Gay marriage in Australia

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system.

Say that when gay people have all the same rights as you. Until then, you are the one who isn't looking for equality; you are looking for the government to reserve a civil institution for straights only as a special privilege for those with your sense of "traditional" values.

If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth.

First, it's irrational to deny someone equality on the bass they may ask for more. Say 'no' when they ask for more. Second, historically this is not the case in countries which legalize same-sex marriage. We've had it in Canada for years, and the only special consideration gay people are really given over straight people is if someone beats the living shit out of a gay person, there is a possibility it will be considered a hate crime (if the person's sexual orientation was demonstrably the motive for the crime).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Not at all. When you remove the moralized definitions of 'aberrant' the term may loosely fit, and if no people were LGBT, it wouldn't matter to me. But that isn't reality, and your 'could' is entirely baseless.

I've been on a lot of fetish boards and seen some anime porn.
For me, i'd say that any sexual interest which has the slightest hope of coming to pass is inside the line for 'aberrant.'
I'm not sure where a sexual fixation on, say, balloon people* comes from, as it's in no possible way tied to procreation, but I can't say for sure it's human wiring or miswiring.


*Or jelly people, centaurs, herptaurs, mermaids, dinosaurs in Nazi uniforms, Pokémon, talking ponies, cars, trains, robots, giants, Lilliputians, toys, rockets, Port-A-Potties, ducks, mountains and the Eiffel Tower.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is not their fault. It is just unfortunate. I think the law should support them as best as is possible

But if they raise kids, and the kids turn out to be gay, that'll be their fault?

You know, a question just occurred to me.

If we can identify gender preference in utero, as you fantasize, that means we can also identify the gender preference of babies that are already born, right?

So if 2% (or whatever number) of all the kids up for adoption are gay, why wouldn't it be more humane to let them be adopted by gays, so that when they grow up and start having these feelings, they can have parents that understand and sympathize and can help them through this 'sad' and 'unfortunate' state of affairs?

 

[dystopian]

Has any group paused in their quest for equality and said, 'that's enough equality for now' or 'we'll call this half-full and shut up about equality?'

That is the problem Keith. Homosexuals are human beings and human beings are not looking for 'equality', they are looking for the best possible deal they can squeeze out of the system. If homosexuals can exploit the tidal wave of frothing hysteria around the 'trendy issue for 2015' i.e. 'gay marriage' then they will ride it for every buck its worth.

Sooo...

...somehow the fact that people are looking for the best possible deal instead of equality (a claim which lacks any evidence, but alright let's assume its true), means that we shouldn't give them equality because...

...uh because?

Because once they get equality they will want more still? How the fuck does that warrant not giving them equality?

If gay people start demanding and getting rights straight people don't have, I'll join you in protest; okay? In the mean time, stop being a dick and get out of the way of equality.

I don't blame them, if I was a homosexual I would too but looking at it objectively they have more than enough to lead happy lives.

That's not for you to decide.

 

[dystopian]

I don't want to marry you. When I'm saying that I'm the perfect candidate for marriage in your world, I'm saying that I'm living together with a partner of the opposite sex with whom I've successfully reproduced. My physical attributes are irrelevant, unless you want to start denying marriage to men under 175cm and women above 172cm (which would only be consistent - since one of your main arguments to restrict marriage is that women and men are different and therefore complement each other, it would make perfect sense to kick out couples where the man and the woman are insufficiently different).

Wat. There's men AND women who are under 175cm's tall? How horrid. If we were to allow such evolutionary throwbacks to marry we'd be implying procreation between them is okay, which undermines our long-standing tradition of getting taller with each successive generation! All those centuries of hard work, GONE!

/tallestnationalityonearthmasterrace

 

[dystopian]

Not at all. When you remove the moralized definitions of 'aberrant' the term may loosely fit, and if no people were LGBT, it wouldn't matter to me. But that isn't reality, and your 'could' is entirely baseless.

I've been on a lot of fetish boards and seen some anime porn.
For me, i'd say that any sexual interest which has the slightest hope of coming to pass is inside the line for 'aberrant.'
I'm not sure where a sexual fixation on, say, balloon people* comes from, as it's in no possible way tied to procreation, but I can't say for sure it's human wiring or miswiring.


*Or jelly people, centaurs, herptaurs, mermaids, dinosaurs in Nazi uniforms, Pokémon, talking ponies, cars, trains, robots, giants, Lilliputians, toys, rockets, Port-A-Potties, ducks, mountains and the Eiffel Tower.

Man, I thought you said you've been on a lot of fetish boards? Most of that stuff you listed is like, totally mainstream!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Man, I thought you said you've been on a lot of fetish boards? Most of that stuff you listed is like, totally mainstream!

On, no, not playing that game again. "What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen on the internet" is a game that can only end in projective vomiting.

 

[dystopian]

Man, I thought you said you've been on a lot of fetish boards? Most of that stuff you listed is like, totally mainstream!

