Society/Culture Gay marriage 2 years in review

[RobbieK]

No, not the way you put it - to be aware of strangers and "your private parts" yes but schools and teachers have been doing that for the last 100 plus years. Anything more than that is not needed.

By their very nature children in their formative years are still absorbing their surroundings, there is no need for children to be taught about how to touch themselves in a sexualised way or to learn about reproduction.

All that does is take away childhood and its innocence................ there'll be plenty of time for that as they enter early teen years.

What you think I have said and what I have actually said are two very different things.

The whole point of these kinds of programs is that you need to educate children about these things before they enter their early teens years because by that point a bunch of them will already be engaged in sexual behaviour. You aren't keeping them innocent, you are keeping them ignorant.

Seriously, read the curriculum posted before. Tell us what is inapropriate about what is being taught and when it is being taught. The sensationalist headline unsurprisingly doesn't match the reality.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What you think I have said and what I have actually said are two very different things.

The whole point of these kinds of programs is that you need to educate children about these things before they enter their early teens years because by that point a bunch of them will already be engaged in sexual behaviour. You aren't keeping them innocent, you are keeping them ignorant.

Seriously, read the curriculum posted before. Tell us what is inapropriate about what is being taught and when it is being taught. The sensationalist headline unsurprisingly doesn't match the reality.

You're completely missing the point. (Or you're trying to cover up a back pedal)

Education about these things for pre teens and early teens fair enough, that's already happening in late primary and early high school and has been since I was in grade 6 in 1980 and way way before that. They are not children in their very formative years.

But children under the age of 10 is probably not a good idea and they're more interested in what children are interested in anyway.

Couldn't give a flying about the curriculum, you have admitted to quoting and have stood by it.

"Children should be taught about sexuality and reproduction"

You seriously can't be in favour of kindergarten toddlers being taught about sexuality and reproduction?!

NO! For the last time they are children.

This discussion ends here as it is not thread relevant, if you really want to continue pm me if you must.

 

[RobbieK]

You're completely missing the point. (Or you're trying to cover up a back pedal)

Education about these things for pre teens and early teens fair enough, that's already happening in late primary and early high school and has been since I was in grade 6 in 1980 and way way before that. They are not children in their very formative years.

But children under the age of 10 is probably not a good idea and they're more interested in what children are interested in anyway.

Couldn't give a flying about the curriculum, you have admitted to quoting and have stood by it.

"Children should be taught about sexuality and reproduction"

You seriously can't be in favour of kindergarten toddlers being taught about sexuality and reproduction?!

NO! For the last time they are children.

This discussion ends here as it is not thread relevant, if you really want to continue pm me if you must.

If you actually read the curriculum you would realise the one that has missed the point is you.

 

[Art Corvelay]

This thread reminds me why SRP sucks. About 2 posts actually on topic, the rest a bunch of claptrap nonsense completely off topic with the added benefit of someone reporting a poster for an opinion (an opinion!) they don’t even hold.

 

[Seeds]

That's very odd and unnecessary, obviously. However, society is degenerating far quicker due to have political parties who are anti-anything they see as progressive a la our Liberal Party.

So things degenerate when they stay the same? What?

Progressives try to improve things. Conservatives traditionally try to keep things the same. There is no degeneration involved.

 

[Seeds]

This thread reminds me why SRP sucks. About 2 posts actually on topic, the rest a bunch of claptrap nonsense completely off topic with the added benefit of someone reporting a poster for an opinion (an opinion!) they don’t even hold.

Threads have a beginning topic but they should be allowed to flow and go wherever posters want to take them as long as posters discuss decently and the flow is natural. Posters can also pull them back to the original topic if they want to! Nothing is stoping you.

Ps. Nice hat.

 

[Cuzz09]

How much is child support?

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Religious discrimination legislation needs to be a two way street.

For anything where you can discriminate based on religious grounds you must be able to be discriminate based on anti-religious grounds. It's the only fair outcome.

