The marriage equality thread

[sydmariner]

chalk one up for cheese guy

Lol don't give him any ideas

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

Well, Nearly Yellow you may feel the need to Meh, but the alternative was to point out to Gus that what it really means is that he was wrong to attack posts referring to homosexuality as unnatural. (Something that shouldn't really be necessary).

Cool. Everybody should just stop disagreeing with you then. Everybody, fruitbat wins the internet!!

The point - which you managed to miss again, was that if you're going to call something 'unnatural' simply because it's unusual (despite being completely ordained by nature), then as those opposing SSM are in the clear minority that would make such a position 'unnatural'.
Calling homosexuality unnatural is a disgusting attack against a person. Stop pretending it's anything else.

 

[dibo]

There are two definitions of unnatural.

unnatural
ʌnˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
1.
contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal.
"death by unnatural causes"
synonyms: abnormal, unusual, uncommon, extraordinary, strange, freakish, freak, queer, odd, peculiar, weird, unorthodox, exceptional, irregular, atypical, untypical, non-typical, anomalous, divergent, aberrant, bizarre, preternatural
"the life of a battery hen is completely unnatural"

2.
not existing in nature; artificial.
"the artificial turf looks an unnatural green
synonyms: artificial, man-made, synthetic, manufactured, fabricated, fake, false,faux, simulated, not found/existing in nature
"the tractor passed in a flash of unnatural colour"

Being unnatural in the first sense is a very weak descriptor. That it's unusual in nature I'll give you, and fundamentally at 1 in 10 it's still unusual in human populations too. But we don't outlaw or discriminate against things that are unusual.

As for the second sense, I think the existence of it anywhere in nature is proof enough that it's not 'unnatural'. It's existence in human societies across time and cultures is similar proof. That societies across time and cultures have persecuted homosexuals certainly isn't proof that it's not natural, but rather that fundamentally we're pretty shit to one another.

 

[nearlyyellow]

The onus is on YOU

Seems to me that this thread has descended somewhat into vitriolic personal criticisms.
I said my piece earlier and stated my convictions , and I'm not about to enter the discussion (argument!) again.
Fruitbat, my "meh" was a response to the sheer brevity of your response to Capn Gus. You failed to provide a counterpoint to his statement and thus failed to further the debate. I mark you 2 out of 10 for that tactic.

 

[dibo]

Dear dibo,
Don't you think Vic and Guse can provide their own responses?
Clearly the definition used determines whether it is correct to say that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.
Under the first definition homosexuality is definitely unnatural.
If homosexuality IS found in nature then then it IS natural according to the second definition. I'll give you that homosexual behaviours have been observed in nature. The weakness here is that homosexual behaviour in nature does not necessarily equate with homosexuality ie the fixed sexual preference for members of the same sex that human homosexuals state that they are born with. The animal behaviours may be related to availability to members of the other sex, assisting the raising of young, affection etc (discussed above). It does fit with natural selection and even Dawkins is unable to clarify why it persists.
Actually we DO outlaw and discriminate against some things that are unusual (even 'natural' using the second definition). Lion cubs fathered by another sire are routinely killed by an incoming male-something that occurs in nature and unfortunately also in human society. Thankfully abuse by step fathers is unusual, but it is something that is outlawed.
Guse thinks my view is unusual and that's OK-it isn't a thought crime yet so I can know that I cannot be outlawed, (perhaps discriminated against, but not outlawed)

Under the first definition liking vegemite is unnatural. We don't forbid it.

Under the first definition being a Mariners supporter is unnatural. We don't forbid it.

That sense of unnatural is simply too broad to be any justification for discriminating against or outlawing a certain type of conduct.

Your deflecting of homosexuality in nature as being merely behaviour rather than fixed sexual preference is neither here nor there. It's observable in nature. Who knows what an animal engaging in homosexual acts is thinking, and furthermore who cares? It strikes me as a bit like moving the goalposts to effectively say "ah, yes, it's observable in nature but they don't really mean it."

What we do know is that it is present across times and cultures, and so it's not as if it's the result of 'social engineering'.

Given that it exists, and will continue to exist whether persecuted or not, and given that it is between two consenting adults, and given that it poses no threat to you, me or any other person other than you think it unnatural, then surely you can hold your nose and allow others to be happy in spite of your preferences.

If you aren't able to put your preference aside and allow others to be happy, how do you reconcile yourself with the fact that others follow other religions? Or follow other football teams? Or vote a different way? Or have different coloured skin, or speak a different language, or prefer a different beer to you? How do you live in such a diverse country, in such a diverse world, if you can't accept difference?