On, no, not playing that game again. "What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen on the internet" is a game that can only end in projective vomiting.

Which is also a sexual fetish.

 

[DrZoidberg]

On, no, not playing that game again. "What's the weirdest thing you've ever seen on the internet" is a game that can only end in projective vomiting.

Which is also a sexual fetish.

Emetophilia. You do not want to know how I know that.

 

[Togo]

My personal favourite is: dragons having non-consensual sex with automobiles.

 

[fromderinside]

I presumed exactly that from you.

Excuse. Is fantasy something special in a discussion about gay marriage in Australia?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I presumed exactly that from you.

Excuse. Is fantasy something special in a discussion about gay marriage in Australia?

Well, tastes seems to be. Mojo said that post-menopausal women aren't really attractive, so letting them marry doesn't 'change the definition' of marriage, though Marriage is only about pair bonding for the purpose of breeding more pair bonders....

And there's the question of where to draw the line for 'aberrations.'

And gays playing butt-darts is not anywhere near the ickiest thing consenting adults do or want to do in their bedrooms or bucket seats or public toilets, but THEY can marry and possibly spread their condition to their children.
I haven't seen any sign of such a transfer, but my kids DO know not to touch the Barbie Dolls in Daddy's Castle Anthrax....

 

[bilby]

Which is also a sexual fetish.

Emetophilia. You do not want to know how I know that.

Through etymology?

(No, that doesn't mean sex with insects).

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

And there's the question of where to draw the line for 'aberrations.'

Wherever you want. The line itself is aberrant, so no matter where you try to draw it, it just wanders all over the fucking place.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And there's the question of where to draw the line for 'aberrations.'

Wherever you want. The line itself is aberrant, so no matter where you try to draw it, it just wanders all over the fucking place.

True. The better question would be why the line matters a shit in civil rights.

 

[Metaphor]

On the other hand, there appears to have been research on how male black swans will pair bond and steal nests, driving mothers away from their eggs, then raising the chicks. There's ENOUGH of this research to have data on how those chicks have a better survival rate than those of male/female pairs, possibly because the two males have a better chance to defend their territory.

GAY MEN WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN is what I take from that. Case closed on same sex marriage.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

On the other hand, there appears to have been research on how male black swans will pair bond and steal nests, driving mothers away from their eggs, then raising the chicks. There's ENOUGH of this research to have data on how those chicks have a better survival rate than those of male/female pairs, possibly because the two males have a better chance to defend their territory.

GAY MEN WILL STEAL YOUR CHILDREN is what I take from that. Case closed on same sex marriage.

Well, to be fair, they're only stealing them so that they can anallly rape them and turn them into drug-addicted murderers, so its not that bad.

They could have stolen them to make them read a Bible or somthing, so let's keep some perspective here and not get all bent out of shape about it.

 

[fromderinside]

I presumed exactly that from you.

Excuse. Is fantasy something special in a discussion about gay marriage in Australia?

Well, tastes seems to be. Mojo said that post-menopausal women aren't really attractive, so letting them marry doesn't 'change the definition' of marriage, though Marriage is only about pair bonding for the purpose of breeding more pair bonders....

And there's the question of where to draw the line for 'aberrations.'

And gays playing butt-darts is not anywhere near the ickiest thing consenting adults do or want to do in their bedrooms or bucket seats or public toilets, but THEY can marry and possibly spread their condition to their children.
I haven't seen any sign of such a transfer, but my kids DO know not to touch the Barbie Dolls in Daddy's Castle Anthrax....

You are enjoying the current discussion too much. I recommend you view The Fart Locker again to regain perspective.

 

[Keith&Co.]

to regain perspective.

Perspective?
In a thread that's been hijacked into a discussion about giving a word superior rights over a significant portion of the population because that word means something it never meant, because evolution didn't not drive it into not being about nature, and all researchers lie except for the ones who don't report homosexual animal activity.

You think perspective can help with that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

to regain perspective.

Perspective?
In a thread that's been hijacked into a discussion about giving a word superior rights over a significant portion of the population because that word means something it never meant, because evolution didn't not drive it into not being about nature, and all researchers lie except for the ones who don't report homosexual animal activity.

You think perspective can help with that?

There is actually something even more sinister underlying the whole gay marriage issue. We take it for granted that its up to each and every one to decide what it means to be happy, have a job, get laid, die, take a trip and get married. But we have a sneaking suspicion that people aren´t using their freedom correctly. They´re not defining all those things in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY I AM. Which some people think is threatening. It´s the same mechanic underlying fascism/communism. If we can´t trust people to use their freedom in socially sanctioned ways, then by Jove, we will use the laws for force them. Unless you see it that way it is impossible to understand what the conservatives are so up in arms about regarding gay marriage.

But to the rest of us, the sane portion of society, are ok with that it´s up to each and every one who gets married to decide what it means to get married.