Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[FredLeDeux]

Is this a TV show?

No, he is a most unusual barrister
https://www.legalcheek.com/2014/10/...ore-spectacular-than-lord-harley-of-counsels/

Google him and you will find out just how "unusual" he is

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I clearly stated that marriage is a union and tradition between a male and female. I also said if 2 homosexuals want to be together then so be it. If they want a title for this call it something other than the word marriage.

After being probed further, I said that I believe it can go towards accepting other minority groups to be pushing for their case to be 'married'. As examples I used polygamy and child marriage.

I then went on and used the LQB community as an example. First it was gays accepted, then transgender then gender fluid couples or whatever nonsense young people are being fed to feel accepted, when they clearly have mental issues. I then said what's stopping this trend to heading towards beastiality etc, as people's minds become more polluted. We must accept everyone's needs right?

I draw the line before same sex marriage, as do a high percentage of rationally thinking people

And people have expressed the opinion that your argument is fundamentally simple minded and rooted in homophobia due to a denial of rights extended to hetero couples.

What's the big deal? You've expressed your opinion, others have expressed theirs.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Well if everyone and every species was homosexual, wouldn't they be extinct?

Yes, but only if universally and exclusively homosexual, and only if they had not evolved some other means of procreation.

 

[JackOutback]

I clearly stated that marriage is a union and tradition between a male and female. I also said if 2 homosexuals want to be together then so be it. If they want a title for this call it something other than the word marriage.

After being probed further, I said that I believe it can go towards accepting other minority groups to be pushing for their case to be 'married'. As examples I used polygamy and child marriage.

I then went on and used the LQB community as an example. First it was gays accepted, then transgender then gender fluid couples or whatever nonsense young people are being fed to feel accepted, when they clearly have mental issues. I then said what's stopping this trend to heading towards beastiality etc, as people's minds become more polluted. We must accept everyone's needs right?

I draw the line before same sex marriage, as do a high percentage of rationally thinking people

It was then counter-argued that marriage used to be possible between adults and children until that tradition was abandoned. Tradition also used to preclude blacks and whites from marrying. Thus, 'tradition' doesn't seem like a strong argument. We await a counter-argument from you.

As for your beastiality nonsense, it was pointed out that there are no plans, and never have been, to remove the word 'consenting' from the equation. So again, we await a counterpoint to show why we should pay the slightest attention to this argument.

In the absence of any counter-arguments, one is left thinking they are just thinly veiled disguises for the fact you don't like homosexuality.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I clearly stated that marriage is a union and tradition between a male and female. I also said if 2 homosexuals want to be together then so be it. If they want a title for this call it something other than the word marriage.

After being probed further, I said that I believe it can go towards accepting other minority groups to be pushing for their case to be 'married'. As examples I used polygamy and child marriage.

I then went on and used the LQB community as an example. First it was gays accepted, then transgender then gender fluid couples or whatever nonsense young people are being fed to feel accepted, when they clearly have mental issues. I then said what's stopping this trend to heading towards beastiality etc, as people's minds become more polluted. We must accept everyone's needs right?

I draw the line before same sex marriage, as do a high percentage of rationally thinking people

And exactly why you got abused. You equated something between consenting adults to something not. Because you're unintelligent and scaremongering

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

This type of s**t is so ****** up. Only muppets believe that they need a flag for their special group.

That is the history of flags and emblems and standards as a collective. It's what humans made them for. They represent.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

That, also the point that no one owns the word marriage.
Heterosexual people can get married without a religious organisation involved.

Too right. What religions have as their own is HOLY MATRIMONY. It's marriage PLUS the religious sacrament. In the agnostic eyes of the State however, 'marriage' is the nondescript t-shirt that fits anyone who wants to wear it.

 

[Showbags]

Well if everyone and every species was homosexual, wouldn't they be extinct?

Take it to another thread, the rest of us who have more than one brain cell left functioning are trying to have a discussion on marriage.

If you are so against "unnatural" things why arent you out the front of airports protesting those big scary shiny metal birds in the sky?

 

[Showbags]

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/tony-...y-out-of-the-us-playbook-20170811-gxu2j2.html

Good article regarding US gay marriage advocate Evan Wolfson, talking about Tony Abbott:

"He knows they cannot win on the merits of their argument," explains Wolfson, noting that Australians already overwhelmingly back gay marriage, "so they have to make the debate about something else." That's why Abbott announced that this was about political correctness and freedom of speech rather than gay marriage.

"We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply 'live and let live' – that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalised," Schubert wrote.

In the US those "significant implications" became the arguments that "gay propaganda" would spread into schools, that once gay marriage was the norm other aberrant forms of marriage would follow, that religious groups would be victimised.

It became the fraught concern for the wellbeing of bakers and marriage celebrants and wedding caterers. It was about anything but the right of a committed couple to marry.

But according to Wolfson there was a parallel campaign fought too. While mainstream politicians kept their hands clean, aware that outright homophobia doesn't wash anymore, a subterranean poison of invective followed the overt campaign, and this too will now by foisted upon Australian gays and their families.

You can see it already if you care to dip your toe into online sewers, and elements of it have crept onto cable TV. On Tuesday night Bronwyn Bishop was on Sky News warning of bestiality and the killing of newborn babies.

Of course, in the years since gay marriage was legalised in America, the only impact to society has been that some gays got married, and many who once feared the outcome have now changed their views.

 

[Lebbo73]

You're going to make the balls obvious statement that I was.

I will then point out the just as obvious fact that marriage and procreation are mutually exclusive, and will ask if infertile straights should get married by your logic.

