The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Same sex marriage: an agnostic's view > Comments

Same sex marriage: an agnostic's view : Comments

By Don Allan, published 14/10/2011

You don't have to be Christian to oppose same sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
What is going on? How can an article without hysterical claims and dubious statistics possibly play a part in this debate? Thank you Don for a rational article.

In my opinion, we should have legal rights for all couples but marriage remaining as it is.
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 14 October 2011 7:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, you're actually serious? You implied everyone's going to be in a same-sex marriage (completely ignoring that this is just removing discrimination based on an inherent characteristic) and there will be no children? This was tedious to read, because it was so illogical; this is something I would expect to hear/read in Uganda. Seriously, how can a rational person think people are going to get involved with same-sex relationships if marriage were legal, unless they're actually oriented as gay?

Nevermind your apparent ignorance about all of the polls conducted showing strong support, or ANY of the studies done on the topic of gay parenting.

Read up on the basics before you talk about issues.
Posted by adamzmo, Friday, 14 October 2011 7:25:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Allen,
I agree, we are being brain washed my the ABC media that gays are deprived of equal rights. A Nonsence!

Marriage is not the legal registration, the laws or contracts; the registration, laws and contracts cover the real life of marriage. Marriage is the reality of the lifelong committed relationship of a man and a woman. It is an exclusive sexual union, and in Church views violated by adultery.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 14 October 2011 8:02:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting contribution. But I found the "so my opinion is" bit at the end rather lame.

"My view is that same sex marriage is not a religious matter but a legal matter and that marriage should be the subject of a legal contract specifically for a man and a woman."

I can concur with the first part. But at the end of the second part of the author's view, I was expecting a "because..."

Where was it? What is the linkage between the non-religious nature of marriage, and the sudden appearance of the "specifically for a man and a woman"? What could possibly be the justification for this difference, since the law part of it would concern itself predominantly with property issues and financial responsibilities?

"An identical legally binding contract conferring the same social benefits on same sex couples as a marriage contract confers on man and a woman should also be created. What should it be called?"

If it is identical, why would it need a different name?

Unconvincing in the extreme, Mr Allen. If the thought of homosexual couples makes you uncomfortable, why not just say so, instead of wrapping it up in this string of non sequiturs?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 14 October 2011 8:12:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent post, Pericles. I guess you don't have to be a Christian to be against gay marriage, but you do have to be pretty dense.
Posted by Cosmogirl, Friday, 14 October 2011 8:32:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You don't have to be religious to be against SSM - true, nor do you have to be religious to be against abortion either. You do need to be a judgemental type however, along with a complete inability to walk in another's shoes.

Thanks for an article which proves that bigotry is not exclusive to religious fundy's.
Posted by Ammonite, Friday, 14 October 2011 8:42:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been waiting to hear a strong secular case against this and I'm still waiting. So far, think I can break down anti gay marriage philosophies into the religious, the ill informed and thirdly, the most insidious, the deeply held desire by some to take any form of dominion over someone else. This is a power trip - some people just love to deny people things. They love being asked what they think, they love being outraged and they are generally miserable people who didn't get what they thought they were due so nobody else can either. "life isn't fair" you will often hear them say. Credit to them, there's nothing prejudiced in their thinking, they are just that kind of person.
Posted by Metrop, Friday, 14 October 2011 9:00:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Metrop,
What do believe or think a mariage union means?
Posted by Philo, Friday, 14 October 2011 9:45:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Don for a well reasoned comment.
I believe that it is not only the ABC that is driving the agenda for SSM. It is the Politically Correct stance. It is gratifying to hear another who is not PC.
The "gay" and lesbian group, albeit not a major proportion of our society. is very vocal.
I am bored by their screams. It is not "gay".
Posted by The Collector, Friday, 14 October 2011 10:44:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm yet to hear an argument stating why one believes that the state has a role in regulating relationships between consenting individuals.

I understand that religious people believe that marriage should be defined by their religious beliefs, and within their organizations that is fair enough. But as with circumcision, attending church on sunday, or the wearing of the hijab, these beliefs should not be forced onto those not within their organization.

It is also true that some non-religious people also do not support SSM. There may be many reason why this is so, many non-religious people also celebrate Christmas, so why would you expect any difference?

The solution lies in how Christmas is celebrated in this country. Allow people to be free marry within the same sex (or celebrate a religious tradition) but no not use the state to force society to recognize the tradition (Christmas is not enforced). If the state removed the Marriage act then Churches could marry (or not marry) whoever they wished, and whoever wanted to get married could get married. This would make marriage a symbolic act and not a useless state registration system of personal relationships. What does the state add to marriage that would be lost to those that support the institution?

