The marriage equality thread

[dibo]

Leviticus is part of the Bible and the Torah. Rowdy isn't Jewish (AFAIK) but thinking someone is Jewish isn't offensive. Maybe read the whole post before leaping to conclusions anyway, and both of you be civil.

 

[Rowdy]

'Thinking' someone is a 'Jew', is a thought that stays in one's head.

Typing "So your a 'Jew'?" in a forum such as this is akin to speaking it aloud.

so your an Ashkenazi jew

I consider calling someone a 'Jew', who isn't a Jew, actually IS offensive.

And your right Dibo, being 'civil' doesn't cost a cent, or a shekel!

"Mate, don't be such a Jew" is oftened said to those that are considered being frugal with money or other things of value (like civility for instance).

Either way, it's offensive to those that are Jewish and those, like me, that are not.

 

[sydmariner]

[QUOTE="Rowdy, post: 209346, member: 50 you made syd's day

no he didn't this has nothing to do with me so leave me out of it

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Yet to see a single coherent argument AGAINST marriage equality. They tend to vary from ludicrous, to ridiculous in their capacity to be completely contradictory, hypocritical or self-defeating.

Though the fact that people can't differentiate between an observation and an argument ("Marriage is between a man and a woman!" "Well, duh, what the flap do you think we're trying to change?") is perhaps the greatest evidence for mandatory critical thinking classes in schools that I've ever seen....

 

[true believer]

his dumb call was from your rating in post 12 , syd .

rowdy I hate all peoples that consider themselves morally superior because of their religious
views . ie wasps , dominician catholics , wahabi muslims , Ashkenazi jews , german Nazis , Italian fascists .
they are responsible for most atrocities of the last few thousands of years .

im not gunna get excited . but don't let me stop you .
cheers

 

[Rowdy]

rowdy I hate all peoples that consider themselves morally superior because of their religious
views . ie .............inician catholics , wahabi muslims , Ashkenazi jews

REALLY! I think your suffering from short-term memory loss.

Here....... let me remind you, it might help

so (Rowdy) your an Ashkenazi Jew

so your an Ashkenazi Jew

so your an Ashkenazi Jew

I also think your trying to 'side-step' your OFFENSIVENESS.

 

[true believer]

i think your having a hissy fit , but I don't want to be judgemental .
I also like blue as a colour . cheers have wonderful day , I know I will .

 

[dibo]

He cited a quote, he didn't do the research himself. There's source material linked in the wiki article, knock yourself out.

Personally, I disagree with the idea of 'marriage equality'. I think homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. It has no useful place in the evolution of humanity as well as being contrary to most religious beliefs.

If you don't think homosexuality is 'abnormal and unnatural', don't be homosexual. Solved.

I am tired of decades of social engineering. In my lifetime I have seen homosexuality change from a criminal offence, to being decriminalised, then illegal to discriminate against, de facto homosexual relationships legally recognised and now the same as normal marriage. What next- queer studies in school promoting it as a recommended lifestyle??? Perhaps we need to mention homosexuality in the Constitution along with aborigines and multiculturalism. (Can't offend any minority group now can we?)

Where should we have stopped? Should homosexual people still be jailed?

Each of the incremental changes on how we view homosexuality have been made without the electorate being asked their views. Instead these changes have been made by politicians through the activism of 'right thinking' pressure groups who attack those with differing views. I recall with horror footage of Greens protestors beating up and throwing urine filled condoms at people (many were old pensioners) whose thought-crime was to attend information sessions on One Nation. And these protesters see themselves as the tolerant left. It reminded me of the behaviour of the Brownshirts in 1930's Germany. Sure Hanson is an idiot, but if you don't like a politician/Party then do not vote for them. Same goes for Abbott and Shorten.
Homophobe, racist, sexist, islamophobe etc attacks are mechanisms to stifle opposing g views.

I disagree with that utterly.

I don't condone throwing urine at people, I don't condone violence, but I remember Cronulla 2005 too, and it wasn't the greenies causing trouble there, but it's funny how calling a racist out for being a racist is 'accusing them of thoughtcrime' but spreading hateful rubbish like "we're in danger of being swamped by Asians" is just having a differing view.

Some people don't like change. Some people don't like cultures, traditions or religions other than their own. Fine. But that doesn't give people a free pass to say whatever half-baked nonsense they want.

There are such things as 'islamophobia' - a statement like "Halal is funding terrorism" is a pretty good example of it. It's factually incorrect for a start, but it works on the formula

"this thing (Halal certification) is bad because it's related to this thing I don't like (Islam) which I conflate with this other thing that everybody doesn't like (terrorism)"

There are people that similarly claim all gay men are paedophiles, all Aborigenes are lazy, all women are stupid.

