The Law Marraige Equality

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, in reality you can argue it on whatever grounds you want. Even bring in space aliens if you want. At the end of the day you won't be persuaded by the 'for' side and, speaking for myself, I won't be persuaded by your 'against' side.

Of course I respect your argument, and I hope you do mine. We just can't agree on this topic.

EDIT: Brother/sister - the chance of 'genetic conflict' and mutation in any offspring means incestuous relationships are a cruel and unusual thing to any third party involved. That means children. So yeah, I'm against it on these grounds.

If there were NO problems of this nature whatsoever, I wouldn't indulge myself, but geeze. Sounds sick and all. Brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son... I couldn't do that stuff myself. Should it be illegal? I'd have to leave that to the tyranny of the majority as I'm undecided.
 
Geelong_Sicko said:
Well, in reality you can argue it on whatever grounds you want. Even bring in space aliens if you want. At the end of the day you won't be persuaded by the 'for' side and, speaking for myself, I won't be persuaded by your 'against' side.

Of course I respect your argument, and I hope you do mine. We just can't agree on this topic.

EDIT: Brother/sister - the chance of 'genetic conflict' and mutation in any offspring means incestuous relationships are a cruel and unusual thing to any third party involved. That means children. So yeah, I'm against it on these grounds.

If there were NO problems of this nature whatsoever, I wouldn't indulge myself, but geeze. Sounds sick and all. Brother/sister, father/daughter, mother/son... I couldn't do that stuff myself. Should it be illegal? I'd have to leave that to the tyranny of the majority as I'm undecided.
Click to expand...


And like I said ten pages ago ...that's fine. It' a good thing we don't all think the same.
Conservatives from Adelaide can , despite what you think, understand that .;)

Somehow, though, when "opinions" are called wrong,accusations of homophobia and bizarre hypotheticals get brought into arguments this fact seems to get lost.


EDIT back at ya ....brother/sister/mother/son .....it's icky ....
 
Paradigm said:
The gay relationship term is not changing TO civil union. .It never WAS marriage.
Click to expand...
Really? (apart from ignoring the bulk of my post...)
Or was it that 'marriage' in Australia was denied to gay partnerships and they had to settle on 'civil union'?
A number of countries in the Americas, Europe and Africa now allow same-sex marriage. Even the most strident opposition in the US (Mormons, Convention of Catholic Bishops and Southern Baptists) now use the term 'Traditional Marriage' to discern the difference from heterosexual marriage. This is obviously in response to homosexual marriage being accepted in sections of The States and Mexico and they wished to have a term that identified their uniquely hetero union. Sounds like a reasonable move to me.

Why can't Australia consider something similar?
As I have suggested earlier, probably 'holy matrimony' is most appropriate to traditional church weddings as it clearly invokes the religious and heterosexual ethos inherent in 'traditional' marriage. And maybe same-sexers accepting (say) 'equal marriage' as a legitimate term. However, it would be contingent on society to ensure that such unions were truly equal under the law.
I repeat: same-sex marriage does not alter the title of marriage, it just broadens the definition without changing it to an entirely different meaning (ignoring the spurious apples/oranges and brussel sprouts/chocolate cake metaphors).
The issue is that the change is just too radical for some traditional sectors of Australian society to cope with. As with the US experience, they have an option to adopt a unique and more meaningful term that protects and delineates their particular ethos.
That recalls the earlier debate of who owns the word 'marriage' and its definition.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I have ignored nothing. I have addressed all the points you ra ised previously.

Fair enough ...call gay mariage Non Traditional Marriage. I'm fine with that.

And it is 7 states that have gay marriage in the US - everyone conveniently ignores the 43 that don't.
 
Paradigm said:
I have ignored nothing. I have addressed all the points you ra ised previously.
Click to expand...
Musta missed 'em...... :rolleyes:
Fair enough ...call gay mariage Non Traditional Marriage. I'm fine with that.
Somehow, though, when "opinions" are called wrong,accusations of homophobia and bizarre hypotheticals get brought into arguments this fact seems to get lost.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Non-Traditional Marriage? :confused:
And it is 7 states that have gay marriage in the US - everyone conveniently ignores the 43 that don't.
Click to expand...
...as they do with ALL the Mexican states, Argentina, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Sth Africa and Portugal as well as in the Caribbean?
Significantly, many of those are strongly conservative Catholic. Hardly a majority, but it is indicative of a global shift.
 
Monniehawk said:
Musta missed 'em...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well they're there. Search function is your friend.

