Same sex marriage - Yes or No?

PZ99 · 19 October 2017

Tisme said:
You shouldn't be curious, you should be erudite. If causation of homosexuality and thus SSM was genetically determined, it would manifest itself as the same percentages in all cultures. This just ain't so.

It is not in nature to perform homosexual acts, but proclivity. There is no biological basis for homosexuality and it tends to have a cultural significance, thus why the SSM brigade have attacked the Anglo culture to remove it's norms from the argument. This points to lifestyle choices based on urges.

There is no scientific consensus for the reasons for hetero, homo, bi, etc sexuality. That's an absolute give, so the focus has to move to social stimuli. We also know that evolution isn't generally in the direction of non reproduction, so heterosexuality is the natural activity, the others unnatural.

The western culture finds itself in a dilemma, because historically homosexaulity was an act, but now it's a lifestyle. Even the upper class Greeks/Romans that SSM people like to bang on about were drawn to homosexuality as an extramarital loveless, albeit gratuitous act. The Romans accepted it as something that needed to be regulated to protect minors with the Lex Scantinia law. In Africa vast numbers of men still carry on with extramarital liaisons and bring AIDS back to their spouses.... the SSM brigade even hijacked this self evident truth and tried to blame the women instead.

The other nations away from the Anglocentric west are less inclined to pariah status. In relation to your assertion muslims are somehow pious abstainers, well you obviously haven't spent reasonable value time in the Arab countries, but that is not the focus on my observations. The further you move away from the soon to be defunct traditional Anglo cultures the closer there seems to be a cultural acceptance of homosexuality, regardless of residual colonial legal acts still in place. It's in part to the various base behaviours of the natives that gave rise to Colonial Empires stamping themselves as conquering by the grace of God and civilising barbarians.

In cultures with large family structures, it has been shown that separation anxiety has a strong, almost predictable correlation to androphilia/third gender persuasions. Pacific islander nations accept the fraternal order of more older brothers the more inclined the youngest is to androphilia. In islander culture the high carbs diet generally results in men dropping off their perch in their early fifties and those sons between 6 and 12 are prone to the separation anxiety from parental loss and consequent androphilia.

Similarly in cultures where females are devalued (even killed) and boys are in demand to work the farm, family business etc, you can see same family structures of diminishing heterosexuality as the faternity increases. Of course there is always going to be people who get on the bandwagon just for thrills too.

So I'm not going to provide the list, but you can see for yourself by studying Ford and Beach plus Broude and Greene . You will see who we are talking about and how culture aligns to the behaviours. Soon to be defunct in Oz, Christianity certainly imposed itself on many cultures and reduced, even eradicated it it in several generations. But some cultures have zip homosexuality regardless of religion, some have demonstrably more.

Have another look at those many pics and see if you can identify the Captain Obvious or two or three.

Thanks for that reply. Some good points there. I won't venture into the debate as to whether homosexuality is an inheritance or a lifestyle choice. As I'm not gay I don't know and I don't think anyone does at this point on time. It hasn't been proven either way yet. It certainly does appear to be promoted as a lifestyle choice to the young with the mardi-gras etc but it could be interpreted as "It's OK to be gay" or "It's OK to become gay". That's a debate for someone else to have

No I haven't been to any Arab countries nor have any intention to, but my original point was homosexuality is equally unacceptable to Islam as it is to Christianity. Groups that violate the faith can break the rules but they can't change them. It's a pity when you think about it... if these two faiths had actually dropped their prejudices against each other they could have formed a very strong NO campaign of their own simply by demonstrating their mutual opposition to SSM.

Instead we are subject to this Mediscare style campaign about becoming a communist state and obfuscation with left/right politics.. which, apart from being irrelevant isn't very prudent given right wing politics is a bit on the nose at the moment. Still, watch out for those "Reds ~~under~~ IN the bed"

And then there's the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Indecent acts such as adultery are perfectly legal in this country, causing the breakup of marriage - leading to divorce followed by hardship for the parent(s) that miss out on seeing their kids - the kids themselves - not to mention the financial penalties involved. Yet we are complaining about changing a civil union to a marriage despite the physical difference being zip (I use that word advisedly ).

None of this changes my own viewpoint about SSM. I do have a lot of respect for the basic argument that marriage is used to maintain integrity of the human race by legitimating offspring. If that's your GOLD standard... vote NO.

But I believe in freedom - a Christian establishment Conservative Govt regulating your love life in a country with secular values isn't freedom. Especially when it's not taken to the people to decide.

Anyway that's my view. Political sycophants can jump all over it as usual

SirRumpole · 19 October 2017

PZ99 said:
Anyway that's my view. Political sycophants can jump all over it as usual

That's one of the most balanced posts I've read on this topic , well done.

I did vote for the gold standard, but I also have respect for the argument that it is not the States business who marries whom, however I want the gold standard maintained and not sullied by something I regard as lesser, so same sex couples should have their own Same Sex Marriage Act and leave the other 98% of us to ours.

Macquack · 19 October 2017

SirRumpole said:
...same sex couples should have their own Same Sex Marriage Act and leave the other 98% of us to ours.

SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head in regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.

I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?

So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!

SirRumpole · 19 October 2017

Macquack said:
SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head in regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.

I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?

So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!

Yeah maybe that's true. Increasing financial pressures and desires for a career probably have a lot to do with that. If a couple can't even afford a house, why should they spend money on a wedding and kids ?

