Australian Politics Forum - Gays and marriage

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #75 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:32pm Wesley, polygamy, pedophilia and beastiality are illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #76 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own. I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo. A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it? That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #77 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:37pm

olde.sault wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

The problem is that it'll bring marriage down to its lowest denominator. Folks won't bother so, you'll have gays going for the ceremony and heterosexuals, shacking up.

Parents have to set an example and I can't imagine a child (however begotten) brought up in a gay household.

As children are apt to follow the example of their carers, I suspect conflicting emotions and bullying at school.

Most kids don't want to be seen as different by fellow-students.

Hah! Salty, you should sit down before you read this.

Heterosexuals are already "shacking up". In droves! *gasp*

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #78 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:56pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:32pm: Wesley, polygamy, pedophilia and beastiality are illegal. So is gay marriage.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #79 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm Would you outlaw homosexuality if you could?
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #80 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own. I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo. A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it? That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #81 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:59pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm: Would you outlaw homosexuality if you could? nah.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #82 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:01pm Bullshit. The relationship between homosexuals isn't illegal - you can't compare it with beastiality.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #83 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:02pm Then why not allow them to marry? I don't understand your reasoning.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #84 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:06pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:02pm:

Then why not allow them to marry? I don't understand your reasoning.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has, alwasy will. Two blokes can love each other, and want to proclaim their commitment to each other, but it ain't marriage, so i refuse to call it that. Some might be prepared to turn a blind eye, or call a spade a manual digging instrument, but a man of principle sticks to his guns.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #85 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:16pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:01pm:

Bullshit. The relationship between homosexuals isn't illegal - you can't compare it with beastiality.

I'm not comparing the practices, I am saying that the main justification on offer for gay marriage (words to the effect of 'they should be allowed to...just because') would also apply in principle to any kind of union.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax Gold Member Offline Take the plan, spin it sideways Posts: 7057 Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #86 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:23pm Any legal union.
Back to top	I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway. IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Gays and marriage Reply #87 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:35pm Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:23pm: Any legal union. Well no, because the justification wouldn't even need to be made if it was already legal.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #88 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:36pm

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own. I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo. A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it? That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Gays and marriage
Reply #89 - Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:46pm

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 7:36pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:09pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 14^th, 2011 at 4:37pm:

That is, if you discount everything the anti-DLS/gay marriage proponents actually say, and just substitute their argument for your own. I've never heard anyone use the faded curtains line, except for pro-DLSers using it to mock their opposition.

Even if you were correct, us antis still have one key factor on our side - the status quo. A prudent judge doesn't change just for the sake of it - if it aint broke, don't fix it.

But it is broke, that's what you refuse to acknowledge. Glad to hear you're willing to see it fixed though! That means you won't be too disappointed when it happens.

What's 'broke' about it? That conditions on who can enter into it exist?

Glad to see you prove my point.

The paedos, bestialists and polygamists will be glad to hear they have your support if they decide to push for 'equality' too.

Don't particularly care about polygamists. Anyone stupid enough to have more than one woman around deserves all they get.

The others are just typical mean minded narrow-necker arguments that have nothing to do with gays. I guess you do believe about the faded curtains, eh?

Deride them as 'mean minded narrow-necker arguments' if you must - it doesn't hide or change the fact that the exact same argument you use to support gay marriage can be copied verbatim to use for any number of zany causes, like child marriage, beastilaity etc.....

Except that nobody is asking for those things nor do they have popular support. Therefore they are completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You WISH they were irrelevant - they highlight how poor the justification to allow gay marriage is.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged