Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[mtooler]

Like the last few posts made by both sides and see it as a window into the wider mentality of society as to what right and wrong is and who gets to decide what is and isn't discriminatory and whose rights give way when there's competing rights. I find it all fascinating as somewhat of an external observer as I hold the Bible' teaching to be absolute truth and determiner of right wrong and shades of grey when applicable on an issue when multiple scriptures need assessing to make a sensical position on a matter.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Many disagree with you (implicitly) is my anecdotal observations. People's opinions, actions and innactions on topical issues seem to indicate it (from my particular perspective). I'm ok to be wrong in that perspective but I certainly wouldnt be the only person who sees modern society as having no absolute truth when it comes to customs, rules, laws, values, ethics and beliefs etc.

Well people that feel way that usually want us to take all our guidance from one or another ancient, supposedly immutable holy book, but unfortunately prove themselves to be just as prone to cherry-picking its rights and wrongs as the people who supposedly have no moral compass.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I’m not a libertarian, I dislike the ideology greatly, but I understand why others are and that’s cool, I’ll debate them, or not, whatever. Same with religious people. Same with people who like Taylor Swift. I do not hate people with beliefs other than mine.

You think I’m ignoring/guessing at your motivations. On the contrary, you’ve stated your motivations pretty damn clearly.

1) Marriage is about procreation, therefore only heterosexual couples are applicable

2) Marriage has always been a heterosexual tradition

3) Retaining the heterosexuals-only status of marriage is preferable to changing such a long-standing tradition.

Is that about right?

Ok, so, why that is discriminatory:

1) Leaving aside the historical context of marriage, broadly agree that in the past, especially when the idea of same sex couples raising families together would not only have seemed ridiculous, but criminal, it makes sense that marriage would be heterosexual-only.

2) Agreed. However, same sex couples can now procreate/otherwise have children, and marriage has moved a long way away from being only procreative anyway. The purpose has shifted, which brings me to the next point:

3) Unless you can articulate the negative consequences of changing the tradition (which you have never once done this entire very long thread despite repeated requests), this preference for maintaining the tradition despite same sex couples now qualifying (on the basis that they already can have families and marriage isn’t solely used for that anymore) is arbitrary. Arbitrary exclusion of a demographic is the definition of discrimination.

I am not assuming your motivations. I am saying the motivations you have stated are by definition discriminatory because you place arbitrary tradition over equality. And guess what? Your motivations aren’t even relevant, because the outcome is discriminatory too! Even if you’re not meaning to be discriminatory, that is the consequence of your position - people may have failed to gain rights that there is absolutely no good reason for them not to have.

Your argument is like me saying “I just don’t let black people into my house, you don’t know my motivations so you can’t call it discriminatory”. It’s ridiculous, but apparently (not wanting to assume your motivations here) you think you can dress it up in big words to make it look like a real argument.

Finally, for you of all people to use the “don’t assume my motivations” argument is the absolute height of hypocrisy - you have spent most of this thread claiming Kummerspeck and I are brainwashed, the gay community is just seeking validation for past persecution, and all sorts of other shit you would have no idea about. You have assumed my motivations every step of the way, first that I was gay, then that I was in denial, then that I was brainwashed, then that I was trying to look good/progressive/whatever, then that I just hate people with different views. Again, height of hypocrisy.

Brilliant post mate!

 

[Angry Red Bull]

'Arbitrary tradition over equality'

Stating that a tradition is arbitrary is diminishing it's value. Why would it be arbitrary? Because on some level you place no weight in it? But isn't that YOUR choice YOUR value system. What if to me traditions have high value? .....avd they do.

Equality is relevant when someone who qualifies is excluded. A person who plays golf can't be accepted into a private golf club as example. So on YOUR value system believing that equality would occur to allow same sex into marriage because to YOU they qualify. They can have family, they love. But to create that equality you must first dispense with the whole tradition of marriage and it's definition as it was and replace it with something having no relation to the reason and impetus for it's very existence. In other words you are creating the pathway to qualify by the change. And that's because you value being inclusive over tradition.

