The Law Marraige Equality

[Theseventhhamster]

are you Mad Dog Tannen?

lulz.

 

[Chief]

Firstly, how can you possibly know this?

Secondly, there is a wealth of scientific evidence that this is not the case.

Many animals (Octopus, Great Apes, Dolphins Orca and other whales) display just this ability.

Self recognition, passing the mirror test, tool use and even (in some cases) language and culture.

The human frontal lobe allows us to plan. Not just anticipate what will happen in the next few seconds or minutes and position ourselves for a reward or lack thereof.

Plenty of evidence this is the biggie in separating the men from the apes.

 

[Pie eyed]

Seriously? Don't know how you see it that way. The west is very quiet when it comes to critisising them. They have it very well off. In fact the very opposite I would have thought. Having lived in Jordan and now Australia, the west promotes and pushes that life style extremley heavily.

In comparison to any fundamentalist state they get have it made here in the West and in the more enlightened civilizations true.
But that is not what you said.
You said:

Pretty much agree with ron the bear. Political correctness has invaded even what we know is against nature. We are too afraid as a society to hurt gay people's feelings by calling them out on their actions.

You crush your own argument from within your own post by actually calling them out on their actions while simultaneously giving false justification. I assume that the "we as a society" of which you write is some "fundamentalist society" as it surely is not the "we , the Australian society"

 

[Paradigm]

Actually, I missed your reply. My mistake. I'll respond now.

And opinions can still be wrong.

Opinions are just that. Opinions. It's how you think about something - it's not an action. It's a personal view ....an attitude to something.
So you can disagree with someone's opinion as vehemently as you like, doesn't make you right or them wrong.

And how on earth is that relevant to the current debate? You are talking about a shift in meaning. The marriage issue is about a broadening of meaning.

If you say "I'm married", why one earth would you have to clarify that it's a straight marriage? Saying "I'm married" is never going to be suggestive of homosexuality in the same way "my partner" might be, because the meaning is being stripped of connotations of sexual orientation, not given them. That is why I've been questioning the relevance of you bringing this up. It is not an apt analogy.

Tell that to a de facto couple.
I don't have to clarify it at the moment. I may have to in the future. My analogy is on the button.

Instead of arguing about "partner", how about you try to describe a scenario in which you tell a stranger you're married, and as a result of that, they assume you're gay. Just try it.

See above. Not necessary at the moment. My point exactly.

I haven't at all. You don't have to clarify your relationship, and you won't.

Rubbish, same as I am not likely to say "I am gay" when I am meaning "I am happy". That word has changed meaning altogether. And only over a period of about 25 years. Gay from what I can recall, when it was first bandied about , included both gay men and women...now we use the terms gay and lesbian.
Gay encompasses two entirely different relationships.. lesbians are still gay, but gays are not lesbian...so even the homosexual terminology has changed. And with it, the meaning of the words.

Actually, both. It's been that way since the dawn of time. However, in this case, there won't be a blurring or shift between two meanings, but a simple broadening of the one meaning. Malleable, not indistinct.

Disagree. Broadening of one meaning to include something else automatically requires a clarification. I support AFL but I don;t support Collingwood ...but Collingwood are part of the AFL.

I suggested a "gay vibe" in a gay person (but also in a straight person) as a possible reason why the statement "I'm married" would not immediately be assumed as straight. It's hardly central to the argument.

Then why did you bring it up ?

 

[DarwinRoo]

You idiot.

Coming from the person who said that 20 years ago that gay still meant happy? Im pretty sure Freddie Mercury and Elton John were called gay 20 years ago.

Where have I defined homosexuals as people that have anal sex?

Where did I say you did?

You yourself have just differentiated two different sex acts.

Did I? Well then why aren't they called two different names? If two men have anal sex its called anal sex, if a guy has anal sex with a girl, its still called anal sex right?

If I walk up to a man and say 'I want to have sex" does he automatically assume it is anal ?
Think about it.

I don't really see what that has to do with it, considering we are not talking about sex as a whole, just anal sex specifically. Why is the same act carried out by both hetero and homosexual's called the same thing?

Strap on whatever you like ...use whatever orifice turns you on - I DON'T CARE.

WTF are you on about. Who was talking about a strap on?

By the way do you vote? I'm a man and originally only men were allowed to vote, I don't think women should be allowed to "vote", they should be able to have a say in elections but it shouldn't be called voting, what do you think Paradigm?

 

[BarneyBent]

Opinions are just that. Opinions. It's how you think about something - it's not an action. It's a personal view ....an attitude to something.
So you can disagree with someone's opinion as vehemently as you like, doesn't make you right or them wrong.

