Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

Tisme · 14 April 2018

basilio said:
Still out poof bashing Tisme ? Can't stand the thought that gay people who love each other can in 2018 be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.

Just poisonous rubbish repeated and regurgited as nauseam.

I have already explained that like Wayne, I am very friendly with many gays I socialise with. I also maintain that people like yourself do not have a personal relationship with with them so you ride a **** horse in an attempt to square the ledger and give you street cred. If you did you wouldn't be trying to pidgeon hole them behind your protective shield.

Two weeks ago I was in New Farm at a party. At least six of the ~20 crowd were bent, we did cigars, we did Tassie made scotch we laughed we swapped tales, argued about politics and PC and there was no elephants in the room. In between these shows we do lunch. What do you bring to the table ... cooptive newspaper articles, ghosts of whiney past students, heresay, razor blades...?

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

basilio said:
Still out poof bashing Tisme ? Can't stand the thought that gay people who love each other can in 2018 be just like any staright person and have a legally respected marriage.

As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.

Value Collector · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.

Un-Naturalism? given that same sex coupling seems to be a natural phenomenon observed in multiple species, I don't think un-natural is a good term, especially because the people that claim they oppose it due to it being "un-natural" don't seem to care to oppose the many other un-natural things humans are doing that are demonstrably more damaging and harmful to ourselves other species and the environment.

Unless you are living I the forest eating leaves and termites, please don't try and appeal to "natural" arguments.

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
Un-Naturalism? given that same sex coupling seems to be a natural phenomenon observed in multiple species, I don't think un-natural is a good term, especially because the people that claim they oppose it due to it being "un-natural" don't seem to care to oppose the many other un-natural things humans are doing that are demonstrably more damaging and harmful to ourselves other species and the environment.

Unless you are living I the forest eating leaves and termites, please don't try and appeal to "natural" arguments.

It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct.

That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?

basilio · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
As long as the rights of people to dissent from such un-naturalism is respected.

Rumpy I don't recall it it being compulsory to be gay ? I believe the argument is about live and let live ?

Throwing in the line of "un-naturalism" probably needs qualification. The natural world isn't binary. There is a wide range of sexual behaviours across all species including people.

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

basilio said:
Rumpy I don't recall it it being compulsory to be gay ? I believe the argument is about live and let live ?

Throwing in the line of "un-naturalism" probably needs qualification. The natural world isn't binary. There is a wide range of sexual behaviours across all species including people.

My point was bas, that just because a slim majority of people voted for gay marriage doesn't mean that opposing voices must cease.

The Liberal party has a one seat majority, so we should all shut up and not criticise them ?

basilio · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
My point was bas, that just because a slim majority of people voted for gay marriage doesn't mean that opposing voices must cease.

The Liberal party has a one seat majority, so we should all shut up and not criticise them ?

I believe that is a false analogy Rumpy. The analysis and criticism of any political party is an ongoing process. As a community we are trying to get policies and practices that work best for the majority of people.

The conversation about gay marriage went to issues of fairness. How fair was it to disallow a marriage between two consenting adults (who wern't related...).

Obviously 50 years ago society would never stand such a conversation. In fact homesexuals would be jailed or beaten up just for being homesexual. Along the way we collectively came to the realisation that while we might not be gay ourselves we didn't need to fear or despise men/women who were attracted to the same sex. So it's just acceptance without judgement.

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

basilio said:
The conversation about gay marriage went to issues of fairness. How fair was it to disallow a marriage between two consenting adults (who wern't related...).

I was an advocate of the plebiscite and I accept the result.

I don't really care if two consenting adults get married although I think it devalues the true purpose of marriage which is to provide a secure environment for children.

I can't agree with gay parenting, this was an issue that was decided by politicians with no electoral consultation and should be reviewed.

Value Collector · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct.

That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?

I have explained it before.

