Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Kids picture books promoting aberrant life-styles is to be condoned?

Didn't hear you complaining when Raphael 'Ted' Cruz wrote one.

How droll...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Link?

You need a link to the objections raised against inter-racial marriage? Pull the other one...

Have you ever heard of a case called Loving vs Virginia? Read it and weep.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

You do realise that what you have just written is almost word-for-word a list of the objections raised against inter-racial marriage a few decades ago?

I don't see the similarities.

What do you mean?

Traditionally interracial marriages were discouraged for reasons of racial prejudice. Society has mostly overcome its racial prejudices and so interracial marriage is mostly accepted since it still passes the basic age-old definition of marriage - a committed union between a man and a woman.

A pair of pooves tickling each other todgers simply does not fit the basic requirements and should not be called a marriage.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by koman

So, once you get your "gay marriage" all approved; what's next on the agenda?.....extra privileges, higher pay, accelerated promotion and special recognition for sodomy?

No doubt.

Noticed that the Culture Wars have heated up considerably as of late? Coincidence or not with the gay marriage thing becoming forefront in the news. Recently it's become all the transgender demands to the point even Big White now has transgender bathrooms!

Indeed we wonder where it's going to stop?

Transgender bathrooms in the White House? Lunacy!

Originally Posted by koman

You're argument gets more hysterical and full of victimhood with each passing post. The misquote above is a good example. He did not just say "allow them to co-habit" the way your carefully edited version would make it appear.....
What he did say was:
"we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.....which is something quite different to what you have tried to make it out to be.....

You still don't get it. It's the "allowed them" part that's offensive and condescending.

Originally Posted by Looper

After gaining this ground they wanted their partnerships legally recognised and we granted them that request. Now they are saying that is not enough and their already legally recognised partnerships have to be called marriages.
Well I am sorry mate but that is not a reasonable request. They already have all they need to lead as happy a life as can be expected for people in their condition.

The constitution and the Bill of Right gives them the right, not condescending wankers who think they dispense rights. But I expect that you will go on as well as you can for a person in your condition.

Originally Posted by Looper

It is the basis of the evolutionary function of the human species. This makes it profound and elemental as a social institution.

If marriage is so damn sacred, why don't people raise hell about divorce? "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder..." and all that. Because marriage is useful, personally, emotionally, socially and legally, but it isn't sacred, though the committment and love people share in its bonds may be.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by koman

You're argument gets more hysterical and full of victimhood with each passing post. The misquote above is a good example. He did not just say "allow them to co-habit" the way your carefully edited version would make it appear.....
What he did say was:
"we have even agreed that homosexuals should be allowed to cohabit and have their partnerships legally recognised.....which is something quite different to what you have tried to make it out to be.....

You still don't get it. It's the "allowed them" part that's offensive and condescending.

Simple truthful statements are often viewed as offensive by some people, because simple truths don't sit well in some circles ......however, the statement remains accurate.

It is exactly what happened. First they were not recognized, and never had been; anywhere, by anybody; ..... then they were recognized, because society finally accepted it and allowed it. If society totally rejected it then we would not be having this rather pointless conversation, would we?

Despite the apparent changes in society values and views, there are a great many people that are grossly offended by having an institution that they see as sacred trampled on by the court system based on some revisionist interpretation of the US constitution. Somehow I doubt that those who drafted the constitution intended to have the kinds of consequences we see flowing from it these days.

It's not just religious people either....that's a red herring. Many people find homosexual activity itself very offensive, disgusting and unacceptable... That may or may not change over time.

Personally, I really don't care much one way or the other, but I understand why so many people do care. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever, but I'm quite willing and able to respect and tolerate those who do, as long as they don't force their own beliefs on me. Now I'm watching the deeply held beliefs of these people being trashed and trampled on, just because a tiny part of the population has decided they want their already accepted civil unions rebranded as marriage.

For many this is just another example of a decaying society that has lost it's way, catering to the whims and demands of any vocal minority that manages to get attention and support from Hollywood.........it has nothing to do with any particular religion.

It's also notable that the supporters of this change are always the first to get rude, insulting and intolerant of anyone else's views on the matter.....Yes the very same people who are always going on about "tolerance", "acceptance" and "respect" appear to be the least capable of showing any themselves.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

"Profoundly important cultural institution of marriage"? Profoundly important culturally to whom? The fucking nutjob god squad, that's who. Otherwise it doesn't matter a fuck in the cultural sense.

Religion is a sideshow. Comitted pairings between men and women are a feature of the evolutionarily derived emotional behaviour of our species. This behaviour is 'who we are'. It is not bestowed upon by artificial religious ceremonies. Once a religion cranks up t takes on responsibilities for scaraments in the profound steps in live. Birth, death and marriage but sacred observance of these events (e.g. by godless pagan rites) came first, religion then hijacks them wherever it springs up.

