Gay marriage in Australia

[Tom Sawyer]

But what you've failed to clarify is why that's such an essential feature that can't change when all the other parts of the definition change constantly.

You're just asserting that it's important without justifying the assertion.

My main argument just goes back to the issue of heritage and tradition. I find the evidence that marriage, in historical terms, has been anything other than the pair-bonding between a man and a woman to be extremely tenuous.

I think if homosexuals want to pair bond then that is new thing that society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

For the exact same reason that you want to keep them as separate things - because marriage is an emotionally-laden word with a lot of meaning. It signifies, to many people, the highest and most committed type of relationship one can enter into. It's an important thing. Saying that the gays have to do something else is essentially saying that their relationships aren't worth as much as straight relationships.

It's the same argument as saying that since the bus takes them to where they want to go regardless of which seat they're in, it really doesn't matter if blacks are forced to sit at the back. They get the exact same benefit out of the bus that the whites do, so forcing them to use it in a slightly different way isn't a thing they need to worry about. It's a bullshit argument because it's still saying that they are less worthy.

It's the same with your bullshit arguments. They're all just a way to have gay relationships be valued less than straight relationships. Marriage is a term which changes constantly and your notion that having it between two men means that it's substantially different and should be called something else is about the same level of rationality as saying that because a wife is now seen as an equal instead of an item of property that it's substantially different and should be called something else.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the fact that marriage throughout this tortuous evolution has had that constant and defining dimension of it being a pair-bonding of specifically a man and a woman is not something you can deny no matter how much 2015's political agenda demands it.

So marriage changes. Change it some more or give a REALY GOOD REASON why we shouldn't.

As you mentioned elsewhere, we're 'rational' creatures. Even if your history of the meaning of marriage is accurate, which I dispute, inertia is not a good reason to discriminate.

 

[mojorising]

My main argument just goes back to the issue of heritage and tradition. I find the evidence that marriage, in historical terms, has been anything other than the pair-bonding between a man and a woman to be extremely tenuous.

I think if homosexuals want to pair bond then that is new thing that society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

For the exact same reason that you want to keep them as separate things - because marriage is an emotionally-laden word with a lot of meaning. It signifies, to many people, the highest and most committed type of relationship one can enter into. It's an important thing. Saying that the gays have to do something else is essentially saying that their relationships aren't worth as much as straight relationships.

It's the same argument as saying that since the bus takes them to where they want to go regardless of which seat they're in, it really doesn't matter if blacks are forced to sit at the back. They get the exact same benefit out of the bus that the whites do, so forcing them to use it in a slightly different way isn't a thing they need to worry about. It's a bullshit argument because it's still saying that they are less worthy.

It's the same with your bullshit arguments. They're all just a way to have gay relationships be valued less than straight relationships. Marriage is a term which changes constantly and your notion that having it between two men means that it's substantially different and should be called something else is about the same level of rationality as saying that because a wife is now seen as an equal instead of an item of property that it's substantially different and should be called something else.

But with race it has been demonstrated scientifically that it is just surface appearance which means there is no justification for making a distinction.

With homosexuals their sexual function is defective (as I and many people would view the situation) so it is not surface appearance. And this also makes it an affront to people who believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution by its definition (which has quite a lot going for it as an arguable position).

 

[mojorising]

But the fact that marriage throughout this tortuous evolution has had that constant and defining dimension of it being a pair-bonding of specifically a man and a woman is not something you can deny no matter how much 2015's political agenda demands it.

So marriage changes. Change it some more or give a REALY GOOD REASON why we shouldn't.

As you mentioned elsewhere, we're 'rational' creatures. Even if your history of the meaning of marriage is accurate, which I dispute, inertia is not a good reason to discriminate.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

So I don't butt fuck. I just live in a committed relationship with a long term fried and we share. Laws are written where I don't have rights unless I'm married. Convenient straw.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So marriage changes. Change it some more or give a REALY GOOD REASON why we shouldn't.

As you mentioned elsewhere, we're 'rational' creatures. Even if your history of the meaning of marriage is accurate, which I dispute, inertia is not a good reason to discriminate.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition.

You keep asserting this and never really prop it up.

If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

You have to lean on 'self evident' because you've got shit for logic on this.
Striaght couples differ from other straight couples as much or more than gay couples differ from straights.
Your brief review of sexist stereotypes did not make as much sense as you may have intended.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

No, it's not rational. You haven't provided any means to measure such a difference NOR have you established that the difference will produce any sort of problems, for society, for the couple, for the children of such a couple.
Men nurture, women discipline, men cry, women are the breadwinners, men are the cooks, women watch sports or drive kids to their football games, men take cookies to PTA meetings....

