Gay Marriage

[Value Collector]

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:

No I didn't say "this has nothing to do with anything", I asked "what's that got to do with anything".

Of course children matter, I don't think watching a child of mine be born would change my opinion on what rights that child should have, if anything it would cement the idea in my head that I want my child to grow up with equal rights.

How is me wanting children who happen to be born gay, to have equal rights selfish?

I am a straight male defending the rights of the gay minority, where is the selfishness here?

 

[Tisme]

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.

You are splitting hairs. I am simply pointing out that acting out your desires is your choice, no matter that you are a latent homosexual. I can understand you might be curious to find out why you get aroused in the footy change rooms, but soliticing me as a possible liason ain't going to fly sunshine........ I'm ungroomable....try one of the other fellas here who is proud and loud. Don't be angry at me for your conflicts of conscience.


No judgement from me, some of my most casual friend's of a friend are gay.

Seriously I really couldn't give a rats if you are gay, that's your choice and I do have friends who ride that trick pony. Because someone is my friend doesn't mean I have to like everyone who exhibits his peculiar trait and I wouldn't expect all those with that trait to form an army and attack the rest of society for the unfairness and "what about me?".

 

[Tisme]

my opinion on what rights that child should have, if anything it would cement the idea in my head that I want my child to grow up with equal rights.

Perhaps you could use your formidable rainbow skills on bettering child welfare rather than flogging an already mortally wounded horse.

 

[Tisme]

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:

It's not the final act, but the whole journey, from the initial lust, the discovery, the desire, the intimate learning of gender needs, the intimate learning of gender differences, the intimate empathy of the partner's pregnancy, the intimacy of the pain and the birth, the intimate bond of mother and child and the imitate bond of father and mother, the total trust of the child's welfare, ....etc

Children are a treasure, not a commodity and should not be a punctuation in a stalled, staid, lazy or protest relationship.

 

[SirRumpole]

Children are a treasure, not a commodity and should not be a punctuation in a stalled, staid, lazy or protest relationship.

+1.

 

[Value Collector]

I am simply pointing out that acting out your desires is your choice, no matter that you are a latent homosexual.

No judgement from me, some of my most casual friend's of a friend are gay.

.

If you were gay, why would you not want to act on it.

I know in the past there has been a taboo, but legalising gay marriage is part of getting past that taboo, There is nothing immoral about being gay or "acting" on your feelings.

Perhaps you could use your formidable rainbow skills on bettering child welfare rather than flogging an already mortally wounded horse.

This thread is about gay marriage, if you want to talk about child welfare, start another thread.

But on child welfare, a certain percentage of children will be gay, and I believe if they grow up in a society that respects that aspect of them, and the know they will have equal rights, they will grow up with a higher self worth and have an easier time growing up.

It's not the final act, but the whole journey, from the initial lust, the discovery, the desire, the intimate learning of gender needs, the intimate learning of gender differences, the intimate empathy of the partner's pregnancy, the intimacy of the pain and the birth, the intimate bond of mother and child and the imitate bond of father and mother, the total trust of the child's welfare, ....etc

what does any of that have to do with my arrguements for gay marriage.

 

[trainspotter]

Try Ethiopia if you want gay discrimination. 15 years in gaol.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...vernment-cancels-anti-gay-rally-homosexuality

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?

 

[Tisme]

what does any of that have to do with my arrguements for gay marriage.

This is one of those gulfs that you gays do not understand and points to one reason why you should not be buggerising around with an archaic institution that was and is an invention of hetrosexual coupling. If you can't see linkage you should refrain from arguing the toss on a logical level..... and you wonder why I treat the movement with the flippancy it deserves

 

[sydboy007]

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.

How's that working out for heterosexuals?

 

[Value Collector]

This is one of those gulfs that you gays do not understand and points to one reason why you should not be buggerising around with an archaic institution that was and is an invention of hetrosexual coupling. If you can't see linkage you should refrain from arguing the toss on a logical level..... and you wonder why I treat the movement with the flippancy it deserves

My sexuality has nothing to do with this debate, however in the interests of keeping things factual, please do not write "you gays", when quoting me, I have already told you I am heterosexual.

voting was the invention of allowing men to express their opinion, it doesn't mean it was wrong to extend this right to females in later years, and there is nothing wrong with extending the marriage rights to gays.