If you can fire me after finding out I am an atheist or refuse to hire me because you only want other Jesus people, then I am entitled to fire you when I find out you believe in Noah's Ark or not hire you if you have one of those fish stickers on your car.

Fair's fair, no?

Brilliant! If theists want us to be a religion, then I say we own it. We should have the ability to discriminate as well.

BTW there are some amusing assertions about the role of marriage in western society in this thread. Some actual facts regarding marriage to digest:

1. The vast majority of marriages have (and still remain) a contract between families
2. As a result, marriage between cousins is common throughout the world (Jerry Lee Lewis anyone?)
3. The Catholic Church took over the secular concept of marriage in the 12th century. It had nothing to do with religion prior.
4. The Bible is huge on polygamy.
5. The concept of marriage being about love and equals is very new

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

Though marriage is now seen as love between equals, throughout history it has had a radically different definition

www.livescience.com

Oh and while we're on it. Yep, the Western World is definitely the better model. Not because of Christianity or being White or whatever - it's because the Western World adopted the scientific enlightenment before the rest of the world. Check out the life expectancy across the world pre-the scientific enlightenment.

Life Expectancy

When and why did the average age at which people die increase and how can we make further progress against early death?

ourworldindata.org

Oh and the relative recent adoption of democracy took off in Western societies as well.

Part of the adoption of the scientific enlightenment is the adoption of secular ideals - one of which is the idea that marriage should be based on the idea of love and attraction rather than forcing unwilling participants into unloving unions (which you could hazard a guess were often bad for at least one of the participants, if not all). Hence marriage equality furthers the ideal that marriage should be based on two loving participants. And on we progress.

 

[woota]

Oh and while we're on it. Yep, the Western World is definitely the better model. Not because of Christianity or being White or whatever - it's because the Western World adopted the scientific enlightenment before the rest of the world. Check out the life expectancy across the world pre-the scientific enlightenment.

Yep, having a divorce rate of 50% or higher is definitely the better model. We're definitely doing it right in the western world.

Oh and the relative recent adoption of democracy took off in Western societies as well.

Part of the adoption of the scientific enlightenment is the adoption of secular ideals - one of which is the idea that marriage should be based on the idea of love and attraction rather than forcing unwilling participants into unloving unions (which you could hazard a guess were often bad for at least one of the participants, if not all). Hence marriage equality furthers the ideal that marriage should be based on two loving participants. And on we progress.

Love doesn't endure, and neither do marriages based on it. That's why we are living in the midst of a divorce epidemic.

I'd go with the 3rd world model - marriages based on pragmatic realism, rather than emotion.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Yep, having a divorce rate of 50% or higher is definitely the better model. We're definitely doing it right in the western world.




Love doesn't endure, and neither do marriages based on it. That's why we are living in the midst of a divorce epidemic.

I'd go with the 3rd world model - marriages based on pragmatic realism, rather than emotion.

Not sure if serious. Why is divorce bad? People are allowed to make mistakes. Better two people realise they're not in love anymore and call it a day. A sensible decision. BTW the divorce rate in Australia has begun to drop quite markedly so an epidemic is a hell of a loaded term.

Australia’s divorce rates plummet to the lowest level in 40 YEARS - as it’s revealed couples are marrying later than ever before

I quite like the fact I got to choose the woman I got married to and I'm guessing she's quite happy she had a say in the matter too.

 

[woota]

Not sure if serious. Why is divorce bad? People are allowed to make mistakes. Better two people realise they're not in love anymore and call it a day. A sensible decision. BTW the divorce rate in Australia has begun to drop quite markedly so an epidemic is a hell of a loaded term.

Australia’s divorce rates plummet to the lowest level in 40 YEARS - as it’s revealed couples are marrying later than ever before

I quite like the fact I got to choose the woman I got married to and I'm guessing she's quite happy she had a say in the matter too.

