Marriage equality (3 Viewers)

[Kolmias]

Justify your belief.

You have asked that of me, now I will of you.

"I like it coz I'm a good Christian that reads my Bible every night and I don't like giving people basic human rights which I already enjoy"

 

[soloooooo]

Justify your belief.

You have asked that of me, now I will of you.

as that is what I have always known. As have many people. To retrospectively change the definition of marriage shouldn't occur.

I have no issues with civil unions or whatever else people want to call it, that have the same legal rights as marriage; just it should not be called marriage which is man marrying woman exclusive in my opinion.

As I said, I am not religious at all so that has nothing to do with it.

 

[Flop21]

I'm not religious if that is what you were getting at.

It is simply my belief, as it is on many people.

I never mentioned religion. And I already understood it's your belief/opinion obviously, but I wanted to know WHY that's your belief.


What kind of life do you live where you actively care about the gender of people in marriage? More of a question to all those that have this weird idea that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married. It honestly baffles me people with such beliefs.

 

[Paradoxica]

as that is what I have always known. As have many people. To retrospectively change the definition of marriage shouldn't occur.

I have no issues with civil unions or whatever else people want to call it, that have the same legal rights as marriage; just it should not be called marriage which is man marrying woman exclusive in my opinion.

As I said, I am not religious at all so that has nothing to do with it.

To retrospectively change the definition of marriage shouldn't occur.

You probably mean retroactively so I' gonna go off that.

Definitions of words change all the time, deal with it.

Gay and Queer had different meanings 100 years ago.

 

[Nailgun]

To retrospectively change the definition of marriage shouldn't occur.

You probably mean retroactively so I' gonna go off that.

Definitions of words change all the time, deal with it.

Gay and Queer had different meanings 100 years ago.

Legal definition =/= Semantic definition

 

[Kolmias]

as that is what I have always known. As have many people. To retrospectively change the definition of marriage shouldn't occur.

You have just proved that you are against marriage equality as 'that is what I have always known'. You have just proved that you are terrified of anything that is new, just like any good conservative.

 

[Paradoxica]

Legal definition =/= Semantic definition

Legal Definitions have to update to fit semantic definitions, unless you want society to go down the drain.

 

[soloooooo]

I never mentioned religion. And I already understood it's your belief/opinion obviously, but I wanted to know WHY that's your belief.


What kind of life do you live where you actively care about the gender of people in marriage? More of a question to all those that have this weird idea that gay people shouldn't be allowed to be married. It honestly baffles me people with such beliefs.

As I said, I have no problem with the introduction of homosexual marriage into Australia. However, that should be as a separate system independent of the existing heterosexual marriage system.

George Brandis announced today that they will hold a plebiscite on this before the end of the current year if they win the election (which seems likely).

 

[soloooooo]

Gay and Queer had different meanings 100 years ago.

You have raised a good point here. To be honest I think a larger portion of the public is getting sick of the changing definitions. E.g. it is not gay and lesbian anymore. It became LGBT for a while. Then it became LGBTI. Then LGBTQIA. Then someone else wants to add another letter every now and again etc. People get sick of it.

It comes back to my earlier point that if you give an inch, the far left protesters/activists try to take a mile.

 

[soloooooo]

You have just proved that you are against marriage equality as 'that is what I have always known'. You have just proved that you are terrified of anything that is new, just like any good conservative.

I did not say I was against homosexual marriage. I said I did not support changing the current marriage system. I think you will find that when the plebiscite occurs a large proportion of Australians feel this way.

 

[Paradoxica]

You have raised a good point here. To be honest I think a larger portion of the public is getting sick of the changing definitions. E.g. it is not gay and lesbian anymore. It became LGBT for a while. Then it became LGBTI. Then LGBTQIA. Then someone else wants to add another letter every now and again etc. People get sick of it.

It comes back to my earlier point that if you give an inch, the far left protesters/activists try to take a mile.

That's irrelevant since the purpose of these definitions is to avoid discriminating against the minority.