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

The lengths you go to in order to justify a hate-filled term (and yes, using 'unnatural' in this fashion is nothing other than an attempt to denigrate homosexuals. Stop pretending it's anything but - you're not fooling anybody).
Pretty much all studies on sexuality tend to agree that people are generally born into their sexuality. So yes, that makes it natural. It just seems you're going on a path to deflect from using a vitriolic term.

Whether something is natural or unnatural doesn't intrinsically make something good or not, I don't think anybody would disagree. But using that word to attack a minority group is completely unacceptable. It's 2015. Even most catholics have moved past the 'homosexuality is immoral' rubbish.

Not even going to bother with the other comments you made in response to my post...

 

[dibo]

You've studiously ignored my earlier points, so rather than reiterate my earlier posts I'll change tack.

You have the right to an opinion, and you have the right to be wrong (and you're exercising that right with aplomb - well done!). You don't have a right for me to 'accept' your view - you're free to hold it but I don't have to agree.

You ought not have a right to force your morality upon other adults without good cause.

Forbidding same sex marriage is denying consenting adults the opportunity to access the recognition and protection of the state without good cause.

Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

You've studiously ignored my earlier points, so rather than reiterate my earlier posts I'll change tack.

You have the right to an opinion, and you have the right to be wrong (and you're exercising that right with aplomb - well done!). You don't have a right for me to 'accept' your view - you're free to hold it but I don't have to agree.

You ought not have a right to force your morality upon other adults without good cause.

Forbidding same sex marriage is denying consenting adults the opportunity to access the recognition and protection of the state without good cause.

Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.

One of the best posts I've read on this issue.

 

[nearlyyellow]

Forbidding same sex marriage is denying consenting adults the opportunity to access the recognition and protection of the state without good cause.

Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.

Well said dibo ! My sentiments exactly.

 

[Rowdy]

[QUOTE="dibo, post: 209528, member: 22"
Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.[/QUOTE]

That's NOT true.

Once Same Sex Marriage is passed into legislation the next chronological step that Homosexual couples will seek 'rights' to will be the one thing that they cant 'create' and that is a child.

So with circumspect SSM 'will effect' other people.

As someone who was adopted at birth, as were all of my siblings, what will happen to similar children's 'rights' to grow up with a Mum AND a Dad, as nature intended'?

Yes, I know there'll be arguments of Heterosexual couples abuse their own children, Hetrosexual couples can be 'drug-f**k'd' parents and therefore be abusive parents in neglect & other forms. Heterosexual mothers dumping babies on doorsteps or infanticiding them down toilets and the horrendous likes.

And I can also bet there'll be someone stating..... 'as long as a child has 2 loving parents that's all that matters'.

Nobody has the 'right' to make such a statement UNLESS your someone who 'could' possibly be effected, 'will' be effected or 'has' been effected by having your right to be raised by both a father and a mother, taken away from you by a by a piece of Government legislation.

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

[QUOTE="dibo, post: 209528, member: 22"
Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.

That's NOT true.

Once Same Sex Marriage is passed into legislation the next chronological step that Homosexual couples will seek 'rights' to will be the one thing that they cant 'create' and that is a child.

So with circumspect SSM 'will effect' other people.

As someone who was adopted at birth, as were all of my siblings, what will happen to similar children's 'rights' to grow up with a Mum AND a Dad, as nature intended'?

Yes, I know there'll be arguments of Heterosexual couples abuse their own children, Hetrosexual couples can be 'drug-f**k'd' parents and therefore be abusive parents in neglect & other forms. Heterosexual mothers dumping babies on doorsteps or infanticiding them down toilets and the horrendous likes.

And I can also bet there'll be someone stating..... 'as long as a child has 2 loving parents that's all that matters'.

Nobody has the 'right' to make such a statement UNLESS your someone who 'could' possibly be effected, 'will' be effected or 'has' been effected by having your right to be raised by both a father and a mother, taken away from you by a by a piece of Government legislation.[/QUOTE]


(My post starts here)


Um hate to break it to you Rowdy but...
Homosexual couples can already adopt...

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

[QUOTE="dibo, post: 209528, member: 22"
Allowing same sex marriage has no such effect on any other person.

That's NOT true.

Once Same Sex Marriage is passed into legislation the next chronological step that Homosexual couples will seek 'rights' to will be the one thing that they cant 'create' and that is a child.

So with circumspect SSM 'will effect' other people.

As someone who was adopted at birth, as were all of my siblings, what will happen to similar children's 'rights' to grow up with a Mum AND a Dad, as nature intended'?

Yes, I know there'll be arguments of Heterosexual couples abuse their own children, Hetrosexual couples can be 'drug-f**k'd' parents and therefore be abusive parents in neglect & other forms. Heterosexual mothers dumping babies on doorsteps or infanticiding them down toilets and the horrendous likes.