To me tradition takes precedence because that tradition has as it's core concept procreation. Not procreation because jane as surrogate is asked to take a shot for Bruce and Bruce but procreation through act of consummation between a man an woman. To me then same sex never qualified from incarnation in history to now. It can't be inequitable when you never qualified on purpose.

Sorry

 

[Kummerspeck]

Equality is relevant when someone who qualifies is excluded. A person who plays golf can't be accepted into a private golf club as example.

Yeah, that seems to fit the argument you're making. A person who is capable of something being barred from a private club who doesn't want to let them in.

 

[BarneyBent]

If you are not assuming my motivation then you cannot say the no choice IS discriminatory because the ONLY way you can determine discrimination is via that route. Arbitrary exclusion isn't discrimination all. Discrimination requires intent.

No it doesn’t. You can be unintentionally or ignorantly discriminatory. You really think just because you’re not actively thinking “**** gay people” that doesn’t make it discrimination?

'Leaving aside the historical context' why? Because it's convenient to you? Omg

Not at all. I’m trying to find points of agreement here. The history of marriage is complex - even keeping it to a Western context there’s marriage for political and financial reasons alongside pure procreation, but rather than delve into that I just decided that broadly we can agree on the procreation point and move on to more important things.

Same sex couples can now procreate. On what universe does that happen? Certainly not this one. The procreation occurs through use of a surrogate. A woman!! What's more one that would have conceived within marriage as it was known. Huge difference. A statement that is OBJECTIVELY wrong

That’s a meaningful distinction... why? Same sex couples can still raise children. So what if they need technology to help? The purpose of marriage to support couples provided a family unit for their children doesn’t change just because the child was conceived through unorthodox means or adopted.

I don't have to articulate negative consequences at all. Entirely unrelated to the decision. But you want to fabricate that step in the chain to enable you to then say well you are discriminating against the gay community an outcome you've already predetermined despite it being a subjective truth to you. Stated repeatedly that the genetic intention at the centre of the social construct of marriage is procreation and because of that I'm entirely happy with the pre existing definition and tradition. Prefer it not change. I've told you that a thousand times but to you that's insufficient because I need to further articulate negative outcomes. How about the fact that the change will be then inconsistent with the genetic and social constructed purpose of marriage because that IS my belief.

But why is that inconsistency bad? Just about every example of social progress has been inconsistent with a previous tradition or social construct. Unless you can articulate WHY changing that is bad, then you’re just denying equality for no reason - I.e. discrimination.

Some were influenced by the empathy of the issue. I wasn't because, as I've stated, I believe we all must deal with our genetic lot in life.

So I take it you’re also against government funded cancer research, disability services, state schools for kids with special needs. People need to deal with their genetic lot in life after all. What about black people in slavery-era US? They need to deal with their genetic lot in life?

Come on. We change (or abolish, in the case of slavery) things all the time to make them more inclusive. Why is marriage any different?

You clearly don’t see adoption, surrogacy or childlessness as against the stated purpose of marriage or else you’d be against straight couples in that situation being married. So that can’t explain your insistence that homosexuals not be included.

As far as not allowing blacks in someone's home. Only possibly discriminatory. A whole debate exists in the USA around guns drawn by police officers causing shooting incidents and sometimes death. It's hate crime by police against blacks the black community and many whites yell. Some notable perhaps but the very real motivation is criminal profiling. Police know with certainty that 80% of crime is perpetrated by blacks. That IS an OBJECTIVE truth. When a police officer approaches a car knowing there is a black occupant they are on high alert because it statistically is more dangerous to them. Is that discriminatory or simply risk profiling to stay alive. I say it's risk profiling. Likewise allowing an unknown black person inside your home in the USA is statistically more likely to result in you being a crime victim. So decisions like that aren't racial they are rational. Sad that crime is so high with blacks but there are flow on effects......and crime profiling is one. Doesn't make it discriminatory.

Now you’re getting it! You’re talking about negative consequences! See how in this example you feel compelled to justify it using actual potential negatives? Why not for marriage?

I’m not going to get into whether the above negatives are justified - that’s a separate discussion and probably a much, much longer thread - I just want to illustrate how it’s only considered acceptable to treat black people differently if you can justify it, and gay people are no different.

We've been over and over this time and again. You think I'm a discrimatory hypocrite and I think you're an imbecilic bigoted prick who happens to also be gay. Let's leave it there and move on.

