Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

[Angry Red Bull]

It's never a good sign for the strength or confidence in your argument when you run away from the fight whilst throwing out a lame, high school level sex/penis jab.

Funny. I've always evaluated arguments on their merit alone without looking for and interpreting smoke signals.

 

[BarneyBent]

Funny. I've always evaluated arguments on their merit alone without looking for and interpreting smoke signals.

God. You couldn’t write comedy this good if you tried.

Your argument boils down to “homosexuals don’t naturally procreate and are genetic aberrations, therefore they shouldn’t be able to marry or raise children”. But that argument falls apart as soon as you consider the elderly, the infertile, those with genetic predispositions to disease, etc. You have never articulated why you want to control homosexual relationships and parental rights but not any of these other ones.

The inability to naturally procreate and the passing on of “genetic aberrations” is not, apparently, good enough reason to trump the rights of certain heterosexual couples to marry and have children, so why is it enough for homosexual couples?

Yours is not a strong argument. It is an argument that collapses at the slightest hint of scrutiny.

 

[Number37]

Marriage is man and woman not same sex.

Wrong again.
Did you miss the result of the SSM survey & the subsequent leglisation?

Or were you too busy putting your fingers in your ears and yelling la-la-la-la-la-la?

 

[Kapanis]

Pukes argument from the start is that marriage is about procreation between a man and a woman and he has been consistent with that from the start. Even for hetro couples this is not always the case, my Mum married her husband at the age of 60, obviously procreation was not a reason for them to marry, it was companionship. Not all couples marry to have children, whether they're hetro or same sex couples.

 

[Jewelsbon]

To whatever Mod did this, from the bottom of my heart I thank you.

 

[BloodySwan]

Pukes argument from the start is that marriage is about procreation between a man and a woman and he has been consistent with that from the start. Even for hetro couples this is not always the case, my Mum married her husband at the age of 60, obviously procreation was not a reason for them to marry, it was companionship. Not all couples marry to have children, whether they're hetro or same sex couples.

I married my wife not because I wanted to get her pregnant but because I love her. No other reason. The idea that marriage = kids is extremely old fashioned. It is only the formal recognition of two peoples relationships with one another.

 

[Kapanis]

I married my wife not because I wanted to get her pregnant but because I love her. No other reason. The idea that marriage = kids is extremely old fashioned. It is only the formal recognition of two peoples relationships with one another.

Yep, agree 100%.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I married my wife not because I wanted to get her pregnant but because I love her. No other reason. The idea that marriage = kids is extremely old fashioned. It is only the formal recognition of two peoples relationships with one another.

So what you're really saying is.......we haven't elevated same sex attracted people to membership of the most important social foundation of Western society. We have instead reduced the strength and importance of that social foundation such that we may as well let the other relationship types in as well. There is a lot of merit in looking at it that way, especially given the marriage failure rate in recent years.

 

[Kummerspeck]

So what you're really saying is.......we haven't elevated same sex attracted people to membership of the most important social foundation of Western society. We have instead reduced the strength and importance of that social foundation such that we may as well let the other relationship types in as well. There is a lot of merit in looking at it that way, especially given the marriage failure rate in recent years.

For someone who got so upset about being misinterpreted you sure have a knack for it.

 

[BarneyBent]

So what you're really saying is.......we haven't elevated same sex attracted people to membership of the most important social foundation of Western society. We have instead reduced the strength and importance of that social foundation such that we may as well let the other relationship types in as well. There is a lot of merit in looking at it that way, especially given the marriage failure rate in recent years.

That only makes sense if you think homosexuals being allowed to participate is a sign of weakness.

I think it is more accurate to say that we as a society are generally less discriminatory and allow same sex couples to raise families and otherwise engage in the family unit (with or without children), so there is no practical reason to exclude them from the formalisation of that.

As I said earlier in the thread, maintaining marriage as a discriminatory institution while the rest of society moves forward will weaken marriage, not preserve its strength.

 

[BloodySwan]

So what you're really saying is.......we haven't elevated same sex attracted people to membership of the most important social foundation of Western society. We have instead reduced the strength and importance of that social foundation such that we may as well let the other relationship types in as well. There is a lot of merit in looking at it that way, especially given the marriage failure rate in recent years.

So if marriage is only about having children, being married myself should I never have children does that mean I have a failed marriage?

