The Law Marriage Equality III

[medusala]

I say "set in concrete" because scientists of all hues, informed by this tradition, still seek the certainty of 'knowledge' (I use 'scientists' in its broadest sense here). I have no problem with this, as long as it is understood that certainty of understanding the complexities of being will never be achieved by any method

I read a recent book on this with the chap making a very similar (if I understand you correctly) argument relating back to Plato ie not everything was knowable and that chance / luck existed. Without acceptance of this society had issues ie in some societies every death was explainable and this led to accusations of sorcery which led to revenge killings etc. In the modern context it leads to law suits over basically everything, as blame must be apportioned.

 

[cancat]

You evaluated this research based on a newspaper article which really shows what a towering intellect you are (sarcasm intended). You refute the research (you have only read about in an article in the media) based on your own homophobic bias, not because you ever examined the research carefully. Just another day in the homophobic world of CC eh?

The information I posted was not included in the newspaper article, which was a mere fluff piece that offered a nice fuzzy headline. If the journo, or yourself, had bothered to Google and look how the research was carried out they could have observed the same flaws that I saw. Ones that the researcher openly admits.

http://mccaugheycentre.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/786806/simon_report_.pdf

I did not refute the research, I said we should reserve judgment. So you got pretty much everything wrong in this post. As usual you have resorted to name calling coming because you can't support your argument. If anyone has a bias problem it would appear to be yourself.

 

[CF]

 

[TheSunGod]

I had an ultra-sound the other week. The dude looks at me and says, "I've got bad news for you. You're as straight as an arrow"

 

[Caesar]

Exactly the same erroneous beliefs were cast aside no matter how firmly held with little regard for the angst it may cause the holder of said belief in the slavery, apartheid, woman's right to vote, racial and female equality discussions.
How firmly one holds a view has little if anything to do with it's validity.

A situation where homosexual civil unions provided substantively identical legal rights to heterosexual marriages means that the argument is merely over access to legal recognition of the use of a word.

Given that, it is a bit of a stretch to draw parallels with the circumstances you cited. The central issues involved in all those cases were substantive rights that were lacking, not a naming convention. Where actual legal rights are at stake, there is a greater imperative to accept one person's opinion over another.

 

[Pie eyed]

A situation where homosexual civil unions provided substantively identical legal rights to heterosexual marriages means that the argument is merely over access to legal recognition of the use of a word.

Given that, it is a bit of a stretch to draw parallels with the circumstances you cited. The central issues involved in all those cases were substantive rights that were lacking, not a naming convention. Where actual legal rights are at stake, there is a greater imperative to accept one person's opinion over another.

Now.

 

[Marns]

Looks like gay marriage may be a liiiiittle way away in Russia

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/11/russia_passes_antigay_bill_detains_protesters.html

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Looks like gay marriage may be a liiiiittle way away in Russia

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/11/russia_passes_antigay_bill_detains_protesters.html

A banning of info of homosexuality to kids and A vote of 436-0?

Yikes.

 

[the harry]

Looks like gay marriage may be a liiiiittle way away in Russia

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/06/11/russia_passes_antigay_bill_detains_protesters.html

When I was there I asked what the word for transgender was, because I was overseas and everything childish is a millions times funnier. I was taught how to say it, but then told never to say it because it would possibly cause violence.

They've got a long way to come on a lot of things, but particularly racism and sexuality.

 

[Pie eyed]

Sexual equality would be a long way down a very long list of things the Russians have a long way to catch up on the rest of the world.

 

[Gough]

 

[Niximus]

Same sex marriage bill in SA Parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-...s-to-legalise-gay-marriage/4768042?section=sa

 

[Pie eyed]

OH no'se we is all going to start marryin' our dogs.....an rootin zem.......
Call jeebus he must save us.

 

[rugmop]

OH no'se we is all going to start marryin' our dogs.....an rootin zem.......
Call jeebus he must save us.

My dog is very good-looking.

 

[Pie eyed]

My dog is very good-looking.

Wanna be one charmin' dog.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Watch her change tack when the result is inevitable as it is rapidily becoming.

I'M conscious that maybe these views have dated and maybe the way in which people interpret marriage is different to the kinds of interpretations I had. I think that marriage in our society could play its traditional role and we could come up with other institutions which value partnerships, value love, value lifetime commitment. I have a valuable lifetime commitment and haven't felt the need at any point to make that into a marriage.
A twitter spat afterwards between The Australian's Melbourne bureau chief Patricia Karvelas and former Gillard media man John McTernan:
@PATSKARVELAS: Julia Gillard's gay marriage argument about not believing in marriage is a cop-out given she knows marriage is going nowhere.
@johnmcternan: Not true. Just actually her view.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...t-special-status/story-fn72xczz-1226731126420

 

[Pie eyed]

There was discussion about whether or not Gillard would express her "true" beliefs on same sex marriage now she had fallen out of the position (PM) which "manifested her most recently publicly expressed views", the correspondents words not mine, but I unfortunately missed the rest of the discussion.
On ABC24.

 

[Slax]

Heard an interesting whisper from a very reliable source. Tasmania is looking at legalising same-sex marriages, not out of any change in moral attitude but purely on economic grounds. The states are different from the ACT and the Federal government will find it much harder (if not impossible) to block the legislation in the High Court due to their status in the constitution.

Apparently a very secretive working party has been establish with senior people from both the Liberal & Labor parties jointly on it. We all know the Tasmanian economy is up the creek with no paddles and they are now looking at all options to try and boost employment and economic growth. I can really see this causing massive problems especially in the Liberal party, but when you are in a situation where unemployment is so bad and long-term unemployment is terrible options must be looked.

The whole basis is that if they are first to do it and it is open to all Australian residents, then they will reap the economic benefits of having a large influx of couples coming to Tassie to hold their weddings. The gay/lesbian community is also one with a high disposable income due to having to two incomes and no kids (in most cases), thus per head will spend more money. Whether or not you agree with the morals of introducing the legislation, no doubt there will be a big enough short-term economic benefit for a state like Tasmania to make it attractive.