Nothing in the partnership will necessarily be sacrificed because there are two dicks or no dicks. Or at least, your alarmist nay-saying hasn't provided anyone a reason to think that there's any sort of problem exclusive to gay couples that wouldn't be an equal risk by allowing heterosexual couples to marry.

 

[fromderinside]

So marriage changes. Change it some more or give a REALY GOOD REASON why we shouldn't.

As you mentioned elsewhere, we're 'rational' creatures. Even if your history of the meaning of marriage is accurate, which I dispute, inertia is not a good reason to discriminate.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

As I noted in the next post from yours the situation developed in large part for legal reasons. Secondarily there is discrimination against those who practice sex differently from 'norms' on mostly religious and yuck based grounds. Beating, denigrating, killing, anybody for any perceived difference is just plane wrong. If one can write laws so that those who do these thing to others come to justice then we don't need such as flimsy hairs upon which to base our societal sanctions. Of course the discourse is going to extend until the sought denigrating practices are quashed.

 

[mojorising]

Striaght couples differ from other straight couples as much or more than gay couples differ from straights.

Except with regard to their respective genders.

Nothing in the partnership will necessarily be sacrificed because there are two dicks or no dicks.

It will simply be an unecessary affront to the traditional definition of marriage as perceived by the majority of the species (even if the political atmosphere in 2015 makes people reluctant to voice their concerns) when no such affront is required because the legal needs of homosexuals can be met without changing the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, and:

If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

You've already called me a PC-obedient liar.
And said that my son is defective and could contaminate any children he raises.
I'm not really interested in gaining your respect at this point.

 

[mojorising]

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

As I noted in the next post from yours the situation developed in large part for legal reasons. Secondarily there is discrimination against those who practice sex differently from 'norms' on mostly religious and yuck based grounds. Beating, denigrating, killing, anybody for any perceived difference is just plane wrong. If one can write laws so that those who do these thing to others come to justice then we don't need such as flimsy hairs upon which to base our societal sanctions. Of course the discourse is going to extend until the sought denigrating practices are quashed.

The legals can be worked out with a bit of patience e.g. change all the legislation so it refers to partnerships instead of marriages.

Nobody is being beaten or killed they are just being asked to start their own tradition and leave existing ones alone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Except with regard to their respective genders.

Which doesn't matter.

Nothing in the partnership will necessarily be sacrificed because there are two dicks or no dicks.

It will simply be an unecessary affront to the traditional definition of marriage as perceived by the majority of the species

No one has a right to not be affronted by the cessation of discrimination.

(even if the political atmosphere in 2015 makes people reluctant to voice their concerns)

I think this is a falsehood.
The majority seldom has a problem voicing their concerns.
It's the minority that has to lie and say that they're really the majority, it's just the media or PCness that hides that fact.

when no such affront is required because the legal needs of homosexuals can be met without changing the traditional definition of marriage.

But the legal needs are NOT going to be met if you can further ensure that the new tradition also curtails other rights.

They want equality, mojo. And nothing you've said, yet, justifies discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

they are just being asked to start their own tradition and leave existing ones alone.

And they're being asked that for no really good reasons....

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

It isn't self-evident; you're simply being obtuse and ensnared to a selective version of the past for no reason you've yet to demonstrate. Let's say marriage is and always was about pair-bonding. This is not historically factual, but seeing as we've been over this already, why rehash? Ordinarily we'd expect sexually reproducing animals to be attracted to the opposite sex in some form or another. It makes sense that there are biological mechanisms to drive males to reproduce with females, and females to reproduce with males.

But we know as incontrovertible fact that properties of gender do get crossed at conception or intrauterine development for various reasons, so let's get really simplistic and say the sexual attraction component gets its "wires crossed" in homosexual individuals.

Well, in that scenario the mechanism which drives pair bonding is still present and active in homosexual couples. Those two men who experience attraction toward men and want to get married are doing the exact, identical thing as women seeking men in that scenario. It is not a similar pairing. It is the exact, same, identical relationship. That means a man experiences sexual attraction as female would, and a female experiences a sexual attraction as a man would. That means the two men are experiencing not a similar force which you would identify as the basis of marriage, but rather the exact same force. The only difference in that particular scenario is that (outside of involving transgender identities), those two men cannot produce offspring from the union of their genetical materials directly.

