Marriage Equality

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by bigalzz

i object to gay marriage, but not for the reasons you might think.
they are stealing our language. i lament the loss of the word gay in it's original meaning. i think it was a usefull word, but i can't use it now.
now the original meaning of "marriage' is to be changed? not a real big deal, but i was listening to richard dawkins recently, and he refered to "his wife"??? is he refering to a male or a female? is this another word that will be re assigned a meaning? and is penny wongs partner her husband? and i can't name my son nigel or bruce for fear of his orientation being missunderstood..
i personally don't care what your orientation is and i agree that the legal status of any couple shouldn't be compromised in law. but, can't they invent their own words? there must be words from other languages that will sufice. we've imported and invented many words to english.
i think the gays should be a little more creative and thereby lessen the controvercy.

each to his own. but make his own, his own.

Stultissimus rei Audivi quia Jovis noctis!

[rayne]

Assuming biglzz is hetereosexual, I wonder why they are against marriage being used for same sex couples who are married? As I've stated in another thread, those who in favour of separate terminology for same sex couples and hetereosexuals often are, it seems, because they don't want to be confused as being in a same sex relationship. If same sex couples can get married, how on earth will people automatically know hetereosexuals are hetereosexual if marriage isn't restricted to hetereosexual people?

My theory does have a flaw in it due to marriage not being about sexuality but about the sex of the people in it. I don't think people oppose to same sex marriage realise this.

[Blue Lightning]

@Rayne, the issue, I feel, is a very simple one indeed.

Churches can pray over relationships all they like, I have no issue with that. And no issue about them choosing who they won't pray over. No-one is asking churches to pray over same sex marriages.

Yet marriage is primarily a construct of the law. In Australian law, it differs in lesser or greater details, to everywhere else in the world. And most marriages these days are purely civil arrangements, not held in churches.

The legal equality of our citizens matters. It profoundly influences the type of society we are, and aspire to be.

Why should our law discriminate against some types of citizens?

It certainly should no do so on the ground of faith: We are not be a theocracy.

It should not do so on the ground that some people would chose differently for themselves, and irrationally feel uncomfortable about others choosing differently: Tolerance is an essential aspect of liberal democracy.

In principle, I would entertain the possibility that if there was serious demonstrated harm caused by some measure, for example (as some theists are fond of irrationally squealing), to children, then there might possibly be some ground for legal regulation. Apart from the fact that this is a distinct subject matter, the inherent hypocrisy in our society acting here and yet taking absolutely no steps anywhere else to regulate in who can bring a child into the world and the profound invasion of human rights such regulation that would involve: There is simply no evidence of such harm. It's *hurt fawn* meets irrationality, in the first order. And even if there was evidence of such harm (which, as I say, there is not), then that would mean that that harm would have to be weighed against the harm caused by the regulation, which appears to me to be great indeed. (And now I'm so far down the path of if {irrationality A} and if {irrationality B} and if ... that maybe I should have stopped a paragraph ago!)

In short, I do not believe that there is any rational basis for opposition to marriage equality. It's all - either overtly or subliminally - homophobia or irrationality of one sort or another.

IMO, end of issue.

[Mjt]

So there will be no conscious vote allowed in Victoria cos teddy says no. Couples can register their partnership on the domestic relationship register.
That, apparently, is good enough.
Domestic relationship register?
This is not only a horrible, slap in the face concept, it is downright embarrassing, and as a Victorian I am ashamed.

[bigalzz]

Wow!! (did you see i used a capital there?) i'm a little stunned. humour seems to be a non starter here.. i know my communication skills fall far short of the hitch. and my disinclination to use capitals in this modern sms world , seems to upset some lol . but i have to stand by my personal disgruntlement with the fact that i can't sing the flintstones song "we'll have a gay old time" and project the same meaning.
if it ever comes to a vote, my vote will be won with honey not vitriol.
as i thought i said, i am 100 percent in favour of total equity in this society. the crap i got here rivals a muslim slap. it's just my opinion guys, and as with most athiests. everything is open for discussion. lighten up.

[bigalzz]

well mister black, there's no mistery about your dark side.
but the truth is, the gay community have my support (though tepid). i was moved to comment by dawkins refferance to "his wife" i thought he was gay, so you can understand my confusion.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted by bigalzz

Wow!! (did you see i used a capital there?) i'm a little stunned. humour seems to be a non starter here.. i know my communication skills fall far short of the hitch. and my disinclination to use capitals in this modern sms world , seems to upset some lol . but i have to stand by my personal disgruntlement with the fact that i can't sing the flintstones song "we'll have a gay old time" and project the same meaning.
if it ever comes to a vote, my vote will be won with honey not vitriol.
as i thought i said, i am 100 percent in favour of total equity in this society. the crap i got here rivals a muslim slap. it's just my opinion guys, and as with most athiests. everything is open for discussion. lighten up.

Oh, my bad, I just didn't understand your sophisticated humour. I get it now.. Har har har.

What makes you think that anybody is applying for your 'vote'. Do you think that your opinion of the relationships of others is important? That you are entitled to a say in how others lead their lives when it is unrelated to you and yours? And that you'll only decide that they're entitled to run their own lives with equal rights to yours if they're nice to you?
That's messed up.

[Mjt]

Originally Posted by bigalzz

Wow!! (did you see i used a capital there?) i'm a little stunned. humour seems to be a non starter here.. i know my communication skills fall far short of the hitch. and my disinclination to use capitals in this modern sms world , seems to upset some lol . but i have to stand by my personal disgruntlement with the fact that i can't sing the flintstones song "we'll have a gay old time" and project the same meaning.
if it ever comes to a vote, my vote will be won with honey not vitriol.
as i thought i said, i am 100 percent in favour of total equity in this society. the crap i got here rivals a muslim slap. it's just my opinion guys, and as with most athiests. everything is open for discussion. lighten up.

Humor? That's usually affiliated with something that's funny.
Of course you are entitled to have your own opinion. Just as others are entitled to disagree with it. You are willing to deny a whole section of our society a basic right everyone else enjoys because of a precious word? These are real people living real lives, and I believe they are rather more important than the flintstones theme song.
Oh, and if you are going to be a language fanatic as an excuse to discriminate, then expect to be held to account when your own use of that language is less than perfect.
Real people
Real lives
Get one

[rayne]

Originally Posted by bigalzz

Wow!! (did you see i used a capital there?) i'm a little stunned. humour seems to be a non starter here.. i know my communication skills fall far short of the hitch. and my disinclination to use capitals in this modern sms world , seems to upset some lol . but i have to stand by my personal disgruntlement with the fact that i can't sing the flintstones song "we'll have a gay old time" and project the same meaning.
if it ever comes to a vote, my vote will be won with honey not vitriol.
as i thought i said, i am 100 percent in favour of total equity in this society. the crap i got here rivals a muslim slap. it's just my opinion guys, and as with most athiests. everything is open for discussion. lighten up.

"Relax I'm making a joke, you obviously don't get my humour. It's just my opinion" sounds an awful lot like "Oh shit, they don't agree with what I think, I need a way out" or as I like to put it "Whhhaaaahhhh my shitty opinion is being oppressed!" You sound just like a fundamentalist "Tolerate my intolerance!".

This is a place of critical analysis and critical thinking. Good ideas thrive and bad ideas get thrown down the drain. Some forums members can be harsher in their responses to stupidity and ill-thought out ideas than others. The number on thing we do here is test ideas and critique them. We find the gaps and make people think about how to fill the holes in their ideas. I get that challenging worldviews is a hard concept to get your head around especially if it has never been done to you before but expect feedback and expect people to find holes in your thinking and want to find the correct way to fill them.

Hurt fawning is not a good way to get out of making a shitty comment for shitty reasons. The best way to resolve these sorts of cock-ups is to go "Hey, my comment obviously came across incorrect. This is what I actually meant (insert statement here). I'll work on my communication skills in future so my comments don't make me look like an arsehat".

If humour really was your intention, starting off your diatribe on why same sex couples shouldn't get married by stating...

i object to gay marriage, but not for the reasons you might think

...is not the way to go about it. You specifically stated that you were against same sex marriage even if it was "not for the reasons you might think" (which I'm assuming are reasons the fundamentalists pull out of their arses like the slippery slope arguments or bible verses), you still stated you were against it.

A person against same sex marriage may not think themselves as a bigot, they may not be a bigot, they may have gay friends or gay family members and love and respect them but the fact of the matter is..expressing the desire to want to deny a percentage of the population the rights you already have regardless of the reason..still makes you an arsehole.

I'm sure on deeper reflection you'll be able to see how flawed your argument was. Your argument from what I can gather being "Gays can get married but don't use the word marriage or married because that's our word". The people who can get married don't have the monopoly on the word marriage. Considering same sex couples can get married in Norway and other places, do they have the monopoly on the word marriage as well as the opposite sex couples who can get married.

[Centauri]

The fact that two consenting adults cannot get married simply because of their gender shows that Homo sapiens still has a lot of growing up to do.

I abhor the government's action to take that right away from people.