Gay marriage in Australia

[dystopian]

Sexuality is a private business.

Why? Because you say so? You don't get to dictate such things to society at large.

Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity

Of course we do.

and it is not discussed in polite company (e.g. very risky subject to get into at work).

You mean it's not discussed in whatever backwater you're from. Not all cultures consist of prudes like you.

Sexuality is not a suitable subject for public street demonstrations.

I strongly disagree. It is an *awesome* subject for public street demonstrations.

 

[dystopian]

You know; in my country we have prominent political leaders of the Christian Democrats participating in Amsterdam's annual Gay Canal Parade as a way of showing their support and solidarity with their fellow countrymen even though their religion condemns homosexuality.

If THEY can accept gay marriage and public street (canal) demonstrations of sexuality... why the hell can't a self-proclaimed anti-theist do the same?

 

[mojorising]

Not an answer to how this affects, harms, or does any fucking thing TO YOU>

It does not affect me directly to any great degree but I am concerned for the welfare of society in general and the direction of development of western civilisation more than just my own personal well-being.

Where the fuck do you live, a monastery?
Sex is EVERYWHERE.

Keith, sex is not a public thing for the human species. It is generally carried out privately between 2 adults when nobody else can see them.

Do you have sex with your wife in the shopping mall? No, because sex is a private thing. There are good evolutionary reasons why sex is private for a complex social species like humans.

Yes, sex is a private matter. But hiding their sexuality hasn´t worked for gay rights in the past. It´s not like they haven´t tried. And by trying to deny them their equal rights you´re just encouraging them. Once they´ve got equal rights and social acceptance I promise you all the gay pride activities will stop.

Sexuality is certainly not a subject for public street demonstrations. It is many years since persecution of homosexuals was not punished harshly by the law so maybe homosexuality should grow up a little bit and put the gay pride parades to bed.

You do notice that right here, you're making the sexuality of both couples a matter of public discussion in polite company?

I am not having a street parade I am discussing it in a forum with other adults.

I don't. Why should one of the get a preference based on such an irrelevant factor?

Thank you for your candour Tom. Any more answers from the rest of the pro-homosexual marriage crew?

 

[Sajara]

Quick question for you Angra (maybe this should be a separate thread though)

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 couples applying for adoption rights. One of the couples was a heterosexual couple. The other couple was a male homosexual couple. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each couple.

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

Can you admit to yourself at least that you are a bigot?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't. Why should one of the get a preference based on such an irrelevant factor?

Thank you for your candour Tom. Any more answers from the rest of the pro-homosexual marriage crew?

You make it sound like you don't think it's an irrelevant factor. Given the decades worth of data about adoptions by homosexual couples which you have available to you, what is it that makes you conclude that it should be a more relevant factor than hair colour in determining preference for adoptions?

 

[Sajara]

It does not affect me directly to any great degree but I am concerned for the welfare of society in general and the direction of development of western civilisation more than just my own personal well-being.

The rest of society disagrees with you and has actual reasons why, unlike you. There, we done?

Keith, sex is not a public thing for the human species. It is generally carried out privately between 2 adults when nobody else can see them.

Except when it isn't. Or when it is in movies or on TV. Or when we talk about it at the water cooler. Or when it is the ONLY thing that is talked about in highschool. Or when there are heterosexual festivals with sex in the open. Or the porn industry. Or orgies.

Do you have sex with your wife in the shopping mall? No, because sex is a private thing. There are good evolutionary reasons why sex is private for a complex social species like humans.

Never in the shopping mall. A theater yes. In a park yes. Had a three-some once in college. Sex is not a private thing, no matter how much you think it is.

Sexuality is certainly not a subject for public street demonstrations. It is many years since persecution of homosexuals was not punished harshly by the law so maybe homosexuality should grow up a little bit and put the gay pride parades to bed.

It might shock you that heterosexuals have public sex street demonstrations too...

 

[Keith&Co.]

It does not affect me directly to any great degree but I am concerned for the welfare of society in general and the direction of development of western civilisation more than just my own personal well-being.

'Kay, great, thanks for answering the question.

Where the fuck do you live, a monastery?
Sex is EVERYWHERE.

Keith, sex is not a public thing for the human species.

A basic theory of Hollywood as described by a successful actress (I think it was Kathleen Turner): Women have tits and men want to see them.

We use sex to sell beer.
We use sex to sell watches.
We at least once used sex to fight forest fires.
Movies abound that are about sex, sexual hangups, the pursuit of sex, the regret of sex, the dearth of sex....

It is generally carried out privately between 2 adults when nobody else can see them.

But talked about constantly.
Everywhere.

Do you have sex with your wife in the shopping mall?

Well, you refer to public displays of affection as public displays of homosexuality...

