Play Nice Society & Politics Thread

Discussion in 'The Bob Skilton Bar' started by Borough Blood, Jan 25, 2018.

Put it out there
  1. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    Answered in detail on this thread several times. The concept was a hetetosexual incarnation and had included hetetosexual couples who can't procreate for centuries.

    The tradition and definition has changed over the years but it's central theme is heterosexuals and procreation so the changes are on the edges.

    If in some others eyes that means inconsistency or hypocrissy then that's ok it's my personal view and the only person I need justify it to is me and I have.

    Can we move on? I think many here are getting bored with the repetition
     
    mtooler likes this.

    (Log in to remove this ad.)

  2. BruceFromBalnarring

    BruceFromBalnarring Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Jan 07
    Posts:
    4,490
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Puke is largely correct but he’s missed a critical thing. Yes, marriage had its foundations in procreation but it was more an institution that evolved to protect women from abandonment once with child.
     
  3. mtooler

    mtooler Club Legend

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Feb 12
    Posts:
    2,266
    Location:
    East Maitland
    Before that it was so man would have a helper in a loving partnership.
     
    RW likes this.
  4. BarneyBent

    BarneyBent Brownlow Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 08
    Posts:
    10,512
    Location:
    Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
    Ah, so you admit you’re unwilling to change marriage because it’s been that way for ages - NOT that it’s about procreation itself, but that it’s about tradition.

    Cool. Still discriminatory. You’ve moved away from a functional argument to a definitional one. Not wanting to change something to make it inclusive purely because “that’s how it’s always been” is textbook discrimination.

    It used to be ok to rape your wife, who was considered your property. We changed that because it was shitty.

    Women and black people couldn’t vote. We changed that because it was shitty.

    Gay acts were illegal. We changed that because it was shitty.

    Opposing any of those changes was discriminatory. Opposing changing marriage to be less shitty is no different. As you’ve admitted, there have been couples unable to procreate who’ve gotten married for a long, long time. There’s no functional difference - just a definitional one.
     
    SSwans2011 likes this.
  5. Kummerspeck

    Kummerspeck Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 13
    Posts:
    3,289
    All these noble functions of marriage that exclude homosexuals. Much more palatable than lords securing more land, consolidating power, or gaining negotiating power by selling off their daughters
     
    SSwans2011 and SBD Gonzalez like this.
  6. BarneyBent

    BarneyBent Brownlow Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 08
    Posts:
    10,512
    Location:
    Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
    I haven’t even touched that side of the argument lol. Too much scope to go off track.
     
    SBD Gonzalez likes this.
  7. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    I'm tied to the concept and tradition of marraige which only included heterosexuals and that's because it was about procreation......you know the act that perpetuates human existence and which same sex will never achieve. In fact by definition it never could. So you think I simply must change the definition to include something that was completely opposite of the definition else I'm discrimatory? What a sound argument lmao.......not. And given how patently ridiculous that argument is the disturbing thing is that many are prepared to cite it as discriminatory........but only on the internet. Internet cowards. Open invitation for anyone to say it to my face.

    Look enough of this it's been done to death. If you don't like my view then I'll say what my GF always says when I disagree with her on an issue with forlorn hopes of change

    Suck it up buttercup.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
    mtooler likes this.
  8. SBD Gonzalez

    SBD Gonzalez Norm Smith Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Kidding, right?
    Joined:
    Jul 12
    Posts:
    6,913
    Thanks everyone, I’ve really enjoyed reading this discussion (not that it’s over).

    People on both sides of the coin being forced to explain their position in great detail. And that’s always a good thing.
     
    mtooler likes this.
  9. Number37

    Number37 Norm Smith Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Oct 13
    Posts:
    9,033
    I wouldn't be so convinced about the perpetuation of human existence as an argument, given what we know about people like the Mayans and many North African tribes where marriage between first cousins was common. Inbreeding isn't much good for the perpetuation of human existence.
     
    Cheval likes this.
  10. Kummerspeck

    Kummerspeck Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 13
    Posts:
    3,289
    What? Plan your writing. What definition are you talking about? Marriage or homosexuality?