No. You want to stop talking about it, stop replying and leave the thread, I won’t follow you. In the meantime, I’m enjoying this.

 

[mtooler]

Well people that feel way that usually want us to take all our guidance from one or another ancient, supposedly immutable holy book, but unfortunately prove themselves to be just as prone to cherry-picking its rights and wrongs as the people who supposedly have no moral compass.

100% agree with you. I rally against the cherry picking myself. Twisting of scriptures to suit agendas is wrong. I am disappointed that believers haven't always represented Christ as we should have and we are rightly pulled up for doing that when we get it wrong, particularly those in leadership.

 

[mtooler]

Well people that feel way that usually want us to take all our guidance from one or another ancient, supposedly immutable holy book, but unfortunately prove themselves to be just as prone to cherry-picking its rights and wrongs as the people who supposedly have no moral compass.

I've been playing devils advocate a little, particularly on the moral compass, I feel we all have a moral compass, where a sense of the need for one comes from I suggest has come from a creator. I believe everyone is on their own journey with that and wish all well in it and hope all get to heaven as I believe it to be.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

No it doesn’t. You can be unintentionally or ignorantly discriminatory. You really think just because you’re not actively thinking “**** gay people” that doesn’t make it discrimination?



Not at all. I’m trying to find points of agreement here. The history of marriage is complex - even keeping it to a Western context there’s marriage for political and financial reasons alongside pure procreation, but rather than delve into that I just decided that broadly we can agree on the procreation point and move on to more important things.



That’s a meaningful distinction... why? Same sex couples can still raise children. So what if they need technology to help? The purpose of marriage to support couples provided a family unit for their children doesn’t change just because the child was conceived through unorthodox means or adopted.



But why is that inconsistency bad? Just about every example of social progress has been inconsistent with a previous tradition or social construct. Unless you can articulate WHY changing that is bad, then you’re just denying equality for no reason - I.e. discrimination.



So I take it you’re also against government funded cancer research, disability services, state schools for kids with special needs. People need to deal with their genetic lot in life after all. What about black people in slavery-era US? They need to deal with their genetic lot in life?

Come on. We change (or abolish, in the case of slavery) things all the time to make them more inclusive. Why is marriage any different?

You clearly don’t see adoption, surrogacy or childlessness as against the stated purpose of marriage or else you’d be against straight couples in that situation being married. So that can’t explain your insistence that homosexuals not be included.



Now you’re getting it! You’re talking about negative consequences! See how in this example you feel compelled to justify it using actual potential negatives? Why not for marriage?

I’m not going to get into whether the above negatives are justified - that’s a separate discussion and probably a much, much longer thread - I just want to illustrate how it’s only considered acceptable to treat black people differently if you can justify it, and gay people are no different.



No. You want to stop talking about it, stop replying and leave the thread, I won’t follow you. In the meantime, I’m enjoying this.

If you believe a plan is expressed through genetic makeup (and I do) then you have to accept that deviations from that plan are aberrations. We are designed to attract, have sex, bond through hormones and that results in procreation and perpetuation of the species. I could go on for hours about the ways this all occurs because I've studied it extensively. This is the plan else we don't exist. Even to the extent of the the way in which we deviate from monogamy by cheating (and there is now known at least one gene prevalent predisposition to cheat) to ensure competition and genetic diversity plays a part. The olfactory response of man to woman and vice versa to detect compatible healthy mates. The role of attraction between sexes arising from dominance and submissiveness respectively. So much expressed in genes to a plan

That plan is replicated in all species on similar patterns to same purpose

Only a man and a woman can procreate to accord that plan and they represent the majority because the genetic sprectrum results in that. Same sex being minority have genetic pathways that deviate from the plan through the fluke of genetic variety. That is the case else all men would attract only to men and all women likewise women and the species would die out in a generation. We don't because the plan (our genetic makeup) ensures we don't so we survive

Moving forward from that we build our social constructs around our behaviours arising from social interactions but those in turn arise from what we do motivated from our genetics in this case the concept and tradition of marriage.....of a man with a woman to produce babies

It is no fluke that the marriage tradition was created centuries ago, and centred on man with woman and excluding same sex because same sex isn't the plan. Don't misunderstand I'm not saying that same sex are somehow bad because they have an alternate genetic pathway BUT they don't conform to the plan else they too could conceive naturally and they can't.

