Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Looper

Humans are evolved as a pair bonding species for reproductive purposes (some sexually reproducing species are not pair-bonding). Marriage is the cultural ceremony recognising this evolved behaviour.

Originally Posted by Looper

I am just stating that marriage has evolved as a heterosexual cultural institution between a man and a woman for reproductive/family reasons.

As marriage is a "cultural institution", it can be whatever society wants it to be. If society changes, and society does change, and says marriage can be between two people of the same sex (as it has in some countries), then your claim that ....

Originally Posted by Looper

It can only be between a man and a woman.

is clearly wrong and out-dated in those countries - from a societal point of view. Of course, that does not mean that everyone will agree, but that is the modern reality of the "cultural institution" of marriage in some countries.

Originally Posted by Neverna

As marriage is a "cultural institution", it can be whatever society wants it to be. If society changes, and society does change, and says marriage can be between two people of the same sex (as it has in some countries), then your claim that ....

That has been explained to him a thousand times. He doesn't like that it knocks the legs out of his position, so he ignores it.

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG If "these types of laws" just elucidate cultural beliefs, then homosexual marriage has just been elucidated as a cultural belief. No it hasn't. Homosexual partnerships have recently been recognised as worthy of limited toleration on compassionate grounds.

Still in denial.
Limited toleration is what I'm giving you right now, please don't mistake it for respect for your arguments.

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage has not been recognised as redefined to include bum-ticklers.

Tell it to the Irish.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by Neverna

As marriage is a "cultural institution", it can be whatever society wants it to be. If society changes, and society does change, and says marriage can be between two people of the same sex (as it has in some countries), then your claim that ....

That has been explained to him a thousand times. He doesn't like that it knocks the legs out of his position, so he ignores it.

Originally Posted by Looper

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG If "these types of laws" just elucidate cultural beliefs, then homosexual marriage has just been elucidated as a cultural belief. No it hasn't. Homosexual partnerships have recently been recognised as worthy of limited toleration on compassionate grounds.

Still in denial.
Limited toleration is what I'm giving you right now, please don't mistake it for respect for your arguments.

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage has not been recognised as redefined to include bum-ticklers.

Tell it to the Irish.

I don't think it could be any clearer:

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".

It's a fine tradition.

Originally Posted by Neverna

As marriage is a "cultural institution", it can be whatever society wants it to be. If society changes, and society does change, and says marriage can be between two people of the same sex

No. because that does not take into account the factor of 'tradition'.

Just because we now tolerate homosexual relationships up to a point that does not change the traditional definition of marriage.

Marriage has a traditional and correct definition. That being between a man and a woman.

Now we also tolerate homosexual couplings.

So, yes, societies attitudes have shifted.

Before we had Marriage and lynchings of homosexual couples.

Now we have marriage and accepted homosexual partnerships but the latter are not marriages.

Originally Posted by MrG

It's a fine tradition.

Homosexual partnerships are not a tradition at all since they have only been partially tolerated in very recent history.

Originally Posted by Looper

Homosexual partnerships are not a tradition at all since they have only been partially tolerated in very recent history.

Yes, but like all good traditions, they've got to start somewhere.

And they have.

^So they can start a new tradition of homosexual partnership and good luck to them.

They don't need to, and are not entitled to, co-opt and then distort the existing and very long-standing heterosexual tradition of marriage.

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage is a cultural institution of thousands of years standing. Recently we also have a legal structure called a marriage which is used to regulate the cultural institution.

As far back as written history goes marriage has been a legal contract, that's its purpose. You are confusing marriage with pairing, they are not the same thing at all. As before your entire argument fails because your fundamental definitions are false, the classic sign of somebody who doesn't know how debate works.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage is a cultural institution of thousands of years standing. Recently we also have a legal structure called a marriage which is used to regulate the cultural institution.

As far back as written history goes marriage has been a legal contract, that's its purpose. You are confusing marriage with pairing, they are not the same thing at all. As before your entire argument fails because your fundamental definitions are false, the classic sign of somebody who doesn't know how debate works.

Well let's face it the clueless cnut doesn't really know what he's talking about, he's making it up as he goes along and failing dismally.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

As far back as written history goes marriage has been a legal contract, that's its purpose.

B0b you really do talk an amazing amount of bollix for such a 'clever' fella!

The common law system has only existed for a matter of centuries. Primitive legal systems existed before that, but marriage has existed since pagan times before organised religion, organised law, organised anything. It is programmed into human nature by evolution.

So marriage as cultural institution came a long long way before marriage as a legal structure.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

You are confusing marriage with pairing, they are not the same thing at all.