 

[Kapanis]

So what you're really saying is.......we haven't elevated same sex attracted people to membership of the most important social foundation of Western society. We have instead reduced the strength and importance of that social foundation such that we may as well let the other relationship types in as well. There is a lot of merit in looking at it that way, especially given the marriage failure rate in recent years.

Cannot see where he said anything like that all

 

[Number37]

As I said earlier in the thread, maintaining marriage as a discriminatory institution while the rest of society moves forward will weaken marriage, not preserve its strength.

According to some, it's strength appears to encompass limiting it to a man & woman.
That's the 'tradition', they say.
When you look through the history books, dating back thousands of years, there is evidence of homosexuality.

If homosexuality has been around as long marriage, doesn't that tell us that part of the marriage tradition has been to discriminate against homosexuals, by excluding them from being able to marry?
If you accept that, doesn't that mean that the marriage tradition is NOT actually about a man & woman, but about a union between 2 people.

 

[mtooler]

According to some, it's strength appears to encompass limiting it to a man & woman.
That's the 'tradition', they say.
When you look through the history books, dating back thousands of years, there is evidence of homosexuality.

If homosexuality has been around as long marriage, doesn't that tell us that part of the marriage tradition has been to discriminate against homosexuals, by excluding them from being able to marry?
If you accept that, doesn't that mean that the marriage tradition is NOT actually about a man & woman, but about a union between 2 people.

Not entirely, A union between a man and a woman traditionally dating back thousands of years. Biblically God wiped out Soddom and Gomorrah for practicing same sex relations. So traditionally its fairly difficult to exclude marriage from being a man and a woman as its traditional interpretation.

 

[RW]

Queer does not mean exclusively into the same sex. Bi, pans, etc are a thing.

I know that, but I like to play devil's advocate from time to time.

Also, we aren’t planning on having kids. How’s that for a genetic plan?

Everyone is free to choose their own path in life. The hard part is choosing the right one. I think I have an idea of what the right path is, but that doesn't preclude the existence of other paths which will get you to the same destination, albeit via a different route.

 

[SSwans2011]

Okay, just reading page 14 now.

Seriously, why the **** would anyone seriously care about tradition? ESPECIALLY if the tradition was problematic. Tradition could have been used to defend almost all the systemic evils in history.

 

[Kapanis]

Okay, just reading page 14 now.

Seriously, why the **** would anyone seriously care about tradition? ESPECIALLY if the tradition was problematic. Tradition could have been used to defend almost all the systemic evils in history.

Gets worse from there

 

[Number37]

Not entirely, A union between a man and a woman traditionally dating back thousands of years. Biblically God wiped out Soddom and Gomorrah for practicing same sex relations. So traditionally its fairly difficult to exclude marriage from being a man and a woman as its traditional interpretation.

BOTH homosexuality & marriage predate religion by thousands of years.
Homosexual "married" couples lived together the same as hetero "married" couples, the being "married" part was never a problem.
It was only when religion formalised marriage that the "tradition" became to exclude. The basis of the exclusion relates SOLELY to the sexual act.

 

[mtooler]

BOTH homosexuality & marriage predate religion by thousands of years.
Homosexual "married" couples lived together the same as hetero "married" couples, the being "married" part was never a problem.
It was only when religion formalised marriage that the "tradition" became to exclude. The basis of the exclusion relates SOLELY to the sexual act.

Nope, marriage predates society. In Genesis God created man, from man woman and before anyone else came on the scene the two became one flesh in marriage.

 

[Number37]

Nope, marriage predates society. In Genesis God created man, from man woman and before anyone else came on the scene the two became one flesh in marriage.

Umm ok.

Did people thousands of years ago have this knowledge?

If they did have this knowledge, why did they ignore it?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Nope, marriage predates society. In Genesis God created man, from man woman and before anyone else came on the scene the two became one flesh in marriage.

Let's try and limit this to things that actually happened.

 

[Kapanis]

Let's try and limit this to things that actually happened.

Gold, post of the thread to you.

 

[mtooler]

Umm ok.

Did people thousands of years ago have this knowledge?

If they did have this knowledge, why did they ignore it?

Yes they had this knowledge. Sin entered the world, people have free will would be the top answers. As I said consequence for Sodom and Gomorrah was getting wiped out. People have free will ultimately to do whatever they want. King David is an excellent example as to what the consequence of lust is.

 

[mtooler]

Let's try and limit this to things that actually happened.

Happy to.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Happy to.

Clearly not if you're quoting Genesis.