Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Value Collector]

Stupid comparison.

Short people would have made a bette point!

remember you said this.

So you say homosexuality is something your born with.
As not everyone is born with it it must be a defect.

So through DNA they must be able to correct the defect

So, not everyone is born with red hair, in fact only about 2% of people have red hair, which makes it less common than being gay.

So by your definition having red hair is not normal and is a defect, and it appears you are in favour of ridding society of such things that are not "Normal" in your opinion, Hitler also wanted to manage genetics, but we don't normal think of him as being a good guy.

 

[Value Collector]

It's when they try to do things that they were not designed for, like raising children that there starts to be a problem.
.

ok, so when they survey asks you a question about gay parenting, you should answer NO then, this question is about gay marriage, not gay parenting.

 

[SirRumpole]

ok, so when they survey asks you a question about gay parenting, you should answer NO then, this question is about gay marriage, not gay parenting.

Like the Republic question was about A republic, someone else would decide what sort we would have.

Leave the Marriage Act alone, pass separate legislation for gay marriage.

 

[Value Collector]

.

Leave the Marriage Act alone, pass separate legislation for gay marriage.

Whats the best reason to not just change the marriage act though?

 

[SirRumpole]

Whats the best reason to not just change the marriage act though?

Symbolism and tradition. The traditional Marriage Act is the foundation of the family. Man + woman = children, bound and nurtured by shared genetics , something that SS couples cannot do.

Of course you can argue about childless heterosexual marriages, but they are in the minority and they are still a man and a woman.

 

[Value Collector]

I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. I can’t think of any valid reason why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. The “No” camp, are trying to confuse the issue, by bringing up misinformation and arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, but let me address here some of the misinformation and irrelevant arguments made by the no camp.

Here are some of the reasons I have heard people use to justify a “No” vote, and why I believe it is not a valid reason.

1. “I think it will expose children to paedophiles” - this argument is wrong for several reasons, a) being gay doesn’t make you more likely to be a paedophile, b) most child molestation cases are straight men abusing young females c) The question is about marriage rights, not parenting rights, same sex couples already have parenting rights, so this isn’t a parenting question.

2. “I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent, because as pointed out above, this isn’t a question about parenting, its about marriage. As I said above same sex couples already have the right to parent anyway.

3. “It’s not natural or normal” - firstly same sex couplings are found in nature in many other species, and just under 5% of human populations consistently turn out to be gay or bisexual so it is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be interested in same sex coupling, actually being LGBT is more common than having red hair. But it’s not “natural” to fly around in planes or use mobile phones but we do that, so banning some thing because it’s not “natural” is silly.

4. “Its against my religion” - Well thats your issue, if its against your religion, then don’t have a same sex marriage, no one will force you to have one. Would you accept a ban on pork because its against Muslim law, of course not you would just expect the muslims to avoid pork, its the same here, banning same sex marriage because of your religion isn’t you exercising your religious freedom, its you trying to force your religious rules on others.

5. “I find it yucky” - Again thats your issue, if you are invited to a gay wedding, just don’t go, but you don’t get to stop others doing things just because you find it ewwwy.

6. “If we allow gay marriage people will want to marry their dogs next” - Well if you don’t want people to marry dogs, then vote no when the survey is asking about that, for now the question is about same sex marriage, stick to that topic, other wise you are committing the “slippery slope logical fallacy”, just stick to the question.

7. “Allowing gays to marry takes away something from straight marriages” - No it doesn’t, it won’t take anything away from straight couples, its simply going to mean that same sex couples have their marriages recognised by the government, thats it.

8. “Its a lifestyle choice I don’t want to support” - Firstly its not a choice they are born that way, but even if it were a choice, why should it be banned, the law should allow for maximum freedom, and only ban things that cause harm, allowing same sex couples to have their marriages recognised is harmless, none of the No arguments show where genuine harm would exist, if you want it banned you need to be able to show how marriage alone would cause harm that doesn’t currently exist, without appealing to logical fallacies.

Think about how you would want your children or grandchildren treated if they were gay, or how you would want society to treat you if you just happened to be the same sex as your current partner, Marriage is meant to be about unconditional love, so why have conditions put on it?choose to be on the right side of history, sooner or later gay marriage will happen.

