Over the last few days, I have been rethinking same-sex marriage. Not to say that I have shifted my position completely, but there are some convincing arguments that have got me thinking about the other position.

My reasoning is this, and this may sound a little crazy, but here we go.

My view is that left's ultimate end, and I think we'll see this in about 10 to 20 years, is the notion that there is something fundamentally wrong with humans biologically - that we are limited by our biology. Therefore, the only solution to this problem is to fundamentally alter our biology in a way that no longer makes us 'primates'. This is known as transhumanism or post-humanism, and has been spoken about before - i.e. the term isn't new, and mainly is used in science fiction genres. Of course, we're still a long way from this; but I can see the Left arguing for this all the same. At some point, the push back from conservatives and moderates will be such that the Left will have to concede that there are biological foundations to human behaviour.

Gender as a social construct is something which the lefts fully propagates - that gender has no basis in biology at all.

Now, what does this have to do with SSM?

SSM is the ANOTHER step toward this end. Sure, in of itself SSM has no bearing on this; but hardcore progressives won't stop or leave it there, will they? The idea of gender fluidity is, in my view, not conducive to a productive society. I have no issue with transgender people; if a person wishes to transition to another gender, this is fine. The issue that I struggle with is the idea THAT GENDER DOES EXIST - that there are 70 odd different genders. In my view, you are either male or female, whether transitioned or not. That's it.

First of all, I'd like to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or that sodomy is a sin or is unnatural. I believe that all 'sex for pleasure' is unnatural since the ultimate purpose of sex is to produce children. If you view sodomy as a sin, then you must equally concede that 'heterosexual activity solely for pleasure' is also a sin, and this is reflected in the Christian tradition.

Second, I strongly believe that children benefit from having a MOTHER AND A FATHER. Milk from the breast directly is known to be more healthy than milk from the bottle. All children should have the benefit of having a mother and a father.
----
I would like to hear opinions from both sides. If you're AnotherJourneyByTrain or someone like him who believes that all homosexual people are pedophiles, then stay away from this chat. I want considered and reasoned opinions, please.

There are two questions I would like answered from both the Left and Right:

First for the Left: can you guarantee that SSM won't lead to an acceleration of gender fluidity in society?

For the right: can you guarantee that we can have a society that treats homosexuals as human beings with equal rights and equal respect without having SSM?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 10:51am:


I am aware of the argument and the fallacy.

I'm not concerned that SSM will lead to polygamy or bestiality or some rubbish like that. For me, it's about the gender issue. Some on the Left are arguing that gender is solely a social construct and that biology plays no role.

Second, in countries that have adopted SSM there have moves toward 'gender fluidity', so maybe the 'fallacy' does come true.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:49am:


A car?

issuevoter wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:


You may reject that notion, but science disproves you. Homosexuality has been around since ancient times.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:


I strongly disagree with this statement, and condemn your attitude. Sure, they are a minority, but there's nothing neurotic about them. Same-sex attraction has been part of human societies for thousands of years. They are normal.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:


Children should be taught by their parents, primarily, to respect their fellow human being and judge people based on them as an individual. Regarding education, every child should be taught that every person, irrespective of race, gender, or creed is to be protected equally by law.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:


What as opposed to the pedophilia of an American senator recently? Or the child pornography of that Victorian MP's husband? Come on! There are pedophiles and deviants in all sexualities. Don't let your prejudice blind your reason.

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:


Never too late, Superman.

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:


I didn't ignore them. I considered them, and believed that they were wrong.

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:


Wrong. That's what YOU believe it's about. I've read the Catholic churches viewpoint on 'marriage' and I'm more convinced by their arguments than your bullshit arguments about 'sexual deviancy' - W(e)TF that means...   

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 4:15pm:


There'll be more couples who will be in committed relationships now too. You take the negative and the positive.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 6:27pm:


Homosexuality is completely normal. It's been a part of human nature for thousands of years.

According to the Catholic church, marriage is about the raising of children, and marriage is designed to ensure the proper nurture of children. That is a better argument that the bullshit you and G are throwing up.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:


Are you normal, Sore End?

I'm curious.

Frank wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 8:24pm:


Don't wanna say, hey?

Kunning.