Tisme · 20 October 2017

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sames...-for-vulnerable-children-20170915-gyi17x.html

Tisme · 20 October 2017

Macquack said:
SirRumpole, you may have hit the nail on the head Ain regards to the uphill battle to resist SSM.

I may be wrong, but my research says that less than 50% of adults are married?

So maybe the other 50% don't really give a f*ck and think all options should be left open!

I was one of those way back in the days when "living in sin" was still an issue. When we finally did the deed nothing changed insofar as my love and I certainly didn't get into it to parade or announce that love to the world ...it was self evident and my own private business.

My reason was very very simple = we opened up to the idea of procreation and felt it was best for our kids to know they belong to a larger family heritage and that there existence will be stable, safe and balanced.

Statistically about 70% of children live with their biological parents, but come the teens that drops below 50%. Single parent kids are 60% of the poor children count.

Staying with the stats:

a child is 14 to 15 times more likely to be abused than one with married biological parents. If a single mum takes in a non related man, that rises to around 34 times more likely to serious abuse.

oddly enough married couples tend to be overwhelmingly unhappy (~83%) when surveyed, but given time those same marriages swing into a very happily married condition, which kinda begs the question about how long to wait before divorcing.

adolescents with married biological parents are about half likely to be sexually than the mob.

offspring from married biological parents are more likely to succeed in careers and higher learning, less likely to divorce, less inclined to crime and delinquency, less inclined to drug abuse, less likely to be abused as a child/teenager, more inclined to emotional maturity.

Of course there is the whole social and civic role modelling that comes with having a solid parent trap, especially a balanced nurture (mum) and discipline (dad). It would be difficult for a child to process both activities when confused by the apparent contradiction of do as I say not as I do. Children and teenagers do assess their own worth in a family by the way the biological parents commit to the family structure.

SirRumpole · 20 October 2017

Tisme said:
oddly enough married couples tend to be overwhelmingly unhappy (~83%) when surveyed, but given time those same marriages swing into a very happily married condition, which kinda begs the question about how long to wait before divorcing.

Marriage is like a deck of cards, you start out with two hearts and a diamond, but you end up wishing you had a club and a spade.

sptrawler · 21 October 2017

So the next issue is, the age of consent.lol

sptrawler · 21 October 2017

PZ99 said:
There you go. You exemplify why freedom is better than communism.

So let's give same-sex couples the freedom to marry and let's stop being lefty commies!

O.k Let's give same sex couples equal rights, let's move on to the next headland, what is the age of consent?
The greens want the voting age moved down to 16 years of age.
Then where do we move on from there?
Yipee, here we go, here we go.
We really do need a war, people are becoming too bored, lazy and without focus.IMO

Tisme · 21 October 2017

sptrawler said:
So the next issue is, the age of consent.lol

I would be thinking equal rights for the majority. e.g. A hetero white man being able to access human rights, vilification, prejudice, etc recourse through the various myriad of billion dollar depts setup to skew merit into a knot.

Tisme · 21 October 2017

sptrawler said:
O.k Let's give same sex couples equal rights, let's move on to the next headland, what is the age of consent?
The greens want the voting age moved down to 16 years of age.
Then where do we move on from there?
Yipee, here we go, here we go.
We really do need a war, people are becoming too bored, lazy and without focus.IMO

Banning the herb they obvious smoke too often. If they lower the consent age to 16, you bet that will be for girls and 13 or 14 will be set for the boys so that the inner Melbourne greens can get their hands on them without being labelled pedophiles.

wayneL · 21 October 2017

So the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia.

Pretty sinister hey?

Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ

SirRumpole · 21 October 2017

wayneL said:
So the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia.

Pretty sinister hey?

Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ

WTF, you are right, and yet the "Vote YES" page is still open.

This is outrageous, people should vote NO simply because of this censorship.

I wonder who authorised this.

PZ99 · 21 October 2017

Can I have the link for this NO page please?

Wysiwyg · 21 October 2017

SirRumpole said:
WTF, you are right, and yet the "Vote YES" page is still open.

This is outrageous, people should vote NO simply because of this censorship.

I wonder who authorised this.

It seems you need further therapy. You must embrace homosexuality in society and support the (soon to be) changed Marriage Act. Counciling services will be held every Friday here at ASF for those traumatised by the event.

SirRumpole · 21 October 2017

Wysiwyg said:
It seems you need further therapy. You must embrace homosexuality in society and support the (soon to be) changed Marriage Act. Counciling services will be held every Friday here at ASF for those traumatised by the event.

Them bastards aint getting me pal.

I've got my tin hat and lead pants on.

Wysiwyg · 22 October 2017

We may not agree to this destruction of traditional marriage but the next generations will grow up and be taught it is normal. There will be other society changes as all types of humans claim equality, recognition, financial support and compensation. What's yours is mine so to speak.

Tisme · 22 October 2017

Anything SSM advocates do is OK:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...d/news-story/340d639e745b13fea12d54c44788b701

Tisme · 22 October 2017

wayneL said:
So the Vote No fb page had been blocked from viewing in Australia.

Pretty sinister hey?

Pretty close to saying I told ya so PZ

Is it Farcebook pushing their political agenda or too scared of the legal ramifications?

Not without precedence:

http://www.skynews.com.au/tech/tech...ook-bans-traditional-marriage-campaigner.html

Tisme · 22 October 2017

https://www.facebook.com/

Same sex marriage - Yes or No?