Marriage equality debate - The plebiscite is on its way. (Cont in Pt 3)

[yebiga]

It is. As is the instinct to procreate with multiple partners.

Both instincts have the same biological goal - survival and propagation of your genetic material.

Extrapolating monogamous marriage as some kind of absolute from the basis of nature.. please.

We could I suppose build a society based on monkey habits but we've chosen responsibility for protecting off spring as the foundation of human civilization.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What does this have to do with what we were discussing...?

You mentioned about what we would be thinking if 40% of doctors failed their medical exams.

 

[Pessimistic]

The losers at the end will be gay people who are devout religious

They may well accept they won't be married in church, but what if their children are refused a baptism, or them a funeral?

 

[DemonTim]

You mentioned about what we would be thinking if 40% of doctors failed their medical exams.

I think you’re misunderstanding the entire discussion...

 

[DemonTim]

We could I suppose build a society based on monkey habits but we've chosen responsibility for protecting off spring as the foundation of human civilization.

So you bring up nature, then when examples of what actually occurs in nature are mentioned, you changed it away from nature
Your logic makes Lyle Shelton look intelligent.

 

[yebiga]

So you bring up nature, then when examples of what actually occurs in nature are mentioned, you changed it away from nature
Your logic makes Lyle Shelton look intelligent.

You are being obtuse. We agreed nature has a desire to both procreate and protect its creation. Marriage provides the best way of doing the later. doh

 

[yebiga]

It is. As is the instinct to procreate with multiple partners.

Both instincts have the same biological goal - survival and propagation of your genetic material.

Extrapolating monogamous marriage as some kind of absolute from the basis of nature.. please.

Please
Your not thinking it thru
Marriage is the taming of nature
It's really obvious what it is - unfortunately we have bought this crazy equality argument.

 

[DemonTim]

You are being obtuse. We agreed nature has a desire to both procreate and protect its creation. Marriage provides the best way of doing the later. doh

No. You’re picking and choosing what nature you apply and what you dislike.

 

[yebiga]

You mentioned about what we would be thinking if 40% of doctors failed their medical exams.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether these Yes protagonists are genuinely dim or trolling. Any point we raise is intrepreted from a singular self serving perspective. The multitude of other obvious intrepretations which challenge their position are ignored or twisted.

Then you get crickets...where is your argument? And around we go.

My question is what the hell is the yes argument?

 

[DemonTim]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether these Yes protagonists are genuinely dim or trolling. Any point we raise is intrepreted from a singular self serving perspective. The multitude of other obvious intrepretations which challenge their position are ignored or twisted.

Then you get crickets...where is your argument? And around we go.

My question is what the hell is the yes argument?

He wasn’t agreeing with you. He went off on a tangent about the comparison made

You’ve just described yourself. You’ve yet to raise an actual point “it’s nature. Oh er um not that nature. Um no not that nature either. The only nature I want to discuss is the social construct of marriage. Anything else isn’t nature”

 

[yebiga]

No. You’re picking and choosing what nature you apply and what you dislike.

No we agreed on two qualities - propagate and protect. Do we not?

I have not ignored either
It seems You are simply incapable of retaining more than a single thought at any one time

 

[DemonTim]

No we agreed on two qualities - propagate and protect. Do we not?

I have not ignored either
It seems You are simply incapable of retaining more than a single thought at any one time

I never agreed with you on anything... are you getting posters confused again?

I made reference to polygamy and hording women. Which fits your criteria AND is a very ‘natural’ occurance. Apparently you don’t count that though, it’s only nature when it suits you. Called confirmation bias champ.

 

[yebiga]

God you’re an idiot. He wasn’t agreeing with you you foolish twat. He went off on a tangent about the comparison made

You’ve just described yourself. You’ve yet to raise an actual point “it’s nature. Oh er um not that nature. Um no not that nature either. The only nature I want to discuss is the social construct of marriage. Anything else isn’t nature”

One thought at a time it is then
I will be patient
Which would you like first?

 

[yebiga]

I never agreed with you on anything... are you getting posters confused again?

I made reference to polygamy and hording women. Which fits your criteria AND is a very ‘natural’ occurance. Apparently you don’t count that though, it’s only nature when it suits you. Called confirmation bias champ.

So humans don't wish to protect their children according to you
They only wish to ****?
Is that right?
See I can be as dim as you champ

 

[DemonTim]

One thought at a time it is then
I will be patient
Which would you like first?

You haven’t put together a coherent thought and as usual your response has no relevance to the quote

This is the “sanctity of marriage” discussion all over again. You rant about something that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed. It’s pointed out.

So humans don't wish to protect their children according to you
They only wish to ****?
Is that right?
See I can be as dim as you champ

Ughhhhh...you realise I just said they do, hence the hording women. It’s literally how countless creatures protect their young. It allows the male to spread his seed while also being able to protect.

You are hands down the dumbest no voter I’ve seen put his thoughts forward. And that’s saying something.

 

[Showbags]

We could I suppose build a society based on monkey habits but we've chosen responsibility for protecting off spring as the foundation of human civilization.

You've never actually explained how including SS couples within the definition will in any way, shape or form effect the heterosexual institution of marriage. It wont encourage more people to be gay, it wont negatively effect children in anyway (as outlined by No campaigner Karina Okatel), it wont discourage propagation or whatever other ridiculousness you have spewed.

