Gay marriage in Australia

[Keith&Co.]

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

Can't?
Don't be like that, mojo.
I haven't said the words, don't jump to the conclusion that I cannot.

I would not give a couple a preference based ONLY on their sexuality.
I would not place a child with a hetero couple ONLY to keep the kid out of a gay couple's household.
In this case, if everything else is equal, i'd probably give the kid to whichever couple has been on the list for longer.
Basing the choice on their sexuality makes no more sense to me than based on whichever couple has the sharpest chins.

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.

No, it isn't true.
And as I was pointing out, you made it a crucial detail for discussion in the judge's chambers.

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 have no idea how easily sex comes up in my modern western office environment.
It may be the influence of our large density of former submarine sailors, but the women in the office have risen to the challenge and can be exactly as raunchy as their peers.

So, once more, you're talking out your ass about some fantasy world. Or maybe _A_ real world, but not one that applies all the time in all situations to all people, despite the broadness of the brush you're using.

You would quickly be up in front of HR for making other people (probably a woman) feel uncomfortable and rightly so I would say.

The last four people in our office that went to HR were fighting about why someone got the corner office.
And it was about seniority vs. value to the project, not the gender or sexuality of the candidate.

The discussion of how many people the eventual winner 'blew' to get the office included men and women. And the person who got the office. Bit of a braggart, really.

 

[mojorising]

Humans do not use sex as a general purpose social activity

Of course we do.

Hey Dystopian, can you give me an example of when you, as a human, would use actual physical sexual interaction as a general purpose social activity like a Bonobo? i.e. not in private and not with your partner, if you have one.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Who would cater a marriage between two halves of our species? Where would we find a reception hall to hold 7 billion people?

Did you maybe MEAN to say 'representatives' of two halves of the species?

Can you read your actual words or do you just see what you MEANT to say?

 

[Rhea]

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.

You have not made any convincing statement, description or projection about what actual harm might befall us. It would be easy to do, of course, by comparing countries where homosexuality is open and accepted (e.g. Netherlands) with one where it is absolutely prohibited from public sight (Saudi Arabia) and make an argument to us why you think the one society is better than the other.

Go ahead...

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.

What? Yes it is everywhere. You have never held your wife's hand in public? Didn't kiss her at your wedding? Don't introduce your kids as "your" kids? Do you always tell couples making out on romantic moonlit bridges to "get a room"? Did your wife wear white at your wedding as a symbol of her sexual state?

Do you wear your hair short to show your gender? Does your wife wear female-gendered clothing to demonstrate that she has a vagina?

Do we not split bathrooms by gender because of the sexuality that we think is important to publicly acknowledge?

It is EVERYWHERE. Sex, sexuality, sexual activity, it is EVERYWHERE in public.

Sexuality is certainly not a subject for public street demonstrations.

You have never seen the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders in a parade? Never seen a city mayor put her arm around her husband in the convertible at the head of the parade? Never seen planned parenthood making a demonstration?

There is none so blind as he that will not see...

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.

Oh, you think the whole discrimination problem is totally over, huh? You don't think being denied the right of parenthood over your children is a "harsh punishment"?

Really?

You say there are no more harsh punishments, yet you are seeking to rip their children from their arms. You have weird definitions of words.

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

I am pro EQUALITY in marriage. I'm not one side or the other, I am pro both (all) sides. I think marriage is a good stabilizer in a society. I think childrearing with two parents forming a legally protective barrier for children is a good stabilizer for society. Not perfect, but it helps.

I think the gender of the parents has absolutely ZERO to do with that stability. Shouldn't we focus on drugs and poverty, instead? They are actual known risks.

Your use of the term, "the rest of the pro-homosexual marriage crew" reveals your rather odd view that this is binary, zero sum, one must be against the heteros if one is for the homos. And that's just so far off base it's not even close enough to be called wrong. It's just... frou frou or something. What is that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

actual physical sexual interaction

You said 'sex' before. Now you're specifying something different.
Spin, much?

 

[mojorising]

It may be the influence of our large density of former submarine sailors, but the women in the office have risen to the challenge and can be exactly as raunchy as their peers.

The discussion of how many people the eventual winner 'blew' to get the office included men and women. And the person who got the office. Bit of a braggart, really.

Well that sounds pretty strange to me and I also work with a lot of ex-military, but in an office environment.

Discussing sex features frequently in corporate HR guides on behaviour that is not acceptable in an office environment and I would agree with those sentiments.

 

[dystopian]

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

If you think that someone writing that marriage is between two individuals regardless of gender would cause that someone to either smirk or blush about it then you must live in some sort of ultra-victorian fantasy world where literary descriptions of female ankles cause men to spontaneously ejeculate.

I mean seriously, what the fuck?

I'm sure both Jokodo and me can write, without any blushing or smirking involved, things about sex that would make your head explode. Is that what you want us to do? Because that's what we'll do if you keep this up.

 

[mojorising]

actual physical sexual interaction

You said 'sex' before. Now you're specifying something different.
Spin, much?

How would you distinguish those 2 things Keith?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

Right, this is what I'm asking. If these differences are an actual factor as opposed to simply a theoretical potential factor then the reams of data collected from dozens of studies over the past few decades looking into the exact question of differences in child development in hetero and homosexual marriages would bear out some results supporting this. Since those studies have been done, there's no need have a discussion about vague potential theories, but one can have a discussion based on actual data.

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions? We live in the age of Google, so none of need to engage in vague guesswork when others have already done the legwork and published the results.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The last four people in our office that went to HR were fighting about why someone got the corner office.
And it was about seniority vs. value to the project, not the gender or sexuality of the candidate.

