Australian Politics Forum - In defence of Gay Marriage

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #210 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

1. Same sex marriage is nothing new. It has always been there so we should allow it today. There is precedent for this.

2. Just because throughout history marriage has been between a man and a women doesn't mean we can't change it now. Precedent is irrelevant to marriage in 2015.

But of course this can work both ways.

1. Gay marriage was never allowed. Let's not change it now. There is precedent for this.

2. Just because they used to have gay marriage doesn't mean we have to do it now. Who cares what they used to do thousands of years ago. Precedent is irrelevant to marriage in 2015.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #211 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:58pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

... wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:34pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:37am:

Mutter:

mothra wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 10:23am:

Formalised same sex unions have occurred throughout history. You're just going to have to accept that.

Me:
Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:44pm:

But not same sex marriage. You're just going to have to accept that.

And the formalised same sex unions were never recognised as anything but mad or queer, always short lived, never enjoying social recognition of any kind. That deviance has occurred throughout history is no proof at all that gay marriage has an established precedence.

You're just going to have to accept that.

Not true. Same sex marriage occurred that was not "mad or queer, short-lived or without social recognition".

How do you figure?

And going further - why is establishing precedent so important to you? Since the precedent you speak of is emperors mutilating and raping young boys, I wouldn't be so keen to draw on it.

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

We did and the most polite thing that could be said is that you are grossly over-exaggerating these claims. Europe with gay marriage? That simply is not true.

Finding a few examples in the past is not precedence. But as Honky said, why is precedence so important to you? Just support gay marriage for what it is and stop trying to imbue it with some mythological power. It is JUST marriage. Or at least it is to most of us.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #212 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:00pm

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

1. Same sex marriage is nothing new. It has always been there so we should allow it today. There is precedent for this.

2. Just because throughout history marriage has been between a man and a women doesn't mean we can't change it now. Precedent is irrelevant to marriage in 2015.

But of course this can work both ways.

1. Gay marriage was never allowed. Let's not change it now. There is precedent for this.

2. Just because they used to have gay marriage doesn't mean we have to do it now. Who cares what they used to do thousands of years ago. Precedent is irrelevant to marriage in 2015.

That was superb! Well done, Quantum. It wouldn't be a gay protest if they didn't want things both ways!

Back to top

IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #213 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 139278
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #214 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

It doesn't really matter.

Same sex marriage will become legal in Australia.

Nothing will stop that from happening.

And, when it does, nobody's life will be adversely affected.

The gays will be happier, and florists will be richer.

Get over it.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #215 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #216 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

It doesn't really matter.

Same sex marriage will become legal in Australia.

Nothing will stop that from happening.

And, when it does, nobody's life will be adversely affected.

The gays will be happier, and florists will be richer.

Get over it.

my man tony abbott wont let that happen.

hes been so fantastic as pm I may even consider voting for him next election.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #217 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

It doesn't really matter.

Same sex marriage will become legal in Australia.

Nothing will stop that from happening.

And, when it does, nobody's life will be adversely affected.

The gays will be happier, and florists will be richer.

Get over it.

We are all ready 'over it'. The ones that aren't are perversely, the likes of mothra and yourself. They are trying ever-so-desperately to try and fabricate a history and a moral argument in support of gay marriage - and failing - that they truly 'protesteth too much'.

Back to top

IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #218 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:22pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Agreed. There is no doubt there were many homosexual relationships throughout history, but I've not seen anything that shows these were within marriages and common place.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96465

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #219 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:35pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

It doesn't really matter.

Same sex marriage will become legal in Australia.

Nothing will stop that from happening.

And, when it does, nobody's life will be adversely affected.

The gays will be happier, and florists will be richer.

Get over it.

We are all ready 'over it'. The ones that aren't are perversely, the likes of mothra and yourself. They are trying ever-so-desperately to try and fabricate a history and a moral argument in support of gay marriage - and failing - that they truly 'protesteth too much'.

But Maria, you said you support gay marriage.

Why do you keep arguing against it?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96465

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #220 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #221 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:43pm

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Agreed. There is no doubt there were many homosexual relationships throughout history, but I've not seen anything that shows these were within marriages and common place.

Nor has the USA Supreme Court which I assume are better researched and less biased than Mothra. It is this incredible desire and need to fabricate a moral authority out of nothing that so damages their cause. Why are they doing it? Are they perhaps secretly aware that gay anything has little to no moral authority and that gay marriage doesn't even have precedence?

It would be wiser perhaps to stop making so many ridiculous assertions lest someone public asks that precise question.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #222 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:44pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:35pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:52pm:

So the same sex argument is now going to be argued from both ends?

It doesn't really matter.

Same sex marriage will become legal in Australia.

Nothing will stop that from happening.

And, when it does, nobody's life will be adversely affected.

The gays will be happier, and florists will be richer.

Get over it.

We are all ready 'over it'. The ones that aren't are perversely, the likes of mothra and yourself. They are trying ever-so-desperately to try and fabricate a history and a moral argument in support of gay marriage - and failing - that they truly 'protesteth too much'.

But Maria, you said you support gay marriage.

Why do you keep arguing against it?

Poor troll does not appear able to keep up with the tenor of the conversation. ABC22 is better suited to you.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #223 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Troll, you are perhaps unaware that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a rather large and ultimately impossible task. Mothra's references are neither well-researched ( it was wikipedia for goodness sake) or even what she claims them to be.

I find the USA Supreme court assessment to be vastly more valuable that an internet poster and a troll.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96465

Re: In defence of Gay Marriage
Reply #224 - Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:58pm

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Quantum wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 4:03pm:

mothra wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

I 'figure' because that is what history tells us.

The reason i am establishing precedent is because it was stated that marriage had always been a heterosexual union and that is why it should stay as such.

But history tells us that formalised same sex unions existed in ancient times, not just in Rome (where many of the unions were consensual) but in Egypt, Native America, parts of the Middle East, Europe up until the 18th century and parts of Africa.

Which all of you would know had you read the links i posted.

Actually, there are even more holes here than first noticed.

If in the past all these different tribes, nations, and empires had same sex marriage, (as you claim), why did they all stop?

Surely the fact that everyone stopped it at some point should give some big warning signs not to try it again.

This is a bit like 200 years form now making the argument; Everyone used to smoke back in the past. Why not let people smoke now? We know there has been a big push in recent years to stop smoking and at least heavily restrict it because it fcks peoples lives up. It would be idiotic to bring it back in the future because everyone used to do it with out restriction in the 20th century. Well maybe the same logic should apply here. Maybe gay marriage went the way of the dodo because it also fcked everything up and it would be best not to give it a second chance.

A good argument although I still state that formalised gay marriage per se has not existed in the past other than a few very minor occasions.

Yes, Maria, that's what the old boy keeps saying, over and over again.

And yet, he still hasn't put up a source that backs his point of view. Do you have one?

If you don't, I can't see how anyone could logically disagree with Mother's well-researched reference.

Troll, you are perhaps unaware that asking someone to prove the non-existence of something is a rather large and ultimately impossible task. Mothra's references are neither well-researched ( it was wikipedia for goodness sake) or even what she claims them to be.

I find the USA Supreme court assessment to be vastly more valuable that an internet poster and a troll.

Does this refute Mother's source, Maria? As far as I can tell, it just discusses marriage law in the US.

I can only go with what's in front of me, you know. It's a bit hard to go with "I still state that..."

It's not that I don't trust you or anything. I believe you still state something. But unless you can explain all those examples of gay marriage in Mother's reference, they stand as historical precedents of gay marriage. After all, no one here is even questioning them, including yourself, dear.

Back to top

IP Logged