Originally Posted by MrG

If marriage is so damn sacred, why don't people raise hell about divorce?

Marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a woman usually for the purposes of raising children. A lifetime marriage is nice if it works but if it doesn't work then c'est la vie. Doesn't change the definition of marriage.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

I missed this part before. How is marriage the basis of the evolutionary function of humans? The sentence doesn't make sense since humans evolved as a species without any help from the institution of marriage.

That is precisely where you are wrong. Marriage is not some artifical invention or ceremonial decoration. The committed pairing of a man and a woman is the basis of our social organisation. We are evolved as a socially communal higher order apes and committed male/female pairing is a feature of our evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by MrG

You still don't get it. It's the "allowed them" part that's offensive and condescending.

Their behaviour is understandably offensive to the majority of adults but we magnanimously allow them to go about their business if they do it discreetly. What is wrong with this?

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage is a committed relationship between a man and a woman usually for the purposes of raising children. A lifetime marriage is nice if it works but if it doesn't work then c'est la vie. Doesn't change the definition of marriage.

Seems like cherry picking your "traditions". The tradition of man and woman...OK. But the tradition of committed relationship...oh c'es la vie.

I just can't help but see you for anything but a bigoted homophobe hiding behind some breathless defense of a tradition because it's important to our evolution, then concluded with arguments from the master race like this:

Originally Posted by Looper

Their behaviour is understandably offensive to the majority of adults but we magnanimously allow them to go about their business if they do it discreetly. What is wrong with this?

Please, Looper, it is yous and people with your condition that are offensive.

Originally Posted by MrG

Seems like cherry picking your "traditions". The tradition of man and woman...OK. But the tradition of committed relationship...oh c'es la vie.

Hardly cherrypicking. It is one of the 2 or 3 most primal and basic cultural traditions we have as a species and has its roots in the nature of our biological evolution. I would say that is pretty fundamental.

There is no cultural heritage or tradition which celebrates and sanctifies 2 poovemongers shacking up.

We nowadays recognise that this is something they want to do and we are also nowadays a civilised, broad-minded and empathetic culture so we condone this activity within reason.

They should be grateful and leave it at that without having to shit all over the profoundly important institution of marriage.

Originally Posted by Looper

Hardly cherrypicking. It is one of the 2 or 3 most primal and basic cultural traditions we have and has its roots in the nature of our biological evolution. I would say that is pretty fundamental.

And I would say you much too loopy for my blood, Loopy.

Originally Posted by Looper

There is no cultural heritage or tradition which celebrates and sanctifies 2 poovemongers shacking up.

Not worth my time.

Originally Posted by Looper

They should be grateful and leave it at that without having to shit all over the profoundly important institution of marriage.

Be grateful that you deign to allow the light of your beneficent countenance to shine upon them and grant them some sort of second-class almost rights?

The civil rights of a minority should not be subject to the whims of a majority, no matter how gracious that majority proclaims itself to be.

If you think gays are icky then so be it, but the issue lies with you and not them.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Be grateful that you deign to allow the light of your beneficent countenance to shine upon them and grant them some sort of second-class almost rights?

Some gratitude would be nice. 50 years ago they would have been imprisoned or executed or beaten to death with impunity.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

The civil rights of a minority should not be subject to the whims of a majority

What planet are you on mate?

How do you think rules are made up about what is OK and what is not OK. It is by agreement of the majority.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

If you think gays are icky then so be it, but the issue lies with you and not them.

Most heterosexual adults would agree that homosexual activities are distasteful but we are intelligent and empathetic enough not to let that revulsion get in the way of a rational acceptance that they are not really doing any harm if they keep to themselves.

What part of this do you not agree with?

Originally Posted by Looper

How do you think rules are made up about what is OK and what is not OK. It is by agreement of the majority.

It is not a discussion about rules, it is a discussion about civil rights. Rights should never be subject to a majority agreement, the clue is in their name.

Originally Posted by Looper

Most heterosexual adults would agree that homosexual activities are distasteful

That is purely subjective opinion on your part. Whether somebody thinks something is icky or not is totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Looper

we are intelligent and empathetic enough not to let that revulsion get in the way of a rational acceptance that they are not really doing any harm if they keep to themselves.

To turn your absurd argument around for a moment: Overpopulation is a serious problem in many areas, correct? Therefore it could be argued (using the reasoning you provide) that straight marriage is causing harm to society and therefore should be banned!

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

It is not a discussion about rules, it is a discussion about civil rights. Rights should never be subject to a majority agreement, the clue is in their name.