In my opinion, the sky is green. Tell me I'm not wrong.

Tell that to a de facto couple.
I don't have to clarify it at the moment. I may have to in the future. My analogy is on the button.

What do de facto couples have to do with it?

You completely ignored my argument, btw. I'm not saying the analogy is off the mark because it doesn't apply now, of course not. The whole purpose is to look at the future. The problem is that the semantic shift you are trying to draw an analogy to is qualitatively different.

"Partner" has adopted a new meaning, alongside the old one. These are "colleague" or "gay lover". These are conflicting meanings.

"Marriage" will not adopt a new, conflicting meaning. It will simply generalise the meaning. "I'm married" won't mean "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised straight relationship" OR "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised gay relationship", which would require a clarification. It will mean "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised relationship".

Now tell me, how could saying "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised relationship", AKA the probable future definition of marriage should gay marriage recognised, ever suggest that you are gay?

And please, no vague, dismissive remarks. Form a coherent argument, please.

See above. Not necessary at the moment. My point exactly.

I'm talking about the future, just as you are. Keep up.

Rubbish, same as I am not likely to say "I am gay" when I am meaning "I am happy". That word has changed meaning altogether. And only over a period of about 25 years. Gay from what I can recall, when it was first bandied about , included both gay men and women...now we use the terms gay and lesbian.
Gay encompasses two entirely different relationships.. lesbians are still gay, but gays are not lesbian...so even the homosexual terminology has changed. And with it, the meaning of the words.

That's all well and good, but it has absolutely no relevance to the debate, as these are not the same semantic changes that would occur with marriage.

Simply pointing out instances of definitions changing is not an argument, and it's bizarre that you seem to think it is.

Disagree. Broadening of one meaning to include something else automatically requires a clarification. I support AFL but I don;t support Collingwood ...but Collingwood are part of the AFL.

Yes, and if you want to state that you don't support Collingwood, you can. But if you say "I support AFL", people aren't going to assume you're a Collingwood supporter. If you want to make it absolutely clear, you can, but you don't have to. You certainly won't be fighting the assumption that you are one.

Similarly, if gay marriage were to be legalised, when you say you are married, you might be gay, but nobody would assume it. It's totally neutral. Saying you're married merely describes the level of formalisation of your relationship; it says nothing about the orientation.

In fact, even the AFL/Collingwood analogy is flawed. Saying you're an AFL supporter narrows down the clubs you support to 18, of which Collingwood is one. Saying you're married with gay marriage legalised doesn't narrow down the options for one's orientation at all; your options stay at two, gay or straight (ignoring for the moment bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality).

Then why did you bring it up ?

To provide a minor caveat to a minor thread in a larger argument.

Basically, the central part of my argument is that if gay marriage is legalised, "marriage" will never be specifically indicative of homosexuality. It will only ever develop into something that is stripped of connotations about sexual orientation, becoming neutral.

Now, I also made the supporting argument that even if it were to become totally neutral, there would still be a general assumption of heterosexuality, as heterosexuality is the norm. The only time an assumption of homosexuality would be made would be when there were specific reasons to suggest the person in question is homosexual (e.g. openly gay, or a "gay vibe"). Bringing up "gay vibes" is not necessary to support this argument, it's just an example that may apply to a few people. Furthermore, this argument is not necessary to support my overall argument; it merely augments it.

 

[Bomberboy12]

In comparison to any fundamentalist state they get have it made here in the West and in the more enlightened civilizations true.
But that is not what you said.
You said:


You crush your own argument from within your own post by actually calling them out on their actions while simultaneously giving false justification. I assume that the "we as a society" of which you write is some "fundamentalist society" as it surely is not the "we , the Australian society"

Huh? Gays do have it very well off in Australian society because Australian (and American and English) societies are too afraid to say anything to them. How is that defeating my own argument? Weird post.

 

[thurmanmunson]

Interesting thread. I will never understand how someone could oppose gay marriage

 

[Paradigm]

In my opinion, the sky is green. Tell me I'm not wrong.

Good point. It's green to you because thats the colour you learnt as green. What you see green I may see red, but because we are all told the sky is blue - a fact - what we see as blue is what we call blue.

So the sky may well be called blue, but in fact to you it may be green that you call blue and to me it may be red that I call blue.

I cannot say that what you see as blue is wrong - I can't see what you see. Same as in the case of opinion - I don't think like you think so how can I say you are wrong? I simply accept that you see something differently.
And that is a good thing.

What do de facto couples have to do with it?

