 

[luutzu]

luutzu I am interested in this thesis of non societal normal boundary collapse. Where does it end ? All for recognition of prejudice in society and to whose standard do we apply? The current way of thinking is to allow this "marriage" to cohabitant with the straight community and we should tolerate it whether we want to or not.

Maybe our next discussion would be do we allow Downs syndrome people to marry and bear the right to child?

In no way am I comparing the same rights to either party ,, I am more interested are you an advocate of free speech because this is a minority vote or is it ideals you truly believe in? Or both?

Down syndrome people do not have the right to marry or bear children? I didn't know that. I would understand if the Down Syndrome person is to be married to a non-Down person - you can argue abuse or what not. Anyway, I don't know what Down Syndrome really is so won't be debating that.


---
Are you asking if I'm just for the underdog and no matter the issue I'd go for the "victim", the minority?
I'd like to think that I go for what is right and fair, what is reasonable. But ey, I also think I look like Pierce Brosnan James Bond too - so yea, I'm fair and balance.

Free speech is all good. No But about it. And as Galymay have summed up, if you do not like gay marriage, do not like gay getting married and have it recognised, don't marry gay people or turn gay.

You can speak your disapproval, you can quote the Bible or some aunt or uncle or parents teaching you right and wrong way back when... You have that right. Just don't impose that right against other people's right.

So minority or majority plays no part here. It's a matter of what is fair and reasonable - about justice (not of the legal kind).


As others here have said... How does a gay couple getting married harm you or harm heterosexual people and marriage? It doesn't.

Does society lose anything by gay being married? They're already living together, already being allowed to legally married elsewhere in the world, already can adopt children and raise families... Going a bit further and formalise it will somehow cause moral decay or something?

But to ban or treat homosexual as second class citizens... to deny fellow citizens and human beings of the equal rights we all enjoy... that does a heck of a lot of harm. Harm you can quantify by counting the verbal and physical and mental abuses they suffer; harm by the inequality they are facing before the law.. .and harm to our sense of social justice and equality for all and all that fluff.


As Han Fei Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher, once wrote: to change or not to change does not matter; what matter is whether change is necessary, whether change is crucial to the issue at hand.

Is change to the current marriage institution necessary?

Well it already discriminate a percentage of our population, and will continue to discriminate future generations if kept as is. So yea, if you want a more equal society, want progress in civil rights... change is necessary.

You don't have to agree with it, don't have to like it, don't have to convert and be gay - So it's not the tyranny of the vocal minority against the oppressed majority - which if you look at opinion polls aren't the view of the majority anyway...

So yea, do what's right I'd say. If not for yourself, then for your children or grandchildren... because as VC and others have said, one of them might be gay and you can't control that. But you can control whether society would treat them the same or not.

 

[sydboy007]

Maybe if Australian society wants to limit homosexuals rights as citizens, should we get like a discount on our ATO bills?

Bit like you can have 95% of the rights of citizenship so only need to pay the same ratio in tax.

Hmmm. Depending on the tax discount, I could be temped to remain slightly excluded from society.

 

[trainspotter]

As per my above post it would also sort out the children dilemma. You signed up for 74% parental responsibility and now you are wearing it.

 

[Tink]

The bizarre family tree at the heart of an extraordinary court battle over one little girl - involving two lesbian mothers, a gay sperm donor and a transsexual lover now living with a man

- Girl is the biological child of lesbian woman and gay sperm donor
- They see her occasionally and she lives with mother's lesbian ex
- The step-mother's former partner, a transsexual, wants contact with girl
- But judge rules said that another effective parent would risk harm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-says-judge-case-involving-four-parents.html

 

[luutzu]

Maybe if Australian society wants to limit homosexuals rights as citizens, should we get like a discount on our ATO bills?

Bit like you can have 95% of the rights of citizenship so only need to pay the same ratio in tax.

Hmmm. Depending on the tax discount, I could be temped to remain slightly excluded from society.

Afraid not buddy.

The only way a minority can get away with not paying their full share of tax is to be the 1% and own a couple corporations. For everybody else... work harder, pay more tax and complain about migrants and homosexuals ruining their life or something.

 

[luutzu]

The bizarre family tree at the heart of an extraordinary court battle over one little girl - involving two lesbian mothers, a gay sperm donor and a transsexual lover now living with a man

- Girl is the biological child of lesbian woman and gay sperm donor
- They see her occasionally and she lives with mother's lesbian ex
- The step-mother's former partner, a transsexual, wants contact with girl
- But judge rules said that another effective parent would risk harm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-says-judge-case-involving-four-parents.html

Wow, you haven't watch Jerry Springer or know too many heterosexual families do you?

 

[Value Collector]

Do you have children VC?

Not yet, but what's that got to do with anything?

I do have nieces and nephews who I am close to.

 

[trainspotter]

As others here have said... How does a gay couple getting married harm you or harm heterosexual people and marriage? It doesn't.

Legally it will have a tremendous impact

 

[Value Collector]

Why are you ashamed to admit it's a choice.

If you feel like being homosexual or heterosexual is something you have had to choose, maybe you are bi sexual.

Do you honestly feel that you had to make a choice about your sexuality? No judgement from me if you do.

 

[trainspotter]

Not yet, bit what's that got to do with anything?

I do have nieces and nephews who I am close to.

It has got to do with everything VC ... EVERYTHING

Children matter ... period. Your own flesh and blood? Watched your first born son come out of your partners vagina and cut the umbilical cord? And you say this has nothing to do with "anything" ?? For a while there I thought you had a valid point. Now it is just selfish. :frown:

 

[luutzu]

Legally it will have a tremendous impact

Of course it impacts. For good or bad? to whom?

How does any one, straight or gay, getting married impact you and your family and marriage?

Unless you're invited, have to buy present, sit next to the loud speakers and eat food your allergic to... I just don't see how it will negatively impact you or anyone else personally.

What if one of your relation turns out to be gay? Say your favourite nephew or grandkid. Banning and discriminating against gay will not turn them straight.

 

[trainspotter]

Of course it impacts. For good or bad? to whom?

How does any one, straight or gay, getting married impact you and your family and marriage?

Unless you're invited, have to buy present, sit next to the loud speakers and eat food your allergic to... I just don't see how it will negatively impact you or anyone else personally.

What if one of your relation turns out to be gay? Say your favourite nephew or grandkid. Banning and discriminating against gay will not turn them straight.

Have you not been reading my posts? I am agreeing with you. Marriage it up sister girl for all I care.

LEGALLY it effects me because if you read my posts you would understand what I have been saying.