My view is that left's ultimate end, and I think we'll see this in about 10 to 20 years, is the belief that every man and woman be afforded their due and be free to live in peace without discrimination or judgement from those who seek solace in their intolerance!!!

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 10:48am:


You are right, it does sound crazy

62% voted yes in the survey so to try and imply that the only supporters of SSM are some extremist left wingers is absurd.

The conservative right can do all the hand wringing and hysterical slippery slope theories that they want. The fact is that SSM has been accepted by the mainstream population.

One more time for those still in denial...
Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 1:07pm:


You wouldn't vote for a pedophile would you? if they were a candidate in an election

Auggie wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


Incorrect - it's been a fringe thing outside the real concept of sex, and has been tolerated.  That is not the same as 'normal'.

3% doing it is the proof of the positive of 97% - not the other way around.  3% is a deviation - not a norm, and is, rather, the exception that proves the rule.... 97% are correct in their behaviour.

Thus 3% are incorrect.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:50pm:

No Phil you are...  if you keep posting twaddle people will call you out on it.

This isn't the first stupidity you've posted on the subject?  Are you married?  Did you marry your mother or daughter?  After all that's how you say we should all think of women.

Who seeks solace in their intolerance Phil?  Stop posting holier than thou bullshit.  Get real.  You LW Progs will be the death of society as we know it and the end will not be good.

You can't 'think' SSM, Augie.. you have to 'feel the love', man.....

Phil.. if you think gays are just going to leave it at this and be happy with it and will not launch countless jihads to extend their 'rights', you are naive.  This stupidity of giving in to screechy minorities is the start of troubles - not the end of them....

The 'women's rights' bullshit should show you that clearly.....

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 11:50pm:

Are you above the hoi poloi?

You’re nothing bro!

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Is auggie switching sides all of a sudden?

He thinks he’s milos the court jester 

.......... and in breaking news, another strand has degenerated into a slanging match on OzPol...... in a similar vein, the sun rose this morning in the East..................... and is expected to set in the West...<> ...<>...<>...

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 9:03am:

Got nothing eh Phil.
Just more abuse.
Grap disagrees with you too...  I'll munch some popcorn whilst you flame and TROLL him with your usual abuse shall I?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 1:27am:


Grappler, just because something is practised by a minority, doesn't mean that it's not 'normal'. When people talk about homsexuality being 'deviant' or 'not normal', what they tend to mean is that there's something wrong with them psychologically or mentally. When I say 'normal', I mean that it is natural in so far as people don't choose to be homosexual (I'm talking about those who are genuinely gay, not those who stray side to side.)

But, it is not deviation.

I don't understand you, Grap. You're all for economic justice and equality, but when it comes to this issue you seem to be singing a different tune???

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:35pm:


That's right; your opinion is based on misinformation and pseudoscience.

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:22pm:


Yes - it's a tricky one, and I raised 'separate but equal' before in suggesting myself that SSM could be covered by a civil union.  Someone else said all Marriages should be civil unions and the church ceremony be at the discretion/wish of the participants...... with the right to say NO enshrined.  If you can't get your YES somewhere - go somewhere else.... I'm certain that many churches will happily oblige with a ceremony, so there is no need to deliberately confront those that do not wish to do so.**

If we go 'separate but equal', this raises the spectre of Apartheid, and you would never hear the end of it from the SSM community.  However, at the same time, they will be jihading for 'inclusion' of all kinds of oddball 'sexual genders', and you will never hear an end to the whining that will follow...

This must be left to same sex entirely, or must include any and every theoretical variant on the basic theme of man/woman - or not be done at all.... and left as it is/was - between man and woman exclusively.

I see no end to the disputations over 'issues' here, and no valid solution in sight.

** I can't marry a Muslim unless I 'convert' - so I won't be marrying a Muslim..... at the same time I will not be adhering to any strand of Christianity to suit a woman.... any Chrisso or Musso woman who wants me must take me on my own terms as I am, and their respective mullahs must do so as well.....

LOL
Even I thought you'd get it after Grappler's explanation but apparently not Auggie.

Denial...  must be bliss for you.

I never thought I'd have to post this...

Quote:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:


I've said that before - it's known as privatization of marriage. It's generally proposed by libertarians.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:


I absolutely agree. Many churches will allow SSM; if they want the money, they'll have to do it.