I am happy to hear any argument against this position. I have proposed this before and I am still waiting.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 14 October 2011 11:18:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don,

I get that you don't like gay marriage... but I'm still not quite sure why. Your concluding statement that "in the future religion might disappear but without children there will be no future" suggests that it might have something to do with the the (non)existence of children, but I can't see the logical connection. Do you think that everybody under the age of 18 is just going to mysteriously vanish if we let gays get married?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 14 October 2011 11:57:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My reason for raising this issue is because there seems to be [a] view that agnostic and atheists must be on the side of same sex marriage. Not so."

No, the 'view' is that rational people who are free from ideological bias must be on the side of same sex marriage. And nothing in this article contradicts that.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 14 October 2011 12:50:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the homosexual lobby hijacked the ABC a long time ago. 'The panel lacked balance'. Thanks for your honesty Don. The ABC has long been the propaganda machine for many indecent pursuits.
Posted by runner, Friday, 14 October 2011 9:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author displays objectivity by admitting that ABC Radio seems to have become the propaganda arm of the same sex marriage movement. (If only the ABC were objective in its analysis -- sadly, it does not even make the effort to appear objective any more.)

The ABC always appears to include same-sex marriage proponents repeating the claim that the majority of Australians are in favour of same-sex marriage. The author picked up on this and rightly queries how Mr Croome's conclusion was reached. It should also be remembered that the vast majority of federal MPs recently reported overwhelming opposition to same sex marriage from their constituents.

Sadly, as the author observes, same-sex marriage proponents appear to regard children as trophies. In any case, it is difficult to see why children of school age would not feel put out by being observed in the company of socalled same-sex parents
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 14 October 2011 11:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,

I have no doubt that Mr. Croome's conclusion was based on this Galaxy research poll:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/marriagereligion.pdf

I'd suggest that it's more the anti-gay marriage proponents who hold children up as trophies: they're always the ones dragging the poor little buggers into this debate, as if children somehow have anything do with marriage (they don't - check the Marriage Act 1961 if you don't believe me).

It's difficult to see why children of school age would not be put out by being observed in the company of so-called opposite-sex parents. As far as damn near every child of school age is concerned, parents are immensely daggy, pathetic and tragically square. In my wide experience, children of school age are generally willing to convince themselves that they are a product of spontaneous generation in order to distance themselves from their parents uncoolness, which they fear may be contagious. They usually grow out of it and wind up getting along fine with the folks.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 15 October 2011 12:01:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is, I think, helpful to separate the cultural/traditional aspects of marriage from the legal.

Every marriage has a legal basis, with defined rights and obligations. These legal rights and obligations are extended to unmarried couples by the laws governing de facto relationships.

Perhaps a solution would be to extend the de facto laws to cover any couple choosing to commit, including gay couples. Next, it would be useful to recognise the cultural/traditional aspects of the term "marriage" by taking that word out of the legal framework.

These suggestions would have the effect of bringing gay couples into the same legal framework as heterosexual couples, recognise de facto and permanent commitments, and separate the cultural/traditional issues related to the word marriage. It is likely to take a long time before the broad community becomes comfortable with the word "marriage" being applied to gay couples, but if things develop that way, so be it
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Saturday, 15 October 2011 6:40:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<< Do you think that everybody under the age of 18 is just going to mysteriously vanish if we let gays get married?

Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 14 October 2011 11:57:09 AM <<<

Yes this reference to the final statement in Don's diatribe was indeed the final straw on an elaborately constructed bale of hay. In fact I wondered if the entire article was not a piece of satire.

If SSM is permitted by the state - everyone will stop breeding and (as I believe the author hints) turn homosexual?

Don Allan - ask yourself, if SSM is permitted, would straight parents only give birth to homosexuals (at present they only produce 10% same sex oriented offspring) and would you suddenly change your sexual orientation to same sex?

As others have commented, marriage should not be state controlled just merely a registrar of those who have declared, in all hope and optimism, a lifelong commitment to each other.
Posted by Ammonite, Saturday, 15 October 2011 7:07:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously The Acolyte Rizla does not recognise that a man and a woman produce children when they live together.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 15 October 2011 7:15:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Dear Don try again but this time with your thinking cap on. A Alas a look at your blog it looks this is a normal practice. You certainly don't let your ingnormance on a subject so you form forming strong opinions.

Can you clearly state state why two Homosexual people should not be allowed the same rights as hetrosexual people. If you've having trouble maybe think about why disabled people should have the same rights as able bodied people.