They refer to each other as "partners" also, don't they? Same as I don;t introduce my husband as my spouse, I doubt they introduce their other halves as 'my de facto".

You completely ignored my argument, btw. I'm not saying the analogy is off the mark because it doesn't apply now, of course not. The whole purpose is to look at the future. The problem is that the semantic shift you are trying to draw an analogy to is qualitatively different.

And what did I say ...



Here I'll quote it for you

See above. Not necessary at the moment. My point exactly.

Jesus Christ - I even bolded it and you still didn't get it.

"Partner" has adopted a new meaning, alongside the old one. These are "colleague" or "gay lover". These are conflicting meanings.
"Marriage" will not adopt a new, conflicting meaning. It will simply generalise the meaning. "I'm married" won't mean "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised straight relationship" OR "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised gay relationship", which would require a clarification. It will mean "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised relationship".

Now tell me, how could saying "I am in a formalised, legally-recognised relationship", AKA the probable future definition of marriage should gay marriage recognised, ever suggest that you are gay?

And please, no vague, dismissive remarks. Form a coherent argument, please.

Bolded and italicised ...how come "partner" has changed but the word "marriage" won't, Nostradamus? And why is one conflicting and the other not ?

I'm not saying that. I am saying that it no longer distinguishes me from a gay marriage. I have given at least 3 examples where the definition of a word has changed over time. I think I have argued fairly reasonably that the word "gay" has changed , the defnition of "gay" has changed by the gays themselves as now we have gays which encompasses both and gays and lesbians. And it is not a state of happiness ..which is what the word originally meant.

I have shown that "partner' is used in vocabulary frequently, and yet it can mean de facto partner, gay partner or business partner.


Careful here...you are starting to bore me and that is even worse than being wrong

I'm talking about the future, just as you are. Keep up.

So now I am talking about the future???? How about you keeping up. You are all over the shop at the moment with this.

That's all well and good, but it has absolutely no relevance to the debate, as these are not the same semantic changes that would occur with marriage.
Simply pointing out instances of definitions changing is not an argument, and it's bizarre that you seem to think it is.

Well, in my OPINION it is!

How the hell do you know that ?

Yes, and if you want to state that you don't support Collingwood, you can. But if you say "I support AFL", people aren't going to assume you're a Collingwood supporter. If you want to make it absolutely clear, you can, but you don't have to. You certainly won't be fighting the assumption that you are one.

Similarly, if gay marriage were to be legalised, when you say you are married, you might be gay, but nobody would assume it. It's totally neutral. Saying you're married merely describes the level of formalisation of your relationship; it says nothing about the orientation.

In fact, even the AFL/Collingwood analogy is flawed. Saying you're an AFL supporter narrows down the clubs you support to 18, of which Collingwood is one. Saying you're married with gay marriage legalised doesn't narrow down the options for one's orientation at all; your options stay at two, gay or straight (ignoring for the moment bisexuality, asexuality, pansexuality).

Ha ...so the argument doesn't hold because I used an example where there are 18 possibilities.
Okay ..say I live in Victoria , and I say I go every week to watch Aussie Rules, and I am wearing a brown and gold scarf. .... what am I - a Hawks supporter or a Box Hill supporter?

There's your example with just two. Better ?

To provide a minor caveat to a minor thread in a larger argument.

Basically, the central part of my argument is that if gay marriage is legalised, "marriage" will never be specifically indicative of homosexuality. It will only ever develop into something that is stripped of connotations about sexual orientation, becoming neutral.

If it's ok for you to raise the point and argue it it, is similarly ok for me to dismiss that same point with an argument. I didn't realise
I was not permitted to address the points you raise that form part of your argument.

Now, I also made the supporting argument that even if it were to become totally neutral, there would still be a general assumption of heterosexuality, as heterosexuality is the norm. The only time an assumption of homosexuality would be made would be when there were specific reasons to suggest the person in question is homosexual (e.g. openly gay, or a "gay vibe"). Bringing up "gay vibes" is not necessary to support this argument, it's just an example that may apply to a few people. Furthermore, this argument is not necessary to support my overall argument; it merely augments it.

[/QUOTE]

So heterosexuality is the norm.
Heterosexuality would be assumed . So all the gay married men would need to define THEIR relationship when asked the question. Or are you saying they wouldn't be asked ? Is that what you are saying?

No-one would ever ever need to ask if you spouse was the same sex
as you?

Same as no-one ten or fifteen years ago questioned me when I referred to my partner?

 

[Paradigm]

Right...now for you my little wannabe agitator...

Coming from the person who said that 20 years ago that gay still meant happy? Im pretty sure Freddie Mercury and Elton John were called gay 20 years ago.