My belief therefore is that opposite sex is the plan, genetics triggers that and marriage is tradition which supports it. Nowhere is a role for same sex if the genetic plan is to be believed. We have though through this vote dramatically altered the social construct to be opposite of original intention now to be empathetic and inclusive as you both put it. Hooray for the enlightened majority! Happy that same sex community get their validation but my understanding of evolution, genetics, social contructs and their interaction gives me insight to the efficacy of the tradition that perhaps others don't see.

So I hear the vote and go ........Mmmmmm ok, Shake my head. If you think

 

[RW]

It is no fluke that the marriage tradition was created centuries ago, and centred on man with woman and excluding same sex because same sex isn't the plan. Don't misunderstand I'm not saying that same sex are somehow bad because they have an alternate genetic pathway BUT they don't conform to the plan else they too could conceive naturally and they can't.

My belief therefore is that opposite sex is the plan, genetics triggers that and marriage is tradition which supports it ... Happy that same sex community get their validation but my understanding of evolution, genetics, social contructs and their interaction gives me insight to the efficacy of the tradition that perhaps others don't see.

That's basically it.

 

[Syd]

This still going?

Free Goose Island in the Virgin Lounge

/public service announcement

 

[Tedeski]

Horse pulling this float?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Horse pulling this float?

Don't bring horses into it. It'll go for another 19 pages. We'll end up with a vote on a persons inherent right to engage in beastiality and have loving marriages with animals.......not that I'm in any way suggesting there is a parralel mind you......Just trying to add some humour to the equation

Personally I think a horse has every right to say ney. Ney means ney. Of course if they winney instead that could create confusion and be misinterpreted.

I wonder if a staliion ever wakes up one day and says .....you know what... to heck with it ....I'm going to change it up and mount another stallion today? Guess so. Have to ask a breeder for that. And if when you ask him he looks downcast shakes his head and goes "arrrrggghhh" you know he'll be lamenting lost revenue of stallion to stallion escapades.

Harsh reality is that all you need is a hole with friction or suction eh? Wonder if I could marry my vacuum cleaner?

Do you Dyson take puke to be your lawfully wedded husband. Presses button

"Wooooooooooooooooo" presses button again. That was a yes. That might work AND have the real benefit of not having to use tissues after consummation. Never have a headache either. Have to clean the bagless container a little more often but every marriage involves sacrifices

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Don't bring horses into it. It'll go for another 19 pages. We'll end up with a vote on a persons inherent right to engage in beastiality and have loving marriages with animals.......not that I'm in any way suggesting there is a parralel mind you......Just trying to add some humour to the equation

Personally I think a horse has every right to say ney. Ney means ney. Of course if they winney instead that could create confusion and be misinterpreted.

I wonder if a staliion ever wakes up one day and says .....you know what... to heck with it ....I'm going to change it up and mount another stallion today? Guess so. Have to ask a breeder for that. And if when you ask him he looks downcast shakes his head and goes "arrrrggghhh" you know he'll be lamenting lost revenue of stallion to stallion escapades.

Harsh reality is that all you need is a hole with friction or suction eh? Wonder if I could marry my vacuum cleaner?

Do you Dyson take puke to be your lawfully wedded husband. Presses button

"Wooooooooooooooooo" presses button again. That was a yes. That might work AND have the real benefit of not having to use tissues after consummation. Never have a headache either. Have to clean the bagless container a little more often but every marriage involves sacrifices

RUOK M8?

 

[Angry Red Bull]

RUOK M8?

Lmao........it depends on what you define as ok.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I've been playing devils advocate a little, particularly on the moral compass, I feel we all have a moral compass, where a sense of the need for one comes from I suggest has come from a creator. I believe everyone is on their own journey with that and wish all well in it and hope all get to heaven as I believe it to be.

Thanks mate, I personally see a fundamental contradiction in any human being thinking they can know the first thing about what happens after death, but I wish you well too.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Holy Zeus or great Karl, what a long debate. I voted yes but scratched my noggin that I was de facto supporting the institution of marriage.