Then write out a short statement and then change the words disabled to homosexual and able bodied to hetrosexual. Go on Try it it might start to make sense to you.
Posted by cornonacob, Saturday, 15 October 2011 9:30:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Wrong again, I'm afraid. I've recognised that "a man and a woman produce children when they live together" ever since I saw this many years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwo8qxUit00

Oh, sorry, when they live together and have three hot meals a day.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 15 October 2011 9:52:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
So when gays have a life long sexual union they produce three hot meals each day. Got it!
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 15 October 2011 1:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

That is without a doubt the most sensible thing you've ever said.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 15 October 2011 1:44:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla
Good to read you got my point. I assumed the meals were produced hot after been eaten 24 hours earlier. However children are not produced from the same oven.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 16 October 2011 11:34:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to hear the opinion from SSM opponent on the points raised by myself and Herbert Stencil. It seems that your kind never have anything constructive to add to the topic. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Stezza, Sunday, 16 October 2011 12:29:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,
The legal documentation merely identifies and protects the cultural and the real. The laws are not themselves the reality. Recognise the reality. The reality is only a man and a woman form the human union which is identified as marriage. This includes de facto relationships. The reason for keeping records is because offspring from the relationship need to be protected and cared for. There does not need to be marriage laws covering same sex relationships as no children are produced from the relationship. Children are then produced by adultery by a their party to the relationship. This then would need laws covering polygamy as three persons are involved in the family that might have responsibility for thr children, or more if several mothers or fathers are involved.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 16 October 2011 5:13:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"I assumed the meals were produced hot after been eaten 24 hours earlier. However children are not produced from the same oven."

O....kay. Just what sort of psychedelics have you been abusing, Philo?

"This includes de facto relationships."

No it doesn't - otherwise they'd be called marriages and not de facto relationships.

"The reason for keeping records is because offspring from the relationship need to be protected and cared for."

And the all the offspring born out of wedlock should be subject to infanticide? I don't know what weirdo cult you belong to Philo, but where I come from even Christians believe that ALL children should be protected and cared for - even those whose folks don't have a marriage certificate.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Sunday, 16 October 2011 10:19:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

I will not respond to your mention of children, as it has been repeatedly proven to you that children and marriage are unrelated as far a the law is concerned.

"The legal documentation merely identifies and protects the cultural and the real."

Does this mean the laws are in place to protect your cultural understanding of marriage? No church would be forced to recognize SSM, so this law functions to enforce your cultural understanding onto the rest of society. Is this what you want?

"The reality is only a man and a woman form the human union which is identified as marriage."
Circular argument - Men and women get married, therefore men and men cannot marry, because only men and women get married. Understand?

"This then would need laws covering polygamy as three persons are involved in the family that might have responsibility for thr children, or more if several mothers or fathers are involved."
So if someone's grandparents wish to help look after a child we would need a 4-way marriage allowing incest? See how your children argument does not stand up to even a second of scrutiny?

How about you debate the facts of marriage? See the potential ramifications of same sex marriage on our society:

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/a_pie_chart_detailing_same-sex_marriage/
Posted by Stezza, Monday, 17 October 2011 2:42:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
You are truly an irrational thinker. For the State de facto relationships are considered equal to marriage especially where children are involved because their relationship in reality is a marriage.

Stezza,
You are a fanatic irrational thinker. Grandparents are not a part of a sexual union within the relationship of marriage. Neither are carers of children a part of the sexual union of the marriage.

If children are born to same sex couples then obviously other persons of opposite sex have been involved in the marriage and the child has a right to know its parents, so would need laws covering polygamy as extra persons are involved in the sexual union of the marriage. MARRIAGE THEN INVOLVES A SEXUAL UNION OF BOTH SEXES.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 17 October 2011 9:44:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Marriages are defined by the Marriage Act 1961:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

De facto relationships are defined by Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html

If you read the links, you'll find that marriage and de facto relationships are not the same thing, even if they do share some common properties. For example, a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship - but you can't be married to more than one person at a time.

Another big difference is that the Marriage Act 1961 unreasonably discriminates against gay couples, whilst the Family Law Act 1975 does not. The debate is about whether or not the Marriage Act 1961 should discriminate against gay couples. Thus far, you have failed to provide a single persuasive argument as to why it should. Perhaps if you stuck to the topic at hand instead of waffling on with irrelevant nonsense it might help.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Monday, 17 October 2011 10:33:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marriage has always been a biological union of a husband and wife that in a healthy union produces a genetic family; in other words it is and can only be a sexual union of a man and a woman and for the children is best served for life.

Any same sexual union is not a marriage of the sexes and does not produce children. Your belief that marriage is merely a legal contract between two persons of adult age does not define a marriage. It is the act of the two genders becoming one human flesh. TWO GENDERS BECOME ONE HUMAN FLESH! They complement each other in completeness.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 17 October 2011 3:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Under your logic and system, infertile couples shouldn't be married. They fail your criteria as I have explained to you before.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 17 October 2011 3:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Using some of the logic already divined on this topic:

Divorced people should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is supposed to be a life commitment and they had their chance and failed. Under the conditions set by the terms of marriage they have negated their contract and thus should be deemed as a bankrupt and unable to pursue similar contracts again.