You are talking out of your arse mate. Rights or Rules it is all the same. They are agreed upon by majority consensus.

Certain rights may be protected in a constitution (and some may not be) making them more onerous to change but they will still be revised if popular opinion demands.

You sound like you think rights are handed down by god or something. I have news for you: they are still democratically agreed by consensus.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

That is purely subjective opinion on your part. Whether somebody thinks something is icky or not is totally irrelevant.

Most people would say that what homosexuals do is physically distasteful. It is not irrelevant. If something is repellent or disgusting like urinating in the high street it will often be prohibited. If it can be justified on humane grounds, such as allowing homosexuals a sex life then it might be allowed.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

To turn your absurd argument around for a moment: Overpopulation is a serious problem in many areas, correct? Therefore it could be argued (using the reasoning you provide) that straight marriage is causing harm to society and therefore should be banned!

In China they did ban 2nd children. It could be a rational response. I have not thought about it. It is a totally different proposition.

Originally Posted by Looper

Some gratitude would be nice. 50 years ago they would have been imprisoned or executed or beaten to death with impunity.

50 years ago it was a pretty well accepted that homophobes--easily identified by their infantile name calling like poovemongers etc.--were in fact reacting with such hostility to gays because they were afraid of their own homosexual impulses. Afraid of acting on them...afraid of themselves.
This was accepted fact, common knowledge, what would you call it; tradition. It was part of the glue that held the culture together, that helped us evolve as a nation and a culture. And now you've both played a part in, and been released from, this misconception.

Imagine that.

Originally Posted by MrG

reacting with such hostility to gays because they were afraid of their own homosexual impulses. Afraid of acting on them...afraid of themselves.

That tired old nugget. Ho hum.

It is fairly natural for a heterosexual adult to have feelings of distaste/revulsion for the activities of homosexuals.

But, like I have said, we are generous enough to be rational about it and tolerate their behaviour. It does not make their behaviour right or normal. I have no problem with homosexuals going about their business although the thought of it is unpleasant.

I do have a problem with them taking their new status of acceptance by society too far by trying to hijack the term 'marriage' to describe their couplings.

Originally Posted by Looper

Certain rights may be protected in a constitution (and some may not be) making them more onerous to change but they will still be revised if popular opinion demands.

It's the way it works for sure. Constitutional amendments to revise rights. Voting rights evolved from male land owners to all including blacks and women. Politicians responding to popular opinion driven to a great degree by minority interest groups.

Currently polls indicate over 50% and growing number of Americans support a constitutional change to allow same sex marriage.

Whether all agree or not we will be seeing a constitutional amendment to do so.

Originally Posted by Looper

If something is repellent or disgusting like urinating in the high street it will often be prohibited.

Can you see why your analogy is ridiculous?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by MrG

reacting with such hostility to gays because they were afraid of their own homosexual impulses. Afraid of acting on them...afraid of themselves.

That tired old nugget. Ho hum.

It is fairly natural for a heterosexual adult to have feelings of distaste/revulsion for the activities of homosexuals.

But, like I have said, we are generous enough to be rational about it and tolerate their behaviour. It does not make their behaviour right or normal. I have no problem with homosexuals going about their business although the thought of it is unpleasant.

I do have a problem with them taking their new status of acceptance by society too far by trying to hijack the term 'marriage' to describe their couplings.

Looper, are you Victorian Dad in disguise?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

You do realise that what you have just written is almost word-for-word a list of the objections raised against inter-racial marriage a few decades ago?

I don't see the similarities.

What do you mean?

Traditionally interracial marriages were discouraged for reasons of racial prejudice. Society has mostly overcome its racial prejudices and so interracial marriage is mostly accepted since it still passes the basic age-old definition of marriage - a committed union between a man and a woman.

A pair of pooves tickling each other todgers simply does not fit the basic requirements and should not be called a marriage.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter how it's sliced.

Originally Posted by Looper

You sound like you think rights are handed down by god or something. I have news for you: they are still democratically agreed by consensus.

Nonsense. Rights are rights in that they apply equally and to all and the default setting is 'on'. A majority consensus or a nasty government may choose to deny rights to a certain group for sure, but that doesn't change the nature of rights.

This harkens back to the inter racial marriage point; it was illegal because it had been made illegal, not because it had never been legalised. If the government or the majority or whoever had done nothing in the first place then the default would have been for inter racial marriage to be the same as any other marriage.

This is not to say that any church should be forced to perform same sex weddings - that is up to the church and its congregation - but the government has no business legislating that some citizens are allowed to have things that are denied to other citizens simply because of skin colour or sexual orientation or ethnicity or whatever.