Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

It is a separate topic, gay parenting is already legal.

There are valid reasons why it shouldn't be or should not be assisted.

 

[Value Collector]

but if Gay Marriage leads to greater acceptance of Gay Parenting, then we have taken a step back imo.

That's your hypothesis, you now need to go out and prove that in the real world.

 

[Value Collector]

There are valid reasons why it shouldn't be or should not be assisted.

I don't get what your saying in that sentence.

If you are saying there are valid reasons to ban gay marriage, let's hear them. but please don't bring up children again.

I would like to once and for all establish that as a separate topic.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't get what your saying in that sentence.

If you are saying there are valid reasons to ban gay marriage, let's hear them. but please don't bring up children again.

I'm saying there are valid reasons to ban or not encourage gay parenting.

Please do not instruct me not to discuss any other points that I believe are salient to the discussion. I don't have to take orders from you.

I would like to once and for all establish that as a separate topic.

I know you would, but no one appointed you to set the rules of the debate. I'm saying gay marriage and gay parenting are linked and it's valid to discuss them at the same time.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm saying gay marriage and gay parenting are linked and it's valid to discuss them at the same time.

No it's not, because gay parenting is already legal, continuing the gay marriage ban, does not stop gay parenting.

And by not allowing gay marriage, because of concerns about gay parenting you are stopping people getting married that don't even want kids, it's completely backward.

People that want to gay parent, will have the right to parent, you won't be stopping that at all, but people that want to marry can't get married.

 

[Value Collector]

Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?

If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.

------

 

[luutzu]

Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?

If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.

------

I don't understand the gay parenting or straight parenting stuff. Is there a difference really?

Beside the kids being better dressed and better groomed, haha... jk.

 

[SirRumpole]

Rum pole, do you understand that there are gay people out there that want to get married, but don't want to have children?

If you do understand that, then what is your reasoning behind a continued ban on these people being legally married.

------

A line in the sand.

If a plebiscite was held a year ago I may have voted yes, but until some attempt is made to consider the rights of children to be raised in their natural environment and not be deprived of their heritage and biological parents then a stand must be made against the total dismantling of the natural family structure by a small minority.

Giving some people everything they want is not necessarily good for society in general.

I would support Gay Marriage only if at the same time laws were introduced to deny gay couples access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.

 

[galumay]

I would support Gay Marriage only if at the same time laws were introduced to deny gay couples access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.

Why to you continue to connect two utterly unconnected issues? It seems extrordinary to me that you would advocate continued discrimination on one issue, unless new discrimination was introduced on an entirely different issue.

How is that justifiable?

Gay people have always been able to have children, and realistically no change to the law could possibly prevent them from having children. It would likewise be impossible to prevent gay couples using surrogacy.

Perhaps you need to start another thread to discuss what appears to be an important issue to you, maybe its much broader than whether gay couples should be able to adopt or access IVF, there are plenty of straight parent and single parent families where the kids are in an unsuitable family environment. It really isnt an issue for discussion about marriage though, given that whether or not people are married has nothing to do with having kids.

 

[Tisme]

access to adoption, ivf and surrogacy, the last two should be banned altogether imo.

Yep a blight on society that has resulted in misery all round, the later creating a new slavery in third world countries as the female poor become human cows.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yep a blight on society that has resulted in misery all round, the later creating a new slavery in third world countries as the female poor become human cows.

And the male poor became human bulls

 

[galumay]

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.

Its an archaic activity that has changed many times over the years, originally it was more to do with property rights and their transference to the male than any other factor, early forms of marriage allowed polygamy on a massive scale , more recently it changed from being a religious activity to being a civil matter, albeit where certain religious leaders were able to be registered celebrants. In more modern times as a civil activity it became more about defining what services could be accessed and certain legal responsibilities. Its a dynamic thing and will likely to change in the future as it has in the past.

It certainly wasnt an "invention of hetrosexual coupling" - that is just another of your emotional and non-sensical statements. When, how and why marriage became part of human activity is long since lost in the mists of time, but we can be reasonably sure it was a socia-economic construct related to property rights.

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

If you are totally incapable of arguning on a logical level, as seems apparent, you shouldnt be suprised that we continue to dismiss your red herrings, strawman and ad hominem rants!

 

[Tisme]

Its an archaic activity that has changed many times over the years, originally it was more to do with property rights and their transference to the male than any other factor, early forms of marriage allowed polygamy on a massive scale , more recently it changed from being a religious activity to being a civil matter, albeit where certain religious leaders were able to be registered celebrants. In more modern times as a civil activity it became more about defining what services could be accessed and certain legal responsibilities. Its a dynamic thing and will likely to change in the future as it has in the past.

It certainly wasnt an "invention of hetrosexual coupling" - that is just another of your emotional and non-sensical statements. When, how and why marriage became part of human activity is long since lost in the mists of time, but we can be reasonably sure it was a socia-economic construct related to property rights.



