Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms.

That is a good point.

Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women?

Is there any real need to have separate bathrooms?

It is just a social convention because we recognise the fundamental difference between men and women.

The legal institution of marriage also recognises this fundamental difference in the terms of its traditional definition as being a partnership of one of each sex.

Creating new legal and social structures to cater for the pair bonding needs of homosexuals is an entirely reasonable solution. It is not bigotry it is just a simple recognition of a factual difference.

 

[Jokodo]

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms.

That is a good point.

Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women?

Is there any real need to have separate bathrooms?

It is just a social convention because we recognise the fundamental difference between men and women.

The legal institution of marriage also recognises this fundamental difference in the terms of its traditional definition as being a partnership of one of each sex.

Creating new legal and social structures to cater for the pair bonding needs of homosexuals is an entirely reasonable solution. It is not bigotry it is just a simple recognition of a factual difference.

Have you ever been in a men's bathroom? It's a place where men partially undress in front of each other.

Your analogy would only be valid if married couples were required to have sex in front of other married couples. You'll be disappointed to hear that the biannual prove-your-marriage-is-still-intact day where all married couples congregate in the town hall to, well, the name says it all, doesn't exist. If it did - and only if it did - you would actually have a point that homosexual couples marrying affects heterosexuals.

 

[cycomiko]

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms.

The legal institution of marriage also recognises this fundamental difference in the terms of its traditional definition as being a partnership of one of each sex.

Creating new legal and social structures to cater for the pair bonding needs of homosexuals is an entirely reasonable solution. It is not bigotry it is just a simple recognition of a factual difference.

Legally, what would that difference be? How would your new system differ from the current system?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms.

That is a good point.

Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women?

Because women look really silly using a urinal.

Is there any real need to have separate bathrooms?

Well, we don't at home. Or at the gas station on the corner.
But at the mall, they have men's, women's and families.

It is just a social convention because we recognise the fundamental difference between men and women.

Now., bring that around to why these fundamental differences have a legal significance, if you can?

The legal institution of marriage also recognises this fundamental difference in the terms of its traditional definition as being a partnership of one of each sex.

Broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record, broken record,

Creating new legal and social structures to cater for the pair bonding needs of homosexuals is an entirely reasonable solution. It is not bigotry it is just a simple recognition of a factual difference.

Some of them pee standing up. Okay.
Why is this a reason to restrict them from legally allowing them to marry? What legal significance is there if both people standing on the altar can write their names in the snow?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What legal significance is there if both people standing on the altar can write their names in the snow?

Could be a contract law issue if this is how they decide to sign the marriage certificate.

 

[bilby]

Or having male, female and colored bathrooms.

That is a good point.

Why do we have separate bathrooms for men and women?

Is there any real need to have separate bathrooms?

It is just a social convention because we recognise the fundamental difference between men and women.

The legal institution of marriage also recognises this fundamental difference in the terms of its traditional definition as being a partnership of one of each sex.

Creating new legal and social structures to cater for the pair bonding needs of homosexuals is an entirely reasonable solution. It is not bigotry it is just a simple recognition of a factual difference.

There is nothing fundamental about separate bathroom facilities for men and women.

There are plenty of places where this convention is not in place; go to Belgium, and it is quite common for restaurants and bars to have one room, with both stalls and a urinal, for use by everyone.

 

[Jokodo]

The fun thing is that the only one really trying to redefine marriage is the homophobes (like mojorising and TSwizzle). All their arguments presented so far boil down to one of the following:

1. Gay sex is yucky because it may involve anal penetration, which is again yucky because feces.
2. Gay sex doesn't produce children.
3. Gay couples don't complement each other the way a man and a woman do.

Now, no modern definition of marriage in any Western country includes either (1) how the people involved are doing their sex, (2) children as a necessary condition, or (3) different legal roles for husband and the wife.

In order for you objections to be even worthy of consideration, you first have to, wait for it, redefine marriage.

 

[Rhea]

The fun thing is that the only one really trying to redefine marriage is the homophobes (like mojorising and TSwizzle). All their arguments presented so far boil down to one of the following:

1. Gay sex is yucky because it may involve anal penetration, which is again yucky because feces.
2. Gay sex doesn't produce children.
3. Gay couples don't complement each other the way a man and a woman do.