Pretty sure Freddie Mercury did not come out for years, I stand corrected but it was only once Aids became an issue that it was even acknowledged that he was gay ... and didn't Elton John marry Renata Whats her name in the mid 80's?

And I would even go as far as saying that it was more the "androgenous" look rather than the all out "camp as a row of tents" as my father used to say, that started in the seventies.

Red Symonds wore shitloads of make up but he wasn't gay.



OK then , fine, I'll put the time frame back 30 years. Better?

Where did I say you did?

Not once have I mentioned sex.

Did I? Well then why aren't they called two different names? If two men have anal sex its called anal sex, if a guy has anal sex with a girl, its still called anal sex right?

You want to start listing all the types and variations of sex, feel free.It is not and never has been an issue with me.
Do what you want - I DON'T CARE

I don't really see what that has to do with it, considering we are not talking about sex as a whole, just anal sex specifically. Why is the same act carried out by both hetero and homosexual's called the same thing?

No - YOU are talking about sex...not me.

WTF are you on about. Who was talking about a strap on?

By the way do you vote? I'm a man and originally only men were allowed to vote, I don't think women should be allowed to "vote", they should be able to have a say in elections but it shouldn't be called voting, what do you think Paradigm?

Simply illustrating - AYGAYN - that I do not care....swing from the chandelier ...dress up as a nurse ...smear your "partner" with peanut paste and eat it off with a celery stick....whatever you like ...makes absolutely no difference to me at all.


It is exactly the same thing ...me voting - a man voting. Absolutely no need to define it as a womans vote or a mans vote. Dumb analogy.

As it stands at the moment, marriage describes a heterosexual relationship...and should this pass and should the definition change then there will be no difference either ...THAT is what I dislike. I am against defining two different things as the same.
I will say again....
Paint a horse with stripes and call it a zebra ...does not make it a zebra.

OK ....







NEXT .......

 

[Old Skool]

At most, there are only three passages in the entire New Testament that refer to what we today would call homosexual activity. None of the four gospels mentions the subject. This means that, so far as we know, Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, and we simply have no way of determining what his attitude toward it might have been. Moreover, there is nothing about homosexuality in the Book of Acts, in Hebrews, in Revelation, or in the letters attributed to James, Peter, John, and Jude. Further, homosexuality is not mentioned in ten of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul. It is only in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:8–11 that there may be references to homosexuality.

And even this is doubtful.

To the extent that it does talk about homosexuality, the New Testament appears to be talking about only certain types of homosexuality, and it speaks on the basis of assumptions about homosexuality that are now regarded as highly dubious. If we were to paraphrase what the New Testament says about homosexuality it would read as follows: If homosexuality is exploitive, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is rooted in idolatry, then it is wrong; if homosexuality represents a denial of one’s own true nature, then it is wrong; if homosexuality is an expression of insatiable lust, then it is wrong. So homosexuality in itself is not prohibited, but when practiced in certain contexts, it is 'morally wrong'. But couldn't we could say exactly the same thing about heterosexuality?

Speaking specifically of the Pauline letters but in words that are applicable to the New Testament as a whole, the Pauline scholar Victor Paul Furnish (Ph.D., Yale University, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of New Testament) stated:

"[Paul’s] letters . . . cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. Shall practicing homosexuals be admitted to church membership? Shall they be accorded responsibilities within a congregation? Shall they be commissioned to the church’s ministry? The Apostle never asks or answers these questions. . . . On these points there are no proof texts available one way or the other. It is mistaken to invoke Paul’s name in support of any specific position on these matters."

And if Paul does not actively prohibit these types of people from figuring in the governance and participation in the Church can it be argued that the so-called "New Covenant" condemns homosexuality?

In short, there is nothing in the New Testament that tells us directly whether homosexuality per se is a good thing or a bad thing or simply a fact of life.

RL bats the christian arguments out of the park.

 

[Monniehawk]

Okay ..say I live in Victoria , and I say I go every week to watch Aussie Rules, and I am wearing a brown and gold scarf. .... what am I - a Hawks supporter or a Box Hill supporter?

Neither.
Try Inverleigh and Boronia.
They both need support.

 

[Pie eyed]

It is exactly the same thing ...me voting - a man voting. Absolutely no need to define it as a womans vote or a mans vote. Dumb analogy.

You're right it is exactly the same thing....you getting married...a man getting married.
Absolutely no need to define it as heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage....it's just marriage.

Was quoted post a dumb analogy?

You bet your bum.

