... wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:


It's doesn't & more to the point I couldn't careless, spell it out in Xmas lights if you want(as long as they don't shine into my bedroom & keep me awake)

NBNMyths wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:


Theres also no compelling reason why homorriage should be made legal.  They're free to pair off as they please, but marriage is a very specific institution, which they don't meet the criteria for.
IF the criteria is relaxed for one group based on reason X, precedent is set, and reason X is equally applicable to any union. 

Quote:


The way dogs hump legs, other dogs or inanimate objects suggests consent isn't a problem for them. 

NBNMyths wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:


No, those reasons apply to reproduction, not sex itself.
Funnily enough there are medical and scientific reasons why sex (not reproduction, obviously) between two males is unwise.  Shot yourself in the foot there buddy.

Besides, we're talking about marriage, not sex.

... wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 1:44pm:


And can those two humping dogs (or one for that matter) speak vows in a marriage ceremony? No? So perhaps you'd care to explain how they could possibly participate in such a ceremony? 

The bottom line is that Bernardi's argument is patently ridiculous. Argue the pros and cons of gay marriage all you like, but trying to argue using the logical fallacy of the slippery slope is not in any way a valid argument.

On incest.... Male-female marriage (almost) invariably leads to sex, which invariably leads to the chance of reproduction. While you're right that there are medical risks involved in M-M sex that can be higher that the risks involved in M-F sex, that risk applies to the consenting couple, not their (non-consenting) potential offspring.

Yes, this is talking of sex not marriage, and in both cases whether the couple is married or not is irrelevant. One difference is that incestual sex is illegal, homosexual sex is not.

Although 5 years ago I probably opposed the thought of gay marriage, I've changed my mind. If two blokes want to get married, who am I to stand in their way?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:


BY GADS YOU'RE RIGHT! It's a first I know but you have convinced me with your inescapable thread of logic. Decriminalise something and that opens all kinds of avenues. We need to stop this slide down the slope at it's source.

I CALL FOR THE CRIMINALISATION OF MARRIAGE! Make it illegal NOW! ONLY IF WE MAKE ALL MARRIAGE ILLEGAL CAN WE STOP PEOPLE MARRYING PONIES!

We need to get moving on this FAST before we all turn weird and marry Fido or Speckles the cat.

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:



Sure and when that question is asked society can debate the pro's & con's of that issue, just as we are now with this.

So can you come up with any reason, other than your possible hypothetical questions on other subjects, that 2 men or women couldn't marry?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:


well at the moment it's against the law.

Swagman wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:


No it's not

The marriage act doesn't specify between a man & a women, although maybe that was added a few months or a year ago(have to check) when it looked like this was not going to go away.
Being gay is not illegal
Engaging in same sex bedroom gymnastics is not illegal

So what exactly are you contending is against the law?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 19^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:



Seems self evident to me, but it depends on what you see marriage as.

IF you think it is solely an expression of love, there is no grounds to deny them.  But, marriage as an expression of love is only a very recent idea in the scheme of things.

Marriage is/was first and foremost a reflection of the complementary relationship of man and woman.  The type of relationship without which none of us would be here.  As this sort of union is so fundamentally important, it deserves it's own institution.  That is, if you care about natural law and tradition at all.  And if you don't.....well, I don't care about you.