It really is fun watching them do flips and twists and all kinds of rhythmic mental gymnastics to argue that their own personal porn preferences are a reason to deny marriage to complete strangers.

It's downright incoherent.

Now, no modern definition of marriage in any Western country includes either (1) how the people involved are doing their sex, (2) children as a necessary condition, or (3) different legal roles for husband and the wife.

In order for you objections to be even worthy of consideration, you first have to, wait for it, redefine marriage.

Ding ding ding.


But but but!!! it doesn't match my porn! You must validate my porn by saying no one else likes anything different. Do it! or I'll feel funny!

 

[mojorising]

3. Gay couples don't complement each other the way a man and a woman do.

That is true and essentially the crux of the matter. It is symbolic of the natural order of the world that a male and female are a complimentary pair. It flies in the face of what feels right and natural to equate homosexual partnerships with this.

We are a mature and inclusive society now and we recognise homosexuality as part of life. As a mature and inclusive society the onus is on us to find ways of including homosexuality and the needs of homosexuals into the structure and culture of society.

While all of this is true it does not require us to redefine marriage into some kind of parody of itself by including homosexual partnerships.

The creation of new cultural and legal structures to accommodate the recently accepted behaviour of homosexuals is the appropriate and balanced approach.

The redefinition of marriage is a social folly that is cringe-worthy in its fawning political correctness. Open your eyes and recognise homosexuality for what it is: An unfortunate, but now socially acceptable, sexual orientation deserving of legal support and social acceptance within certain limits. That is all it is.

 

[Jokodo]

3. Gay couples don't complement each other the way a man and a woman do.

That is true and essentially the crux of the matter.

Bad thing for you is that the modern legal definition of marriage isn't two complementary halves with distinct roles, it is (and has been for decades) two equal partners. So whatever pseudoarguments for discrimination you're going to bring up, you have to keep in mind that you're the one who's trying to change the definition.

It is symbolic of the natural order of the world that a male and female are a complimentary pair.

Whether or not that's true, and whatever it even means, it's irrelevant. The purpose of marriage isn't to be "symbolic of the natural order of the world", it is to help two people who choose to do so to build a life together. Your argument only works if we first redefine marriage

It flies in the face of what feels right and natural to equate homosexual partnerships with this.

What feels right to you. If you have any reason for us to accept you as the final arbiter on all things sexual, you're hiding it will.

We are a mature and inclusive society now and we recognise homosexuality as part of life. As a mature and inclusive society the onus is on us to find ways of including homosexuality and the needs of homosexuals into the structure and culture of society.

While all of this is true it does not require us to redefine marriage into some kind of parody of itself by including homosexual partnerships.

The creation of new cultural and legal structures to accommodate the recently accepted behaviour of homosexuals is the appropriate and balanced approach.

The redefinition of marriage is a social folly that is cringe-worthy in its fawning political correctness. Open your eyes and recognise homosexuality for what it is: An unfortunate, but now socially acceptable, sexual orientation deserving of legal support and social acceptance within certain limits. That is all it is.

Vacuous repetitive preaching. If you have any arguments, bring'em on already!

 

[Keith&Co.]

3. Gay couples don't complement each other the way a man and a woman do.

That is true and essentially the crux of the matter.

And why is it a legal requirement for couples to complement each other?
IS it a legal requirement?

It is symbolic of the natural order of the world that a male and female are a complimentary pair. It flies in the face of what feels right and natural to equate homosexual partnerships with this.

Um, bullshit?
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

SOME couples i've seen have complementary traits, some do not. Some overlap quite a bit, too much for me to be comfortable in such a relationship. There's hardly any differences between them.

NO one polices married couples to see to it that they are and remain a complementary pair.
Nothing in any law i know of requires that at least one of a married couple be a nurturer, or that one of them be a disciplinarian.

We are a mature and inclusive society now and we recognise homosexuality as part of life. As a mature and inclusive society the onus is on us to find ways of including homosexuality and the needs of homosexuals into the structure and culture of society.

Kind words, but rather meaningless once your true agenda is known, really.

While all of this is true it does not require us to redefine marriage into some kind of parody of itself by including homosexual partnerships.

And there you go. All the high-minded ideals crash against your bigotry....

The creation of new cultural and legal structures to accommodate the recently accepted behaviour of homosexuals is the appropriate and balanced approach.

