Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96412

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #105 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:14am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:25am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:12am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

I'm certain any number of people want to kill their neighbours - but it is not currently allowed...... wanting is not the whole deal.

Honestly Grap, how is that comparable?

And i say this as a person who is currently sitting in her home with an 18th going on next door. Buggered if i know when i'm getting to sleep tonight.

It's just highlighting the difference between a want and a need.... I can think of several neighbours who require a small bullet to the head... but it is not an accepted approach to their problem.

People WANT many things - they NEED very few.... so discussing gay marriage in terms of a WANT is not really valid.

The need concept of marriage arose from the need to provide a stable environment in which family - which is the basis of all human endeavour (though often abused by politicians to get people to sacrifice etc) - could prosper for the benefit of the most protected species on earth - Children. It then followed that the institution of marriage could and would provide security for the PARENTS of Children - and thus provide stability and security for the Group as a whole.

We are animals driven by basic needs - the MOST basic being the development and protection of Family.... (hence the massive rise in DV and murders of estranged 'partners' who disrupt this basic need for family and stability deriving from it).

How then include as a NEED the WANT of a group with no commitment to or possibility of family due to lifestyle?

Actually, marriage arose from a need for parents to choose their children’s spouses. Historically, marriage was arranged. It was a need of parents to hitch up their kids before they went and hitched up themselves.

It was a need of the parents of daughters to provide for their daughters’ security. It was a need of the parents of sons to receieve a decent dowry and choose a daughter-in-law who would care for them in their old age. And it was a need of clans and communities to form blood alliances - just as it was for the monarchs of competing kingdoms.

Marriage only became about romance and chivalry after the crusaders went away and were granted unprecedented freedom from their families. Most marriages in the world today are still arranged, or at the very least, brokered by parents.

There would be no need for marriage as a legally binding contract if marriage was just about the joint partnership of two consenting individuals.

Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85185
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #106 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96412

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #107 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:22am

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:58am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:48am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:27am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

Well, NO they don't..
IF they did, we wouldn't be having this argument..

What Gay has no right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and even have children in that marriage? I've known Gays who have done that.

THe point is that a peson should have the right to marry for love.

This is still a far-fetched concept in many societies. In India, culture dictates that love grows from commitment - not sexual desire.

This is so unheard of in Western culture that it’s hard to believe how recent our own notion of romantic love is.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96412	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #108 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:23am Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am: .. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Well, Longy would say that. He did year 9 maths.
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 85185 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: In defence of Gay Marriage Reply #109 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:28am Karnal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:23am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am: .. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Well, Longy would say that. He did year 9 maths.
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #110 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85185
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #111 - Aug 16^th, 2015 at 10:17am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

The point is they have... there is a right to marry someone of the opposite sex - there is (currently) no right to gay marriage, and no compelling reason for it (in my eyes) one way or another, all loud voices aside.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #112 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:37pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

Your argument is flawed. If they are human then they are entitled to human rights. This does not intrinsically entitle them to heterosexual rights. I support gay marriage, but your argument is still flawed.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #113 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:37pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am:

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Having watched that movie only a few days ago this 'life-connected' business is nonsense. It was two boys who had a memorable fling.

Marriage is about love and commitment.

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #114 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:03pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am:

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Well, they were either incredibly stupid, or lying. Marriage pre-dates the Christian Church by at least 5000 years..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #115 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:07pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am:

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Well, they were either incredibly stupid, or lying. Marriage pre-dates the Christian Church by at least 5000 years..

I am sometimes astonished by the ignorance of people. Marriage only 500 years old? Are all the famous historical marriages myth? All the ancient references to marriage dating back 10,000 years?

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #116 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:11pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:21am:

.. but.. but.. but........ somebody said marriage had only been around for 500 years.... and was a Christian thing... Wink

"Throughout most of history, marriage has been no such thing. In much of the world today, marriage comes from a need to legally bind your offspring and subsequent generations. "

I think that is the nub of the matter. One of the main characters in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel was a gay man with an Indian lover who had married, and whose wife knew full well that her husband was life-connected to the other man.

Where is the need for marriage when love is true?

Should I tell the one who loves me that since I am still and will remain the carer for my ex and will do all in my power to support and sustain her, that she (the one who loves me) should go? And that marriage is what signifies the truth of the relationship?

What ARE the boundaries here.....

Well, they were either incredibly stupid, or lying. Marriage pre-dates the Christian Church by at least 5000 years..

I am sometimes astonished by the ignorance of people. Marriage only 500 years old? Are all the famous historical marriages myth? All the ancient references to marriage dating back 10,000 years?

Apparently so...especially if they reference marriages other than the 1 man, 1 woman type...

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35565
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #117 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:03pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

Your argument is flawed. If they are human then they are entitled to human rights. This does not intrinsically entitle them to heterosexual rights. I support gay marriage, but your argument is still flawed.

Why is marrying the person you love a 'heterosexual right'?

It wasn't before Howard pushed through the Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004. Seems most people don't agree with that amendment.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85185
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #118 - Aug 17^th, 2015 at 10:12pm

Whoa people - the Right to Marriage is the right to marry the person of your choice RATHER than be forced into it, not some open-ended right to marry.

Whether that relates to love or not is another issue - and marrying the person of your choice does not mean just because you want to, no matter how much the sophists seek to change that interpretation and Marriage is still defined as between man and woman.

If that changes by genuine popular vote - I'm OK with that.

But let's keep the discussion straight... oops.. let's keep it on the facts available at this time and then clearly add any differing issues and points clearly labeled as such.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #119 - Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:33am

mothra wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:03pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 2:42am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 1:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:53am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:48am:

mothra wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Aug 16^th, 2015 at 12:37am:

Why defend gay marriage? Gays have the same right to marriage as you and I.... and I know not of thee.. but I am 100% heterosexual...

Point is - we can both marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage requires.....

There endeth the lesson.... unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage......

I don;t want to alter the definition of marriage .. i wish to extend it to incorporate same sex couples.

Not hard, is it?

Why?

Because a number of gay and lesbian people want to get married.

And they should ( and, in truth) DO have that right..

How do they have that right? They want to - does that make it a right?

Are they not human?? IF gay's are humans, then they have the same basic human rights as the rest of the human race.

Your argument is flawed. If they are human then they are entitled to human rights. This does not intrinsically entitle them to heterosexual rights. I support gay marriage, but your argument is still flawed.

Why is marrying the person you love a 'heterosexual right'?

It wasn't before Howard pushed through the Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004. Seems most people don't agree with that amendment.

It has always been a solely heterosexual right. It didn't begin in 2004.

Back to top

IP Logged