Debate had; and we are dumber for having had to listen to this nonsense.

We're dumber for having read one of your posts.

 

[Showbags]

We're dumber for having read one of your posts.

Lebs you cant lose the intelligence you dont already possess

 

[Lebbo73]

Yes. So are you arguing that people who can't have children should not be allowed to marry? Before technology allowed humans to travel, different races would not have been able to interact. Are you saying interracial marriage shouldn't be allowed? Don't hide your light under a bushel, put you real thoughts out there for all to see.

No. He is arguing that it's biologically impossible for 2 males or 2 females to have children. That is why he believes they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

 

[Showbags]

No. He is arguing that it's biologically impossible for 2 males or 2 females to have children. That is why he believes they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Well then he is a simpleton as marriage is not a prerequisite to have children and children is not a prerequisite for marriage.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

No. He is arguing that it's biologically impossible for 2 males or 2 females to have children. That is why he believes they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Haven't you been hammered over the head over and over again with the very obvious counter argument to make you realise how dumb your reasoning is?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Thing is i dont really care if it is legalised or not. I just want the majority vote to be carried out....either way i dont mind. So if the vote comes back 75 percent no....then people should shut up and get on with life...just as they would expect the no voters to do if the result was 75 percent to the yes.

On SM-G955F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Im 100% sure if the vote is no the campaign will continue- because those affected will still want change.
A yes vote which gets enacted ends it because i dont think the no side is really engaged - many politically are using it as deflection and distraction.

Therefore to end it vote yes.

Its a compelling argument for those who really dont care about the issue.

 

[RupieDupie]

Parliamentarian 1 - "I want to lie"

Mr Rabbit - "Aye, vote yes and you will lie. But lying on your death bed 20 years from now, married to your donkey, with 54 political correct violations, and no way to express your hatred for a minority group, if you could have one chance, just one chance to come back and make the postal plebishite about our freedom"

"They may take our lies, but they'll never take our freedom!"

 

[Crankyhawk]

Why can't people express the opinion that those who vote no are homophobic?

Because voting no isnt the same as homophobic, homophobic is not wanting to be anywhere near SS oriented people, while voting no only means not caring about equality of marriage rights.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Because voting no isnt the same as homophobic, homophobic is not wanting to be anywhere near SS oriented people, while voting no only means not caring about equality of marriage rights.

It means rejecting equality of marriage rights; which is homophobic.

 

[Gough]

It shows how society has so long been conditioned to allow accept casual homophobia. Answering this survey negatively is an explicit act to deny gay people the same rights as everybody else, and shouldn't be viewed as anything but an act of prejudice.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I'd love just one time for an opponent of SSM to post an articulate or nuanced argument regarding the social effects of legalising SSM or something like that. At least then we can have a proper debate.

Instead we get this never ending cavalcade of mental short people who are barely one step above eating their own faeces. If the arguments presented in this thread are the best the no vote has to offer then I can't see any "swing" voters being persuaded to rally to their cause.

Not an opponent of SSM. For the sake of trying to raise the debate level will try to address what you are asking.
Will avoid anything religious based because that is separate.

The social change impact is not yet known, yes other countries have done it but no more than 20 years ago. So if the social effect is slow they could be arguing for more time to see it.

Potentially by normalising SS behaviour more people choose a SS relationship over more conventional opposite sex (theres some evidence that sexuality is non binary and everyone in the right circumstances can find themselves attracted to a same or opposite sex person)

Which then leads to falling birthrates.


Yeah, im struggling to find a coherent argument.

 

[RupieDupie]

Easy.
Nature.
It ain't natural....

How did you come into this world again, you forgot to answer the question, you just keep ranting....

In nature, a parasitic wasp will paralyse the larvae of another species and then inject its own young. After the young hatch they feed on the still alive body of the host caterpillar.

In nature, the adactylidium mite will have inside her several daughters and one son, within the mother the son will mate with all his sisters, the daughters then eat their way out of the mother.

I'm not sure that nature should dictate what is right or wrong for humans to do.

Also, if we have to look to nature (non-human), marriage isn't natural, talking on a football forum isn't natural...

 

[Crankyhawk]

What? Anyone who mentions any belief under the sun is put down and fed an insult. So if I simply say I'll vote no, you will leave it at that? No, you'll ask what my belief is, which could be anything, then you will use it to say I'm a homophobe

No, you be asked why, and if you can bring up something better than gays just dont deserve to get married the point can then be debated (and unfortunately trolled both ways...)

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

For more evidence of the persecution complex these people have, they want to deny people rights and are claiming victim status when their bigotry is labelled bigotry. Victims to the very end.

 

[RupieDupie]

I'd love just one time for an opponent of SSM to post an articulate or nuanced argument regarding the social effects of legalising SSM or something like that. At least then we can have a proper debate.

Instead we get this never ending cavalcade of mental short people who are barely one step above eating their own faeces. If the arguments presented in this thread are the best the no vote has to offer then I can't see any "swing" voters being persuaded to rally to their cause.

The problem is there are only two truthful arguments opposing gay marriage;
1) Religious belief
2) It's yucky

Anything else is nontruthful which incidentally contradicts some people who are making the arguments own religious beliefs in 1) (their God and fundamental beliefs are second to their hatred), and secondly, all the slippery slope arguments, deceitfulness, as well as their behaviour to other people is yucky 2). That is, their own morality, which some supposedly cherish went down the slippery slope.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It means rejecting equality of marriage rights; which is homophobic.

I set a higher threshold to use that term rather than cover all anti SS beliefs no matter what degree under the one term. I think it dilutes its meaning.