Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

[Tisme]

I thought given the dribble he had work with from this thead John did well.

You have to admit it's rather embarrassingly juvenile level satire. Cringe worthy really

 

[Tisme]

There are bad relationships, sure. There are bad choices in who to love, what attracts a person to it. Sure.

1) Gay people don't just fall in love with the first gay person they meet. There are gay people who are also a-holes. You know, being a prick as well as gay. Same with straight people.

2)So the idea that being attracted to a pefectly awesome person who also loves you, but that person happen to be of the same sex/gender... That's very different to having foolish crushes and bad choices in a partner.

3)i.e. same sex does not equate to "bad choice".


Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.

To make it illegal for people who can and wants to get married... that's a whole different ball game. One we slam other civilisations for doing when they're doing it.


Some people, I supposed, thought marriage and relationship is always about going on dates and taking holidays - with the other side always making the effort and tap in the cards.

Life have its difficulties; people do age and body parts do sag; that and who the heck has the time or the money to go on dates and eat out most days of the week?

4)Hence, relationship and marriages do break down. The gayness has nothing to do with it.

I'm supposing you have some personal insight into those statements luu, coz even I wouldn't venture so far into that quagmire

 

[Value Collector]

Because you are always telling us that parents don't understand the LGBTI.

Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.

 

[Tisme]

Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.

Mate, unlike you bods I actually socialise with gays, I actually postulate on facts not anecdotes, I actually think with an objective mind not a hysteria, etc. Demographicals is core interest of mine professionally and it would be remiss of me to follow emotion over fact.

My kids were very well educated and well informed. The last thing I would do is actively use and parade them as pawns in social warfare to prove a point against stupid people who don't agree with me....what's the point trying to change intractable Narnia and similar fantasy urban belief systems.

You are going to have to pull your heads in taking potshots at me, not one of you heterophiles has produced any proofs when I have asked. It's all just piffle about precedence in past barbarian cultures and mateship confused as love.

 

[grah33]

A longer term view of marriage. How/why it started. How it has evolved.

Historically, the idea of marriage is always evolving

• David Dawkins

You read this article and think it true. Not so on certain points regarding Christianity. I've studied the christian religion before, so I know a few things. JC was the one to institute marriage as one male and female. Also, in his own words, it was like that in the very beginning (he would now reestablish the original proper form). They were only given polygamy (old testament) since proper marriage was too hard to follow (again his own words), as they were a nation of parent killers, slave traders, had intercourse with animals etc (they lacked morality, settling down with one woman only was too much for them). So you have to understand that mainstream Christianity will think there is only one valid marriage that can occur. You have to give them freedom to practice that. Interestingly enough I just heard that in the NT they are already drafting new laws to force synagogues/churches to marry them. I guess that will be the end of democracy then. Sure, who cares about weddings etc., but when they're willing to do that , they'll be willing to do whatever else they want , you would think.

 

[PZ99]

You got a copy of that text?

Are you after the text of previous marriage acts?

 

[grah33]

<<So the idea that being attracted to a pefectly awesome person who also loves you, but that person happen to be of the same sex/gender... That's very different to having foolish crushes and bad choices in a partner.

not so. The "attractions" are all similar - whether adult child love or gay or incest they're all feelings.

<<Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.

The point is some of us just can't get married and we need to accept it and still be happy. Often it's our very own self that makes us unhappy. Think of some kid who studies for a profession at uni. He really wants to get through it, his parents want it for him too, but he finds he has this problem and it's devastating for him – he's not smart enough to do the work. he's struggling. Now he can say “oh no! it's the end for me “, or he can say “oh well, this course isn't for me. I'm not worried. life goes on ”. The point is, if you can't get married , you have to still find a way to be happy. Just like the guy in the wheel chair has gotta be content or be miserable every day. Life is hard and you gotta keep being mindful of the positives in your life.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Yep...always rely on facts rather than fiction I say

Looks like Junior trumped that stat. LGBTIQRFHSV mob have all the answers and soon the Marriage Act will be theirs to shape as they wish. The wave of homosexuals surging around the globe has crashed on the shores of Australia washing away the time immemorial Marriage of a male and a female.

Netherlands legalises same-sex marriage
April 1, 2001
The Netherlands becomes the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples.

 

[Tisme]

Are you after the text of previous marriage acts?

You quoted love

 

[Tisme]

Looks like Junior trumped that stat. LGBTIQRFHSV mob have all the answers and soon the Marriage Act will be theirs to shape as they wish. The wave of homosexuals surging around the globe has crashed on the shores of Australia washing away the time immemorial Marriage of a male and a female.

Netherlands legalises same-sex marriage
April 1, 2001
The Netherlands becomes the first country to extend marriage laws to include same-sex couples.

yes stats are like bullets, in the hands of those that don't respect guns they fire them indiscriminately

 

[PZ99]

You quoted love

Because you used it in your question. "[who] should have the right to legislate for love?"

 

[Tisme]

Because you used it in your question. "[who] should have the right to legislate for love?"

No no you talked about redefinition of love in the marriage act... this is your chance to reveal the facts rather than be servile to Labor Party policy.

Menzies and Howard wren't stupid, perhaps I missed something.