Wrong, as has been demonstrated. It's inappropriate, it's unbalanced, it's costly and for no benefits you can identify.

The redefinition of marriage is a social folly that is cringe-worthy in its fawning political correctness.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate....

Open your eyes and recognise homosexuality for what it is: An unfortunate, but now socially acceptable, sexual orientation deserving of legal support and social acceptance within certain limits. That is all it is.

You've yet to justify those limits, though.

It's just 'ooh, icky!' and 'the invisible majority would agree with me if it had any balls.'

Feh.

 

[mojorising]

And why is it a legal requirement for couples to complement each other?
IS it a legal requirement?

Human life does not revolve solely around philosophical logic and legal procedure.

This is a question of aesthetics.

It is an offence against the aesthetics of human cultural history and tradition to turn the majesty of marriage into a grotesque parody involving a pair of blokes.

It would be altogether more suitable if new ceremonies and legal processes were created to accmodate the needs of homosexuals. It is all very well their asking for legal recognition and practical support for the processes required to support their accepted couplings but asking society to solemnify their behaviour by redefining a sacred and historic institution in this manner is quite appalling if you want my candid opinion (which I am sure you do not).

I understand that many people will want to support them to varying degrees (including myself to a substantial degree) but there needs to be some kind of rational compromise when it comes to interfering with existing long standing and valued cultural traditions.

I don't need to provide a logical thesis or legal construction to support my opinion. As I said at the start of this post it is a question of aesthetics.

 

[Jokodo]

And why is it a legal requirement for couples to complement each other?
IS it a legal requirement?

Human life does not revolve solely around philosophical logic and legal procedure.

Human life doesn't, but laws do. Marriage laws are a question of legal procedures, not of aesthetics.

It is an offence against the aesthetics of human cultural history and tradition to turn the majesty of marriage into a grotesque parody involving a pair of blokes.

So two blokes who love each other and want to build a live together are a grotesque parody of the majectic act of a man buying another man's daughter for 10 camels and 30 sheep?

 

[bilby]

And why is it a legal requirement for couples to complement each other?
IS it a legal requirement?

Human life does not revolve solely around philosophical logic and legal procedure.

No. But legal definitions do.

This is a question of aesthetics.

No, this is a question of law. The marriage act doesn't make a single mention of aesthetics; if you want to get an Elvis impersonator as a celebrant you can, no matter how tacky and awful that might appear to some - but he must have a marriage celebrant's license.

It is an offence against the aesthetics of human cultural history and tradition to turn the majesty of marriage into a grotesque parody involving a pair of blokes.

So what? Aesthetics are personal; that is your opinion, but it is not, and should not be, the law. Aesthetics are not legislated; the fashion police have neither badges nor guns.

It would be altogether more suitable if new ceremonies and legal processes were created to accmodate the needs of homosexuals.

Why?

It is all very well their asking for legal recognition and practical support for the processes required to support their accepted couplings

Yes. Yes it is.

but asking society to solemnify their behaviour by redefining a sacred and historic institution in this manner is quite appalling if you want my candid opinion (which I am sure you do not).

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to laws that enshrine your personal aesthetics.

I understand that many people will want to support them to varying degrees (including myself to a substantial degree)

I do hope you had a fire extinguisher handy for your pants when you typed that parenthetical.

but there needs to be some kind of rational compromise when it comes to interfering with existing long standing and valued cultural traditions.

How about, if you don't like gays getting married, they don't require you to attend their wedding ceremonies? You get to have any kind of wedding you like, and so do they. That's a rational compromise.

I don't need to provide a logical thesis or legal construction to support my opinion.

No; but you DO need those things to oppose equal treatment in law.

As I said at the start of this post it is a question of aesthetics.

And aesthetics are not something that should be legislated.

 

[Metaphor]

Human life does not revolve solely around philosophical logic and legal procedure.

Human life doesn't, but laws do. Marriage laws are a question of legal procedures, not of aesthetics.

It is an offence against the aesthetics of human cultural history and tradition to turn the majesty of marriage into a grotesque parody involving a pair of blokes.

So two blokes who love each other and want to build a live together are a grotesque parody of the majectic act of a man buying another man's daughter for 10 camels and 30 sheep?