Couples who are infertile or who choose not to have children should be banned from marriage.

:)
Posted by pelican, Monday, 17 October 2011 4:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"a fanatic irrational thinker"

Great! that gave me a good chuckle, thanks!

Just to stir the pot a bit more, just say at some point in the future same sex couples (say 2 women) decide to have a baby using the ovum from one woman and sperm from the other. We can even throw in a bit of monogamous sex just for fun. Well we now have 2 parents, each contributing DNA to produce a child in a monogamous relationship. I know that you will not understand any of this, perhaps yelling BLASPHEMY at you computer screen, but try and learn something new today.

Integration-Free iPS Cells Engineered Using Human Artificial Chromosome Vectors.
Hiratsuka M, Uno N, Ueda K, Kurosaki H, Imaoka N, Kazuki K, Ueno E, Akakura Y, Katoh M, Osaki M, Kazuki Y, Nakagawa M, Yamanaka S, Oshimura M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21998730

Spontaneous differentiation of germ cells from human embryonic stem cells in vitro. Hum. Mol. Genet. (2004) 13 (7): 727-739.
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/727.short

Oh and if this is too difficult, perhaps you could try addressing the massive holes in your 'children is marriage' argument. btw, do children get to decide if they want to be a part of this marriage, or is it classed under 'forced marriage'?
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 1:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,
To demonstrate the irrational thinker you are, read again what you have said, "(say 2 women) decide to have a baby using the ovum from one woman and sperm from the other". Obviously you have no idea of human reproduction. Since when have women produced sperm? That is naturally.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 8:03:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

So if the Marriage Act 1961 is of no importance when it comes to defining marriage, why does it bother you so much if it is changed? If the Marriage Act 1961 is, as you argue it to be, of no consequence; how on earth can any changes to said Act be of any consequence?

The Marriage Act 1961 either matters, or it does not matter - it cannot simultaneously both matter and not matter; that's a logical impossibility. So which is it to be?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 9:17:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

I though I might confuse you. Anyway, the answer to your question is....since 1994.

Did you read the papers I referenced? To break it down for you...

Induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells are similar to embryonic stem cells in that they can generate any cell type in the adult body, including sperm. Unlike embryonic stem cells IPS cells can be generated from a skin sample of any person. Therefore, women can generate sperm.

I know I shouldn't bother, you are having enough trouble adjusting to reality without me pointing out all of the 'scary' events you haven't even thought about yet.

Hoe about you just try and refute my argument from my first post, and then go from there?

BTW, what sort of rational thinker believes in a magic invisible friend in the sky anyway?
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 9:29:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza,
So now you are telling me an artificial transplant of test tube generated female sperm is equivalent to natural human sexual intercourse (marriage).

Where are the human experiments of this proceedure? Oviously breeding more gays and sexless beings, who despise men. Where are the homosexual men able to breed? Obviously this proceedure denies them your equivalent marriage of the sexes. Total discrimination against homosexual men and their equal rights to breed. Perhaps they can use the bowel?
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 1:39:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

So now you are telling me that natural human sexual intercourse is equivalent to marriage. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I've had natural human sexual intercourse 5 times in the past week. Not once have I married the girl, nor do I have any intention of doing so. If men married every woman they shagged and vice-versa, polygamy would be rife in this country. But it's not, so I guess you're wrong (again).

Now I know we've already been over this point before, but I'm willing to repeat myself for the hard-of-thinking (it's not as if you can help being intellectually disabled): everything you wrote in your last post is NOT RELEVANT. And arguments which are NOT RELEVANT are NEVER PERSUASIVE. Bearing that in mind, do you think you can now answer my question about the importance (or lack thereof) of the Marriage Act 1961, without meandering off on some irrelevant tangent?

Please note that I don't care which way you decide. I just want you to display some consistency and courage in your convictions, and not radically shift ground every time somebody points out that the particular argument you're advancing is unsound.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
I'll say one word, "UNION" understand what it means. Any dumb plumber knows what it means.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:08:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

I already know what it means.

Union: the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context.

I'm still at a bit of a loss as to what it has to with plumbing outside of the Plumbing Trades Employees Union (PTEU).

And you're still being irrelevant and avoiding my question. I rather suspect that you're being irrelevant deliberately to avoid answering my question, because you can't adequately answer my question.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:20:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
No! you are absolutely ignorant of the facts of marriage. Marriage is the excluive union of one man and a woman for life, it always has been always will be.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"Marriage is the excluive union of one man and a woman for life, it always has been always will be."

In that case, it doesn't matter what the Marriage Act 1961 says - marriage has always been and always will be the exclusive union of one and one woman for life, regardless of what the law may say.