So is that a problem? No. As we've established, plenty of heterosexual pairings cannot produce children and that is not new to history. As we've also established, there are a number of ways in which a same-sex couple may be in a parenting role for their own biological offspring or adopted children. Homosexual pairings present no exception here.

This fundamental difference you seem to think exists is actually a fundamental sameness. All that exists is a cosmetic difference.

That said, this all has little to do with why governments should recognized same-sex marriage. There are better reasons.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

mojorsing,

After repeatedly engaging your points and arguments but getting mostly no response and repetitions of the same points I already debunked, I concluded that you're almost certainly not going to start debating the matter with me rationally. I will post one more reply just in case, but I think it's time for me to leave. It's like talking to a preacher - of course, I think I'm right too, but I address your replies to me (the few you do post, anyway) and your arguments, and I would not ignore any objections to my arguments. If you were to only post those objections, instead of repeating your claims ignoring my arguments.

I think if homosexuals want to pair bond then that is new thing that society can easily tolerate. I don't see any reason why the cultural tradition of marriage needs to be hijacked and redefined to achieve this.

As it's been repeatedly pointed out, cultural traditions were widely varied, accepting different sort of relationships involving sex, and naming them with different names - some are or were legally recognized, others weren't, etc.
The word "hijacked" is just a rhetorical attack. As for "redefined", you're the one apparently trying to change the definition to exclude same-sex relationships probably already included. But I've already explained that, provided arguments and linguistic evidence, and you just ignore them, and repeat your previous claims.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

Why should we redefine "marriage" (which already includes some same-sex relationships)?
You have an agenda of restricting rights and punishing people for behaviors they shouldn't be punished for, and the redefinition seems to be part of your project.

But with race it has been demonstrated scientifically that it is just surface appearance which means there is no justification for making a distinction.

No, that has not been demonstrated scientifically. In fact, there is very little research on race, perhaps due to fear of a backlash from misguided activists, or perhaps for a lack of interest, or both, or whatever reason.
But moreover, as I already pointed out, even if it had been so demonstrated, it would not have been demonstrated until very recently, and yet before it was allegedly scientifically demonstrated, it would still have been been morally unjustified to take punitive action against interracial couples for PDAs that are accepted among same-race couples, or to ban interracial marriage, etc. But you keep ignoring the points I already made.

With homosexuals their sexual function is defective (as I and many people would view the situation) so it is not surface appearance. And this also makes it an affront to people who believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution by its definition (which has quite a lot going for it as an arguable position).

But again, that's not the point since:
a. You want to also take punitive action against gay PDA in cases in which you don't do the same with straight PDA, regardless of the sexual orientation of the gay couple. Homosexual orientation and behavior are different things, and even if there may be room for doubt about whether homosexual orientation involves some defect, it's pretty clear that in our species, homosexual behavior per se doesn't (just as, say, masturbation doesn't, and many other non-reproductive sexual behaviors don't).
b. An assumption that homosexual orientation is defective is also not based on sufficient evidence.
c. It would not matter whether their orientation is defective or not. You still would not have a good reason to ban same-sex marriage or to take punitive action against the aforementioned PDA. So, it's a moot point.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

No, clearly no one is changing the definition to "anything goes". In fact, you're the one apparently trying to change the definition to exclude same-sex relationships probably already included. But I've already explained that, provided arguments and linguistic evidence, and you just ignore them, and repeat your previous claims.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

And again, no one is suggesting redefining an existing "cultural institution" in order to make a feel-good political point, but redefining a legal term in order to stop excluding same-sex couples in an unjustified manner. But you keep repeating the same points, after I've replied to them, and ignoring the replies.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But you keep repeating the same points, after I've replied to them, and ignoring the replies.

But Angra, if he replies to you, he'll no longer be able to say that the counters to his arguments are shallow and unconvincing.

 

[Jokodo]

So marriage changes. Change it some more or give a REALY GOOD REASON why we shouldn't.

As you mentioned elsewhere, we're 'rational' creatures. Even if your history of the meaning of marriage is accurate, which I dispute, inertia is not a good reason to discriminate.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

It would have been a major redefinition as little as 60 years ago, when "husband" and "wife" were substantially different legal concept, with different sets of rights and responsibilities, where a marriage between two husbands or two wives would have led to real legal dilemmas.

