Marriage Equality Achieved - (SSM Debate Part 4)

[Carringbush2010]

Ok I'm going to make it clear:

Marriage does entail off spring conception and rearing of off spring; although not mandatory it is part of marriage

By mammalian nature itself; conception requires a male and a female. To add; rearing offspring throughout mammalian history has had a matriarch and a patriarch by instinction.

To attempt to deny these is either ridiculously naive or deliberately ignorant to justify artificial conception

I have nil opposition to same sex relationships or marriage, go for it, knock yourself out. I am opposed to offspring being conceived artificially and reared without either a matriarch or patriarch

To be absolutely clear; and I've stated this more than once

I have no issue with same sex marriage, I have an issue with artificial conception because it is not as mother nature intended. By extension this does include same sex relationships and by further extension SSM - this can't be avoided; it is just a fact of life.

My views are not of bigotry but of concern for people that may be effected negatively because they have been artificially conceived and/or reared without a matriarch or a patriarch because of a persons wish.

 

[phantom13]

Having children is not part of marriage.

The rest is your position and fine, I don’t really agree with your “concern” but whatever.

I’m married I may or may not have children, my mother had me and my biological father wasn’t married to her (they never married and split not long after). So your fact that these are not arguable is just wrong.

 

[JackOutback]

That is a ridiculous argument because you can't police that. I'll give you an epiphany: mammals being mammals bear offspring and rear them under a matriarchal and patriarchal system to continue the species by nature of instinct.

Please don't attempt to debate with rubbish like that, unless you have the intellectual ability of a 5 year old

Then don't put up arguments with the intellectual rigour of a five-year-old.

 

[Showbags]

That is a ridiculous argument because you can't police

Ok I'm going to make it clear:

Marriage does entail off spring conception and rearing of off spring; although not mandatory it is part of marriage

By mammalian nature itself; conception requires a male and a female. To add; rearing offspring throughout mammalian history has had a matriarch and a patriarch by instinction.

To attempt to deny these is either ridiculously naive or deliberately ignorant to justify artificial conception

I have nil opposition to same sex relationships or marriage, go for it, knock yourself out. I am opposed to offspring being conceived artificially and reared without either a matriarch or patriarch

To be absolutely clear; and I've stated this more than once

I have no issue with same sex marriage, I have an issue with artificial conception because it is not as mother nature intended. By extension this does include same sex relationships and by further extension SSM - this can't be avoided; it is just a fact of life.

My views are not of bigotry but of concern for people that may be effected negatively because they have been artificially conceived and/or reared without a matriarch or a patriarch because of a persons wish.

As has been told to you on numerous occasions by multiple posters. Create a new thread regarding your stupid rants about IVF.

This thread is about debating whether SSM should have been legalized. If your topic is not arguing a for or against case then it is irrelevant to this thread (I'm starting to think you are just incapable of understanding this basic point).

For example, you may potentially argue that due to the legalization of SSM more couples will be more likely to undergo IVF as a result.

Then and only then your ridiculously dumb rants regarding IVF become relevant to thread.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Then don't put up arguments with the intellectual rigour of a five-year-old.

And how does the argument that artificial conception has a possibility of negative effects on people have the intellectual rigor of a 5 year old? Honestly you can't possibly claim that, that is absurd.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Is heterosexual marriage - the 'locking in' of a breeding pair to the exclusion of others - actually an offense against genetic diversity?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Having children is not part of marriage.

The rest is your position and fine, I don’t really agree with your “concern” but whatever.

I’m married I may or may not have children, my mother had me and my biological father wasn’t married to her (they never married and split not long after). So your fact that these are not arguable is just wrong.

Is that so? I'd agree marriage is not compulsory to have children, however if you ask nearly any culture and even more so religions; over the last 2000 years marriage is seen as a pre requisite before conceiving.

Your situation only serves to prove my point, it is not by mother natures design that your biological mother and father did not raise you together. Every other mammalian species on the planet conceives and rears that way - it is only self centred humans that wish to play god and swim against the tide.

There have been arguments that heterosexual relationships are not always ideal either, agreed but the argument is moot because you can't police when two people who should not conceive do so.

Where as same sex relationships you obviously can

 

[JackOutback]

And how does the argument that artificial conception has a possibility of negative effects on people have the intellectual rigor of a 5 year old? Honestly you can't possibly claim that, that is absurd.

Because pretty much everything in life has the possibility of negative effects. And we don't ban everything. You're argument that some things are harder to police so we'll let them go on is utter nonsense. What's more, evidence seems to point towards there being more positive than negative effects, so the whole argument falls flat on its face.

 

[phantom13]

Is that so? I'd agree marriage is not compulsory to have children, however if you ask nearly any culture and even more so religions; over the last 2000 years marriage is seen as a pre requisite before conceiving.