 

[Pie eyed]

Pretty sure Freddie Mercury did not come out for years, I stand corrected but it was only once Aids became an issue that it was even acknowledged that he was gay ... and didn't Elton John marry Renata Whats her name in the mid 80's?

Anyone with half a brain knew Freddie Mercury was homosexual in the 70's.
The biggest story surrounding Elton John marriage to Renata What's her name was why a renown homosexual would marry a woman and speculation he may be bi.

Red Symonds wore shitloads of make up but he wasn't gay.

Point?

OK then , fine, I'll put the time frame back 30 years. Better?

Years ago in 1637, the Oxford English Dictionary defined “gay” as being addicted to the pursuit of physical and social pleasures. It has come to refer to individuals who lead an immoral and loose life. During the 1800s the term “gay” was also used to describe female prostitutes and to “gay it” stood for “to couple up” or “to copulate.”
In the year 1935, “geycat” was used to refer to a homosexual boy, and by 1966, “gay” had been used in the context of how it is used today. It is believed that P. Wildeblood was the first to use the word “gay” to mean homosexuals in his notes in Against Law. However, there’s no certainty to this, as male homosexuals could have been using the word already even long before it was publicized and popularized.
That is the story behind the word “gay” and how it came to mean homosexual. It really didn’t just mean “happy” and “lighthearted” even from way before. Several hundreds of years ago, it already had a connotation that implied a sexual tone.

 

[Pie eyed]

Just for those who prefer "f**" to "GAY".

“******,” the cruel label for homosexuals, actually began as a contemptuous slang word for a woman, especially one who was old and unpleasant. The reference was to a burden that had to be carried in the same manner as baggage and harks back to the word’s original meaning.
In the thirteenth century, a ****** was a bundle of wood or twigs bound together, such as the ones carried by heretics to feed the fires that would burn them at the stake. Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a ****** on their sleeves. It wasn’t until 1914 that the slang word ****** first appeared in the United States as a reference to a male homosexual, probably derived from the earlier reference to an annoying woman. The abbreviation f** surfaced in 1921.
There is a misconception that male homosexuals were called ******s because they were burned at the stake, but this notion is an urban legend. Homosexuals were sometimes burned alive in Europe, but by the time England made homosexuality a capital offence in 1533, hanging was the prescribed punishement.
The Yiddish word for male homosexual is faygele, which literally means “little bird.”
The English word ****** is derived from the Latin fasces via the French fagot, meaning “a bundle of wood.”

NOTE. The word "f a g g o t" which is common English for a bundle of wood or a sausage censored out automatically. Go figure?

 

[Paradigm]

Years ago in 1637, the Oxford English Dictionary defined “gay” as being addicted to the pursuit of physical and social pleasures. It has come to refer to individuals who lead an immoral and loose life. During the 1800s the term “gay” was also used to describe female prostitutes and to “gay it” stood for “to couple up” or “to copulate.”
In the year 1935, “geycat” was used to refer to a homosexual boy, and by 1966, “gay” had been used in the context of how it is used today. It is believed that P. Wildeblood was the first to use the word “gay” to mean homosexuals in his notes in Against Law. However, there’s no certainty to this, as male homosexuals could have been using the word already even long before it was publicized and popularized.
That is the story behind the word “gay” and how it came to mean homosexual. It really didn’t just mean “happy” and “lighthearted” even from way before. Several hundreds of years ago, it already had a connotation that implied a sexual tone.

With reference to changing my quote - of course everyone knew Fredie Mercury was gay.... and everyone knew Elton John was also ..... I was pointing out that neither chose to admit it from the get go, did they. Words that described their sexuality back then were not quite as kind as gay btw.

Darwin Roo was saying that they were gay and that my time frame for the general use of the word was out of whack. I adjusted it to 30 years ago. I never said they weren't gay !
And I maintain that despite a few vague references here and there , up until say the late 70's early 80's it was not part of the vernacular.

My point is that gay has always meant lighthearted and happy - the meaning of the word has changed. I have two friends - Gay and Gaye , - I wonder how many girls are called Gay these days?

 

[Paradigm]

You're right it is exactly the same thing....you getting married...a man getting married.
Absolutely no need to define it as heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage....it's just marriage.

Was quoted post a dumb analogy?

You bet your bum.

Two men is the same as a man and a woman is it ? Far as I know I have never been asked my sex when I vote. It has no definition that precludes me from being a voter. Marriage does. Same as I couldn't vote until I was 18. The law didn't allow it - yet I know kids that probably were better informed at 17 than some of my contemporaries.


Change the definition you change the whole context of the institution.
Dumb analogy is dumb.