 

[soloooooo]

That's irrelevant since the purpose of these definitions is to avoid discriminating against the minority.

The point was that new 'minorities' (as you put it) keep popping up all the time.

Once homosexual marriage is introduced into Australia (whether this year or 10 years time etc) then what will the far left want? Marriage with inanimate objects? Polygamy for those practicing certain religions in Australia? It comes back to the 'give an inch and people take a mile' slope.

 

[mcchicken]

They already get extended the same benefits and welfare as anyone married.

We give an inch and people try to take a mile.

RE:

A civil union is a legal relationship between two people that provides legal protections to the couple only at the state level. A civil union is not a marriage, though. Civil unions do not provide federal protections, benefits, or responsibilities to couples.

 

[mcchicken]

The point was that new 'minorities' (as you put it) keep popping up all the time.

Once homosexual marriage is introduced into Australia (whether this year or 10 years time etc) then what will the far left want? Marriage with inanimate objects? Polygamy for those practicing certain religions in Australia? It comes back to the 'give an inch and people take a mile' slope.

Are you seriously comparing a man and a man getting married to a man and a bloody chair?

 

[PinkStrawberry]

The point was that new 'minorities' (as you put it) keep popping up all the time.

Once homosexual marriage is introduced into Australia (whether this year or 10 years time etc) then what will the far left want? Marriage with inanimate objects? Polygamy for those practicing certain religions in Australia? It comes back to the 'give an inch and people take a mile' slope.

Don't be stupid.

People with your POV are as bad as swastika twits -

Hetero ppl aren't superior to gays JUST AS whites aren't superior to blacks.

Your avatar is gay, after all.

 

[Kolmias]

The point was that new 'minorities' (as you put it) keep popping up all the time.

Once homosexual marriage is introduced into Australia (whether this year or 10 years time etc) then what will the far left want? Marriage with inanimate objects? Polygamy for those practicing certain religions in Australia? It comes back to the 'give an inch and people take a mile' slope.

You disgust me. Are you seriously suggesting that marriage with an inanimate object is in anyway similar to same-sex marriage? That is appalling.

Go back to your cult m8 and have a cry about how 'the Far Left' (despite being anti-communist, I've been lumped in with 'the Far Left') is ruining 'traditional family values'.

 

[KingOfActing]

Now look everyone, just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you should personally attack them. I'm not defending soloooooo's opinion here, in fact I rather strongly disagree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to act aggressively towards them.

 

[soloooooo]

Are you seriously comparing a man and a man getting married to a man and a bloody chair?

No, I was only showing that once you start changing marriage (as some people want to do) rather than introducing a new civil union marriage that is separate in itself, then other parties/interests will also want to change marriage with time.

People with your POV are as bad as swastika twits -

Hetero ppl aren't superior to gays JUST AS whites aren't superior to blacks.

Of course not. I didn't say that and I think you have missed the point I was making.

Are you seriously suggesting that marriage with an inanimate object is in anyway similar to same-sex marriage? That is appalling.

No - I was suggesting that if we start changing the definition of marriage now then it is also open to change by others in the future.

 

[nerdasdasd]

You disgust me. Are you seriously suggesting that marriage with an inanimate object is in anyway similar to same-sex marriage? That is appalling.

Go back to your cult m8 and have a cry about how 'the Far Left' (despite being anti-communist, I've been lumped in with 'the Far Left') is ruining 'traditional family values'.

Free speech mate.

Just cause someone has diff values, doesn't mean that can go and attack some and start using words like "cult ".

 

[nerdasdasd]

No, I was only showing that once you start changing marriage (as some people want to do) rather than introducing a new civil union marriage that is separate in itself, then other parties/interests will also want to change marriage with time.



Of course not. I didn't say that and I think you have missed the point I was making.



No - I was suggesting that if we start changing the definition of marriage now then it is also open to change by others in the future.

That's called the slippery slope argument, which is basically relating a future event to the result of a current event.

It's a poor argument... And how do you know it will happen ?