If there was something wrong with it you people would have better arguments, instead of all the logical fallacies and red herrings.

 

[Value Collector]

Try Ethiopia if you want gay discrimination. 15 years in gaol.

It wasn't that long ago it was an offence in Australia.

until 1899 it was punishable with death, in 1899 it was reduced to life in prison and the law wasn't repealed in Nsw until 1984.

Until 1992 a gay man or women couldn't serve in the military.

I think things have changed for the better, allowing gay marriages is just a natural part of the progression.

 

[trainspotter]

How's that working out for heterosexuals?

Working out well in fact. There is a legal system in place and I believe it can be modified for Tenants in common (Gay couple NOT wanting kids) as it already has an existing constraint in there for Joint tenants (married couple wanting kids) and vice versa. Pretty simple really.

 

[Tisme]

I have already told you I am heterosexual.

.

Well we just have to take your word for that, but given your inability to acquiesce on some sound views put forward by others, I could be forgiven in thinking you are still in the closet. It was you who opened the troll door with the intent to inflame in the face of my belligerence (you can call it bigotry if you like).

The strange thing for me is that it always seems to be me in a crowd, in a pub, in any gathering that puts down the loud mouths who give the obviously gay a hard time. How about you VC, you ever put yourself in real personal danger to defend a gay? That's just common decency with no other motive or agenda.

 

[Value Collector]

Well we just have to take your word for that, .

Not really, I don't really care what you think, but if I were I have no reason to hide it, and whether I was or wasn't has no affect on the points I make here.

but given your inability to acquiesce on some sound views put forward by others

,

Such as?

All I have seen are red herrings about children, and slippery slope logical fallacies.

It was you who opened the troll door with the intent to inflame in the face of my belligerence .

How so?

. How about you VC, you ever put yourself in real personal danger to defend a gay?

If you knew me you would know I am not the type of guy that sits back and lets the bullies walk over people.

I have come to many peoples defence, I can't recall a situation of a gay person specifically, But I would never shy from it.

 

[SirRumpole]

All I have seen are red herrings about children, and slippery slope logical fallacies.

So children are now red herrings ? Their upbringing with their natural parents is of no concern, and they will be used as pawns in a game of 'social acceptance' when all they need is what any other child needs, a mother and father who love them because they are their own.

 

[trainspotter]

So children are now red herrings ? Their upbringing with their natural parents is of no concern, and they will be used as pawns in a game of 'social acceptance' when all they need is what any other child needs, a mother and father who love them because they are their own.

Not sure but I am pretty confident these are two separate issues but both go intertwined.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not sure but I am pretty confident these are two separate issues but both go intertwined.

Yes, people can get married without having children, but if Gay Marriage leads to greater acceptance of Gay Parenting, then we have taken a step back imo.

 

[Value Collector]

So children are now red herrings ? .

In a debate about whether consenting same sex couples should be allowed to marry, yes, bringing up children is a red herring.

Whether gay's should be allowed adopt or have children is another topic, for another debate.

 

[SirRumpole]

In a debate about whether consenting same sex couples should be allowed to marry, yes, bringing up children is a red herring.

Whether gay's should be allowed adopt or have children is another topic, for another debate.

You may like to separate the two issues so that you can sweep gay parenting under the carpet and ambush the debate later on eg "gay people can now get married so why can't they have children ?"

imo the two issues are linked and should be resolved at the same time.

 

[Value Collector]

You may like to separate the two issues so that you can sweep gay parenting under the carpet and ambush the debate later on eg "gay people can now get married so why can't they have children ?"

imo the two issues are linked and should be resolved at the same time.

It is a separate topic, gay parenting is already legal. No need to use gay marriage to shoe horn it into legislation. Gay's can already parent legally.

By bringing up gay parenting, you are not only producing a red herring, but also commuting the slippery slope fallacy, eg if we allow this, then this other thing will happen

This thread and the wider debate, is on the topic of allowing gays to marry, that's it.

If you want to ban gay parenting try and do it, but even if gay parenting was banned, that would not be enough reason to ban gay marriage.

You need separate arguments, to ban each thing, because they are separate things.