They are all incorrect, they should be called out when said.

The problem is that when people call someone out for being a homophobe (like Fred Nile when he claims that homosexuality is a 'mental disorder') they get the reply that they're being 'politically correct'.

This is the real issue of stifling opposing views - where people who publicly express a view and deny others the right to tell them that they're wrong. Calling someone's views 'politically correct' doesn't mean you're not wrong, it just means you're unwilling to engage with their criticism.

If you don't want to have your views subject to criticism, keep them private.

I have similarly seen the legalisation of prostitution become a legitimate career choice, but who wants their children to take up that profession. Some once-illegal drugs are now decriminalised and shooting galleries are seen as a good thing. I have seen Australia change from a (relatively) harmonious culture to one with ethnic ghettoes in which 'skippies' are treated with derision and our liberal western democracy treated with contempt.
There-glad I got all of that out of the system.

Oh please. I'm a straight white bloke and I'm hardly oppressed. The people treating our liberal western democracy with contempt are those who think that our society is too narrow to be able to accommodate a plurality of voices, cultures and traditions.

Bringing it back to the topic - I'm getting married later in the year (yay!) and far from feeling that my pending marriage is threatened or weakened by same sex marriage being legal, I feel sad that friends of mine in looooong, happy, healthy relationships (with kids!) aren't able to do the same and have the State recognise their relationship. I don't care what the churches do - that's a matter for the churches to sort out and given I'm not a member of one I'll leave it to them, but I'm a member of a broad community called Australia and I think we should all be free to fully enjoy its rights and privileges.

 

[VicMariner]

You say that homosexual behaviour is VERY COMMON in the natural world, HARDLY ABNORMAL and UNNATURAL"
According to your own link:

approx. 160 organisms are listed as exhibiting behaviours described as 'homosexual'.

1 Can you please provide the prevalence of these homosexual behaviour events as a percentage of all observed sexual behaviours (including normal sexual behaviours) for each species cited. You may find that it is not very common even within each species mentioned.

2.Even assuming that ALL behaviours within each species cited is described as 'homosexual' (and it will not be, otherwise they will have become extinct), the percentage of these 160 species to all known species (very conservatively at 1,200,000) then the percentage of species exhibiting these behaviours is 0.013333%. Hardly 'very common'. It is not statistically significant.
This miniscule percentage also assumes that affection and shared parenting constitutes homosexuality. I'll look on local kookaburras in a different light as their siblings and older offspring also assist in raising the young (and this isn't even Tasmania!)

160 species exhibiting this behaviour is a low estimate. 500+ is quite often quoted, as on that wiki link, and figures as high as 1500 have been stated.
The fact homosexual behaviour is in the hundreds and not non-existent or limited to a handful of species makes it look normal and natural to me.
Even if the figure is as high as 1500 you may still say that is a handful of the total but how many of those 1.2 million species have been subjected to detailed behavioural studies?
If all were I would bet that figure would be much, much higher.

3.Your link concedes that the homosexual behaviour ..."takes many different forms, even within the same species and the motivations for and implications of their behaviors have yet to be fully understood..." Scientists are usually hesitant to anthropomorphise animal behaviour and also hesitant to link cause and effect. Any statistician will tell you that one of its basic tenets is that "Correlation does not imply cause and effect".
Homosexual behaviour is not necessarily an indicator of sexual preference (as human homosexuals like to describe their inherent condition). It can be an indicator of a shortage of members of the opposite sex. The hilarious film "Canetoads, an unnatural history" recounts a scientist observing a male toad mating with a dead (run over, flattened and dried out) toad for several hours as well as other toads mating with with goldfish in aquaria! The fish died. In prisons (another unnatural environment) some inmates (like those desperate toads) resort to homosexual behaviour but revert to heterosexual behaviour on release. They do not see themselves as homosexuals. Some dominant animals also exhibit homosexual behaviour as an expression of domination over another. Homosexual behaviour does not always indicate sexual preference.
Many cultures frown on homosexuality, but some cultures embrace/d it. Ancient Sparta is is a starting point but do not forget the English Public school system : )

I don't see the relevence of the motivation for sexual behaviour.

4.Homosexual behaviour is not consistent with evolution in terms of natural selection. The genes of homosexuals are not perpetuated. They are evolutionary dead ends.

I freely admit I don't understand what evolutionary function it serves either, yet it exists.
I'll let an evolutionary biologist answer this one.

To those who are against 'marriage equality' on religious grounds-that is your right and my "Why Cant I marry a Canadian" I hope you were not offended as it was meant to provoke thought and amuse. Any secular law change cannot remove the Sacrament of Marriage (if that is how you see it).