Marriage is just the recognition, through cultural ceremony, of the evolved pairing behaviour of homo-sapiens. Marriage would have been one of the first features of culture to form when culture itself emerged at the dawn of human civilisation.

Originally Posted by Looper

The common law system has only existed for a matter of centuries. Primitive legal systems existed before that

I see that as well as knowing nothing about history you don't even know what Common Law means. Harry is right, Looper, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. That a man your age should have such a shaky grasp of such basic knowledge is shameful. Still, it's your loss and nobody elses.

^B0b trying sidetrack the argument and get away from the inescapable fact that marriage was a cultural institution long before it was regulated by a modern legal system!

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage would have been one of the first features of culture to form when culture itself emerged at the dawn of human civilisation.

And every one of them was probably about division of property, which is all it's really about anyway.

^^So primitive legal systems existed in some ancient civilisations and 'surprise surprise' they had marriage contracts.

That still does not undermine my assertion that the legal contract is only there to support the human cultural phenomenon i.e. marriage, and that it has historically been between a man and a woman.

The same as legal injunctions against murder are only there to support the inherent moral belief that murder is wrong.

You can be sure marriages (ceremonially witnessed pair-bonding of a man and a woman to start a family) existed before these civilisations got started and began generating recorded history for you to refer to.

Originally Posted by Looper

So primitive legal systems existed in some ancient civilisations and 'surprise surprise' they had marriage contracts

Primitive? Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome? Primitive? Where do you think OUR legal systems come from?

Originally Posted by Looper

That still does not undermine my assertion that the legal contract is only there to support the human cultural phenomenon

Hah, nice bit of wriggling there. That was exactly the OPPOSITE of your assertion, which was

Originally Posted by Looper

^B0b trying sidetrack the argument and get away from the inescapable fact that marriage was a cultural institution long before it was regulated by a modern legal system!

You're boring me now, you silly little man. Go debate with somebody on your own level, goldfish are cheap and readily available.

B0b I believe you may truly be stupid after all and that it is not some cunning subterfuge to put people off their guard.

My 2 quoted assertions are in no way contradictory.

The cultural institution came first. Later came a legal system with laws to support/regulate the operation of the cultural institution.

That is what both those statements say.

I don't know what thread to put this in. I thought this was an interesting way of using Homosexual Panic for national defense.

A Swedish organization found a hilarious way to ward off Russian submarines
A Swedish peace group says it has lowered a sonar device into the Baltic Sea off Stockholm to deter Russian submarines, emitting the message “This Way if You Are Gay”.

The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society’s (SPAS) cheeky device emits the message in Morse code and is designed to scare off subs from Russia, which does not share Sweden’s acceptance of homosexuality.

The so-called Singing Sailor also features a flashing pink neon outline of a seaman clad only in white underpants and a boater’s hat, gyrating his hips above the text “Welcome to Sweden — Gay Since 1944.”

That was the year when Sweden decriminalised homosexuality. In contrast, rights groups have recently sounded the alarm over a rising number of homophobic attacks in Russia, saying that a ban on “gay propaganda” effectively legalises discrimination.

SPAS said on its website that its device was made to provide “interesting info for any submarines passing close by”.

In October last year, Sweden’s navy launched a massive hunt for a foreign submarine, suspected to be Russian, in the Stockholm archipelago.

The military subsequently confirmed that “a mini submarine” had violated its territorial waters, but was never able to establish the vessel’s nationality.

Following the incident, as well as several airspace violations by Russian jets over the last year, the Swedish government announced in April that it would raise defence spending by 10.2 billion kronor (1.1 billion euros, $1.2 billion) for the period 2016 to 2020, largely due to concerns over Russia’s military resurgence.

SPAS said its campaign was aimed at urging the Swedish government “to think in new ways instead of falling back on territorial defence, conscription and rearmament -– the world doesn’t need more weapons”.

“Military rearmament in itself is a major contributing cause of conflict,” it added.

This story was originally published by journal.ie.

A Swedish organization found a hilarious way to ward off Russian submarines - Business Insider

Vladimir Vladimirovich is on the money.

Originally Posted by Looper

What is your point?

Originally Posted by Looper

it does follow that a partnership between 2 people other than a man and a woman is not a marriage.

Point proven wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/wo...eferendum.html

Rainbow love.

Hey Jofrey,

as I am somewhat time-constrained could you extract the relevant point from the article and the state it here?

^I think they should have a vote for lesbianism and only women are allowed to vote and then a vote for male homosexuality and only men are allowed to vote.