 

[Pie eyed]

Two men is the same as a man and a woman is it ? Far as I know I have never been asked my sex when I vote. It has no definition that precludes me from being a voter. Marriage does.

Dumb analogy is dumb.

Why should you be asked when you marry then?

I actually expect an answer.....

ps prior to 1902 and as late as 1908 depending on which State you were in you would have most certainly been asked you sex had you tried to vote....and promptly been sent home without having voted.

 

[Pie eyed]

With reference to changing my quote - of course everyone knew Fredie Mercury was gay.... and everyone knew Elton John was also ..... I was pointing out that neither chose to admit it from the get go, did they. Words that described their sexuality back then were not quite as kind as gay btw.

Darwin Roo was saying that they were gay and that my time frame for the general use of the word was out of whack. I adjusted it to 30 years ago. I never said they weren't gay !


My point is that gay has always meant lighthearted and happy - the meaning of the word has changed. I have two friends - Gay and Gaye , - I wonder how many girls are called Gay these days?

You were using Mercury and John as evidence that public recognition of the word "gay" being associated with homosexuality was a recent thing, as recent as the 1980's which is bollocks as I pointed out.
Did you even read what I posted?
It is perfectly clear that "gay" refers directly addiction to physical and social pleasures in 1637, directly to sexual activity from as early as the 1800's and directly to homosexuals in 1935.

Your point that "

gay has always meant lighthearted and happy - the meaning of the word has changed

" is totally wrong as I have pointed out.
My post was not my opinion, it the factual breakdown of the etymology of the word "gay" it's origins and meanings over time.

I don't care if you have 50 friends named Gay.
It's not their real name anyway, simply a name their parents made up.
ps... That's a joke btw....

ps
I did not change anything in the passage I quoted from your post. I posted the relevant text.

 

[Paradigm]

Why should you be asked when you marry then?

I actually expect an answer.....

ps prior to 1902 and as late as 1908 depending on which State you were in you would have most certainly been asked you sex had you tried to vote....and promptly been sent home without having voted.

How many times do I have to say the same thing?

Because it is an inherently DIFFERENT relationship ! Same as sisters are different from brothers but they are still siblings. I do not go around introducing my brother as my sibling. I use the word, and everyone knows he is male.
It is the most commonly accepted situation that there is a husband and a wife. Would you call your wife your husband ? After all - she is your spouse....

Your painted horse is still a horse.
And regards voting , I have said dozens of times , times change and society moves along. Many people back in 1902 probably cracked the shits when women were given the vote .

And when enough people stop cracking the shits on this too, gays will get married. Does not mean I have to like it. Or are you contending as Malifice did that we would all take to the streets with pitchforks and rakes

 

[Paradigm]

You were using them as evidence that public recognition of the word "gay" being associated with homosexuality was a recent thing, as recent as the 1980's which is bollocks as I pointed out.
Did you even read what I posted?
It is perfectly clear that "gay" refers directly to sexual activity from as early as the 1800's and directly to homosexuals in 1935.

ps
I did not change anything in the passage I quoted from your post. I posted the relevant text.

Yes you did !

Originally Posted by Paradigm
Pretty sure Freddie Mercury did not come out for years, I stand corrected but it was only once Aids became an issue that it was even acknowledged that he was gay ... and didn't Elton John marry Renata Whats her name in the mid 80's?

Anyone with half a brain knew Freddie Mercury was homosexual in the 70's.
The biggest story surrounding Elton John marriage to Renata What's her name was why a renown homosexual would marry a woman and speculation he may be bi.

Red Symonds wore shitloads of make up but he wasn't gay.

How many girls are called Gay now?

" is totally wrong as I have pointed out.
My post was not my opinion, it the factual breakdown of the etymology of the word "gay" it's origins and meanings over time.

Hannah Barbera disagree.

When you're with the Flintstones
you'll have a yabba dabba doo time.
A dabba doo time.
You'll have a gay old time.

Pretty sure in general culture at the time of this it wasn't referring to Fred and Barney going at it behind the shed at the contruction site ! Circa early 60's - tell me, when did Fred and Barney "come out"

 

[Pie eyed]

Two men is the same as a man and a woman is it ? Far as I know I have never been asked my sex when I vote. It has no definition that precludes me from being a voter. Marriage does. Same as I couldn't vote until I was 18. The law didn't allow it - yet I know kids that probably were better informed at 17 than some of my contemporaries.


Change the definition you change the whole context of the institution.
Dumb analogy is dumb.

Prior to 1902, in this country, the legal definition of "vote" and "voter" did preclude you from voting based solely on sexuallity.
Luckily for you a group of reasonable and open minded people changed the definition which allowing you to vote no matter what your sex, against public outcry and staunch opposition to changing the stautus quo for no good reason.