So, yes, we display our sexuality in public. We hold hands, we carry our children, we pay for condoms, I've purchased feminine hygiene products... If you're going to blur the distinction between sex and sexuality, then it all counts.
Anyone watching me knows my sexuality and that I've had sex.
With a woman.

No, because sex is a private thing.

No, because usually the air conditioning in the supermarket is set pretty low.

There are good evolutionary reasons why sex is private for a complex social species like humans.

Bullshit. Evolution doesn't care about private or public sex.

 

[Sajara]

Thank you for your candour Tom. Any more answers from the rest of the pro-homosexual marriage crew?

You make it sound like you don't think it's an irrelevant factor. Given the decades worth of data about adoptions by homosexual couples which you have available to you, what is it that makes you conclude that it should be a more relevant factor than hair colour in determining preference for adoptions?

My brother says it is because men and women bring different traits to the table when raising a child. When I press him on it, he says something about women are more emotionally nurturing. When I further press him and ask him who was our more emotionally nurturing parent, our father or mother, he shuts up.

While my mother was certainly emotionally nurturing, my father was certainly more so. My mother's family (much like my wife's family) didn't really hug or kiss each-other. My father's family did. After years of marriage, my mother's family started kissing/hugging eachother.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You make it sound like you don't think it's an irrelevant factor. Given the decades worth of data about adoptions by homosexual couples which you have available to you, what is it that makes you conclude that it should be a more relevant factor than hair colour in determining preference for adoptions?

My brother says it is because men and women bring different traits to the table when raising a child. When I press him on it, he says something about women are more emotionally nurturing. When I further press him and ask him who was our more emotionally nurturing parent, our father or mother, he shuts up.

While my mother was certainly emotionally nurturing, my father was certainly more so. My mother's family (much like my wife's family) didn't really hug or kiss each-other. My father's family did. After years of marriage, my mother's family started kissing/hugging eachother.

But does "more emotionally nurturing" actually mean anything concrete and has it been measured scientifically? I get the feeling that "more emotionally nurturing" means absolutely nothing. It´s like some 50´ies myth about a woman in a flowery dress that we project with full force, without reflecting about it. My mother was also about as emotionally nurturing as a small pile of bricks.

 

[Sajara]

My point exactly Dr. Z.

 

[mojorising]

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

Men are evolved as competitive hunter gatherers with skills at aggression and confrontation and ability withstand pressure under hostility and also physical strength. They are good at leading physical activities in the family unit like sports and horseplay.

Women are evolved as natural care-givers, home-makers and child rearers. They are better at empathising with others and better at consoling children who are struggling to learn the ropes at the beginning of life and they are good at nursing very young children. This is not social conditioning it is evolved in their genes.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You do notice that right here, you're making the sexuality of both couples a matter of public discussion in polite company?

I am not having a street parade I am discussing it in a forum with other adults.

But you're saying it's a matter for discussion in assessing who gets a child.
And you did not specify 'with other adults' before. You just said it's not for public discussion, then list a point where it's got to be discussed in public.

If a single male wants to adopt a kid and you ask if he's gay, and he says, 'that's not any of your business, it's a private matter' would you give him the kid?

 

[mojorising]

'Kay, great, thanks for answering the question.

No worries Keith.

How about answering mine?

If an orphaned baby boy was available for adoption and there were 2 couples applying for adoption rights. One of the couples was a heterosexual couple. The other couple was a male homosexual couple. All factors regarding income and accommodation and career background and criminal checks were the same for each couple.

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

 

[mojorising]

You just said it's not for public discussion

Total rubbish Keith. I said it is not a suitable subject for public street demonstrations.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

Men are evolved as competitive hunter gatherers with skills at aggression and confrontation and ability withstand pressure under hostility and also physical strength. They are good at leading physical activities in the family unit like sports and horseplay.

Women are evolved as natural care-givers, home-makers and child rearers. They are better at empathising with others and better at consoling children who are struggling to learn the ropes at the beginning of life and they are good at nursing very young children. This is not social conditioning it is evolved in their genes.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

But we haven´t evolved for marriage. Human pair-bonding is extremely tenuous. If we had evolved for life long twosome pairbondings we would stop trying to get action on the side, the moment we got married. That doesn´t happen. Philandering is very very common. No species is capable of behaviour not natural for its species. That´s just fact.

We have evolved for social interaction within groups of about 35-40 individuals and communal hunting and communal raising of children. The modern nuclear married family is exactly as unnatural as married gays. There is no difference at all in the level of naturalness.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Except when it's not a special relationship, when one of the halves (or one of the fifths) is essentially a slave. Or a rape victim following a raid.
Or a war bride from the vanquished foe.

Your 'cultural tradition' is a lie, stop flogging it.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

And exactly where does any single traditional marriage definition mention 'evolution,' mojo?
You're talking out your ass.