I think this is an important vote, and you need to seriously look at the actual issue, not the red herring and confused arguments put forward by the no camp.

 

[SirRumpole]

“I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent, because as pointed out above, this isn’t a question about parenting, its about marriage. As I said above same sex couples already have the right to parent anyway.

You can have your opinion about "what's it about", but intelligent people can see beyond a simplistic reduction and see what derives if ss marriage is approved, and that is actually a degradation of traditional parenting by pretending that gay parenting is equivalent and socially endorsed because the 'parents' are married.

I won't accept that gay parenting is equal to biological parenting and no pretending or distraction by the gay community will convince me otherwise .

 

[cynic]

I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. I can’t think of any valid reason why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. The “No” camp, are trying to confuse the issue, by bringing up misinformation and arguments that have nothing to do with the topic, but let me address here some of the misinformation and irrelevant arguments made by the no camp.

Here are some of the reasons I have heard people use to justify a “No” vote, and why I believe it is not a valid reason.

1. “I think it will expose children to paedophiles” - this argument is wrong for several reasons, a) being gay doesn’t make you more likely to be a paedophile, b) most child molestation cases are straight men abusing young females c) The question is about marriage rights, not parenting rights, same sex couples already have parenting rights, so this isn’t a parenting question.

2. “I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent, because as pointed out above, this isn’t a question about parenting, its about marriage. As I said above same sex couples already have the right to parent anyway.

3. “It’s not natural or normal” - firstly same sex couplings are found in nature in many other species, and just under 5% of human populations consistently turn out to be gay or bisexual so it is normal for a certain percentage of the population to be interested in same sex coupling, actually being LGBT is more common than having red hair. But it’s not “natural” to fly around in planes or use mobile phones but we do that, so banning some thing because it’s not “natural” is silly.

4. “Its against my religion” - Well thats your issue, if its against your religion, then don’t have a same sex marriage, no one will force you to have one. Would you accept a ban on pork because its against Muslim law, of course not you would just expect the muslims to avoid pork, its the same here, banning same sex marriage because of your religion isn’t you exercising your religious freedom, its you trying to force your religious rules on others.

5. “I find it yucky” - Again thats your issue, if you are invited to a gay wedding, just don’t go, but you don’t get to stop others doing things just because you find it ewwwy.

6. “If we allow gay marriage people will want to marry their dogs next” - Well if you don’t want people to marry dogs, then vote no when the survey is asking about that, for now the question is about same sex marriage, stick to that topic, other wise you are committing the “slippery slope logical fallacy”, just stick to the question.

7. “Allowing gays to marry takes away something from straight marriages” - No it doesn’t, it won’t take anything away from straight couples, its simply going to mean that same sex couples have their marriages recognised by the government, thats it.

8. “Its a lifestyle choice I don’t want to support” - Firstly its not a choice they are born that way, but even if it were a choice, why should it be banned, the law should allow for maximum freedom, and only ban things that cause harm, allowing same sex couples to have their marriages recognised is harmless, none of the No arguments show where genuine harm would exist, if you want it banned you need to be able to show how marriage alone would cause harm that doesn’t currently exist, without appealing to logical fallacies.

Think about how you would want your children or grandchildren treated if they were gay, or how you would want society to treat you if you just happened to be the same sex as your current partner, Marriage is meant to be about unconditional love, so why have conditions put on it?choose to be on the right side of history, sooner or later gay marriage will happen.

I think this is an important vote, and you need to seriously look at the actual issue, not the red herring and confused arguments put forward by the no camp.

You seem to have some confusion regarding where the burden of proof truly rests!
Those campaigning for change need to demonstrate that no harm will result from the promoted changes!
Until such time as that happens, I consider it unwise to entertain this proposal any further.

 

[wayneL]

More than ever, I am a no.

Rowan Dean encapsulates :

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/the-classical-liberal-case-against-same-sex-marriage/

 

[tech/a]

I think you'll find that the Gay community as a whole are widely accepted as they are
Put it in the faces of everyone (as it has been) and society will be less tolerant.

You can argue till your blue in the face whether its right or wrong--it simply is.
The more you try to shove it down peoples throats the less you'll find it (or most) things
accepted.