The truly humerous thing is that in 50-100 years there will be a Gay wife or husband on the net claiming that no-one has ever stopped them from getting married just because they were a man or woman while railing against some other group who want equal rights in some sphere, probably using Zebra's and Horses in some facile way to make their point.

 

[Paradigm]

Prior to 1902, in this country, the legal definition of "vote" and "voter" did preclude you from voting based solely on sexuallity.
Luckily for you a group of reasonable and open minded people changed the definition which allowing you to vote no matter what your sex, against public outcry and staunch opposition to changing the stautus quo for no good reason.

The truly humerous thing is that in 50-100 years there will be a Gay wife or husband on the net claiming that no-one has ever stopped them from getting married just because they were a man or woman while railing against some other group who want equal rights in some sphere, probably using Zebra's and Horses in some facile way to make their point.

Which would mean that the definition of the word had been CHANGED - just like gay.

Voting is a right - enshrined in Bills of Rights and Constitutions .....marriage is not a right - I've been through this too. It's a social issue. No civil rights are being denied on the basis of gender. You are talking 50% of the population..in fact I think more baby girls are born than boys overall, so maybe evn 51% - here we are talking 3% at top estimates.

What's even more humourous - I think your humerous is your funny bone - will be if in ten years time we are still having this discussion.

YABBA DABBA DOO!

 

[BarneyBent]

Good point. It's green to you because thats the colour you learnt as green. What you see green I may see red, but because we are all told the sky is blue - a fact - what we see as blue is what we call blue.

So the sky may well be called blue, but in fact to you it may be green that you call blue and to me it may be red that I call blue.

I cannot say that what you see as blue is wrong - I can't see what you see. Same as in the case of opinion - I don't think like you think so how can I say you are wrong? I simply accept that you see something differently.
And that is a good thing.

What I learned it as is irrelevant. You're confusing philosophy with semantics.

Forget labels; in my opinion, the colour of the sky is what you consider to be green. Now tell me that I'm not wrong.

They refer to each other as "partners" also, don't they? Same as I don;t introduce my husband as my spouse, I doubt they introduce their other halves as 'my de facto".

So what? We're not talking about de facto couples.

And what did I say ...



Here I'll quote it for you



Jesus Christ - I even bolded it and you still didn't get it.

No, I DID get it. I repeated it for you to illustrate that I got it, since you seemed to think that I didn't. You don't have to know, you're arguing that you might have to in the future, I'm saying you won't.

Now read my actual arguments.

Bolded and italicised ...how come "partner" has changed but the word "marriage" won't, Nostradamus? And why is one conflicting and the other not ?

The word marriage will change. It will be a DIFFERENT TYPE OF CHANGE.

Marriage will come to refer to the state of one's relationship, regardless of sexual orientation. SO THERE WILL BE NO WAY IN WHICH MARRIAGE WILL INDICATE HOMOSEXUALITY (unless a man says he's married to another man).

Partner, on the other hand, has come to adopt a meaning that is indicative of homosexuality (gay lover). It is a new meaning, and unlike marriage, which would be neutral, it implies homosexuality.

I'm not saying that. I am saying that it no longer distinguishes me from a gay marriage.

So what? Honestly, how self-centred can you get?

You think the purpose of the word "marriage" is to indicate your heterosexuality? Bullshit. When people say "let's get married", they don't mean "let's get straight". They mean "let's get our relationship formally and legally recognised".

Your argument would only have legs if "marriage" was to become capable of indicating that you are gay, in the same way "partner" is. But the change in definition we're talking about won't do that. It will strip marriage of heterosexual connotations, but it won't give marriage homosexual connotations.

I have given at least 3 examples where the definition of a word has changed over time. I think I have argued fairly reasonably that the word "gay" has changed , the defnition of "gay" has changed by the gays themselves as now we have gays which encompasses both and gays and lesbians. And it is not a state of happiness ..which is what the word originally meant.

I have shown that "partner' is used in vocabulary frequently, and yet it can mean de facto partner, gay partner or business partner.

Careful here...you are starting to bore me and that is even worse than being wrong

And none of that is the least bit relevant if "marriage" isn't going to falsely indicate that you are gay, which it won't.

If you're worrying about losing one of many tools for indicating your heterosexuality, and are willing to support the systematic discrimination of homo

But hey, at least I got you to say I'm wrong.

So now I am talking about the future???? How about you keeping up. You are all over the shop at the moment with this.

