Australian Politics Forum - First Gay Marriage In Australia Today

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #180 - Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 3:37am

Grendel wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 6:46pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 7:25am:

Hard not to be persuaded by Jesse Ventura's argument.

"Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we the government to tell people who you can fall in love with. I think it's absurd the fact it's even being debated. We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions, then you don't have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage, they're the private sector. If they don't want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so. How on earth can we even entertain the fact that government should have the right to tell you, as an individual who you can fall in love with. It's ridiculous."

Amen, brother.

What a load of rubbish in relation to the gay marriage debate...

Go on.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #181 - Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 3:45am

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

And that's why it is still a deviance, a biological, evolutionary, not to say moral and ethical, deviance. No matter what you call it, homosexuality is not something you want to encourage, promote, boost. It IS a deviance. It can be tolerated - decriminalising it did just that - but you do not want to treat is as normal because if it were normal we would die out.

Interesting thinking there, Soren. So, if we treated homosexuality as normal, everybody would become homosexual? Roll Eyes

Is that your clearest thinking, Brain?

Homosexuality is an aberration. You can have a functioning society with 100 % heterosexual but it is impossible to have a functioning society with 100% homosexuals.

Marriage is about the relationship between men and women. They make up the species and society, their relationship is crucial to every society. This is why marriage is present in some way in every society - as a social function.

Managing the sexual relationship of homosexuals is not a matter for either the species or any society - it is a fringe aberration. Homosexuals have no valid claim, therefore, on one of the crucial institution in society because homosexuality by its very definition is completely irrelevant to social relationship between men and women, for which marriage is the central institution.

This is not difficult, it's not homophobic - it just recognises marriage for what it is and why it is not for gays.

Ummm, Soren, that's exactly what you were implying.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #182 - Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 5:05am

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and issued a withering take-down of marriage equality opponents.

Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state's birth rate. "These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote US district judge John Heyburn. "Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

"The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in 'ensuring humanity’s continued existence' are at best illogical and even bewildering…The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Says it all really.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 90932 Proud Old White Australian Man Gender:	Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today Reply #183 - Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 6:38am greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 8:28pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 10:33am: It's not the job of our society to say this immoral behaviour is normal. It's not your job to suggest that their behaviour is immoral. No - but it's his right to hold a view on that behaviour.
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Grappler Racist Filth

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 90932
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #184 - Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 6:44am

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 5:05am:

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and issued a withering take-down of marriage equality opponents.

Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state's birth rate. "These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote US district judge John Heyburn. "Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

"The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in 'ensuring humanity’s continued existence' are at best illogical and even bewildering…The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Says it all really.

Well - he's right - it's a specious argument. Gay marriage isn't going to slow down the rate of heterosexual shagging, is it? Not disagreeing of agreeing with gay marriage or banning it here - just saying that the argument put forward don't hold water.

Not quite sure if that actually means that opposing gay marriage is 'unconstitutional' - constitutionality involves more than a court decision on the facts presented in a specific case, and only that case.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Fit of Absent Mindeness Gold Member Offline We need more fits of absent mindedness Posts: 1622 Brisbane Gender:	Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today Reply #185 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 2:56pm http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/02/us-anti-gay-archbishop-investigated-over-ne... US: Anti-gay Archbishop investigated over new allegations he ‘sexually touched’ men Anti Gay - Check Gay Sex Scandal - Check
Back to top	Putting the n in cuts IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #186 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:02pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 3:37am:

Grendel wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 6:46pm:

MOTR wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 7:25am:

Hard not to be persuaded by Jesse Ventura's argument.

"Love is bigger than government. Who the hell are we the government to tell people who you can fall in love with. I think it's absurd the fact it's even being debated. We can solve the problem simply. Government only acknowledges civil unions, then you don't have to put your sex down. Let the churches acknowledge marriage, they're the private sector. If they don't want to acknowledge it, they have every right to do so. How on earth can we even entertain the fact that government should have the right to tell you, as an individual who you can fall in love with. It's ridiculous."

Amen, brother.

What a load of rubbish in relation to the gay marriage debate...

Go on.

Why?
Don't you understand why?

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #187 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:05pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 5:05am:

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and issued a withering take-down of marriage equality opponents.

Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state's birth rate. "These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote US district judge John Heyburn. "Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

"The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in 'ensuring humanity’s continued existence' are at best illogical and even bewildering…The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Says it all really.

What is bewildering and illogical is the thought that gay couples are the norm and the natural process of continuation of the species or procreation can be achieved by them naturally.
I have no idea what the economic argument was. Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Adamant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1893
Brisbane
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #188 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 6:55pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

And that's why it is still a deviance, a biological, evolutionary, not to say moral and ethical, deviance. No matter what you call it, homosexuality is not something you want to encourage, promote, boost. It IS a deviance. It can be tolerated - decriminalising it did just that - but you do not want to treat is as normal because if it were normal we would die out.