Whether it goes against nature is irrelevant. The whole purpose of human advancement is to raise ourselves up out of the natural state and the limits this places on us.

You need to talk about the practical negative effects of such a change not some pious ideas of respecting nature (which is just stupid in and of itself as marriage has nothing to do with nature).

 

[yebiga]

You haven’t put together a coherent thought and as usual your response has no relevance to the quote

This is the “sanctity of marriage” discussion all over again. You rant about something that has nothing to do with what’s being discussed. It’s pointed out.

Ughhhhh...you realise I just said they do, hence the hording women. It’s literally how countless creatures protect their young. It allows the male to spread his seed while also being able to protect.

You are hands down the dumbest no voter I’ve seen put his thoughts forward. And that’s saying something.

Yes and your exchanging posts with the dumbest poster you know!! That's smart.
Yes horde horde **** ****
Protect thru weight of numbers

Only that option doesn't really protect or nurture or lead to civilisation does it my super smart demon friend.

So the option then is ?????!
Maybe to protect those little ones

And what has that got to do with marriage?

 

[yebiga]

You've never actually explained how including SS couples within the definition will in any way, shape or form effect the heterosexual institution of marriage. It wont encourage more people to be gay, it wont negatively effect children in anyway (as outlined by No campaigner Karina Okatel), it wont discourage propagation or whatever other ridiculousness you have spewed.

Whether it goes against nature is irrelevant. The whole purpose of human advancement is to raise ourselves up out of the natural state and the limits this places on us.

You need to talk about the practical negative effects of such a change not some pious ideas of respecting nature (which is just stupid in and of itself as marriage has nothing to do with nature).

No! you need to justify why two people of the same gender need to mimic a heterosexual union?

 

[Showbags]

No! you need to justify why two people of the same gender need to mimic a heterosexual union?

So in other words you have nothing. No negative effects to a change.

It's a "heterosexual union" currently only because it is defined that way in the Marriage Act. We have the ability to change that as a society as others have also done with no negative effects.

Gay couples wont be mimicking anything. They will be a gay couple that will simply be able to call their relationships a marriage without effecting any heterosexual relationship and having the same legal protections as other married couples. This will provide other benefits such as mental health benefits, economic benefits and send a clear message of acceptance to the gay community.

 

[yebiga]

So in other words you have nothing. No negative effects to a change.

It's a "heterosexual union" currently only because it is defined that way in the Marriage Act. We have the ability to change that as a society as others have also done with no negative effects.

Gay couples wont be mimicking anything. They will be a gay couple that will simply be able to call their relationships a marriage without effecting any heterosexual relationship and having the same legal protections as other married couples. This will provide other benefits such as mental health benefits, economic benefits and send a clear message of acceptance to the gay community.

Of course they are mimicking a hetrosexual union - you can't even agree to an obvious fact because it doesn't sound quite PC.

 

[Showbags]

Of course they are mimicking a hetrosexual union - you can't even agree to an obvious fact because it doesn't sound quite PC.

It's an obvious fact only to ignoramuses like yourself. The rest of us (in other words, the majority) in the real world realise they arent trying to mimic heterosexual relationships at all, just simply asking for equal protection under the law and acceptance of their relationships.

And again who cares if they are or are not. How does it effect anyone else or anything at all if they were. No one will become more gay, no one will become less straight, no heterosexual relationship will be affected, no child will be affected in anyway, if SSM is recognised.

And I thought the red herrings thrown up by the No side couldnt get any worse. Yours takes the cake im afraid. The dumbest argument ive seen so far.

 

[Chief]

yebiga DemonTim - take it elsewhere guys.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Crankyhawk]

I think you’re misunderstanding the entire discussion...

No, it came up about how 40% marriages fail, then you made a point about if it was medical exams whether we would accept it or do something about it, or something like that. Anyway was peripheral.

More on topic I am pretty anti religion but I concede that the major religions, who still make a big deal about homosexuality is bad, should distinguish their marriage Union ceremony from what the government and legal practice marriage (which is to me what this survey is asking). What we have is a no side again conflating issues and assuming religious freedom (as in the freedom for a religion to choose whether to permit 2 persons to access their ceremony) is under threat.

It isn't.

It is purely about whether government should permit SSM.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No! you need to justify why two people of the same gender need to mimic a heterosexual union?

Next of kin, access to spouse super, tax implications, etc.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether these Yes protagonists are genuinely dim or trolling. Any point we raise is intrepreted from a singular self serving perspective. The multitude of other obvious intrepretations which challenge their position are ignored or twisted.

Then you get crickets...where is your argument? And around we go.

My question is what the hell is the yes argument?

That no one is negatively affected in a meaningful way.
That gay people want to have government recognition of their relationships.
Now whether the government part of marriage (as done by civil celebrants and also by churchy types) is renamed civil union and only one brand of church gets the "marriage" tag, or the government part is called marriage and religion then has to find another word to define what service they offer - is really irrelevant semantics (and something that you yourself were advocating- allowing gays to have civil union rather than marriage)

Let's have it understood that gays want to have relationships recognition at same level that non religious heterosexual people.

Then the wild over the top "religious rights" arguments can exit. Because gays aren't asking to force the (for example) orthodox Jewish rabbi to have the ceremony.

The vote is only about access to the legal recognition not religious recognition.