Um, yes, you are. We are talking about how the definition of marriage may/will change, are we not? We always have been.

Well, in my OPINION it is!

How the hell do you know that ?

Well your opinion is wrong.

And I know that because it's plain to see. You're talking about two completely different types of changes, with two completely different results. To therefore use the results of one to argue against the other is totally wrong.

Ha ...so the argument doesn't hold because I used an example where there are 18 possibilities.

No, it's nothing to do with that. It doesn't hold for two reasons: one, saying you're an AFL supporter doesn't indicate you are a Collingwood supporter; two, because possibilities go from thousands to 18, as opposed to the future, broad definition of marriage, which would not be affected (staying at 2). It wouldn't hold if the possibilities went from thousands to 2 either, or if marriage encompassed 18 options.

Okay ..say I live in Victoria , and I say I go every week to watch Aussie Rules, and I am wearing a brown and gold scarf. .... what am I - a Hawks supporter or a Box Hill supporter?

There's your example with just two. Better ?

No, not better. You've gone from countless options (16 other AFL clubs, plus every other club in every other code in the world, plus the option of "none"), to just two.

Wearing a brown and gold scarf suggests you are a football fan of a team that wears brown and gold. It specifies that.

Saying "I'm married" serves no such purpose. It doesn't specify that you are either gay or straight (Hawthorn or Box Hill), because even if you weren't married, you would still be either gay or straight (as I said before, ignoring the other more obscure sexual orientations).

If it's ok for you to raise the point and argue it it, is similarly ok for me to dismiss that same point with an argument. I didn't realise I was not permitted to address the points you raise that form part of your argument.

Of course it is. I'm just not sure why you bothered. The basis of your argument seems to have been that not many people can tell a gay person just by looking, and not all gay people give off a gay vibe anyway. But that doesn't matter, because that's not the only way such a message could be communicated. I never even claimed it would need to be accurate.

Your dismissal of the point rests on the mechanism being not particularly consistent or effective, but my point was never that it was consistent or effective. It doesn't need to be.

So heterosexuality is the norm.
Heterosexuality would be assumed . So all the gay married men would need to define THEIR relationship when asked the question. Or are you saying they wouldn't be asked ? Is that what you are saying?

I think you're confusing the issue here. Why are you so focused on clarifying the relationship? Why is it so important?

A gay person probably would need to define their relationship, IF THEY WANTED TO COMMUNICATE THAT THEY WERE GAY. If they didn't, then they wouldn't need to.

If gay marriage were to be recognised, and marriage were to broaden its definition to include homosexual marriage, then if a person said they were married, there would be no indication, either way, or sexual orientation. Thus, the assumption would generally stay as heterosexual, as heterosexuality is the norm.

A gay person would no more need to clarify their relationship as gay than if they said "I had a toastie this morning". Marriage just wouldn't be about orientation. Is that a bad thing?

No-one would ever ever need to ask if you spouse was the same sex as you?

Same as no-one ten or fifteen years ago questioned me when I referred to my partner?

Um, no, not the same. Partner carries an implication about the orientation of the relationship. Spouse doesn't.

Somebody COULD ask you whether your spouse was the same sex, absolutely. At times it would be entirely appropriate. But such as question wouldn't be asked to clear up a misunderstanding. It would add information, not change it.

People wouldn't assume, when one said "spouse", that it was gay, and there be a requirement to clarify that it wasn't, as is sometimes the case with "partner". That is the key difference, and why your analogy is flawed, and you are wrong.

 

[Pie eyed]

Yes you did !


How many girls are called Gay now?


Hannah Barbera disagree.


Pretty sure in general culture at the time of this it wasn't referring to Fred and Barney going at it behind the shed at the contruction site ! Circa early 60's .

I changed nothing....I added my response.

Still do not understand what Gay/Gaye has to do with anything?
Do you not talk them now since you realised their name also refers to homosexual activity since 1935?

I'm pretty sure that half of Hollywood was gay right about that time, but without asking Hanna or Barberra I can't really comment on whether Fred and Barney were having some "brokeback mountain" action after work.

Is that really your argument though?
That Flinstones theme song is evidence against same sex marriage?

If you cannot read or comprehend what I posted, just ask an adult to explain it to you.
It says that the word "gay" has for nearly 400 years meant many other things than merry or happy. It has for almost 400 years directly meant an addiction to physical pleasure, that's grown up code for sex.
That the word is directly associated with "gay" sexually, homo sexuality for 70+ years.




I'm beginning to think you have run out of ways to avoid admitting that you have not a single reasonable argument against same sex marriage other than you just don't like the idea.
Which is fine, but just state the fact.