Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Penguins, dolphins, orca, sea lions, and a number of other species all exhibit same sex pair bonding (not just homosexual sex, but bonding and mating).

The BBC is a notoriously liberal biased organisation and even they say it is only humans and domesticated sheep.

BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals?

It would make sense if this were true since it means that a behaviour which would appear to have no evolutionary rationale indeed probably does not have one.

Your speculation about population control is wrong since evolutionary 101 theory recognises that (other than social insects, where the colony is the organism, rather than the individual creature) individuals do not generally behave in ways that 'benefit' groups or the environment at the expense of their own DNA. Genes and DNA are not worried about over-population. They are only worried about reproducing themselves. Over-population is not in evolution's dictionary.

Our resident Einstein Chassamui was coming out with this nonsense a couple of weeks ago on the aboriginal thread but trying argue with him is like trying wrestle with a bowl of jelly so I let it slide

Originally Posted by Looper

The law frequently has to adjudicate when biologically shared children have to have access and support decided so this is a huge differentiator between male-female and other types of pair-bonding.

This reason alone should be enough to warrant maintaining a legal distinction between straight and gay pair-bonding, even setting aside the cultural legacy we are re-engineering.

That makes no sense at all.

Same-sex marriage as zero impact on that. In fact same-sex marriage as zero impact on anything to do with heterosexual marriage - it doesn't stop, prevent, limit or impact it in any way, shape or form.

Invalid argument.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Invalid argument.

Looper's not particularly persuasive despite what I assume to be tremendous sweaty effort...I suspect he's a closet Christian who thinks God agrees with him...

His argument does seem to boil down to: 'But, but the Bible says...!'

Originally Posted by Looper

Marriage is the cultural celebration of an important evolved human behaviour. Male-Female pair-bonding. This behaviour evolved when nature selected it as providing the optimum environment for child raising

A theory, countered by another theory that monogamy is anathema to the human psyche. Making a legal couple has legal implications only, not biological implications. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
A theory, not evolved in the Darwinian sense of survival of the fittest, but evolved in the same sense that ideas evolve. For example Feudal system- democracy- female voting rights. The idea evolved not from any sort of biological necessity but as an idea.
Gay couples could adopt. Gay couples could have their own biological children. As the offspring of a legally married couple those children get the same protections in law as children of heterosexual marriages.

Abos are inferior savages, gays are a kink in human development. You really ought to take a long hard look at yourself and your ideas that are based on half-science and flawed reasoning.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Gay couples could have their own biological children.

???

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The idea evolved not from any sort of biological necessity but as an idea.

Lets stay on topic, which is biological evolution, not cultural evolution. Memes can be anything you want them to be and can mutate virally in a short time frame. Biological evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to evolve species-wide behaviours.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

A theory, countered by another theory that monogamy is anathema to the human psyche.

What theory is this?

Pair bonding is a human behaviour observed in all civilisations and celebrated commonly as marriage.

Are all civilisations exhibiting the exact same behaviour which somehow runs contrary to natural human psyche?

The pair bonding theory is compatible with polygyny. Monogamy is a political agreement among men to share women out fairly to avoid unrest among males.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Abos are inferior savages

They are not inferior; but neither are they noble since no pre-state humans are noble.

Originally Posted by Looper

Lets stay on topic, which is biological evolution, not cultural evolution.

actually this is the topic you choose to post about, rather far afield (and a rather obvious dodge) from the simple legal affirmation that gay couples have the right to marry...

Originally Posted by Looper

Lets stay on topic, which is biological evolution, not cultural evolution.

Erm, nooooo, that's your topic, your theory, your idea.
So countering your theory is going off topic.
Interesting stance.

Originally Posted by Looper

Pair bonding is a human behaviour observed in all civilisations and celebrated commonly as marriage.

Change "celebrated" to "solemnised".
ie, made into a legal arrangement.
And THAT is what this is about.

...apparently Looper has a problem getting past his own pre-conceived notions of other folks' rights...and fairly smug about his own...

My favorite bits are where he graciously concedes to offering less than equal rights as some sort of appeasement (and actually thinks he should be congratulated for it).

'Hey you, you get to drink at that fountain over there and sit at the back of the bus. Thank me later'.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

My favorite bits are where he graciously concedes to offering less than equal rights as some sort of appeasement (and actually thinks he should be congratulated for it).

'Hey you, you get to drink at that fountain over there and sit at the back of the bus. Thank me later'.

That's almost exactly what it is. The only thing missing is an expression of the disingenuousness. He's smart enough to know that his pseudo-science "justifications" are false.

Or is he? I may be wrong on that aspect.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I may be wrong on that aspect.

I think you are: he's paraded his beliefs as science and then repeated the nonsense page after page...too much like trollish behavior, imo...

Dunno what the fuss is all about, it seems mainly the bible bashers and Daily Mail are bitterly against it.


Fuck 'em. This ain't the 1950s.

^Never piss off your barber...

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Or is he? I may be wrong on that aspect.

Originally Posted by tomcat

I think you are:

I was referring to "He's smart enough" (to know better), not his bias.

Originally Posted by tomcat

^Never piss off your barber...

I believe it's more important to never piss off your chef.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I was referring to "He's smart enough" (to know better), not his bias.

so was I...