Your situation only serves to prove my point, it is not by mother natures design that your biological mother and father did not raise you together. Every other mammalian species on the planet conceives and rears that way - it is only self centred humans that wish to play god and swim against the tide.

There have been arguments that heterosexual relationships are not always ideal either, agreed but the argument is moot because you can't police when two people who should not conceive do so.

Where as same sex relationships you obviously can

So if you’re not religious (nearly 40% of the population on the last census) your logic doesn’t apply?

And how about the divorce rate (still around 50%) apply to your co parenting solution?

You can argue what’s ideal all you like but it’s got no basis in modern society, not to mention that you certainly could police people having children if you so wished.

Finally for someone who claims they have nothing against ssm why are they the only example you use? You could argue single mothers, couple who can’t conceive naturally etc but you only focus on same sex couples.

 

[Maggie5]

And how does the argument that artificial conception has a possibility of negative effects on people have the intellectual rigor of a 5 year old? Honestly you can't possibly claim that, that is absurd.

I don't think you understand IVF.
Only difference is the physical act, but I am sure they make up for it.

 

[Forward Press]

Sigh, the 'it's unnatural' arguments are so tedious.

Plenty of things are 'unnatural' in society if you wish to go there but we're still flying to Bali, wearing polyester clothing and protecting rhinos from extinction.

We're humans, not animals.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Sigh, the 'it's unnatural' arguments are so tedious.

Plenty of things are 'unnatural' in society if you wish to go there but we're still flying to Bali, wearing polyester clothing and protecting rhinos from extinction.

We're humans, not animals.

Actually we're creatures too FP.....And those creaturely habits extend to our physiology & it's propensities & requirements.

There's plenty of gay-love throughout the animal kingdom; So why should the animal side of our natures be any different?

It's all a part of the human canvas.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think you understand IVF.
Only difference is the physical act, but I am sure they make up for it.

That depends on the created person doesn't it? I'll use myself as an example; because I was not conceived in a test tube I wouldn't know how I would react; however there is a strong possibility I'd be at the very least disappointed in that. Certainly if it was a surrogacy situation I almost certain that I would be questioning who my mother is.

Surely anyone can see the possible ramifications! But alas I have opposition from most because they immediately get on the defensive and see me as someone in opposition to SSM (not saying yo have Maggie)

 

[phantom13]

That depends on the created person doesn't it? I'll use myself as an example; because I was not conceived in a test tube I wouldn't how I would react; however there is a strong possibility I'd be at the very least disappointed in that. Certainly if it was a surrogacy situation I almost certain that I would be questioning who my mother is.

Surely anyone can see the possible ramifications! But alas I have opposition from most because they immediately get on the defensive and see me as someone in opposition to SSM (not saying yo have Maggie)

You have opposition from people who disagree with you, you cant just claim that its only those who think you are opposed to SSM that are objecting to your argument.

As I have said you certainly seem to focus on IVF being banned specifically for same sex couples (not to mention you've brought the argument up on a thread about ssm) but even taking you at your word that you have no issue with gay couples and ssm and this is all about IVF theres still plenty of objections to your thoughts on it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So if you’re not religious (nearly 40% of the population on the last census) your logic doesn’t apply?

Re read the post, I clearly stated that civilization and culture for last 2000 years has viewed marriage (or holy union for the religious folk) as a pre requisite.

And how about the divorce rate (still around 50%) apply to your co parenting solution?

So because we can't police that it makes it ok for mankind to play god and create people unnaturally because selfish people can't conceive naturally

Finally for someone who claims they have nothing against ssm why are they the only example you use? You could argue single mothers, couple who can’t conceive naturally etc but you only focus on same sex couples.

Wrong again, I've clearly stated time and again that I don't have an issue with ssm and have mentioned heterosexual couples should not conceive artificially. Are you claiming I have an issue with same sex union? Because I have an issue with human beings being created and reared not as mother nature intended?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Because pretty much everything in life has the possibility of negative effects. And we don't ban everything. You're argument that some things are harder to police so we'll let them go on is utter nonsense. What's more, evidence seems to point towards there being more positive than negative effects, so the whole argument falls flat on its face.

So basically you're condoning that two wrongs make a right, let's agree to disagree

 

[Carringbush2010]

As I have said you certainly seem to focus on IVF being banned specifically for same sex couples (not to mention you've brought the argument up on a thread about ssm) but even taking you at your word that you have no issue with gay couples and ssm and this is all about IVF theres still plenty of objections to your thoughts on it.