But then came a serious redefinition which made it so that not only men and women in general, but also husbands and wives within a marriage, became equal before the law. From that point on (1975 in Austria, 1965 in France, and it appears 1961 in Australia to name a few, so not really long ago), "husband" and "wife" no longer referred to two distinct legal concepts, but to the same thing in legal terms. From that point on, there was nothing in the core definition of a marriage that would have made a marriage between two men, or two women, problematic, and a restriction against same-sex couples required an additional stipulation. Within this concept of marriage, there never has been a good reason for such a stipulation, so the only logical thing is to do away with it. That doesn't even qualify as a redifinition, it's just a simplification.

When the law stipulates that husband=wife, it follows that husband+husband = husband+wife = wife+wife. Barring same-sex couples within the modern concept of marriage is a glaring inconsistency.

 

[mojorising]

mojorsing,

After repeatedly engaging your points and arguments but getting mostly no response and repetitions of the same points I already debunked, I concluded that you're almost certainly not going to start debating the matter with me rationally. I will post one more reply just in case, but I think it's time for me to leave. It's like talking to a preacher - of course, I think I'm right too, but I address your replies to me (the few you do post, anyway) and your arguments, and I would not ignore any objections to my arguments. If you were to only post those objections, instead of repeating your claims ignoring my arguments.

As it's been repeatedly pointed out, cultural traditions were widely varied, accepting different sort of relationships involving sex, and naming them with different names - some are or were legally recognized, others weren't, etc.
The word "hijacked" is just a rhetorical attack. As for "redefined", you're the one apparently trying to change the definition to exclude same-sex relationships probably already included. But I've already explained that, provided arguments and linguistic evidence, and you just ignore them, and repeat your previous claims.

Why don't we simply create a new tradition and call it something else?

Why should we redefine "marriage" (which already includes some same-sex relationships)?
You have an agenda of restricting rights and punishing people for behaviors they shouldn't be punished for, and the redefinition seems to be part of your project.

But with race it has been demonstrated scientifically that it is just surface appearance which means there is no justification for making a distinction.

No, that has not been demonstrated scientifically. In fact, there is very little research on race, perhaps due to fear of a backlash from misguided activists, or perhaps for a lack of interest, or both, or whatever reason.
But moreover, as I already pointed out, even if it had been so demonstrated, it would not have been demonstrated until very recently, and yet before it was allegedly scientifically demonstrated, it would still have been been morally unjustified to take punitive action against interracial couples for PDAs that are accepted among same-race couples, or to ban interracial marriage, etc. But you keep ignoring the points I already made.

With homosexuals their sexual function is defective (as I and many people would view the situation) so it is not surface appearance. And this also makes it an affront to people who believe that marriage is a heterosexual institution by its definition (which has quite a lot going for it as an arguable position).

But again, that's not the point since:
a. You want to also take punitive action against gay PDA in cases in which you don't do the same with straight PDA, regardless of the sexual orientation of the gay couple. Homosexual orientation and behavior are different things, and even if there may be room for doubt about whether homosexual orientation involves some defect, it's pretty clear that in our species, homosexual behavior per se doesn't (just as, say, masturbation doesn't, and many other non-reproductive sexual behaviors don't).
b. An assumption that homosexual orientation is defective is also not based on sufficient evidence.
c. It would not matter whether their orientation is defective or not. You still would not have a good reason to ban same-sex marriage or to take punitive action against the aforementioned PDA. So, it's a moot point.

Changing the definition from heterosexual to 'any sexuality goes' is a very major redefinition. If you will not grant this self-evident fact I cannot really afford you as much respect as a debating opponent as I would like to.

No, clearly no one is changing the definition to "anything goes". In fact, you're the one apparently trying to change the definition to exclude same-sex relationships probably already included. But I've already explained that, provided arguments and linguistic evidence, and you just ignore them, and repeat your previous claims.

This difference is a rational argument for suggesting that a new cultural institution might be a more appropriate avenue of progress than redefining an existing one to make some feel-good political point.

And again, no one is suggesting redefining an existing "cultural institution" in order to make a feel-good political point, but redefining a legal term in order to stop excluding same-sex couples in an unjustified manner. But you keep repeating the same points, after I've replied to them, and ignoring the replies.

Angra there are many people to respond to so if I have not replied directly then it is only because i have so many other replies to deal with. I think I have replied to many of your posts.

Marriage has, for millennia, meant the union in some form another of a man and a woman. To change that to 'any 2 consenting adults' is a major revision. I have had several claims that this is not true but none of them has any merit. It is as plain as the sun rising in the east that this a major revision. I cannot respect the contorted logic that goes into the opposition to this view. It seems to be an academic exercise in political revisionism. It is tedious and disappointing.