Men are evolved as competitive hunter gatherers with skills at aggression and confrontation and ability withstand pressure under hostility and also physical strength. They are good at leading physical activities in the family unit like sports and horseplay.

What a load of horsecrap.

Women are evolved as natural care-givers, home-makers and child rearers. They are better at empathising with others and better at consoling children who are struggling to learn the ropes at the beginning of life and they are good at nursing very young children. This is not social conditioning it is evolved in their genes.

Dude, you can't even identify the gay gene, yet.
How in the fuck are you going to identify the empathizing gene?

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Dude, even Disney doesn't try this hard to make fantasy worlds.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you think preference should be given to the heterosexual applicants?

Gosh, Mojo, I thought it would have been obvious by now what my answer would be.
I think preference should be given to whichever couple can curl their tongues.
Or, no, wait. The right handed ones.

Oh! No, no! I remember, now. You have each of the parents try to fold their thumbs back as far as they can. The ones that can fold it the farthest are the bigger liars. Don't give them the kids.
This is an important trait. My dad can just about fold his thumbs back far enough to touch his wrists and NEVER, ever play that bastard at cards.

- - - Updated - - -

You just said it's not for public discussion

Total rubbish Keith. I said it is not a suitable subject for public street demonstrations.

Total rubbish? you never said, "Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity and it is not discussed in polite company?"
You're going to go on record with that?

 

[Jokodo]

Marriage as traditionally defined, being between a man and a woman, is a special partnership between 2 complimentary halves of a sexually reproducing species.

Marriage has never been between two halves of the species. It's always been between two individuals, or a slightly higher number of individuals, or often times just as importantly between two families.

Each of these halves brings special qualities to the partnership due the pronounced differences in the way the men and women have evolved as physically and emotionally different creatures with distinct goals and distinct natural skill-sets.

Men are evolved as competitive hunter gatherers with skills at aggression and confrontation and ability withstand pressure under hostility and also physical strength. They are good at leading physical activities in the family unit like sports and horseplay.

Women are evolved as natural care-givers, home-makers and child rearers. They are better at empathising with others and better at consoling children who are struggling to learn the ropes at the beginning of life and they are good at nursing very young children. This is not social conditioning it is evolved in their genes.

Together a man and a woman bring a varied skill-set which is woven together to form the beginning of the family unit. The children that may come from this union benefit from this unique fabric.

Those are, at best, trends. They would be relevant if you were, literally, marrying two halves of the species, but not when you're marrying individuals. Unless you also want to ban marriages between a man and a woman where either is showing behaviour that you deem insufficiently prototypical of their respective gender on the grounds that they're not complementing each other as a marriage should. There's any number of heterosexual couples out there where the man is the primary home-maker because his threshold for being bothered by the mess is lower than hers. There's any number of couples out there where the woman does the horseplay. Those may not be typical, but they exist, and your argument leads to the conclusion that they shouldn't be allowed to exist. On the other hand, your argument also seems to lead to the conclusion that marriages between two men should be allowed if and only if they undergo psychological testing and the result shows one of them to be sufficiently effeminate in character. If that's the position you're defending, you haven't been very clear.

Marriage between a man and a woman means something special.

What you're talking about is not the marriage between concrete men and women, it's the marriage between your platonic ideal of a woman and your platonic ideal of a man. A huge number of heterosexual marriages don't fit the cast.

Pro-tip: If your arguments against gay marriages lead to the logical conclusion that a substantial number of heterosexual marriages are also out, they're not arguments against gay marriage.

 

[mojorising]

Gosh, Mojo, I thought it would have been obvious by now what my answer would be.
I think preference should be given to whichever couple can curl their tongues.
Or, no, wait. The right handed ones.

Right Keith, so you can joke about it but you can't bring yourself to actually say it.

Total rubbish? you never said, "Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity and it is not discussed in polite company?"
You're going to go on record with that?

...It is not discussed in polite company.

yes, that is true. You would be very brave/foolish to start having a discussion about your sex life or even sex in general in an office environment in the modern west. You would quickly be up in front of HR for making other people (probably a woman) feel uncomfortable and rightly so I would say.

 

[mojorising]

Marriage has never been between two halves of the species. It's always been between two individuals

Do you even believe what you write? Can you even read your own words without smirking or blushing?

Those are, at best, trends. They would be relevant if you were, literally, marrying two halves of the species, but not when you're marrying individuals.

They are statements about the median vales for respective characteristic traits that each sex brings to the marriage. Yes, they are not true of every single marriage but they are still generally true.

What you're talking about is not the marriage between concrete men and women, it's the marriage between your platonic ideal of a woman and your platonic ideal of a man. A huge number of heterosexual marriages don't fit the cast.

If that is true then 'a huge number' * 100 do fit the cast. i.e. this is generally true even if not true in every single case.