 

[RobbieK]

Why should people be forced to stay in a relationship that is not working for them?

 

[woota]

Why should people be forced to stay in a relationship that is not working for them?

I didn't say they should. Marriage is a lifelong commitment and you think it should be based on "love", which you will fall out of after 2-3 years.

 

[RobbieK]

I didn't say they should. Marriage is a lifelong commitment and you think it should be based on "love", which you will fall out of after 2-3 years.

I think it should be based on whatever the two people involved in it what it to be based on.

 

[woota]

I think it should be based on whatever the two people involved in it what it to be based on.

Cool. Basing it on love doesn't have a good track record.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The underlying basis of marriage is about procreation. There's an assumption that it's a sexual relationship - hence why both partners have to be of adult age and not closely related.

The arrangement can come about by love or contracts between families. Sure, some married couples don't have kids but two men or two women having sex will never make a baby. No matter that gay marriage is now legal it will continue to have a different value in society to a man and woman getting married with a view to starting a family.

 

[RobbieK]

The underlying basis of marriage is about procreation. There's an assumption that it's a sexual relationship - hence why both partners have to be of adult age and not closely related.

The arrangement can come about by love or contracts between families. Sure, some married couples don't have kids but two men or two women having sex will never make a baby. No matter that gay marriage is now legal it will continue to have a different value in society to a man and woman getting married with a view to starting a family.

The trend towards childless marriages has been picking up pace for a while, I see no reason why same sex marriage should have a significant impact on that.

Childless couples 'on track to be Australia's most common family type'

A society dominated by childless couples could become Australia's reality, with data analysis suggesting they will become the most common family type by 2023.

mobile.abc.net.au

 

[its free real estate]

The trend towards childless marriages has been picking up pace for a while, I see no reason why same sex marriage should have a significant impact on that.

Childless couples 'on track to be Australia's most common family type'

A society dominated by childless couples could become Australia's reality, with data analysis suggesting they will become the most common family type by 2023.

mobile.abc.net.au

Only because people leave it to late and then find they are no longer fertile.

 

[RobbieK]

Only because people leave it to late and then find they are no longer fertile.

"Only"?

 

[its free real estate]

"Only"?

Yes, only. The vast majority of people want to have children. They just increasingly prioritise it beyond the time horizon of their very short window of fertility.

 

[RobbieK]

Yes, only. The vast majority of people want to have children. They just increasingly prioritise it beyond the time horizon of their very short window of fertility.

And your data to support this is...?

 

[its free real estate]

And your data to support this is...?

‘The desire to have a child never goes away’: how the involuntarily childless are forming a new movement

One in five British women born in the 60s don’t have children – and the grief many of them feel has rarely been acknowledged. But now they, and men in the same position, are organising with others around the world to gain recognition and comfort

www.theguardian.com

Around 90% of people who are lifetime childless wanted to have kids. Only 10% never intended to have them.

 

[Gough]

‘The desire to have a child never goes away’: how the involuntarily childless are forming a new movement

One in five British women born in the 60s don’t have children – and the grief many of them feel has rarely been acknowledged. But now they, and men in the same position, are organising with others around the world to gain recognition and comfort

www.theguardian.com

Around 90% of people who are lifetime childless wanted to have kids. Only 10% never intended to have them.

I'll never have kids which is a shame because I'd be a bitching dad. Long been resigned to it.

 

[its free real estate]

I'll never have kids which is a shame because I'd be a bitching dad. Long been resigned to it.

It's the most normal imperative. I know a lot of people for whom acceptance of it never happening for them is hard - but we have a society that actively tells young people that they shouldn't do it.

 

[woota]

And your data to support this is...?

Of all the things in this world that truly make me sick, your posts are near the top of the list. It's like you're living in an alternate reality where every natural human inclination is to be shunned, and every act of depravity celebrated. Your kind are the scourge of humanity, and I know where your path leads (it's not where you think).