The public debate was unedifying. For those holding on to their raft of superstitious religious misapprehensions, the SSM issue conflated to their right to tell/control others (as the deluded religious like to do).

I think it is great the Club is getting a float.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Holy Zeus or great Karl, what a long debate. I voted yes but scratched my noggin that I was de facto supporting the institution of marriage.

The public debate was unedifying. For those holding on to their raft of superstitious religious misapprehensions, the SSM issue conflated to their right to tell/control others (as the deluded religious like to do).

I think it is great the Club is getting a float.

I'm not uniquely religious. Following the objective truth v subjective truth debate here on this thread though it's fair to say that the existence of a life ever after is a subjective truth to both camps - ones that believe because of their faith and ones that don't believe in absence of that faith. Neither can be absolute objective truth - we'll find out that answer after passing. That being the case it's probably a bit premature to be calling either side delusional (ie delusional religious) because that implies you have a better understanding to resolve the objective truth than is in the public domain. Curiously, making that leap suggesting you know a certainty about an uncertain truth to be able to call it delusional, a superstition and a misapprehension is probably more delusional than holding to the religious belief itself

It is an oddity of human behaviour that we like to make impermanent things permanent and uncertain things certain even when we can't legitimately. The pyramid of needs - safety and security is your motivation. We get both doing that.

To me personally it's a little disrespectful to deride someone else's belief system based on your own subjective truth. It's a bit like calling someone discriminatory when that too necessarily emanates from subjective judgement with very low objective truth score in support. Uncertainty to certainty with maladies of human behaviour. Fascinating.

 

[BarneyBent]

Sorry, missed this response somehow.

If you believe a plan is expressed through genetic makeup (and I do) then you have to accept that deviations from that plan are aberrations. We are designed to attract, have sex, bond through hormones and that results in procreation and perpetuation of the species. I could go on for hours about the ways this all occurs because I've studied it extensively. This is the plan else we don't exist. Even to the extent of the the way in which we deviate from monogamy by cheating (and there is now known at least one gene prevalent predisposition to cheat) to ensure competition and genetic diversity plays a part. The olfactory response of man to woman and vice versa to detect compatible healthy mates. The role of attraction between sexes arising from dominance and submissiveness respectively. So much expressed in genes to a plan

That plan is replicated in all species on similar patterns to same purpose

You clearly haven’t studied this as extensively as you claim. There are extremely well established and wide ranging examples of various forms of altruism and other non-procreative contributions to species survival across the animal kingdom, from adoption, to colony workers, to communal resource sharing, the list goes on.

Yes, there must always be procreators, but there need not ONLY be procreators.

In addition, we’re actually at the point now that homosexuals can procreate through surrogacy, or adopt the excess supply of babies we are currently experiencing. This (especially the latter) is a good thing.

Only a man and a woman can procreate to accord that plan and they represent the majority because the genetic sprectrum results in that. Same sex being minority have genetic pathways that deviate from the plan through the fluke of genetic variety. That is the case else all men would attract only to men and all women likewise women and the species would die out in a generation. We don't because the plan (our genetic makeup) ensures we don't so we survive

People with genetic infertility also deviate from that plan. Should they be barred from marriage? You still haven’t addressed this.

Moving forward from that we build our social constructs around our behaviours arising from social interactions but those in turn arise from what we do motivated from our genetics in this case the concept and tradition of marriage.....of a man with a woman to produce babies

It is no fluke that the marriage tradition was created centuries ago, and centred on man with woman and excluding same sex because same sex isn't the plan. Don't misunderstand I'm not saying that same sex are somehow bad because they have an alternate genetic pathway BUT they don't conform to the plan else they too could conceive naturally and they can't.

But this is the thing - the “plan” to create children, raise them and keep the species going is neither required of nor limited to straight couples. Your definition of marriage does not take that into account. You have never resolved this inconsistency. You just keep repeating the same stuff about genetics and procreation.