 

[basilio]

I thought this story illustrated how deeply conservative people can come to terms with the reality of SSM

Over fish and chips and a floral tablecloth, my grandparents and I talked about marriage equality
Maya Newell During a campaign paved with irony and absurdity, we have to revive our sense of generosity and create spaces where mutual understanding can breathe

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dparents-and-i-talked-about-marriage-equality

 

[wayneL]

I thought this story illustrated how deeply conservative people can come to terms with the reality of SSM

Over fish and chips and a floral tablecloth, my grandparents and I talked about marriage equality
Maya Newell During a campaign paved with irony and absurdity, we have to revive our sense of generosity and create spaces where mutual understanding can breathe

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dparents-and-i-talked-about-marriage-equality

It's not about acceptance, that's a furphy, it's about this

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/the-classical-liberal-case-against-same-sex-marriage/

 

[SirRumpole]

“I think children need both a mother and a father” - This argument again is irreverent,

Interesting choice of words from a non religious person.

 

[Tisme]

As I wrote in the SMH last week: "Supporters of same sex marriage say they are concerned about the bigotry and intolerance that will be whipped up by the plebiscite now going ahead. So far, it’s the supporters of change, not the opponents, who’ve been responsible for bullying and hate speech." Case in point.

Tony Abbott

 

[Tisme]

I would like to take this opportunity to urge everyone to vote “Yes” in the same sex marriage survey. I can’t think of any valid reason why same sex couples should be refused the right to have their marriages recognised by the government. ................

Going by the arguments you have put up I can't think of any valid reasons why same sex couples should be granted marriage status.

State marriage isn't predicated on love for love's sake and facebook memes. It's a serious contract, not a comedy farce that SSM supporters would treat it. The state got involved to protect the children, to give financial benefit for nation building, the nuclear family and protect estates, etc. It wasn't institutionalised to celebrate long term committment to vaginal or anal sex, mardi gras, suck face and rainbows.

 

[Tisme]

World on farcebook (so it has to be true) is that the cost to change laws to accomodate SSM will exceed $2000,000,000

 

[basilio]

Your cracked Tizzie. Pure and simple. You can't construct a coherant argument against the SSM question so you resort to illogical and incoherant raves that don't make sense.

 

[Tisme]

Your cracked Tizzie. Pure and simple. You can't construct a coherant argument against the SSM question so you resort to illogical and incoherant raves that don't make sense.

You wouldn't be cross thread trolling would you bas?

Your anger is predictable. Undoing conditioning can be like giving up opiates I'm told..... you spend a whole lifetime believing in unicorns, Barby doll ponies and candy canes and a big bad man comes along and spoils the fantasy by revealing the truth that young men really do wear breeches and life isn't giving away the inherited family tapestries to strangers in favour of more Mattel world values.

I think cogent is the word you were looking for ...I'm a walking abridged version of lexicon

 

[luutzu]

That was a rather long and convoluted non sequitur to draw from my post as I never mentioned religions or abominations and will never do so.

My point is that it is ridiculous to categorize LBGT as normal. Its not meant to insult or dininish, just stating reality.

Our dealings with children in this matter should reflect such.

Legalise it; penalise those who discriminate against it... and it will soon be as normal as drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a Jewish carpenter thinking he's the son of God because he says so and because the Romans crucified him for blasphemy.

 

[basilio]

You wouldn't be cross thread trolling would you bas?

Your anger is predictable. Undoing conditioning can be like giving up opiates I'm told..... you spend a whole lifetime believing in unicorns, Barby doll ponies and candy canes and a big bad man comes along and spoils the fantasy by revealing the truth that young men really do wear breeches and life isn't giving away the inherited family tapestries to strangers in favour of more Mattel world values.

I think cogent is the word you were looking for ...I'm a walking abridged version of lexicon

No I'm just fed up to the back teeth with the rubbish you serve to justify your attacks on gay people who want theiir relationships recognised in the same way as straight people.

I certainly can see you point about undoing conditiong. Like you I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was a crime, a perversion and a good reason to go xxxx bashing with a righteous air. Fifty years later one can see that trashing people because they have a different sexual orientation is about as reasonable as saying blacks and orientals are subhuman, slavery makes sense and women really don't have the brains or capacity to vote.
Absolutely nothing wrong with re evaluating conditioning Tisme. It goes with evualiting unmitigated BS.