I believe homosexuality is a developmental defect unlike race so I don't think the comparison is valid. Asking that a cultural institution be redefined to accommodate this tiny minority is going too far. Existing legislation should be reviewed on a case by case bases and an amendment made, where applicable that references to marriage also apply to homosexual unions. This would allow us to control the scope of the apportionment of rights. I believe this is a good approach because I don't think homosexuals should have equal rights of adoption compared with heterosexual married couples (yes I know various arguments have been presented against this but I don't find them convincing).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra there are many people to respond to so if I have not replied directly then it is only because i have so many other replies to deal with. I think I have replied to many of your posts.

You have replied to some of my posts, but for the most part ignoring most of their content. In the end, you ignored most of the arguments that I give as specific replies to several of your main contentions, and then just repeated the contention as if nothing happened. By now you should have realized they're unwarranted and/or false, or at least you should have come up with a reply.

Marriage has, for millennia, meant the union in some form another of a man and a woman. To change that to 'any 2 consenting adults' is a major revision. I have had several claims that this is not true but none of them has any merit. It is as plain as the sun rising in the east that this a major revision. I cannot respect the contorted logic that goes into the opposition to this view. It seems to be an academic exercise in political revisionism. It is tedious and disappointing.

This is an example.
You keep making claims like "marriage has, for millennia, meant the union in some form or another of a man and a woman".
But I already replied that you have no evidence for that. In fact, the word "marriage" has not existed for millennia. The reality is that different languages and societies had different words naming different sorts of relationships usually but not always involving sex, mostly but not entirely heterosexual.
If you have a semantic argument (about the meaning of those different words, or whatever), I would ask you to make the argument: post your linguistic evidence, or whatever it is that you have, instead of repeating the claim (or similarly worded claims) that "Marriage has, for millennia, meant the union in some form another of a man and a woman."
Now, you may say that this is "contorted logic", or say that the reply has no merit. But the reply is correct. If there is anything wrong with my logic, please explain what that is.
That aside, even if you had a semantic historical argument (maybe you can produce one; so far, I've not seen it), that would not help the policies you support; if you think otherwise, please explain why (and I already address your adoption arguments in detail, including (among other things) pointing out that gay couples are already capable of adopting in parts of Australia, no marriage needed).

You say that it is obvious that redefining "marriage" to include some gay relationships is a major revision. But my reply is that if that is so, it seems that the revision in question already happened in common usage, so you're the one attempting a major revision by trying to change it back. My evidence is how most native English speakers seem disposed to use the word "marriage". I asked you for evidence to counter that, but you didn't - you repeated the claims.

Now, it's true that it would be a change in the meaning of the legal definition of the word "marriage" in Australia to make it include some same-sex couples. But that's a matter of changing Australian law, not a matter of changing something that has been the same for thousands of years (not that it would matter, but that's not the point).

I believe homosexuality is a developmental defect unlike race so I don't think the comparison is valid. Asking that a cultural institution be redefined to accommodate this tiny minority is going too far. Existing legislation should be reviewed on a case by case bases and an amendment made, where applicable that references to marriage also apply to homosexual unions. This would allow us to control the scope of the apportionment of rights. I believe this is a good approach because I don't think homosexuals should have equal rights of adoption compared with heterosexual married couples (yes I know various arguments have been presented against this but I don't find them convincing).

But again, you're repeating the same claims, with slightly different wording. I already gave replies to them. Repeating your claims is not a way of rationally discussing the matter.
For example (just for example, because I addressed the rest of the claims you made above), I explained the difference between homosexual behavior and orientation, said the former is almost certainly not a defect, and in the case of the latter, you don't know that it is, but it would not be relevant to the key policy and moral matters at hand, and again explained my objections. If you presented a counterargument, well that's a debate and/or discussion. But you instead repeat the same claims. That's not a debate or discussion.
If you're interested in a serious discussion of the matter, I already offered my arguments, evidence, etc., and I'm willing to consider your counter arguments or evidence fairly, if you were to present any - but if you just repeat your claims, there isn't much I can do.
I'm also willing to discuss or debate the arguments one by one, if you want a more focused debate - I suggested repeatedly that you start threads in the relevant subforums depending on the argument you want to make; for example, a linguistic argument might go in general philosophy. The adoption arguments would go better in the subforum for moral discussions, and so on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do note, Mojo, that despite several people identifying you as a homophobe and a bigot, you're still here and still preaching for discrimination.