My belief therefore is that opposite sex is the plan, genetics triggers that and marriage is tradition which supports it. Nowhere is a role for same sex if the genetic plan is to be believed. We have though through this vote dramatically altered the social construct to be opposite of original intention now to be empathetic and inclusive as you both put it. Hooray for the enlightened majority! Happy that same sex community get their validation but my understanding of evolution, genetics, social contructs and their interaction gives me insight to the efficacy of the tradition that perhaps others don't see.

So I hear the vote and go ........Mmmmmm ok, Shake my head. If you think

Mate, you might be really, really good at taxes, but your understanding of biology reads like you’re a 14 year old who was just taught how natural selection works.

Marriage, today, is about love, legal rights, and formalising a commitment. It doesn’t even matter what it used to be about, actually, not that your argument holds any weight there. But literally no desirable function of marriage is going to be changed because another 2-10% (depending on your stats and how you want to cut them) will be allowed to marry. Literally the only thing about the purpose that changes is that it no longer places heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones... but it seems that’s exactly what you’re concerned about.

I’m going to use another analogy - say you start a society for wealthy, educated people to make connections. You say that for people to join the club, they must be employed and highly educated (analogous to being capable of producing/raising children), and because the only people who fit into that category in your part of the world are white, you’ll also make it whites only (heterosexual only).

Over time, the black population gets more educated, and suddenly a good chunk qualify for your club (except for the whites-only part), almost as many as the white population. Two questions for you. One: would it be discriminatory to refuse open the club up to black people, or would that destroy the point of the club? And two, if it would destroy the point of the club, which point? The well-educated part? Or the whites-only part?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Marriage, today, is about love, legal rights, and formalising a commitment. It doesn’t even matter what it used to be about, actually, not that your argument holds any weight there. But literally no desirable function of marriage is going to be changed because another 2-10% (depending on your stats and how you want to cut them) will be allowed to marry. Literally the only thing about the purpose that changes is that it no longer places heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones... but it seems that’s exactly what you’re concerned about.

I’m going to use another analogy - say you start a society for wealthy, educated people to make connections. You say that for people to join the club, they must be employed and highly educated (analogous to being capable of producing/raising children), and because the only people who fit into that category in your part of the world are white, you’ll also make it whites only (heterosexual only).

Over time, the black population gets more educated, and suddenly a good chunk qualify for your club (except for the whites-only part), almost as many as the white population. Two questions for you. One: would it be discriminatory to refuse open the club up to black people, or would that destroy the point of the club? And two, if it would destroy the point of the club, which point? The well-educated part? Or the whites-only part?

Having been married 10 years I can say that whilst love is a necessary precondition for marriage, at least in Western culture, marriage is not about love. I laughed and laughed at the whole "love is love" crap. The wedding might be a celebration of love but marriage is about so, so much more. In many respects, it's about sacrificing that love for a higher purpose.

And your analogy is grossly unfair.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I'm not uniquely religious. Following the objective truth v subjective truth debate here on this thread though it's fair to say that the existence of a life ever after is a subjective truth to both camps - ones that believe because of their faith and ones that don't believe in absence of that faith. Neither can be absolute objective truth - we'll find out that answer after passing. That being the case it's probably a bit premature to be calling either side delusional (ie delusional religious) because that implies you have a better understanding to resolve the objective truth than is in the public domain. Curiously, making that leap suggesting you know a certainty about an uncertain truth to be able to call it delusional, a superstition and a misapprehension is probably more delusional than holding to the religious belief itself

It is an oddity of human behaviour that we like to make impermanent things permanent and uncertain things certain even when we can't legitimately. The pyramid of needs - safety and security is your motivation. We get both doing that.

To me personally it's a little disrespectful to deride someone else's belief system based on your own subjective truth. It's a bit like calling someone discriminatory when that too necessarily emanates from subjective judgement with very low objective truth score in support. Uncertainty to certainty with maladies of human behaviour. Fascinating.

Really? Goodo, continue to fantasise about your fairies at the bottom of the garden. The religious propositions are ludicrous. You are free to believe in Zeus and the Olympians, the Buddha or the Dreamtime, provided it is harmless.

However the controllers of the religions have used their nonsense to control the behaviour of others. Think about religioids sending folk off to war for goddies, kings and country. What a pox on humanity.

Think about contraception, abortion, assisted dying etc. All the fairies at the bottom of the garden have opposed such gains for humans.