 

[PZ99]

No no you talked about redefinition of love in the marriage act... this is your chance to reveal the facts rather than be servile to Labor Party policy.

Menzies and Howard wren't stupid, perhaps I missed something.

Lucidity seems to be an issue here. My original comment was every adult should be allowed to vote. The point being the right to vote shouldn't be restricted to one group or another.

I don't understand how "legislate for love" in your question fits in the above context if it's not about changes to the marriage act?

And how did the Labor Party get into it? I have no connection with them. The "U" went out of Labour years ago. Which probably explains why they were opposed to us voting in the first place.

 

[Value Collector]

You read this article and think it true. Not so on certain points regarding Christianity. I've studied the christian religion before, so I know a few things. JC was the one to institute marriage as one male and female. Also, in his own words, it was like that in the very beginning (he would now reestablish the original proper form). They were only given polygamy (old testament) since proper marriage was too hard to follow (again his own words), as they were a nation of parent killers, slave traders, had intercourse with animals etc (they lacked morality, settling down with one woman only was too much for them). So you have to understand that mainstream Christianity will think there is only one valid marriage that can occur. You have to give them freedom to practice that. Interestingly enough I just heard that in the NT they are already drafting new laws to force synagogues/churches to marry them. I guess that will be the end of democracy then. Sure, who cares about weddings etc., but when they're willing to do that , they'll be willing to do whatever else they want , you would think.

You do have the freedom to practice your religion, no one is going to force you to have a same sex marriage.

But you aren't happy with just following your own silly rules, you want the rest of society to submit to your cult, and thats not going to happen.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do you think Tink graph or 'tis me would take a genuine interest? Most likely not, and would probably not attend so the child misses out.

That's your opinion. I think a lot of people would attend just to see what is going on. If the people who conduct these courses have nothing to hide then they should welcome the parents as well.

 

[luutzu]

not so. The "attractions" are all similar - whether adult child love or gay or incest they're all feelings.

<<Yea, there are people who can't married, or don't want to be married. That's their choice, of other people's choice in not wanting to married them.

The point is some of us just can't get married and we need to accept it and still be happy. Often it's our very own self that makes us unhappy. Think of some kid who studies for a profession at uni. He really wants to get through it, his parents want it for him too, but he finds he has this problem and it's devastating for him – he's not smart enough to do the work. he's struggling. Now he can say “oh no! it's the end for me “, or he can say “oh well, this course isn't for me. I'm not worried. life goes on ”. The point is, if you can't get married , you have to still find a way to be happy. Just like the guy in the wheel chair has gotta be content or be miserable every day. Life is hard and you gotta keep being mindful of the positives in your life.

Incest or paedophilia harm the victim and their family. So while it might be emotional or "feeling", it fail the first test of being an acceptable behaviour.

Being gay and wanting to marry to another consenting adult... that's different. That does not do anyone any harm... maybe hurt some people's feelings, made them feel wrong seeing how their God or their parents don't approve and neither will they etc. It's those people who should shut the hell up and deal with it.

Yes, not being married is not the end of the world. There are a lot of things worst than being gay but can't be married legally. That doesn't mean any idiot politician or religious group or fellow citizens can somehow have the right to tell someone else to not get married.

I thought conservatives don't like the nanny state.

Life is hard, let's not make it harder for children born gay, or adults who are gay, more miserable.

I mean, that's like saying those with any form of disability cannot be married because it's not normal. can't run around with kids; God didn't invent the wheelchair or IVF or modern technology to help the disabled to live and have a family.

 

[luutzu]

I'm supposing you have some personal insight into those statements luu, coz even I wouldn't venture so far into that quagmire

They're human being McGee. They just happen to be attracted to those of the same gender.

To think that gay people would bang the first other gay person they meet... and that's not to say that some gays don't do that... us straight people have more self-control do we [see what I did there? ]

Point was, gay people do find and fall in love with compatible [or opposite, being attracts and what not] gay people. To say that they would just marry or sleep with any gay person is like saying that all straight Irish men would sleep with any drunk redheads with freckles they meet.

 

[Tink]

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths.
Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children.
By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.
The future of this country depends on the future of marriage.
The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage

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

 

[Tisme]

Lucidity seems to be an issue here. My original comment was every adult should be allowed to vote. The point being the right to vote shouldn't be restricted to one group or another.

I don't understand how "legislate for love" in your question fits in the above context if it's not about changes to the marriage act?

And how did the Labor Party get into it? I have no connection with them. The "U" went out of Labour years ago. Which probably explains why they were opposed to us voting in the first place.

I'm trying to get you to explain on what basis you made the comment "And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt" .

I am not aware that any govt until this one has had the audacity to legislate on placating a citizen's love, unrequited or otherwise? Anyone know to contrary, anyone?

 

[PZ99]

I'm trying to get you to explain on what basis you made the comment "And "love" has been redefined numerous times and last time it was done by the Howard Govt" .

I am not aware that any govt until this one has had the audacity to legislate on placating a citizen's love, unrequited or otherwise? Anyone know to contrary, anyone?

The explanation as far as I'm concerned is "love" in legislation terms was redefined when the marriage act was changed in 2004. I don't see this being any different. Is there a difference?

Prior to that it was changed when homosexuality was decriminalised.