And I can also bet there'll be someone stating..... 'as long as a child has 2 loving parents that's all that matters'.

Nobody has the 'right' to make such a statement UNLESS your someone who 'could' possibly be effected, 'will' be effected or 'has' been effected by having your right to be raised by both a father and a mother, taken away from you by a by a piece of Government legislation.[/QUOTE]



(Quotes stuffing up so my post is down here)

Also in saying that a child is having something taken away from them by allowing homosexual couples to adopt is saying that in the eyes of the law (something which should have no religious grounding) a homosexual couple is not equal to a hetrosexual one.

 

[dibo]

That's NOT true.

Once Same Sex Marriage is passed into legislation the next chronological step that Homosexual couples will seek 'rights' to will be the one thing that they cant 'create' and that is a child.

So with circumspect SSM 'will effect' other people.

As someone who was adopted at birth, as were all of my siblings, what will happen to similar children's 'rights' to grow up with a Mum AND a Dad, as nature intended'?

Yes, I know there'll be arguments of Heterosexual couples abuse their own children, Hetrosexual couples can be 'drug-f**k'd' parents and therefore be abusive parents in neglect & other forms. Heterosexual mothers dumping babies on doorsteps or infanticiding them down toilets and the horrendous likes.

And I can also bet there'll be someone stating..... 'as long as a child has 2 loving parents that's all that matters'.

Nobody has the 'right' to make such a statement UNLESS your someone who 'could' possibly be effected, 'will' be effected or 'has' been effected by having your right to be raised by both a father and a mother, taken away from you by a by a piece of Government legislation.

Same sex couples already have kids. Including friends of mine, who have been together for 20+ years and are a great pair of mums to three great kids. SSM has nothing to do with that.

 

[Rowdy]

Um hate to break it to you Rowdy but...
Homosexual couples can already adopt...

I thought gay couples had to go overseas to adopt?

Also in saying that a child is having something taken away from them by allowing homosexual couples to adopt is saying that in the eyes of the law (something which should have no religious grounding) a homosexual couple is not equal to a hetrosexual one.

Your point 'focuses' on the 'rights' of a homosexual couple to be seen in the eyes of the law 'to be equal' rather than focusing on 'who is effected', a child who can't speak for themselves.

saying that a child is having something taken away from them by.....

That 'something' isn't just any old thing, it's their 'rights' the 'right to choose'. And as a baby/small child is unable to be of an age to formulate that 'choice', nevertheless if they grow up and later feel aggrieved by the 'choices' of others over their lives in having to grow up with 2 fathers who are 'gay', then ultimately who is responsible for that childs aggrievement ?

 

[JoyfulPenguin]

I thought gay couples had to go overseas to adopt?




Your point 'focuses' on the 'rights' of a homosexual couple to be seen in the eyes of the law 'to be equal' rather than focusing on 'who is effected', a child who can't speak for themselves.



That 'something' isn't just any old thing, it's their 'rights' the 'right to choose'. And as a baby/small child is unable to be of an age to formulate that 'choice', nevertheless if they grow up and later feel aggrieved by the 'choices' of others over their lives in having to grow up with 2 fathers who are 'gay', then ultimately who is responsible for that childs aggrievement ?

This whole matter comes back to the point that in the eyes of the law I believe homosexual couples should be seen as equal to a heterosexual couples therefore the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple should be seen as no different to that of a child adopted by a heterosexual couple. If a child is aggrieved about this decision later on they are free to (as they have a right to be) but is it is the same as if a child was adopted into a heterosexual family who has a religion the child later disagreed with and was aggrieved about. Your argument says that being raised by a homosexual couple takes something away from the child and it simply does not. If you continue through your logic then religious beliefs of heterosexual couples may cause a child to be aggrieved later in life and that does not ban a couple from adopting so why should homosexual couples be banned from adopting?

 

[true believer]

actually in the care system , there are a few gay couples that look after children .
with a high range of autistic problems . their some of the best .
god bless them .

 

[VicMariner]

No one gets to choose their parents so if there is no effect on the children, what's the problem.
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publicatio...hildrens-wellbeing-same-sex-parented-families
"Most studies suggest that children raised by lesbian parents do at least as well as their peers"

The research seems to be a bit patchy so more needs to be done to get a definitive answer but there are no warning signs at this stage.

 

[dibo]

Is this the game - post more and more of what I've already posted arguments against?

 

[dibo]

Other folks can read what we've written and make their own minds up I'm sure.

 

[nearlyyellow]

If the majority are in favour, I am OK with that

My recollection is that somewhere above 60+% support SSM. So, the question should be, will opponents of SSM accept the people's verdict? You are excepted because of:

I am OK with that

and I will hold you to that.