Thread: Same sex marriage

Whilst that petition is just fucking dumb (and nothing will become of it) I am going to have a chuckle to myself that some of the opponents to same-sex marriage in Australia would probably be just as vehemently opposed to immigration, including that of Dr Lai herself.

So... Haha.


Ps. also her argument that the 'program becomes widespread and compulsory' is just utter scaremongering/floodgates bullshit.

Originally Posted by Looper

the man stream media

*cough*...any links?...

Originally Posted by chassamui

The pink currency will ensure no favouritism in most cases

equality, not favoritism, is the goal...

^The SSM campaign is not about rights equality – Civil Unions afford the same effective rights as marriage.

It is about the political assertion of validity and equivalence between gay and straight pair-bonding.

But when straight pair-bonding is based on common well understood behaviour with an obvious evolutionary rationale and gay pair bonding is based on puzzling behaviour with no evolutionary rationale then the assertion is not well founded.

Originally Posted by Looper

the assertion is not well founded

the underlying assumptions are Christian-flavored for the soft of brain...not persuasive, I'm afraid...

Originally Posted by tomcat

equality, not favoritism, is the goal...

I did not suggest that favouritism was the goal, merely that value of pink dollars would preclude it.

Originally Posted by Looper

puzzling behaviour with no evolutionary rationale then the assertion is not well founded.

Still ignoring logic then Looper? Your evolutionary rationale appears to be stuck in the 1950s.

I'm with Looper on this one ...

Originally Posted by Looper

Same-sex marriage survey: Petition to deregister Pansy Lai, doctor in No campaign ad, taken down


The petition asked for a review of Dr Pansy Lai's medical registration after she appeared in a Coalition for Marriage advertisement calling for a no vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage survey.

"Individuals should be able to express an opinion on a political matter, without being shouted down," AMA President, Dr Michael Gannon said.

As the AMA President, Dr Michael Gannon said "Individuals should be able to express an opinion on a political matter, without being shouted down".

^^ Is Dr. Pansy cross eyed?

Originally Posted by tomcat

attain the freedoms granted to other members of society...straight Christian folks are understandably upset at this sudden disappearance of narrow-minded intolerance...after all, they've had their tribal rules in place for thousands of years..

Only intolerant bigots still hold those 1950's views. As in many other areas of life. Good to see you accept that "marriage" in not a "recent" phenomena.

Originally Posted by tomcat

grew up in the oppressive 50s in the US and worked in the ME for most of my adult life

It does take time but we are now in the 21st century. Acceptance of same sex relationships is accepted in many, not all, countries. Unless you care to discus the oppressions that continue in the spheres you are concerned about.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Same sex relations do not need to be described in such a prejudiced manner, neither do they need to be hallowed or celebrated in the face of such cultural opposition. I believe that society is almost there in terms of acceptance and tolerance, which should be more than enough for most reasonable people.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by tomcat

My terms are the same you would want for yourself: complete equality in matters of law with all my fellow citizens

Which laws would you like to modify and how?

Originally Posted by chassamui

No one is shouting you down Looper or blaming your archaic stance on white male heterosexuals being superior to non-whites, females, and gays.

FTFY.

Originally Posted by OhOh

"marriage tradition/legally and accepted term" allegedly has been observed for millennia.

Hyperbole/exaggeration alert!

Originally Posted by OhOh

I have had many discussion with one of my siblings who is gay.

Are they black??

Originally Posted by tomcat

here's two (currently being challenged in the courts): I'd like to be able to buy a cake for my wedding without being told that "sincerely held religious beliefs" prevent the sale...similarly, I'd like a photographer to take photos of said wedding regardless of his religious beliefs...

Originally Posted by tomcat

^yes and yes...Jebus apparently told shop owners opened to the public that they could refuse to sell goods and services to folks they don't like...

Are you suggesting that a Jewish person should be allowed to sue an "open to the public", non kosher butcher and if they ask them to supply Kosher meat, they cannot refuse.

No in reality the person goes to a butchers that is willing to supply their requirements.

Or as in Thailand, after being shown an article and wishing to purchase one, one is told, "Not have". Should the shop owner be open to being sued, if only for the waste of time?

Originally Posted by Looper

To discriminate means to draw a distinction between two things. Gay and straight pair bonding may bear some surface similarities but they are different in significant ways.

So you do discriminate.

Originally Posted by Looper

t is not unreasonable to discriminate between them since one is an evolved behaviour with an obviously valid evolutionary rationale while the other is a puzzling behaviour with no evolutionary rationale.

So you do discriminate, but try to rationalise/justify it with spurious irrelevant references to evolution despite your admission (quoted immediately below) that it happens. People are people but if those people (humans) don't fit into your 1950's opinion of what people should be, then you say they should be discriminated against.

Originally Posted by Looper

Random behavioural variations which do not have rationales occur all the time in nature. If the behaviour is detrimental to the creature exhibiting the behaviour (such as disabling the ability to reproduce) then the behaviour can reasonably be considered a developmental defect.

No, not a defect, a variation. That's what you have to understand.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Are they black??

My sibling isn't, but our friends are varied. Different sexes, sexual interest, hues, races, status, roles, entertainment value and educational abilities.

One can, if one wants, adapt ones interaction to suit the intercourse. Or one can behave as an ignorant savage.

Yeah, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (and my sibling who is black.gay/disabled/Muslim/Jewish agrees with me, wholeheartedly).

Originally Posted by misskit

^^ Is Dr. Pansy cross eyed?

Maybe Lazy more then cross-eyed?