So why do you argue so vehemently against changes to the law?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 4:32:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, hey, Philo,

Marriage is a mechanism for the legitimisation or formalisation of a "social" union. It's not a sexual (biological) union.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 18 October 2011 5:00:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, you don't need to be a Christian or even agnostic to disagree with same sex marriage, you just need to want to deny what would be a fundamental human right, Raymond Gaita said it best:

"What they (gay people) want is a recognition of the dignity of their sexuality and that is being denied to them. Given how fundamental sexuality is to our sense of what it is to be human, it is not an exaggeration to say, I think, that it's a denial of their full humanity"

By denying gay people access to such a traditional social mechanism as marriage you are sending a terrible message to gay people - and reaffirming the people who believe homosexuality is abhorrent and that opens up to sooo many social issues, bullying at schools, discrimination, psychical violence etc.
Posted by Zapo, Wednesday, 19 October 2011 6:31:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zapo,
All the school bullies, discrimination, psychical violence etc are not going to cease just because gays get the law changed to "two persons of 18 years of age" as their definition of marriage.

What defines a marriage?
“Cleave to thee only, till death do us part” is the essential clause in the marriage vows. Violation of that vow by sexual unfaithfulness breaks the trust and loyalty to the partner to whom it is made.

The reason being if children result from the relationship they all share in the demonstration of love, loyalty and affection lost for each other in that unfaithful act. How is the marriage violated? It is violated by a casual adulterous relationship. It is a sexual act that violates the vow. From what I know of gays they are happy to have casual sexual relationships even if in long term relationships with one partner because no loyalty is broken and pregnancy resultant; this may not be so in heterosexual casual relationships.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 19 October 2011 9:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo

As per my comments to you on a previous post, of course bullying, and discrimination are not going to stop by this and this alone - this is no magic bullet. Instead it's going to be stopped by a number of social reforms and updated thinking.

I think trust and caring are integral to a relationship and by extension to marriage, so I have no arugment there.

Philo, oh dear Philo. I find your overwhelmingly generalist and baseless comments about gay relationships offensive, bigoted and backwards. This is absolute rubbish.

Given the divorce rate is so high perhaps this is happening in heterosexual relationships as well?? You elevate them oh so high, yet like anything HUMAN they can be flawe. I don't have the authority, nor would I wnat it to defend ANY group of people heterosexuals or homosexuals alike and say that neither group cheat and lie, but it's absurd to think that there aren't gay couples who would get married and who would take the vows and commitment seriously. Also, perhaps by not allowing homosexual marriage you are just pushing homosexuals into relationships where there isn't that sense of commitment because the government sees their relationships as less valid?? I'm confused.
Posted by Zapo, Wednesday, 19 October 2011 10:46:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

You STILL haven't answered my question: if the Marriage Act 1961 doesn't matter, why do changes to said Act matter? This is the 3rd time I've raised this question, and still you refuse to answer. Frankly, that's just pathetic. And the only conclusions I can draw from your silence are that you are either too soft in the cock or too soft in the head to answer a very simple question. Maybe if you attempted some sort of answer I could form different conclusions, but for the time being you're just making yourself even more contemptible.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Wednesday, 19 October 2011 1:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Henceforth all creatures have no standing be they of the same or opposite gender and if a legal union is sort it has no legal status as the Legislation of The Marriage Act exists'.OMG just where did the scribe get his mind from please?
Yes we all use English however look at the root of it/open your minds.
Legal intent is one thing,however application and exact human issues are not the same nor couched in that context even though it applies to humanity.
Divorce/marraige/birth/death.All reqiure legal frameworks under our laws.Gender-specificity is being used as a political arguement of fear and not as rights for all.Gender orientation comes with birth, so this scribe trolls along the male+female=homosexuality due to their procreation methods?What crap logic is that?
If the law grants equal rights;so be it. It is not couched from general humanity,but patriarcial past persons who ruled with fear & brainwashing.Not so now.Do permit same gender to marry.What right do you the scribe have to say. 'No'?
Posted by LETMEIN, Friday, 21 October 2011 11:03:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LETMEIN,
If you want a genderless society I suggest you lobby for a referendum to sample public opinion. Im sure women prefer not to use unisex public toilets where men have peed on the seat and floor. Governments currently record births as gender so they can keep a watch on community needs. If you cannot understand the difference of gender it is time you read up a bit or asked your mother.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 22 October 2011 1:51:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,

So now you are telling me that that you had natural human sexual intercourse 5 times in the past week and you are not married. Obviously you are an immoral person without decent social values, as you call her a girl and not your wife and you have no intention of marriage.