Think about how religions have for centuries protected paedos, let alone sacrificed zillions on their altars.

Disrespectful? Get a grip on reality mate and have a crack at interrogating your delusions. I am sick of fantasists imposing their control on others.

 

[BarneyBent]

Having been married 10 years I can say that whilst love is a necessary precondition for marriage, at least in Western culture, marriage is not about love. I laughed and laughed at the whole "love is love" crap. The wedding might be a celebration of love but marriage is about so, so much more. In many respects, it's about sacrificing that love for a higher purpose.

And your analogy is grossly unfair.

I didn’t say it was only about love, just that it was a big part of it. I’m sure we’d agree on the other things involved in marriage - are any of those things that same sex couples don’t or can’t experience?

And how is that analogy grossly unfair? Explain it.

 

[mtooler]

Sorry, missed this response somehow.



You clearly haven’t studied this as extensively as you claim. There are extremely well established and wide ranging examples of various forms of altruism and other non-procreative contributions to species survival across the animal kingdom, from adoption, to colony workers, to communal resource sharing, the list goes on.

Yes, there must always be procreators, but there need not ONLY be procreators.

In addition, we’re actually at the point now that homosexuals can procreate through surrogacy, or adopt the excess supply of babies we are currently experiencing. This (especially the latter) is a good thing.



People with genetic infertility also deviate from that plan. Should they be barred from marriage? You still haven’t addressed this.



But this is the thing - the “plan” to create children, raise them and keep the species going is neither required of nor limited to straight couples. Your definition of marriage does not take that into account. You have never resolved this inconsistency. You just keep repeating the same stuff about genetics and procreation.



Mate, you might be really, really good at taxes, but your understanding of biology reads like you’re a 14 year old who was just taught how natural selection works.

Marriage, today, is about love, legal rights, and formalising a commitment. It doesn’t even matter what it used to be about, actually, not that your argument holds any weight there. But literally no desirable function of marriage is going to be changed because another 2-10% (depending on your stats and how you want to cut them) will be allowed to marry. Literally the only thing about the purpose that changes is that it no longer places heterosexual relationships above homosexual ones... but it seems that’s exactly what you’re concerned about.

I’m going to use another analogy - say you start a society for wealthy, educated people to make connections. You say that for people to join the club, they must be employed and highly educated (analogous to being capable of producing/raising children), and because the only people who fit into that category in your part of the world are white, you’ll also make it whites only (heterosexual only).

Over time, the black population gets more educated, and suddenly a good chunk qualify for your club (except for the whites-only part), almost as many as the white population. Two questions for you. One: would it be discriminatory to refuse open the club up to black people, or would that destroy the point of the club? And two, if it would destroy the point of the club, which point? The well-educated part? Or the whites-only part?

Everything you put there holds true, as long as children don't have a human right to an opportunity to have a biological mother and father at birth. I believe that is moot and we're probably on different sides of the fence on that one.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Really? Goodo, continue to fantasise about your fairies at the bottom of the garden. The religious propositions are ludicrous. You are free to believe in Zeus and the Olympians, the Buddha or the Dreamtime, provided it is harmless.

However the controllers of the religions have used their nonsense to control the behaviour of others. Think about religioids sending folk off to war for goddies, kings and country. What a pox on humanity.

Think about contraception, abortion, assisted dying etc. All the fairies at the bottom of the garden have opposed such gains for humans.

Think about how religions have for centuries protected paedos, let alone sacrificed zillions on their altars.

Disrespectful? Get a grip on reality mate and have a crack at interrogating your delusions. I am sick of fantasists imposing their control on others.

The religious may well be delusional, but at least they are honest enough to admit that it's a faith based belief.

To me, it's the atheists, in their absolute certainty as to the existence of nothing, and their sneering about sky fairies, who are the most delusional.

And please, let's not do the whole body count thing.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I didn’t say it was only about love, just that it was a big part of it. I’m sure we’d agree on the other things involved in marriage - are any of those things that same sex couples don’t or can’t experience?

And how is that analogy grossly unfair? Explain it.

The analogy is unfair because Puke's point about procreation stands and trying to make his argument appear the same as that of a white supremacist is an unfair reflection on him.