Well that sounds pretty strange to me and I also work with a lot of ex-military, but in an office environment.

What 'but?' I'm in a cubicle farm.
And it may be strange to you, sure.
It may be completely unlike your office.
But that's the point. You're trying to apply your personal anecdotes as the produce of evolution and wired into the entire species.
It doesn't work that way, there are oodles of exceptions to every rule you try to come up with and they don't matter a damn, anyway.

Discussing sex features frequently in corporate HR guides on behaviour that is not acceptable in an office environment and I would agree with those sentiments.

Fine.
Agree or disagree.

Just stop pretending that YOUR views and experiences matter a hill of beans to anyone else in the world and/or should be the basis of legislation.

 

[Rhea]

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

A definition based on knowledge as shallow as a flat earth. We've learned so much since then about what we are capable of, what "norms" can force on us contrary to our actual capabilities. Do you WANT to stay stuck in the stone age of evolution? WHY?

Also, evidence suggests that in the stone age and beyond, female hunter/warrior classes definitely existed. Religion tried to stamp them out in the bronze age, and apparently you bought that tripe... but as a species, woman and men have always been able to interchange roles.

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.

ruuuuuuuuubish! My mother is as emotionally nurturing as a turnip. My father who had autism(!) was more empathetic than my mother was or is.

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.

You are stuck in this bronze-age contrived cage that prevents you from seeing the broad spectrum of humanity. Marriage between two people is something special. Any two consenting adult can form this wonderful complementary partnership that benefits kids.

Here's the kicker. YOU would prevent a father of his natural born child from finding a mate and raising that child as a pair. The gay man is NOT going to just go marry a woman to get a female for his kid. Instead he will be single, giving that child less protection in life.

And you desire this.

Do you really think the child will benefit from your inflexibility? You really think a single gay parent is better than two gay parents?

This is what you are proposing. Either you force the children of gays to live in single family households or... wait, you haven't answered this question yet, is you plan to actually rip these children from their fathers' arms and give them to some other family taht you think is better?

Really? You're going there? Steal the children?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You said 'sex' before. Now you're specifying something different.
Spin, much?

How would you distinguish those 2 things Keith?

Well, you just did.
You didn't like the answers you got about public sex and narrowed it down to physical sexual interaction.

Think about why you did that, you can probably derive my answer.

 

[mojorising]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

No, you're not. This is something that anyone who knows children of homosexual unions can tell you and anyone who's ever done or read a study on the matter can tell you. You have a theory and the other side has data. When theory and data conflict, data wins every time.

 

[mojorising]

How would you distinguish those 2 things Keith?

Well, you just did.
You didn't like the answers you got about public sex and narrowed it down to physical sexual interaction.

Think about why you did that, you can probably derive my answer.

You could treat me as a special needs poster Keith. No I genuinely cannot derive your answer.

Sex is a subject that can be alluded to obliquely in advertising and such but it is not a subject for everyday casual chit chat and sex itself, as an activity, is almost exclusively private.

 

[Rhea]

Of course we do.

Hey Dystopian, can you give me an example of when you, as a human, would use actual physical sexual interaction as a general purpose social activity like a Bonobo? i.e. not in private and not with your partner, if you have one.

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.

actual discussion in my workplace

me (I'm female, the Boss' peer but sort of his boss): look I am asking you to make some changes to improve the atmosphere around here. We need you guys to work as a team,

Boss (he's male): What do you want me to do? I am not going to walk around here sucking their dicks to make them happy, I've got a job to do.

me: Can you just lick them a little? Maybe stroke their butts from time to time? We've got a behavioral crisis here and you're the boss and you need to be the one to make the first change....

this is a little on the extreme side because it's a shop environment, but it is not out of the norm.

 

[Jokodo]

What is the data that supports your assertion that the children from heterosexual unions benefit from that unique fabric over the children from homosexual unions?

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

That's another way of saying "I am god's messenger, the truth has been revealed through and anyone who doesn't agree is willfully ignorant and rebellious and will BURN IN HELL", right?

Because if you actually were arguing on the basis of evidence, you could point us to that evidence rather than just claiming that it exists.

 

[mojorising]

I am making the argument on the basis of evidence that is as plain as day to anybody who lives on planet earth and is a human being with powers of perception and understanding of what they see in front of them, not on the basis of empirical analysis of historical data.

No, you're not. This is something that anyone who knows children of homosexual unions can tell you and anyone who's ever done or read a study on the matter can tell you. You have a theory and the other side has data. When theory and data conflict, data wins every time.

Yes, I am.

I am making the argument based on my observations of the world around me and my reading on the evolutionary biology that is the cause of the nature of human beings, both men and women. You can claim that there are studies that undermine my arguments but that is still the basis of my argument.

 

[Rhea]

You could treat me as a special needs poster Keith. No I genuinely cannot derive your answer.

But you think you're qualified to evaluate the parenting capabilities of complete strangers numbering in the millions with a single all-encompassing sentence?

How do you pronounce "Hubris" where you're from?

 

[mojorising]

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.

actual discussion in my workplace
me (I'm female, the Boss' peer but sort of his boss): look I am asking you to make some changes to improve the atmosp[here around here. We need you guys to work as a team,
Boss (he's male): What do you want me to do? I am not going to walk around here sucking their dicks to make them happy, I've got a job to do.
me: Can you just lick them a little? Maybe stroke their butts from time to time? We've got a behavioral crisis here and you're the boss and you need to be the one to make the first change....

this is a little on the extreme side because it's a shop environment, but it is not out of the norm.

Well I think the fella would be in some trouble in any office in Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra if he used the term 'sucking dick' to a female colleague within audible range of a group in a large office in any large blue-chip organisation.