It seems to me that most of the people who share your feelings, among them disdain for political correctness, aren't really afraid of being labeled that way.
Not as long as they can dismiss the label as 'that's just the PC talking.'

I know that most of the racists i've met are really slick at trying to present their racism as something scientific or logical or socially necessary. They don't like to be called 'racists,' but a fear of the term doesn't stop them in the slightest from sharing their views. "No, i'm no racist," they say rather easily, "but it just seems obvious that water and oil don't mix."

I think it's quite clear that if the MAJORITY felt they had a problem with gay marriage equality, then the majority would express their concerns, however obliquely, and the PC labeling would be laughed at, like PETA's efforts to call fish sea-kittens or something equally foolish. And they'd support any champion of their views, if only to make it more legitimate.

The RCC is, as always, vehemently anti-gay, but you don't hear a lot of people saying, "Now i'm no Catholic, but maybe they have a point."

If the majority was really, really as against gay marriage equality as you insist, that's what i'd expect to see. Oodles not accepting EVERYTHING the RCC has to say, but certainly cautioning us all to listen to the ones with the balls to be vocal about it.

Your claims just don't match reality, mojo.

 

[mojorising]

I do note, Mojo, that despite several people identifying you as a homophobe and a bigot...

That is a subjective assessment.

I would say that homophobes would not be advocating the level of support and protection for homosexuals that I am advocating.

I view homosexuality a certain way. You view it a different way. We don't really know what homosexuality is though so either of us could be right. Until we do know I advocate a circumspect but humane and supportive treatment of the condition.

...you're still here and still preaching for discrimination.

I am not preaching. All I hear in the media at the moment is how 'its just a matter of time' before marriage is changed to include homosexual partnerships. I think that is not a true reflection of the majority's true feelings on the subject but I think people fear voicing any opposition precisely because they fear this politically correct branding of them as 'homphobes' and 'bigots' when there are perfectly good reasons to be a little more cautious about this issue than the media frenzy would suggest.

You say that it is obvious that redefining "marriage" to include some gay relationships is a major revision. But my reply is that if that is so, it seems that the revision in question already happened in common usage, so you're the one attempting a major revision by trying to change it back. My evidence is how most native English speakers seem disposed to use the word "marriage". I asked you for evidence to counter that, but you didn't - you repeated the claims.

I think the majority of society has accepted that homosexual unions are things that are worthy of legitimate support. I don't think the majority of society views homosexual partnerships as 'the same thing' as marriage. I am not sure what 'evidence' you want me to present, that is just my gut feeling about the status quo.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I do note, Mojo, that despite several people identifying you as a homophobe and a bigot...

That is a subjective assessment.

And there's my point! Instantly!
You say the majority is being silent, out of fear of being labeled, but you don't care about the label as long as you can dismiss it, one way or another.

I would say that homophobes would not be advocating the level of support and protection for homosexuals that I am advocating.

Homophobia is not a goal, it's a motivation. You've offered no rational justification for treating homosexuals as being diseased, a threat to society, unfit as parents, or disgusting to display their affection in public. It's all about how 'odd' they are and how offended you are.
An irrational response to someone being different. So, yeah, you present as a homophobe.

I view homosexuality a certain way. You view it a different way. We don't really know what homosexuality is though so either of us could be right.

Actually, no.
I don't give a rat's ass about what causes homosexuality. I'm motivated by being civilized towards human beings.

Until we do know I advocate a circumspect but humane and supportive treatment of the condition.

Just not a fair approach to the people who have the condition.

...you're still here and still preaching for discrimination.

I am not preaching.

You have little to no ARGUMENT, you just keep asserting things to be true, or could be true, or one day will prove to be true. That's preaching.
And you keep repeating your claims and ignoring counter-evidence.
Or dismissing counter evidence without actually engaging it and pointing out any issues.

Preaching.

All I hear in the media at the moment is how 'its just a matter of time' before marriage is changed to include homosexual partnerships. I think that is not a true reflection of the majority's true feelings on the subject but I think people fear voicing any opposition precisely because they fear this politically correct branding of them as 'homphobes' and 'bigots' when there are perfectly good reasons to be a little more cautious about this issue than the media frenzy would suggest.

You aren't offering any perfectly good reasons. Just fear and pseudoscience and discomfort.

But again, there's no evidence the majority WOULD side with you if only, gosh, those nasty PC people weren't going to call them names they don't care about....