Canberra kids' party organiser sacks entertainer who said it's OK to vote no


A children's birthday party organiser has stood by her decision to sack an entertainer who aired her opposition to same-sex marriage online, despite the decision drawing scorn from the No campaign.

Canberra business owner Madlin Sims said the woman, who dressed up as children's characters for Ms Sims' party business, had installed a frame on her private Facebook profile picture that said "it's OK to vote no".

Ms Sims said when her brother raised his disagreement with the post, the woman said she believed same-sex marriage was wrong and claimed she was being attacked for her religious beliefs.

In response Ms Sims took to Facebook, arguing advocating against same-sex marriage was homophobic "hate speech," adding she did not want her business associated with the contractor's views.
Who supports same-sex marriage? And who doesn't?
Data from Australia's longest-running lifestyle survey shows an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.

"This entertainer of ours, she had posted representing the business on the same platform — the Facebook page where this frame was shared," she said.

"Not in any way am I saying 'don't voice your opinion', that's democracy ... but I do feel that it is hateful being against gay marriage.

"Just like I wouldn't want someone who is racist working with us ... I wasn't comfortable having someone who was so out and proud about being against equality."

The woman was an independent contractor, and not a direct employee of Ms Sims' business.
How do you feel about employers being able to dismiss workers for publicly expressing their opinion on the same-sex marriage debate? Tell us in the comments section below.

In a Facebook post, Ms Sims said she could not have someone publicly representing her business "posting hate speech" because:

"1. It's bad for business

"2. I don't like shit morals

"3. I don't want homophobes working for me, especially in an environment with children."

Ms Sims expressed particular concern that the woman could be assigned to work with same-sex parents.

"I was worried that if she were to be put in a situation like that that she might say something," she said.
Free speech has consequences: Sims

David Goodwin from the Coalition for Marriage, a leading voice in the No campaign, said the decision was deeply concerning.
Key dates in SSM postal survey:

August 24 — the final day to register with the AEC if you want to take part in the survey
September 12 — survey forms start being sent out
September 25 — all forms are expected to have been sent
October 27 — forms are strongly encouraged to be returned by this date
November 7 — the final deadline to return surveys
November 15 — results are released at 11:30am

"The fact that you could share your own personal view on a matter like this and find yourself out of a job is extraordinary," he said.

"What this woman actually currently supports is the law of the land — is [Ms Sims] suggesting that she's not going to employ nearly half the nation?

"If that's acceptable now, I shudder to think what will become the norm after a vote goes through and the Yes campaign actually wins.

"We are going into terribly uncharted waters."

But Ms Sims said she felt compelled to "take a stand" against inequality, and did not like that her case had been portrayed as a free speech issue.

"It sucks that it's being portrayed as that because ... my brother tried to open up that conversation with her and she was pretty adamant," she said.

"Free speech is there and so is consequence.

"Just like I have to cop the backlash of what I've posted, this contractor, their consequence is losing their temporary work with us."

SSM: Canberra kids' party organiser ditches entertainer who said it's OK to vote no - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Unbelievable that a woman could lose her job just for stating her beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Any remaining fence sitters should be thinking about voting 'no' just to send a message that Australians will not be bullied and harassed like this in a democracy.

Oh noes, once again the victim in this are the poor, persecuted and oppressed, Christians who don't get absolutely everything their own way.

Won't someone think of the poor, persecuted and oppressed, Christians who don't get absolutely everything their own way!

Originally Posted by Looper

The BBC is a notoriously liberal biased organisation and even they say it is only humans and domesticated sheep.

BBC - Earth - Are there any homosexual animals?

It would make sense if this were true since it means that a behaviour which would appear to have no evolutionary rationale indeed probably does not have one.

Your speculation about population control is wrong since evolutionary 101 theory recognises that (other than social insects, where the colony is the organism, rather than the individual creature) individuals do not generally behave in ways that 'benefit' groups or the environment at the expense of their own DNA. Genes and DNA are not worried about over-population. They are only worried about reproducing themselves. Over-population is not in evolution's dictionary.

Our resident Einstein Chassamui was coming out with this nonsense a couple of weeks ago on the aboriginal thread but trying argue with him is like trying wrestle with a bowl of jelly so I let it slide

You are incorrect on all counts. DNA studies are immensely complex and all kinds of fauna will adapt their breeding program, in the event of scarce resources or habitat loss. Some have even become threatened or even extinct for these reasons.
The fact is, humans are very slow to adapt because, in their experience, resources and habitat have not been a problem for millennia.

You really do need to be more open minded about this Looper.
BTW I thought you were debating, not arguing?

Originally Posted by Looper

"Not in any way am I saying 'don't voice your opinion'

Deranged liberals being deranged liberals, as per usual.

Situation normal.

Originally Posted by Looper

"hate speech"

This buzzword has become so watered down/meaningless nowadays.

Originally Posted by Looper

I don't want homophobes working for me, especially in an environment with children

LOL the same woman would probably be beside herself if a bearded tranny wanted to dress up as Ben 10 & "entertain" children but lawd have mercy you gonna be fired if you say "its ok to vote no" on facebook.

And it certainly is ok to vote no.

Originally Posted by Looper

Any remaining fence sitters should be thinking about voting 'no' just to send a message that Australians will not be bullied and harassed like this in a democracy.

Totally agree.

It's OK poor, persecuted and oppressed, Christians who don't get absolutely everything your own way... Slick and Loops have got your backs!

Err, in a manner of speaking.