Never heard of her before the current issue.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

don't fit into your 1950's opinion of what people should be, then you say they should be discriminated against.

Discrimination does not have to be 'against' one thing and 'for' another. It can simply be between 2 things.

Yes, I discriminate between gay and straight pair bonding as I think there are good rational grounds for doing so. They bear some surface similarity but they also have profound differences.

One is an evolved behaviour for reproductive success and child-rearing.

The other is a puzzling behavioural abnormality.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

No, not a defect, a variation. That's what you have to understand.

If a 'variation' is detrimental to the biological success of an organism then it can reasonably be termed a defect.

Originally Posted by Looper

the puzzling behaviour that is homosexuality

Originally Posted by Looper

your puzzling sexual orientation

Originally Posted by Looper

the other is a puzzling behaviour

Originally Posted by Looper

The other is a puzzling behavioural abnormality.

...quite a puzzling obsession you're displaying here...moth to the flame, etc...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Originally Posted by Looper

To discriminate means to draw a distinction between two things. Gay and straight pair bonding may bear some surface similarities but they are different in significant ways.

So you do discriminate.

Originally Posted by Looper

t is not unreasonable to discriminate between them since one is an evolved behaviour with an obviously valid evolutionary rationale while the other is a puzzling behaviour with no evolutionary rationale.

So you do discriminate, but try to rationalise/justify it with spurious irrelevant references to evolution despite your admission (quoted immediately below) that it happens. People are people but if those people (humans) don't fit into your 1950's opinion of what people should be, then you say they should be discriminated against.

Originally Posted by Looper

Random behavioural variations which do not have rationales occur all the time in nature. If the behaviour is detrimental to the creature exhibiting the behaviour (such as disabling the ability to reproduce) then the behaviour can reasonably be considered a developmental defect.

No, not a defect, a variation. That's what you have to understand.

Apparently Lulu agrees with Looper because he redded me for this. He didn't explain why (yeah, he's not big on being able to debate an issue...a sign of lack of intellect).
So, The Jerk is a bigot, too. I really didn't think that before now.

Originally Posted by Looper

Discrimination does not have to be 'against' one thing and 'for' another. It can simply be between 2 things.

Eh?

Originally Posted by Looper

Yes, I discriminate between gay and straight pair bonding as I think there are good rational grounds for doing so. They bear some surface similarity but they also have profound differences.

One is an evolved behaviour for reproductive success and child-rearing.

The other is a puzzling behavioural abnormality.

Looper, are you Catholic? This argument you put forth here is also the argument for no contraception and no abortion.

Originally Posted by Looper

If a 'variation' is detrimental to the biological success of an organism then it can reasonably be termed a defect.

Again, contraception and abortion diminish biological expansion. Are you anti birth control and unwanted pregnancy termination?

If you are all about biological success...think a bit further; What happens when this planet is over-crowded? Biological success would mean that before that happens, breeding control would occur.

Yours is a spurious argument and disingenuous, and one I suspect is rooted in similar sexual insecurity such as Blue displays. I suspect you're a closet gay. I can say that without meaning offense because clearly I don't think "gay" is offensive.

Never mind that. State clearly why two people should not have the same legal rights as you.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Looper, are you Catholic?

I am not religious.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

This argument you put forth here is also the argument for no contraception and no abortion.

No, that is a different argument.

I am arguing that marriage is the cultural celebration of the evolved male-female pair bond.

The reason for the evolved tendency for humans to form male-female pair bonds is to maximise the success of the child rearing environment. This male-female pair bonding behaviour is celebrated as marriage and the rationale on which it is based is enormously significant to human civilisation.

There is no understanding of any evolutionary reasons why some men are attracted to other men. It is probably case that there are actually no reasons and it is simply a developmental disorder.

Male-male pair bonding may appear on the surface to be similar in some ways to male-female pair-bonding but, since it lacks any of the supporting rationale, there does not seem to be a compelling argument here to redefine the cultural celebration of marriage.

By all means provide alternative arrangements such as civil unions.

You're childless aren't you Looper? You ever fucked another male?

Originally Posted by Looper

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Looper, are you Catholic?

I am not religious.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

This argument you put forth here is also the argument for no contraception and no abortion.

No, that is a different argument.

I am arguing that marriage is the cultural celebration of the evolved male-female pair bond.

The reason for the evolved tendency for humans to form male-female pair bonds is to maximise the success of the child rearing environment. This male-female pair bonding behaviour is celebrated as marriage and the rationale on which it is based is enormously significant to human civilisation.

There is no understanding of any evolutionary reasons why some men are attracted to other men. It is probably case that there are actually no reasons and it is simply a developmental disorder.

Male-male pair bonding may appear on the surface to be similar in some ways to male-female pair-bonding but, since it lacks any of the supporting rationale, there does not seem to be a compelling argument here to redefine the cultural celebration of marriage.

By all means provide alternative arrangements such as civil unions.

No...it is the same argument. Two people mate for procreation only and if they don't procreate, the relationship is invalid or redundant.

Since your arguments are all about genetics and species survival,please answer the survival of the species argument I put forth; That is, if the planet is getting over-crowded (and it is, especially on an evolutionary time scale), surely procreation should be discouraged.
At the very least, non-procreative couples shouldn't be demonised or discriminated against for the fact that they don't increase the population. On the contrary, they should be applauded.

Originally Posted by David48atTD

Ben Rogers and Mark Poidevin

I suspect a bit of fun going on here, mainly because I immediately think of the names Ben Dover and Rogers Mark, or other permutations of Ben and Rogers.