I'm not offended at all, I'm not emotionally tied to either side of the debate.
Having been raised in a fundamentalist christian household (I got out asap, don't worry) I fully understand the religious objections but that should not dictate policy for the wider community.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

What the heck does the specific number of species have to do with anything? Saying homosexuality is 'unnatural' is just daft. It doesn't actually make any sense whatsoever. Not unless you're one of those people who thinks that it's purely a choice. In which case I presume you also never leave the country because you're afraid of falling off the edge of the earth.

Even if we were the only species to do it, that wouldn't change any of the debate. It's purely a response to the absurd 'it's unnatural' claim.

Religious opposition to 'marriage equality' is about as daft as any of the other statements against it. If atheists can be married by a civil celebrant outside a church, then we've well and truly agreed that marriage exists outside religion. That fact alone should shut down this claim. But then there's the simple fact that marraige predates religion, and exists for other religions. And even in the religious context has significantly changed. Of course, given how many religious institutions seem to completley ignore their own teachings anyway, claims or religion as a basis for opposition lacks any credibility, even BEFORE you acknowledge it's utterly irrelevant anyway

Big deal. Fred, Like Pauline (and You for that matter) are entitled to whatever view you want. I don't care if Fred thinks homosexuals are from Mars and wears an alfoil hat to prevent moral contamination. If his constituency thinks the same so what, accept it-this is a democracy.
QUOTE]

Accepting somebody's right to say something and accepting what they're saying are very, very, very different things. Respecting one person's right to freedom of speech and thinking they're a disgusting, hatefilled, vile bigot or pointing out predjudice and bigotry aren't actually mutually exclusive.
.

 

[dibo]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and "If you do not like racism, don't be racist". In a democracy everyone (including Hanson) is entitled to their view. Voltaire wouldn't last long here defending the right of others with opposing views.
I agree that anglo dickheads started the Cronulla riot, but we never seem to hear much about the violent backlash that immediately ensued by young blokes who embrace the 'religion of peace' (sic) and their assaults on people who had nothing to do with the riot. The assault victims' crime was looking anglo, not ethnic.

People are entitled to their views, but there are limits on speech. If you agree that there should be a law against shouting fire in a crowded theatre, you agree that there ought to be limits on speech.

Further, if you agree that there ought to be laws against libel and slander, you agree that a speaker has a responsibility to not use their speech to damage another.

To put a finer point on it - I can't call you a terrorist without good cause. I can't call you mentally disordered without good cause.

It's not because you might be offended, it's because it damages you.

If I call Muslims terrorists, it's not wrong because it offends Muslims, it's wrong because it isn't true and it damages their standing within our society.

A straw man- perhaps people find islam repugnant because it is the motivation for so many terrorist atrocities. I am always fascinated by the cowardice of critics of Christianity (who are a soft target tend to turn the other cheek) instead of addressing the violent intolerant ideology of the so-called 'religion of peace'. Maybe it is because they will not peacefully tolerate such criticism????

It's not a straw man at all. People actually say it. Jacqui Lambie and Cory Bernardi run around shouting about Halal and terrorism. It's a real problem because it's completely detached from reality.

It's not criticism of Islam, it's slander. They're vilifying an entire community. If they said the same about an individual they'd be looking at a very big defamation suit.

Big deal. Fred, Like Pauline (and You for that matter) are entitled to whatever view you want. I don't care if Fred thinks homosexuals are from Mars and wears an alfoil hat to prevent moral contamination. If his constituency thinks the same so what, accept it-this is a democracy.

...

Good advice-just remember you started this thread by asserting that it is time to give equal recognition to homosexual relationships.

You're entitled to tell me you think I'm wrong. I'm perfectly happy to pick your argument apart.

Really? Get your fiancé to wear some skimpy clothes (as is her right) and watch her walk down Bankstown or Lakemba then watch the reception she gets. Let's see how prepared you are to accommodate plurality then.

Wouldn't bother me and it wouldn't be an issue. I have mates from both areas (several mates from uni went to Sefton High and my cricket club used to play its home games on Punchbowl Rd just near Lakemba station - one afternoon we finished early so the local Islamic Centre could do a big gathering for Eid al Fitr - it looked awesome).

I honestly think you're imagining a problem that isn't there. Have you actually been to either Bankstown or Lakemba?

 

[dibo]

Well if we end that little side road and come back to the topic, polling would suggest a large majority of the population is in support of marriage equality.

By your logic, holders of minority opinions can do as they please but the people are speaking and they're speaking in favour of marriage equality.