A low percentage of gays in a population is perfectly evolutionary stable, and has some possible benefits to group survival.

eg, tribe wouldn't suffer negative effects from having 1 or 2 gays around, however a family with an extra gay uncle hanging around helping protect and raise his nephews and nieces will have big benefits.

The nieces and nephews are carrying the same genes as the gay uncle (or lesbian aunty), but their chances of survival are increased by him/her being around, So even though he didn't breed himself, his/her genes will be passed on at a higher rate than a family without his additional support.

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
eg, tribe wouldn't suffer negative effects from having 1 or 2 gays around, however a family with an extra gay uncle hanging around helping protect and raise his nephews and nieces will have big benefits.

No more beneficial than a straight uncle or aunt.

Value Collector · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
No more beneficial than a straight uncle or aunt.

A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.

However the family with two biological parents and a close gay uncle or aunt with none of their own children may end up with 50% more parenting power surrounding them, giving them an advantage over the status quo.

For evolution to pass a gene along, it just has to be not a negative, and a gay genes existing at say 2% of the population, isn't a significant disadvantage to the group, but may be a slight advantage to those families close to the gay member, who are probably sharing his or her genes, so the level will be maintained by the evolutionary process, not punished by it.

---------------

Consider worker bees, a whole hive is maintained by one breeding female, but all the workers who don't breed them selves are still helping the queen breed more effectively, even those 99.99% of the hive are completely Asexual, it forms an advantage evolutionarily speaking.

if 99.99% of bees can be asexual, surely having 2 % of humans as gay wouldn't hurt us, and may even helped their biological family survive.

SirRumpole · 14 April 2018

Value Collector said:
A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.

So the kids of both families would have cousins to play with and not be house-maided by a childless aunt or uncle.

Tisme · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
I was an advocate of the plebiscite and I accept the result.

That doesn't mean the bleeding heart guilty should not be held accountable for the mess they have seeded.

Value Collector · 14 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
So the kids of both families would have cousins to play with and not be house-maided by a childless aunt or uncle.

So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?

cynic · 15 April 2018

Value Collector said:
So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?

Has evolutionary biology arrived at a confident conclusion regarding the underlying cause for the emergence of homosexuality?

Tisme · 15 April 2018

Value Collector said:
A straight Aunt or uncle might go off and start their own family, leaving the children at the status quo of one set of parents.

However the family with two biological parents and a close gay uncle or aunt with none of their own children may end up with 50% more parenting power surrounding them, giving them an advantage over the status quo.

For evolution to pass a gene along, it just has to be not a negative, and a gay genes existing at say 2% of the population, isn't a significant disadvantage to the group, but may be a slight advantage to those families close to the gay member, who are probably sharing his or her genes, so the level will be maintained by the evolutionary process, not punished by it.

---------------

Consider worker bees, a whole hive is maintained by one breeding female, but all the workers who don't breed them selves are still helping the queen breed more effectively, even those 99.99% of the hive are completely Asexual, it forms an advantage evolutionarily speaking.

if 99.99% of bees can be asexual, surely having 2 % of humans as gay wouldn't hurt us, and may even helped their biological family survive.

There is no basis for genes in the argument.... totally unproven supposition they are a credible excuse.

Tisme · 15 April 2018

SirRumpole said:
It may not have occurred to you that if we were all gay then the human race would be extinct.

That's pretty un-natural to me. Can you think of any evolutionary reason for gays to exist that benefits the human race ?

Recent findings tend to prove Freud actually got something right when he postulated homosexuality was correlated with narcissism and low self esteem.... something the old timers used to observe when young boys were brought up in homes with (e.g. puritanical) old maid aunts ruling the agenda.

noirua · 28 April 2018

After this check persons would have a sex branded on their thumb. Before any marriage is allowed a thorough thumb check should be made.

Tisme · 5 June 2018

The baker won 7-2 ruling. Religious and moral win for the ethically correct.

SirRumpole · 5 June 2018

Value Collector said:
So what? Are you trying to build a nuclear family based on your preconceived notions, or are you actually interested in understanding evolutionary biology?

I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?