The marriage act is NOT marriage! The laws are merely the documentation that protects the marriage relationship between a man and a woman that have committed themselves to a sexual bond for life. Casual sexual encounters violate that bond of marriage and that is called adultery. Obviously you have no lifelong loyalty to the persons with whom you have sex. What right do you have to impose your illicit values on responsible people?
Posted by Philo, Monday, 24 October 2011 5:44:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You should stop this soon, Philo, you are starting to confuse yourself.

>>What defines a marriage? “Cleave to thee only, till death do us part” is the essential clause in the marriage vows<<

If this is the "essential clause", where does it mention that cleaving can only apply to heterosexual couples? I know several homosexual couples who cleave like billy-o, and have done so exclusively.

>>The marriage act is NOT marriage!<<

Fair enough. But as The Acolyte Rizla so pertinently asks, if this is your stance on the marriage act, why are you getting your knickers in such a knot about changing it?

>>Stezza, so now you are telling me an artificial transplant of test tube generated female sperm is equivalent to natural human sexual intercourse (marriage)<<

There are so many misconceptions (sorry!) and red herrings in that one sentence, it is clear that you are totally confused. First of all, I doubt that any human being would consider assisted reproduction to be a substitute for sex, one being quite uncomfortable and the other being distinctly pleasurable. And there are millions of people, every day, who clearly do not equate sex with marriage, without harming the fabric of the universe too much.

You should do some research on "marriage through history", and discover for yourself how much your views are coloured by your religious beliefs.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

"In the following centuries, however, marriage came more and more under the influence of the church... theologians increasingly found a religious significance in marriage and eventually even included it among the sacraments."

So you are perfectly entitled to hold the views that you do as being consistent with your religious leanings. What you are not entitled to do, in my opinion, is to lecture others that your religion is the only yardstick by which human behaviour is measured.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 October 2011 8:22:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I have read and studied the history of marriage and it has always been the natural instinct and agreement between a man and woman to engage in a sexual union. Any other sex is not marriage!
Please identify what has constituted a marriage different to that.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 24 October 2011 11:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does...not...compute...

Philo, I'm not sure what sort of logic you employ in your daily life, but I expect better from you than this...

>>I have read and studied the history of marriage and it has always been the natural instinct and agreement between a man and woman to engage in a sexual union. Any other sex is not marriage!<<

You carefully leave the word "marriage" hanging around, close to the "it", hoping that the reader will link to the "instinct".

Clever.

Let's take a closer look.

>>I have read and studied the history of marriage<<

I'll have to take your word for that.

>>...it has always been the natural instinct and agreement between a man and woman to engage in a sexual union.<<

But if you really wanted to be accurate, the sentence should read...

"...it has always been the natural instinct and agreement between a man and woman to engage in sexual union."

Because monogamy is not the "natural instinct" of human beings. It is a social construct. Let's face it, civilization would be very messy indeed if we just went around rutting wherever we could. (I'm talking from the male perspective here. I'm not sure whether female humans "rut", as such...)

The other angle - the "agreement between a man and woman to engage in 'a' sexual union" - is also part of the structure of society. Two people, choosing to spend their lives together, and making the commitment to do so. If we agree on that, what possible objection could you have to those two folk being of the same gender?

>>Any other sex is not marriage!<<

While it may be quite true in your own mind that "other sex" cannot be covered with the term "marriage", that has nothing to do with the legal issues addressed in the Marriage Act.

Nor, I should like to point out, does it hold true that marriage is purely determined by sex. Would it make a difference to your approach, for example, if the law was changed so that celibate homosexuals could be considered "married"?

Didn't think so.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 October 2011 1:13:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perciles,
Please identify what has constituted a marriage recognised by society other than a union of a man and a woman.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 24 October 2011 1:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ummm... isn't that what is under discussion here, Philo?

>>Perciles, Please identify what has constituted a marriage recognised by society other than a union of a man and a woman.<<

I assume that you mean "historically". Implying that we should not consider anything that has not previously been sanctioned by society.

Newsflash: society is ever-changing, and it follows that society's guidelines for peaceful, healthy, tolerant coexistence should change as well. Clearly you don't believe this to be a valid position, so equally clearly we will never agree.

Which is perfectly fine by me.

Still no observations on the Marriage Act, I notice.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 8:21:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
The "marriage act" is a piece of paper supposedly defining the reality of marriage. The reality is and always has been that marriage is the lifelong productive union between a man (husband) and a woman (wife) that envisages offspring in their likness.

Any alteration by any society to their view of its meaning homosexuality is biologically meaningless. Ask any person following family tree on who married who to produce the offspring. I repeat for the umpteenth time Marriage is a biological term. Though some want it to mean a different idea, and the act to define it differently.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 10:05:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Marriage (between two people) is a sociological term.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 10:14:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly, the biological term for reproduction is 'sex'. We, huamns, put a construct around the union of two people and called it 'marriage'.

Regardless of the history, regardless of what it has meant, we are looking at what it should mean now. The "it's always been this way" it not reason for something to be, it's an excuse to try and avoid change.