It's not IVF per se, it's creating a person by artificial means that may be effected negatively later in life to appease the want of someone who cannot conceive like every other mammalian species does; add to that it seems there is little regard for the person to be created in this way - rarely is there any mention; it's only "we'll love him/her with all our heart". Sorry that might not cut the mustard for that person - no one can possibly dismiss that completely. This would include same sex relationships, right? Because they can't conceive naturally, right?

So therefore this is very relevant to the thread, argue that if you will but you can't

 

[phantom13]

Re read the post, I clearly stated that civilization and culture for last 2000 years has viewed marriage (or holy union for the religious folk) as a pre requisite.

We also used to ban interracial unions and inter religion unions? Are you against all forms of progress or just the ones that suit your narrative?

So because we can't police that it makes it ok for mankind to play god and create people unnaturally because selfish people can't conceive naturally

Think you have completely missed the point here. Its no more selfish to artificially create life than it is to naturally create life you have no intention or means to rear. Further to that I was actually pointing out that by your logic a couple can marry, have children but once that happens they cant separate as single parents aren't meant to raise children.

Wrong again, I've clearly stated time and again that I don't have an issue with ssm and have mentioned heterosexual couples should not conceive artificially. Are you claiming I have an issue with same sex union? Because I have an issue with human beings being created and reared not as mother nature intended?

If youre saying you don't i'll take you at your word but I was pointing out that you've continually directed your issues with IVF and the like to same sex couples when there was no need to. Take the below for example.

There have been arguments that heterosexual relationships are not always ideal either, agreed but the argument is moot because you can't police when two people who should not conceive do so.

Where as same sex relationships you obviously can

Why say it for same sex couples, if you want to ban IVF wouldn't it be for all couples who cant conceive naturally? Might be a flippant comment but it seems pointed.

 

[phantom13]

It's not IVF per se, it's creating a person by artificial means that may be effected negatively later in life to appease the want of someone who cannot conceive like every other mammalian species does; add to that it seems there is little regard for the person to be created in this way - rarely is there any mention; it's only "we'll love him/her with all our heart". Sorry that might not cut the mustard for that person - no one can possibly dismiss that completely. This would include same sex relationships, right? Because they can't conceive naturally, right?

So therefore this is very relevant to the thread, argue that if you will but you can't

Its not whether same sex couples can or cannot have children naturally, no one is arguing they can, its that you've chosen to take this argument up on a thread that is about same sex marriage being legalised. The setting makes it an odd place to discuss it unless youre opposed to same sex unions based on the fact they cant naturally conceive children. I'm also not the first person to bring this up with you.

If youre saying its relevant to this thread its only relevant if you are opposing SSM on those grounds, which you continually say you don't.

 

[Carringbush2010]

If youre saying its relevant to this thread its only relevant if you are opposing SSM on those grounds, which you continually say you don't.

Now I think you're finally getting it, I don't oppose the union of same sex relationships I oppose same sex couples (or anyone for that matter) unnaturally conceiving and rearing that may be of detriment to the person they have created and reared .

If that is not correlated, well then you'd have to argue that marriage and conception are not also; even though clearly they are.

 

[phantom13]

Now I think you're finally getting it, I don't oppose the union of same sex relationships I oppose same sex couples (or anyone for that matter) unnaturally conceiving and rearing that may be of detriment to the person they have created and reared .

If that is not correlated, well then you'd have to argue that marriage and conception are not also; even though clearly they are.

Oh I get it. You don't like same sex couples, that's been evident for some time now, at some point you can either realise or admit it as well. Weve also done the marriage and conception bit to death, you can argue til youre blue in the face they are related but its not going to make you right, every child born to a non married couple and every married couple without kids proves you wrong every day.

 

[ShanDog]

The IVF topic is done. If anyone wants to discuss this further, start a thread. I'm sure it will be a smash hit.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Oh I get it. You don't like same sex couples, that's been evident for some time now, at some point you can either realise or admit it as well. Weve also done the marriage and conception bit to death, you can argue til youre blue in the face they are related but its not going to make you right, every child born to a non married couple and every married couple without kids proves you wrong every day.

I see my previous post has been deleted, therefore I will no longer converse.

 

[Pie eyed]

So in your view artificial pro creation is not relevant to marriage, which is completely incorrect and ignorant. I'll remind you that many regard child bearing as the corner stone of marriage so it is completely relevant and therefore impossible to view as separate.

If you challenge that then I'll consider you deliberately ignorant in an attempt to justify child rearing in SS relationships.

Absolutely and totally unrelated issues though some outdated institutions claim the right to impose their medieval beliefs on others life choices.
Issue belongs in it's own thread, not propping up this long dead, well flogged horse of a thread.

 

[Showbags]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifes...y/news-story/c405fb815aa912584f2f31ef03c145ff

Well its the day we've all been waiting for. Christine Forster got married.

Tony Abbott sucked it up and attended the wedding. Fair play to him I suppose.