If you are totally incapable of arguning on a logical level, as seems apparent, you shouldnt be suprised that we continue to dismiss your red herrings, strawman and ad hominem rants!

I've never attacked a person's character here. Can you please point to an example and explain. 'Tis you who gets all bent out of shape and sees fit to call be names in an effort to inflame and denigrate. My arguments are not fallacious ad hominem, but factual ad verecundiam ... you can't handle the truth.... I know this because I said so.


I don't know where you get your ideas about marriage origins, but they sound like made up twaffle that the rainbow movement invents to predicate other appellations of fallacy. Until you can prove your fiction as fact, let's just stick to what we know and that is that marriage is and has been for millenia an hetrosexual custom.

Contrary to your fantasy, my logic powers are well honed on a daily basis Which is why no matter how you stack the argument, commutativity always wins out in my favour.

 

[trainspotter]

I am lost for words unlike Tisme who has swallowed a dictionary and a thesaurus in one gulp so I will let pretty pictures do the talking for me ...

 

[sydboy007]

I've never attacked a person's character here. Can you please point to an example and explain. 'Tis you who gets all bent out of shape and sees fit to call be names in an effort to inflame and denigrate. My arguments are not fallacious ad hominem, but factual ad verecundiam ... you can't handle the truth.... I know this because I said so.


I don't know where you get your ideas about marriage origins, but they sound like made up twaffle that the rainbow movement invents to predicate other appellations of fallacy. Until you can prove your fiction as fact, let's just stick to what we know and that is that marriage is and has been for millenia an hetrosexual custom.

Contrary to your fantasy, my logic powers are well honed on a daily basis Which is why no matter how you stack the argument, commutativity always wins out in my favour.

So you disregard the historical documents that show some of the earliest recorded "marriages" were for same sex couples?

You are claiming that the current version of marriage is what the Kings of Israel had as recorded in the myth filled bible? But I thought God showed his divine glory by providing 300 wives and 700 sex slave concubines for Solomon.

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).

even the yale law school recognises the reality

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers

A social constructionist history emphasizes the ways in which marriage is "constructed" by society over time, with "exclusions" from the institution being viewed as reflecting larger social power relations. Thus, the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in America is an expression of our society's persecution of sexual orientation minorities-lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

The early Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that are considered important antecedents for Western culture apparently not only tolerated same-sex relationships, but also recognized such relationships in their culture, literature, and mythology. Evidence of same-sex marriage is at best indirect in these ancient societies, however. One finds slightly stronger and more direct evidence of same-sex marriages in Greek and early Roman culture, in imperial Rome, and in Western Europe for much of the Christian Middle Ages.

 

[galumay]

Contrary to your fantasy, my logic powers are well honed on a daily basis Which is why no matter how you stack the argument, commutativity always wins out in my favour.

Just read back through all your own posts on this thread, there is not a single argument based on logic. We have refuted wild statements and claims, one after another.

Sydboy007 has eloquently and succinctly dismissed your latest ones.

I think i will leave you to your homophobia and campaign for continued discrimination, you have repeatedley shown yourself incapable of presenting any valid reasons for the continuation of the discrimination. Soon enough it will be ended anyway. Your life will continue unchanged, you wont have to marry another man and if you are married you will remain married - the state will still recognise your civil union.

In the end I feel sorry for you, so much anger, fear and hatred over something so inconsequential to you.

 

[luutzu]

Just read back through all your own posts on this thread, there is not a single argument based on logic. We have refuted wild statements and claims, one after another.

Sydboy007 has eloquently and succinctly dismissed your latest ones.

I think i will leave you to your homophobia and campaign for continued discrimination, you have repeatedley shown yourself incapable of presenting any valid reasons for the continuation of the discrimination. Soon enough it will be ended anyway. Your life will continue unchanged, you wont have to marry another man and if you are married you will remain married - the state will still recognise your civil union.

In the end I feel sorry for you, so much anger, fear and hatred over something so inconsequential to you.

You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?

 

[trainspotter]

You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?

BINGO ... :holysheep:

 

[sydboy007]

You guys ever wonder if Tisme is pulling your legs?

I've often thought he was trolling, but when you can only judge by text it's hard to know. The odd emoji can help.

[video=youtube_share;ajdyGGt7wOE]http://youtu.be/ajdyGGt7wOE[/video]

 

[luutzu]

I've often thought he was trolling, but when you can only judge by text it's hard to know. The odd emoji can help.

[video=youtube_share;ajdyGGt7wOE]http://youtu.be/ajdyGGt7wOE[/video]

He might not be trolling, could be just bored.

But then there are people who you think must be kidding about what they're saying but turn out to actually be deadly serious about it.

Australia is a big country with a disperse population