Marriage is a committment and union of two people, if you want to belive it has something to do with the creation of children - then great, it might mean that to YOU but to many others it doesn't. At it's core it's about a commitment and union of two people. Denying homosexual people the right to express their commitment in this way in front of friends, family and the state is just so absurd.

As I said before, if you believe homosexuals getting married in some way threatens your marriage or the right to get married then you sir have far more serious issues.
Posted by Zapo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 10:27:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zapo,
Obviously you guys live in a different biological society where the reality of gender is irrelevant. Humans in a gender union (that is male and female) relate biologically to form a complete human being of X and Y chromosomes.

That females may fertilize themselves is supported by the 5,000 BC Biblical text of Genesis in that the first human contained both X and Y chromosomes. That at the seperation of the sexes, as we recognise, males do not have the capacity to conceive and nurture offspring. By uniting them in marriage it forms the whole human unit. They become one, which what union means and what marriage means.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 12:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've lost the ability to continue this discussion on the grounds that I value my sanity.

Good luck to the next person who wants to 'debate' the issue with Philo.
Posted by Zapo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 12:27:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Zapo,

You don't debate with Philo - you hand him enough rope, then laugh yourself silly as the daft bugger hangs himself. It's funniest when he tries to pretend he is an expert in biology and etymology, but his other ramblings are also quite amusing.

Philo,

There isn't a biology course in the world (being taught at a respectable university, at any rate) which has anything to say on marriage. Trust me: they just don't cover it. They do cover sexual reproduction, but that isn't the same thing as marriage. Last time I checked, hedgehogs don't get married. They do sexually reproduce, although God knows how.

But if for arguments sake we accept that marriage is defined biologically, and that the Marriage Act 1961 is just a piece of paper, it doesn't really matter what's written on the paper, does it? Alterations to laws do not change the nature of biological science, I think we can all agree on that. Marriage will simply be one of those words with different meanings in different contexts - in sociological and legal terms it will mean one thing, in Philobiological terms it will mean human sexual reproduction, and in actual biological terms it won't mean anything at all, just like it doesn't now and never has.*

*Direct me to decent biology dictionary or biology textbook - an actual published book, not some dodgy interweb link, which even contains the word 'marriage', let alone defining it the way you have, and I'll eat my words.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 1:48:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Post Script:

Philo,

"So now you are telling me that that you had natural human sexual intercourse 5 times in the past week and you are not married. Obviously you are an immoral person without decent social values, as you call her a girl and not your wife and you have no intention of marriage."

Awww, what's wrong little fella? Sounds to me like somebody's a tad jealous of us handsome young bucks out sowing our wild oats. Not getting enough of Mrs, Philo, eh? Frankly, I'm not surprised.

On a more serious note, kindly refrain from passing your sanctimonious judgement on my values and morals on the basis of what your Priest/Minister/Reverend/Pastor/Cult-leader has told you to think*. My morals are based on the Golden Rule (treat others the way you'd like to be treated) and the Platinum Rule (treat others the way they'd like to be treated), and I'd argue they're a better basis for morality than the ancient tribal customs of a bunch of middle-eastern shepherds.

* The Bible isn't against sex outside marriage, it's against adultery - sex outside marriage when you're already married, which I'm not.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 2:10:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
Having never married you have no credibility to be dictating to others what marriage is. You have no sense of loyalty or chastity suitable for mariage, as you just use any willing girl for your pleasure. Obviously the girl does not value herself enough as a wife for only one man
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 2:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
In ancient biological terms - 'the man was joined to his wife and they bore a child'. There were no written contracts, and in many instances no ceremony, nothing more than a family exchange. Once that union had taken place they were husband and wife for life.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 3:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo.

Once that [social] union had taken place they were husband and wife...it's not "biological". Sex is biological. If they'd been biologically joined for life, they would have had great trouble going about their daily business (without some considerable embarrassment).

Fancy sermonising to TAR that he can't comment on marriage because he isn't married. Catholic priests deliver sermons on the subject all the time, but I bet you wouldn't apply the same logic to them.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 25 October 2011 3:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Having never been gay, you have no credibility to be dictating what rights gay people should and shouldn't have. But fair's fair - I'll stop commenting on marriage when you stop commenting on homosexuality.

Philo, how many men do you think there are in the world who only ever have sex with the one woman? Or women who only have sex with one man? Very few, I'd wager - Christian or otherwise. Besides, who says the girl isn't just using me for her pleasure? Or that it's not a mutually pleasurable arrangement for both of us, with nobody being 'used'?

What on earth are 'ancient biological terms'? Evolution acts slowly, and the biology of ancient humans such as neolithic people is essentially no different to that of modern people.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 7:20:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are being a little narrow in your definitions, Philo.