Cheap. Still, bound to happen when you're selling your daughter in a buyer's market.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It is all very well their asking for legal recognition and practical support for the processes required to support their accepted couplings but asking society to solemnify their behaviour by redefining a sacred and historic institution in this manner is quite appalling if you want my candid opinion (which I am sure you do not).

I DO want your candid opinion, mojo. I just keep waiting for some reason i would agree with you that your side has the slightest reason to be tolerated, much less legislated.

'Sacred,' huh?

Funny, i thought you claimed you were anti-theist. We atheists tend not to hold ancient rituals to be sacred, mojo.
I think we're beginning to get closer to your actual, candid opinion.

I don't need to provide a logical thesis or legal construction to support my opinion. As I said at the start of this post it is a question of aesthetics.

And we've been asking ALL ALONG for some LEGAL reason to allow you to resist this LEGAL change to a LEGAL definition. For some reason that samesex marriages differ from straight marriages IN A WAY THAT HAS LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE.
Without that, there's no reason to accept arguments from 'sacred' or arguments from 'icky' or arguments from 'everyone agrees' or arguments from 'culture always has said.'

 

[mojorising]

'Sacred,' huh?

Funny, i thought you claimed you were anti-theist. We atheists tend not to hold ancient rituals to be sacred, mojo.
I think we're beginning to get closer to your actual, candid opinion.

How tedious and pedestrian that one is not allowed to take advantage of the allusions of words like 'sacred' without being pulled over by the atheist gestapo.

And how predictable that you cannot believe that a rational atheist could hold beliefs that conflict with the 21st century holy grail and mindless mantra of 'equality' regardless of whatever half-baked philosophical position the word is actually being used to spruik on any given occasion.

 

[Jokodo]

'Sacred,' huh?

Funny, i thought you claimed you were anti-theist. We atheists tend not to hold ancient rituals to be sacred, mojo.
I think we're beginning to get closer to your actual, candid opinion.

How tedious and pedestrian that one is not allowed to take advantage of the allusions of words like 'sacred' without being pulled over by the atheist gestapo.

And how predictable that you cannot believe that a rational atheist could hold beliefs that conflict with the 21st century holy grail and mindless mantra of 'equality' regardless of whatever half-baked philosophical position the word is actually being used to spruik on any given occasion.

How about you make an actual argument, for a change? Calling a set of legal instructions 'sacred' and then getting all butthurt when you're woo is called out for what it is isn't an argument for anything.

 

[Keith&Co.]

'Sacred,' huh?

Funny, i thought you claimed you were anti-theist. We atheists tend not to hold ancient rituals to be sacred, mojo.
I think we're beginning to get closer to your actual, candid opinion.

How tedious and pedestrian that one is not allowed to take advantage of the allusions of words like 'sacred' without being pulled over by the atheist gestapo.

Oh, shucks, you posted a word and I questioned it.
That's JUST like sewing a yellow star to your lapel. And digging out your fillings beside the mass grave.

Poor baby.

And how predictable that you cannot believe that a rational atheist could hold beliefs that conflict with the 21st century holy grail and mindless mantra of 'equality' regardless of whatever half-baked philosophical position the word is actually being used to spruik on any given occasion.

Oh, I believe an atheist could.
I would just hope someone who's 'anti-theist,' which implies a rejection of traditionally held institutions, would not yammer on about the need to preserve a traditional institution just for the sake of preserving a traditional institution.

Or if he did, that he'd actually provide the reasoning behind his stance when asked. Such as every fucking time you say 'significant differences' and we ask for examples with legal weight, you know?

 

[Keith&Co.]

beliefs that conflict with the 21st century holy grail and mindless mantra of 'equality'

So, I question the authenticity of your atheism, because you used the word 'sacred' as part of an argument. I never said you can't be an atheist because you oppose gay marriage.
I never said you can't logically hold any position.

You, however, reduce ALL of your opponents to mindless, trend-driven people chasing a fad.

I wonder how you'd score on a creationist argument bingo card?
It's a conspiracy.
People are afraid to support The Truth.
It's all 'obvious' to you.
Tradition has always held...
It'll lead to society's ruin.
There's no scientific evidence to support it.
The scientific evidence is against it.
Some day, science will prove...with evidence we don't have...yet.
No evidence offered for your position.
Your side doesn't have to make logical sense...