Non-Traditional Marriage? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not the one changing something

...as they do with ALL the Mexican states, Argentina, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Sth Africa and Portugal as well as in the Caribbean?
Significantly, many of those are strongly conservative Catholic. Hardly a majority, but it is indicative of a global shift.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

As my mum used to say - if they jumped off a cliff , would you too?

Yes...it is a trend ... and I guess to a certain extent , inevitable.
 
Paradigm said:
And there we have it.:rolleyes:

No idea what you are on about ...I rest my case.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I know what I am on about, you just speak s**t and have found the most pathetic reason to oppose gay marriage.

Please do rest your case because the rest of us with a brain are sick of reading your s**t argument.

You crap on about s**t analogies but every s**t analogy I came up with used your own stupid logic.
 
Old Skool said:
Since when was Jesusland a monument to equality and civil rights?
Click to expand...

But NH's licence plate motto is "Live Free Or Die"!

At least they gave it a go, against the decree of the Pope.

Anything that causes people to put aside their iPads for five minutes and consider their belief systems is a good thing. Christmas these days doesn't do it.
 
Your silly Jewish sect superstitions have no place in a rational conversation.
 
Old Skool said:
Your silly Jewish sect superstitions have no place in a rational conversation.
Click to expand...

Which superstitions are those? I have a belief in God as a creator of the universe and the laws it is compelled to obey, but beyond that I don't claim to know anything. I'm not a Christian as such; rather I believe Christian values in general form a sound basis for a wholesome existence.
 
DarwinRoo said:
I know what I am on about, you just speak s**t and have found the most pathetic reason to oppose gay marriage.

Please do rest your case because the rest of us with a brain are sick of reading your s**t argument.

You crap on about s**t analogies but every s**t analogy I came up with used your own stupid logic.
Click to expand...

You must be so grateful stupidity isn't painful.......
Just on point there, if you used my logic, your analogy wouldn't be s**t.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Paradigm said:
When there is no real need to change them, and they are used to define long held beliefs and tenets,yes.

Would you like Collingwood called something else?
Port Power have srtuggled with an identity crisis since they were formed because your club didn't want another "magpie, black and white team".
Click to expand...

I'll guarantee that you can join Collingwood Football club no matter what sex, color, race, religion or sexual preference you are.
Hell we even take Carlton supporters.

The name Collingwood Football Club belongs to the club and it's members. Adding/including new members to the club does not entail a change of name. Port Adelaide had to change their playing strip and club colors because they joined a competition which had an existing club with the same.

Your analogies a ridiculously non-analogis of the issue.
In fact I don't think you even understand the term.
I think you think it just means a silly story.

You can paint stripes on a horse and call it a Zebra, but it will still be a Horse.
You can allow Gays to marry but they will still be Gays?
Well yes, that was never in contention, they will however be married.

How would you feel if Collingwood had to change their name?
Does "marriage" have to change it's name?
Is Port Adelaide civil union, forced to take another name because Collingwood/Marriage was taken. Are Port Adelaide Gay?
Are you subconsciously implying that it was/is unfair that Port Adelaide/Gays have to use Power/Civil Union because of the those nasty Collingwood supporters/anti-same sex marriage types.
The analogy makes absolutely no sense.
I don't get it.


There is a real need to change the legislation, not the word, as it discriminates against a section of society based solely on their sexuality.
 
Pie eyed said:
I'll guarantee that you can join Collingwood Football club no matter what sex, color, race, religion or sexual preference you are.
Hell we even take Carlton supporters.

The name Collingwood Football Club belongs to the club and it's members. Adding/including new members to the club does not entail a change of name. Port Adelaide had to change their playing strip and club colors because they joined a competition which had an existing club with the same.

Your analogies a ridiculously non-analogis of the issue.
In fact I don't think you even understand the term.
I think you think it just means a silly story.

You can paint stripes on a horse and call it a Zebra, but it will still be a Horse.
You can allow Gays to marry but they will still be Gays?
Well yes, that was never in contention, they will however be married.

How would you feel if Collingwood had to change their name?
Does "marriage" have to change it's name?
Is Port Adelaide civil union, forced to take another name because Collingwood/Marriage was taken. Are Port Adelaide Gay?
Are you subconsciously implying that it was/is unfair that Port Adelaide/Gays have to use Power/Civil Union because of the those nasty Collingwood supporters/anti-same sex marriage types.
The analogy makes absolutely no sense.
I don't get it.


There is a real need to change the legislation, not the word, as it discriminates against a section of society based solely on their sexuality.
Click to expand...

Yes ...marriage was taken. A heterosexual word.
Yeah - sure you let Port play, but they just couldn't use your name. Sound familiar?