    Lol.
     
  11. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    Raping anyone is a physical act wreaked on a person without consent and is wrong because it is.

    Changing voting rights for blacks or women is discrimination because all people are capable of voting.

    Same sex don't fit the definition. and purpose of the marriage tradition and therefore excluding them is not discriminatory. We all have to deal with our genetic hand we are dealt. In this case same sex aren't man and woman for whom the marriage tradition arose. Suck it up and deal with it I say

    You say it's shitty they are excluded. I say it's shitty throwing away a centuries old tradition on an irrational premise
     
    mtooler likes this.

    (Log in to remove this ad.)

  12. BarneyBent

    BarneyBent Brownlow Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 08
    Posts:
    10,512
    Location:
    Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
    Will happily say it to your face, and have done so to others’ faces a number of times. Half my family is Catholic and a number of them voted no, and we’ve discussed it at length.

    If you haven’t noticed, I’ve also had respectful conversations with mtooler and Bruce despite disagreements (if anything, I might disagree with mtooler’s position more depending on the extent of his beliefs).

    Marriage today is about love, legal rights, and family. There is no reason gay couples cant have all three of those. Therfore, including them doesn’t change what marriage is now, any more than giving black people, women and the less educated the vote changed what voting was (specifically, what it had become since its days of giving land-owning noble men a say in government).

    In short: there is no reason to resist changing the definition of marriage to include gay people unless you think that the change will be bad. If you think that change will be bad, then you better have a good argument. All you’ve offered is “that wasn’t what marriage was originally about” - which isn’t an argument because it doesn’t say why the change is bad.

    You can say that the only person you have to convince is yourself (which you clearly have), but your views negatively impact a large number of people and such views need to be questioned. Otherwise I could say “I don’t support interracial marriage and voted against it, I have my reasons, you don’t think they’re good enough but I only have to convince myself”.
     
    GCB85, mtooler and SBD Gonzalez like this.
  13. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    I'm confused. Surely you're not suggesting that 'inbreeding' occurs when you limit marriage to only a man and a woman? Think there are enough billions of men avd women heterosexuals to ensure genetic diversity
     
  14. Number37

    Number37 Norm Smith Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Oct 13
    Posts:
    9,033
    Nope.

    You were claiming that marriage was traditionally about procreation and procreation is about perpetuating human existence.
    I was pointing out that in some civilizations marriage was with first cousins. Inbreeding isn't going to perpetuate human existence.

    At best, you might be able to argue that procreation is ONE OF many reasons people have TRADITIONALLY married. Procreation is certainly not, and NEVER has been, the ONLY reason for marriage.
    But it seems to be a convenient excuse to argue against SSM & totally ignores the many other reasons people have married over the millennia.
     
    Cheval, SBD Gonzalez and BarneyBent like this.
  15. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    Your definition is that marriage is about love, legal rights and family. Certainly gay people can and do have all three. Interestlngly they've already had all three and outside the definition of marriage. So they must be getting more and something valuable too? Unspoken but that 'more' would be validation. But validation isn't a valid argument to change something for which they don't qualify (a tradition) and that's because validation arises from insecurity. if instead persecution were eroded or defeated then there would be no need for validation because there would be no sense of being made to feel inferior by that persecution

    I have qualm calling it a marraige which is a heterosexual concept conceived and evolved for entirely different reasons.

    If legal rights like social welfare, estate bequests Etc etc are at stake for gays then create them without obliterating a heterosexual tradition......because when you obliterate a tradition and reverse entirely the underlying ethos something valuable is lost- everything which had historically tied us to that tradition......values, beliefs, romantic notions.

    I don't mean to be rude but this debate is pointless I'm afraid. I'm not going to spend my life seeking for people to understand my point of view when it's been explained a dozen times or more.