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


Do you agree that there are people who are attracted to the same-sex, which attraction is not of their choice??

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:



This is idiotic.

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:35pm:



Deviance doesn't have to be a choice. Nobody chooses to be a hunchback, yet is' nit normal, it is a deviance from the normal human body.


You are making silly mistake after stupid mistake.

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:41pm:


So, if it's part of nature, then there's nothing deviant about it. It is different, but it is not 'deviant'.

Hitler believed that Jews were 'deviant'.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:49pm:



Well, your mild stupidity is paving the way to that insanity.

The left used to be for universal human values but has now descended to identity politics of sex, race, ethnicity - blinkered, parochial tribalism.

There is nothing too outlandish along that path - and you are on it.

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:


Yet I never mentioned these things you speak of....I thought the left where on the path to science fiction according to the OP....You got sucked in mate....My god you lot are stupid!!!



There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832)

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:38pm:

Liar liar pants on fire...  I didn't change the word or its meaning deviation or to deviate the meaning is the same.  oh dear shotdown again.

Quote:

Frank wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 7:38pm:


Your cracking me up Fwank....70% of Australian's disagree with you Fwank....I had no idea you could see into the future Fwank so how come you couldn't predict the outcome of the SSM survey Fwank....Must be the science fiction bullshit you support???



Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968), Strength to Love, 1963

Auggie wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

So by your definition those blokes who get special protection in jail aren’t deviants?

Grendel wrote on Dec 13^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 14^th, 2017 at 11:16pm:


We have, as a modern society, developed the notion of ‘consent’. Attraction to younger person under the legal requirement is, and rightfully so, unacceptable. Adults who engage in sexual acts with each other, consensually, are not and should not be considered deviant.

A heterosexual marriage couple could have a sexual relationship in which they piss on each other, or engage in sadistic acts. This is deviant according to you, so should that couple not be allowed to marry?

So, sexual deviancy is ok when a man and woman do it, but not when a man and a man do it?

You confuse and conflate all sotrts of things.
Gays have the right to their relationship- it just is not marriage. Marriage is a heterosexual relationship. It's  not a religious one.  It's not a gay one. It's  not with children, the dead, objects - with them people ha a different connection or relationship. There are all sorts of other human relationships.

Frank wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:32pm:

Auggie has had too many drugs to do the deed it would seem!

TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 12:31pm:


I never said that I wanted a secular society, I said I wanted a secular state. They’re two different things.

Good grief...  well I'll give Grappler first shot at your stupid post from a page ago Auggie.
But let me tell you this...  Marriage is based on Nature, not religion.

Auggie wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:35pm:

You tried that one before... differently,  I answered it, YOU failed...  no point trying again, by moving goalposts.

I await Grappler trying to educate you.

Grendel wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:38pm:


Now, who's obfuscating?

Answer the questions.

Auggie wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:48pm:

I don't have to answer idiocy and doing it twice well that would be even more idiocy.
I'm waiting for Grap to have frst shot at you..

You can wait for me I'll get to you later...  believe me.

I never obfuscate and almost always answer questions right now I'm being courteous.

You need to be patient and stop name-calling.  You'll gt yours soon enough.

Don't think it, Man - just feel the love... yeah.......

Grendel wrote on Dec 15^th, 2017 at 4:40pm:

I'm still gonna wait for Grap since you addressed him on this shyte you wrote.

But let me give you a hint of what is yet to come.

Quote:

Many religions have the same understanding of marriage.
It is the Union of a Man and a Woman.
That IS based on Nature.

You are in for such a battering.

As for this shyte.
Quote:

Marriage is the Union of a Man and A Woman... not simply ticking a box on a ballot paper.  Even YOU should be able to tell the vast differences.
Just how is ticking a ballot paper NATURAL?  Where exactly does it occur in NATURE?

Oh dear shotdown again.  Now please stop this idiocy and try to debate sensibly.

Grendel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2017 at 8:30am:


Clearly you know nothing.

Opposition against women’s suffrage had nothing to do with ‘ticking a box’. That’s like saying that marriage is simply a contract. There were deeper more underlying notions about the nature of women and how society would change if they voted.

On the one hand you seem to be reducing women’s suffrage to ‘ticking the box’ and are not refusing marriage to be a contractual arrangement.

Who’s obfuscating now???