Interesting thinking there, Soren. So, if we treated homosexuality as normal, everybody would become homosexual?

If society treated you as "normal" what would you be classed as, Troll perhaps?

Back to top

In real life Gandalf is known as Mr 10%

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #189 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:14pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 5:05am:

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and issued a withering take-down of marriage equality opponents.

Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state's birth rate. "These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote US district judge John Heyburn. "Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

"The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in 'ensuring humanity’s continued existence' are at best illogical and even bewildering…The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Says it all really.

He rejected the procreation defence of marriage. Not the argument - which was not put to him - that marriage is about men and women.

If that argument were to be attempted in court - that marriage is not restricted to a man and a woman -, homosexuals would have to provide a list of people who would be excluded from marriage if its definition changed.

The current definition - one man and one woman - is self-explanatory. Removing the sexual aspect - man and woman - but not the numbers - one of each - is arbitrary and baseless. But homosexuals do not want to change that part of the definition (yet), lest they be fingered (ahem) as slippery slope merchants.

Homosexuals are not prepared to fight for inclusion on the basis of excluding some others whose preference runs to numbers. This is why the gay marriage argument is really flimsy and ill-considered.

Back to top

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #190 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:18pm

Grendel wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 3:05pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 5:05am:

On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages unconstitutional and issued a withering take-down of marriage equality opponents.

Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state's birth rate. "These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote US district judge John Heyburn. "Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.

"The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in 'ensuring humanity’s continued existence' are at best illogical and even bewildering…The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Says it all really.

What is bewildering and illogical is the thought that gay couples are the norm and the natural process of continuation of the species or procreation can be achieved by them naturally.
I have no idea what the economic argument was. Cheesy

Who exactly is arguing that procreation can be achieved through gay couples, grendel.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #191 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 8:16pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 3:45am:

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 29^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

And that's why it is still a deviance, a biological, evolutionary, not to say moral and ethical, deviance. No matter what you call it, homosexuality is not something you want to encourage, promote, boost. It IS a deviance. It can be tolerated - decriminalising it did just that - but you do not want to treat is as normal because if it were normal we would die out.

Interesting thinking there, Soren. So, if we treated homosexuality as normal, everybody would become homosexual? Roll Eyes

Is that your clearest thinking, Brain?

Homosexuality is an aberration. You can have a functioning society with 100 % heterosexual but it is impossible to have a functioning society with 100% homosexuals.

Marriage is about the relationship between men and women. They make up the species and society, their relationship is crucial to every society. This is why marriage is present in some way in every society - as a social function.

Managing the sexual relationship of homosexuals is not a matter for either the species or any society - it is a fringe aberration. Homosexuals have no valid claim, therefore, on one of the crucial institution in society because homosexuality by its very definition is completely irrelevant to social relationship between men and women, for which marriage is the central institution.

This is not difficult, it's not homophobic - it just recognises marriage for what it is and why it is not for gays.

Ummm, Soren, that's exactly what you were implying.

THe opposite - even if you legalise gay 'marriage', homosexuality will still be an aberration. You cannot legalise against nature and social institutions around nature.

For example, you can legislate that a step-father is legally the same as a natural father, yet a step-father is NOT the father of the child. You can legislate that a man has the right to give birth, legalise a pregnant woman's right to change to a man and then when she is legally a man, give birth - but still, that is not a man giving birth. That is a woman pretending to be a man giving birth.

Marriage is a social institution regulating the natural relationship between the sexes, men and women. It is not an institution regulating the relationship between any two persons.

Two blokes or two gals pretending to have the same relationship as a man and a woman is ludicrous. It is a knowing pretence. The relationship between a man and a woman is completely different from the relationship between two men or two women. You have to be wilfully blind and/or stupid to pretend otherwise. No gay marriage advocate ever addresses the fundamental principle of marriage - that it is about the two sexes that make up the species. This is what makes marriage universal and age-old institution, not love or commitment which are neither universal nor age-old.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 9:15pm by Soren »

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 156492
Gender: male

Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today
Reply #192 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 8:16pm

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2014 at 6:38am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 8:28pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 10:33am:

It's not the job of our society to say this immoral behaviour is normal.

It's not your job to suggest that their behaviour is immoral.

No - but it's his right to hold a view on that behaviour.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Back to top

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: First Gay Marriage In Australia Today Reply #193 - Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 8:19pm Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 4:25pm: Good on them, if they're happy, I'm happy. http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/v1/designs/12203143,width=178,height=1... This is as soppy as it is false.
Back to top	IP Logged