    Gays aren't bad. I'm not excluding gays because I think they are
    rather because they never qualified. I would like to preserve a tradition unchanged because value systems and ideals are lost when a tradition is thrown away.......my connection to that tradition is lost because it's central theme cannot survive post change definition. You think that's nothing .........I think values ideals and traditions are critically important it's the social connect underlying life and living

    It's time to move on. I'm tired of the pointless repetition. No more for me I'm afraid
     
    mtooler likes this.
  16. Number37

    Number37 Norm Smith Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Oct 13
    Posts:
    9,033
    Marriage Act 1961 = no mention of man + woman
    2004 amendment to Marriage Act 1961 = man + woman

    Tradition for 13 years?
    Yeah, nah.
     
    SBD Gonzalez likes this.
  17. Kapanis

    Kapanis Club Legend

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Jul 15
    Posts:
    1,742
    Location:
    Noosa
    How was marriage defined before 1961 out of interest? Nothing sinister in asking, I just don't know and you seem up on this.
     
  18. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    The tradition of marriage first arose in the 13th century but probably had unrecognised existence even prior then. Have no interest in what an act of law has to say. It can't do a tradition justice. You want to quote it as relevant? Did I look up what you just did before I developed and then postulated my point of view? Of course not. I knew what the tradition was because it's perpetuated in all our social conditioning from birth to now 61 years of age.
     
  19. BruceFromBalnarring

    BruceFromBalnarring Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Jan 07
    Posts:
    4,490
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'm not up on this either but I believe it had a common law definition as opposed to a statutory definition.
     
  20. BarneyBent

    BarneyBent Brownlow Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 08
    Posts:
    10,512
    Location:
    Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
    I want to change a tradition that excludes homosexual couples. You don’t. I know which one is more discriminatory. I do not think traditions have value just because they are old - for a tradition to be valuable, it should be able to evolve with the rest of society. Traditions that don’t are just relics of a worse time.
     
  21. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    Yes I know too ......yours. You want to make such a change in order to validate gaydom out of empathy. I suggest it doesn't need validation by me in this way and if validation is sought the best way for that to occur is by defeating persecution rather than destroying a tradition for heterosexuals. So I defend the tradition which is hetetosexually conceived.

    You have now repeatedly called me discriminatory when I'm anything but. You are a bigot who can only see what you want for the reason you want. That you resort to such behaviour is a very sad indictment on your character.

    You need to leave me alone and stop trolling.
     
    mtooler likes this.
  22. Kummerspeck

    Kummerspeck Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 13
    Posts:
    3,289
    You support homosexuals wanting equality but don't approve of the way they're going about it.
     
  23. BarneyBent

    BarneyBent Brownlow Medallist

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 08
    Posts:
    10,512
    Location:
    Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
    Changing a tradition is not the same as destroying it. Can you honestly not see that? I do not want to destroy marriage. I want to improve it by making it more inclusive.

    Can you not see how offensive it is to suggest that a group’s participation in a tradition would destroy it?

    It’s like a golf club that traditionally only admits white people, only that golf club is a) government sponsored and b) regularly held as something almost everybody should aspire to join. Creating a separate one for black people is not good enough. Neither is creating a separate form of “marriage”.
     
    Cheval and SBD Gonzalez like this.
  24. puke

    puke All Australian

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Aug 16
    Posts:
    996
    Absolutely I support gays and gay equality in every way. Just like blacks and women it's inconceivable that any people be less equal or be persecuted

    Do I think change to marriage definition is the right path? No I don't. In one way it shows subservience to heterosexuals......as though it's pleading to be included when on the historical definition and tradition it was never conceived as an institution for them. So why would they want that? Because it validates their predisposition and nothing more. A persecuted person needs validation. A non persecuted person would have robust self belief within community that there is no need for validation. Its almost like a massive cheer that the lifestyle is more accepted now because of the change. Truth is though that those that persecute still will and those that don't won't. So is there demonstrable change or merely an illusion of it? I tend to think the latter.
     
    mtooler likes this.
  25. Kummerspeck

    Kummerspeck Premiership Player

    Sydney
    Other teams:
    Joined:
    Sep 13
    Posts:
    3,289
    So what's the right path and what are you doing to support it?