 

[VicMariner]

Even based on your figure of 1500 species, (and assuming that all sexual interaction between all individual in that species is homosexual) you are looking at 0.125%. Still not what anyone would call common in nature.
We can't predict what future studies may find-but at this moment, based on your data, 0.125% isn't common.

First, 1500 is not my figure it's just the highest I've seen mentioned. 500 is more supported so I understand. I'd accept 500, 1500 might be unreliable.
You're getting your percentage from the whole 1.2M for the majority of which there is no data either way. Neither of us should be inflating our numbers with data that does not exist.
A more accurate figure would be gained from the percentage of species that have been studied. This would raise the figure to some degree. Maybe you could extrapolate this to the whole 1.2M.
But we are bogging down now, I consider 500 species to be significant, you don't. Fair enough.

The motivation for homosexual behaviour is very important to your argument. Your reply inferred that homosexuality is common in nature. Homosexual behaviour in nature does not equate with homosexuality as human homosexuals see themselves (eg "I was born this way") Are these behaviours truly those of homosexual organisms or are they behaviours that are resorted to for reasons such as lack of opportunity to mate with the opposite sex or to do with dominance or God forbid affection or assistance in raising offspring.

Sorry, I still don't see how it matters. A rose is a rose.

I watched Dawkins and the upshot is that he doesn't know either how homosexuality persists over time. He suggests non-sexually active 'gay' ancestors assisted in the raising of closely related juveniles 9like the kookaburras) but isn't certain. He suggests another theory of gay ancestors being trusted to care for harems, but doesn't commit to this. Finally he suggests that the gene is passed on but not fully expressed unless there is an environmental trigger (but again he doesn't commit to this either).

Yeah, it's a interesting question.Perhaps it is a side effect of a gene that does something else beneficial?

I wasn't suggesting that I offended you Vic, I was referring to earlier posters who expressed their religious opposition to 'marriage equality'.

All good.

 

[dibo]

Gosford City Council passed a motion in favour of equal marriage tonight.

 

[Rowdy]

i think your having a hissy fit , but I don't want to be judgemental .

Bit late for that pal! You called me a Jew!

I also like blue as a colour .

WTF???

 

[Rowdy]

People are entitled to their views, but there are limits on speech. If you agree that there should be a law against shouting fire in a crowded theatre, you agree that there ought to be limits on speech.

Further, if you agree that there ought to be laws against libel and slander, you agree that a speaker has a responsibility to not use their speech to damage another.

To put a finer point on it - I can't call you a terrorist without good cause. I can't call you mentally disordered without good cause.

It's not because you might be offended, it's because it damages you.

......... it's wrong because it isn't true and it damages their standing within our society.

BUT, you CAN call Rowdy a Jew AND without cause or justification for that matter.

Dibo, your quotes above, that you espouse with such conviction, coupled with your role as a Moderator on this forum in allowing someone on this forum 'to do the very thing you're condemning' makes you a hipocrite.

10 years of 'considerable' respect for your intellect ...............gone.

 

[dibo]

BUT, you CAN call Rowdy a Jew AND without cause or justification for that matter.

Dibo, your quotes above, that you espouse with such conviction, coupled with your role as a Moderator on this forum in allowing someone on this forum 'to do the very thing you're condemning' makes you a hipocrite.

10 years of 'considerable' respect for your intellect ...............gone.

He didn't "call you a Jew". He guessed that you were Jewish and quitting from the Torah. I don't consider that any more offensive than him concluding you were Christian and quoting from the Bible.

The post of his that I've just deleted on the other hand...

I've said it before, let's keep it civil.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Maybe you need to go back and re-read the posts. VicMariner asserted that homosexuality is common in nature (therefore it is not unnatural). He supported this position with a Wikipedia article which (supposedly) proved that it was common in nature by citing studies on about 160 species that exhibited this behaviour. THAT is what it has to do with.
Why is it daft to say that homosexuality is unnatural? simply stating that it is daft isn't an argument- especially for someone who earlier stated that coherent arguments and critical thinking should be applied here.
Ah, so critics must be flat earthers-I expected more from you than attacking the man, not the argument Gus.
I'll leave the religious argument to those who object on religious grounds.

I didn't elaborate because I thought it was self-evident. Homosexuality is something people seem to be born with, at least that's what that's what studies support. So claiming it's 'unnatural' simply doesn't make any sense. It's like claiming redheads are unnatural (well, ok, bad example ). Which lead into my 'flat earth' jibe as a conclusion that's made with no evidence.

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

So then, that would mean that opposing marraige equality is unnatural.

 

[true believer]

chalk one up for cheese guy