Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by ENT

the Australian government will provide $170 million

I'm sure the gay community will be willing to pay the cost, if they can manage the result. Or is this taxpayers money?

Somebody should whisper to the Thai-Chinese that gay weddings, honeymoons, parades, etc bring in lots of cash...I imagine Thai marriage laws would suddenly become much more accommodating when fatter envelopes start to move upward...

.........

Originally Posted by chassamui

especially where it is part of any religious framework for couples.

there's no need or urgency to involve Jebus in a gay marriage: merely establishing that gays have the same government-recognized marriage rights as straights is fine...and a huge step forward...

Originally Posted by tomcat

Somebody should whisper to the Thai-Chinese that gay weddings, honeymoons, parades, etc bring in lots of cash...I imagine Thai marriage laws would suddenly become much more accommodating when fatter envelopes start to move upward...

Yeah. Pink baht and imported pink dong, yuan, Singapore dollar, ringit, and yen.

(I somehow think there's not a lot of pink kip, kyat, or rial floating around).

Originally Posted by chassamui

Not entirely sure that legally recognized marriage should be such an aspiration. Globally, the failure rate is quite high.
marriage is such a defunct notion these days, especially where it is part of any religious framework for couples.
While I fully support gay partnership, they are barking up the wrong tree seeking such legal and religious recognition from failed institutions. Wasted effort and time that could have been put to better use.

I disagree.
It's all a matter of principle. Who cares what the marriage failure rate is? Gays have as much right to discover love then disappointment and alimony court as heteros.

Would a post op ladyboy marrying a pre op ladyboy be considered same sex marriage? Enquiring minds want know.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I disagree.
It's all a matter of principle. Who cares what the marriage failure rate is? Gays have as much right to discover love then disappointment and alimony court as heteros.

Alternatively they could just cohabit, then separate like other couples do. No harm no foul, and more importantly, no lawyers pockets are lined. It's not like they can argue over child support is it?
Yes I know some same sex couples can adopt and its better than being in a single parent family.

Originally Posted by chassamui

Alternatively they could just cohabit, then separate like other couples do. No harm no foul, and more importantly, no lawyers pockets are lined. It's not like they can argue over child support is it?

Yes marriage is substantially a socio-cultural institution to pressure guys into fronting up with the male-parental-investment for the kids that often result. It is already under pressure from changing social mores around divorce.

Redefining it as just being about any 2 people (or how about 3 people?) wanting to make a public statement about their love puts even more distance between it and its original function.

Affording new legal and ceremonial means for any 2 people to declare their committed love (civil partnership) and keeping marriage as it has always been defined is not oppressing gay people.

^no further comment required as we've already had a ride on this merry-go-round...but don't let that discourage you...

^yes we talked about the evolutionary perspective and the cross-cultural history but we did not really go into the 3rd aspect of why the existing definition of marriage has value which is that it is not just about celebrating love.

It is about ceremonially binding a man to a woman for the purposes of formalising the male-parental-investment idea which is the origins of the marriage rationale.

This has benefits for society in that men are ceremonially (not just legally) bound to provide for the children from a relationship and to provide parental support.

The man also benefits from the arrangement since the institution comes with social mores such as not fooling around with married women. This feeds back into protection for the marriage and the security of the children.

None of these has any relevance to celebrating gay partnerships. So while it is similar in some ways to marriage it is different in many other ways.

It is detrimental to the fabric of society and the welfare of the children of marriages to dissolve the meaning of the institution of marriage for the sake of making gay people feel a little bit more 'included'.

The needs of gay people are already catered for with civil partnerships, which, in Australia (following the Rudd reforms of 2013), come with almost identical legal rules and regulations to marriage.

Originally Posted by Looper

but we did not really go into the 3rd aspect of why the existing definition of marriage has value

yes, we did. Result: neither one of us persuaded the other...I doubt further discussion will change that situation. What is most important to me is that the US government has legalized gay marriage. All else, imo, is blather...and so, to bed...

Gays wanting to get married just underlines their long held screaming inner fear of being damned in hell by god for doing naughties.

Originally Posted by Norton

Would a post op ladyboy marrying a pre op ladyboy be considered same sex marriage? Enquiring minds want know.

No. One penis, one vagina.
I guess.

Would that make the pre-op a male lesbian? A lesbian trapped in an identifies-as-female male body.
So, yes.
I guess.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Originally Posted by Norton

Would a post op ladyboy marrying a pre op ladyboy be considered same sex marriage? Enquiring minds want know.

No. One penis, one vagina.
I guess.

Would that make the pre-op a male lesbian? A lesbian trapped in an identifies-as-female male body.
So, yes.
I guess.

This is a bit confusing.....
"A pair of gay dads are expecting a baby together after one of them, who is transgender, became pregnant."

Oregon transgender man expecting baby with husband - Lifestyle - NZ Herald News

So "mum" was born a female but identified as a man and fell for a gay man once "she" "became" a man.
She's got gay attraction for a man, but only after she decided to be a man, but is actually a female. Does that make "her" heterosexual?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Does that make "her" heterosexual?

It makes her fabulous...and a wonder to behold...

Originally Posted by tomcat

her

She identifies as a man and went to all the bother of the trans op please take care with your prepositions TC



^^so she took a load of man-batter up her man-blurter - presumably no vagina (transgender) - and she still managed to get pregnant.

Maybe the pope would count that as a miracle!

Could we be looking at ..... the second coming....?!

Originally Posted by Looper

please take care with your prepositions TC

please pay better attention in grammar class...

Originally Posted by Looper

Maybe the pope would count that as a miracle!
Could we be looking at ..... the second coming....?!

At his age, I imagine the pope would be delighted to experience a first coming...

.....

I think somebody should send news to the vatican...

The messiah has a track record of unusual conception circumstances!

Last time it was an angel and a virgin.

This time it could be a bloke who used to be a woman but became a bloke but kind of stayed a woman somehow because s/he became pregnant by another bloke blowing his beans up his/her blurter!

This would be serous ammunition for the SSM lobby if God is rubber-stamping transgenderism with his second son/daughter/intersex person!

Originally Posted by Looper

This would be serous ammunition for the SSM lobby if God is rubber-stamping transgenderism with his second son/daughter/intersex person!

...we are created in His image: suck on that, Maggie!