I was referring to how people feel about things changing. Not changing the name ...
I used Collingwood as an example. I worded it badly. Apologies.
Long held beliefs and tenets was my point . Traditional things that make up your club. The guernsey ..the Magpie - any of that changed there would be a revolution in Broadmeadow.:eek: Will still be Collingwood though - wouldn't it. :rolleyes: But my point was how would you feel.
You wouldn't want "Collingwood" to include Carlton - I'd bet my life on that! Still called Collingwood, but you wear a navy blue strip.

The "make up " of marriage would change. The definition - the thing that defines marriage would change. The traditional view of marriage.

And yes, I believe Port Adelaide are gay.;) (That's a joke ...ok ...no homophobe)

Anyway ..I am now really bored with this.

So I'll leave you to it.

Been a pleasure.
 
5,506 days
December 28, 2011
By PMdG


Darren and I consider the start of our relationship proper to be 30 November 1996.

That means as of today, as I type this post, we’ve been together for 5,506 days. Yet somehow, we don’t qualify for marriage.

On the other hand:

  • Sinead O’Connor announced today that her and her latest husband split after 16 days (in which they only lived together for 7 days);
  • Kim Kardashian stayed married for 72 days;
  • Britney Spears stayed married for less 3 days (55 hours, to be exact);
  • Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra were married for 9 days;
  • Lisa Marie Presley could only manage to stay married to Nicolas Cage for 107 days;
  • Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock got the big D after 122 days;
  • Drew Barrymore and Tom Green hitched their wagons for 163 days, though that was an improvement on her first marriage which lasted just 42 days;
  • Liz Taylor’s shortest (but by no means only) marriage was 205 days long.
(The majority of those figures were taken from “TIME’s Top 10 Short-Lived Celebrity Marriages“, you can find more in “Wikipedia – Hollywood Marriages“.)

Let’s graph those relationships:

Gay-relationship-eats-straight-relationships-for-breakfast.png


That’s right, our relationship is the Pacman of relationships against those marriages.

And people still want to hold up the notion of marriage being exclusively between men and women as a way of preserving it?

What a joke.​
 
Ron The Bear said:
But NH's licence plate motto is "Live Free Or Die"!

At least they gave it a go, against the decree of the Pope.

Anything that causes people to put aside their iPads for five minutes and consider their belief systems is a good thing. Christmas these days doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

I'd be really surprised if there weren't religious apps out there that put Jesus on your iPad and your iPhone and whatever.

EDIT: Well, I'll be...

http://www.jesusapps.blogspot.com/
 
Paradigm said:
Yes ...marriage was taken. A heterosexual word.
Yeah - sure you let Port play, but they just couldn't use your name. Sound familiar?

I was referring to how people feel about things changing. Not changing the name ...
I used Collingwood as an example. I worded it badly. Apologies.
Long held beliefs and tenets was my point . Traditional things that make up your club. The guernsey ..the Magpie - any of that changed there would be a revolution in Broadmeadow.:eek: Will still be Collingwood though - wouldn't it. :rolleyes: But my point was how would you feel.
You wouldn't want "Collingwood" to include Carlton - I'd bet my life on that! Still called Collingwood, but you wear a navy blue strip.

The "make up " of marriage would change. The definition - the thing that defines marriage would change. The traditional view of marriage.

And yes, I believe Port Adelaide are gay.;) (That's a joke ...ok ...no homophobe)

Anyway ..I am now really bored with this.

So I'll leave you to it.

Been a pleasure.
Click to expand...

Your arguments against same sex marriage are simply infantile.
Leave it that.
When the legislation is passed I hope it gnaws at your psyche.
Gaye/Gay will have to leave the country in shame and Zebra will never again be considered in the same light..:thumbsu:

adeu.:D
 
Paradigm said:
You must be so grateful stupidity isn't painful.......
Click to expand...
Paradigm said:
Just on point there, if you used my logic, your analogy wouldn't be s**t.
Click to expand...

Ok your logic is because hetero and homo are different then marriage between man and women and man/man or woman/woman are different so a different term should be used.

One of my analogies was in regards to voting where men always had the right to vote, women didn't originally have the right to vote but then are granted the right to vote. Now since you have pointed out on too many occassions, women are not men and your mother is not your father and so on and so forth so because of this difference shouldn't the term used for a woman voting be different to a man? It might be the same process of filling out a little bit of white and green paper but the term should be different due to the sex of the voter?

Now can you explain why there is a difference between voting and gay marriage and why you are such a hypocrite?




Mod edit: find part II of this thread here:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=900430
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top