>>The "marriage act" is a piece of paper supposedly defining the reality of marriage. The reality is and always has been that marriage is the lifelong productive union between a man (husband) and a woman (wife) that envisages offspring in their likness [sic].<<

This eliminates widows and widowers getting married, as some of them do later in life, for companionship. Which is pretty mean of you. For examplet, I doubt that Wang Guiying and her husband will envisage "offspring in their likness"...

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/01/its-never-too-late-to-get-married.html

Presumably you would be monumentally offended by such a marriage, given the strictness of "Philo's Rule" above.

And - just out of curiosity - what's this all about?

>>That females may fertilize themselves is supported by the 5,000 BC Biblical text of Genesis<<

Never knew that. But it is clearly a great relief to lesbian couples to hear that their wishes to raise a family are endorsed by your holy book.

In passing, I'd also like to question the assertion that Genesis is a "5,000 BC Biblical text". Most scholars understand that the Pentateuch was widely sourced, over a period of time.

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/moses.html

"...the first five books... are composed of a conflation of conflicting and diverse source materials with the component parts composed over a span of many centuries. Finally these divergent sources were edited and then conflated in a single set of manuscripts"

And just to satisfy my craving for detail on these matters, if you are willing to accept the findings of one part of the Bible, are you prepared to accept all?

Or do you pick and choose the bits you like, and separate them from the bits you don't like?

Just askin'
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 9:06:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot,
Catholic Priests have an authorised text from which to teach. That text is accepted as authority by those to whom they teach. Upon what social or moral authoritive text on marriage does TAR base his teaching?
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 1:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh that's all right then. Philo's benchmark of actually being married as a prerequisite for possessing an opinion on the subject is nullified if one has an authoritative religious text on hand to tell one what one's supposed to think and say.

Some people can actually form an opinion without resorting to an "authoritative text" - it's called thinking for yourself...you should try it sometime.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:04:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It strikes me this marriage debate is in part about the right for same sex couples to produce and adopt children.

Of a same sex couple only ONE may have biological involvement in a pregnancy at any one time. There has to be another party contributing either male or female gamete and where both wannabee parents are male, womb for rent. The OTHER partner must adopt the child of that male/female combination. The other choice is adopting a child of separate parentage.

We've had much debate in recent decades about adoption. Since the mid-seventies at least, overwhelming consensus amongst the "Social Engineers" who somehow judge these matters is adoption is HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE, a last resort for infants with no hope of being being reared by biological parent/s. (That this has resulted in a swing to one parent/mixed family/welfare dependency situations and much harm is another story)

However there's not the same mantra from 'experts' on this one. I would have thought the concept of same sex couple parenting would bring about a frenzy of checking and cross-checking suitability of not only the adopting parent/s but of likely psychological effects on the offspring of being reared in an unnatural environment. By 'unnatural' - 2 men claiming to be 'Father' or 2 women 'Mother'. Not like a situation where a child might be reared by it's mother and Grandmother for example.

I believe dedicated same sex couples deserve community respect and support but some things remain the domain of the heterosexual couple - marriage and procreation. I support civil contracts that give same sex couples recognition and property rights but not marriage as it stands. I am non-supportive of assisted fertility of any kind for singles or same sex couples. Nobody has a "right" to reproduction in any case. Nor to do and have everything we want in life.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn,
I totally agree. I am on the Board of a Foster care agency and my wife is an assistant family acessor. Acessment for foster care happens over a six month period of several home visits to ensure the suitability and stability of the family to take in chldren.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The indications are that proud 'parent' Elton John and expectant 'parent' Senator Penny Wong regard children as prizes. Whether they can be regarded as appropriate role models for gay 'parents', is debateable, as both have been in heterosexual relationships. Elton married and divorced, while Penny's former partner (according to The Australian of 20 October 2011) is the new South Australian Premier, with whom she had a five-year relationship during their Young Labor years.

Gay activists are known to dislike the publicising of gays with bisexual history, as it debunks the claim that homosexuality is innate. They oppose any suggestion that sexual preference comes down to choice.

Consequently, It is not widely reported that certain professional therapists and counsellors offer 'sexual reorientation therapy' to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. The study of sexual-orientation change efforts to date, shows that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:59:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

"Upon what social or moral authoritive text on marriage does TAR base his teaching?"

Largely upon John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'. A splendid little book, and one based on reason rather than superstition. You should check it out. It's probably available for free download; Mill's been dead long enough that his work should be public domain.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 28 October 2011 8:59:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
Apparently you argue against fact, and try to create a modern superstition.

FACT: Two persons of the same gender do not a human unit make, which is what marriage identifies. No superstition in that.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2011 9:08:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Apparently you're crap at maths as well. A human unit is one human, not a married couple.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 28 October 2011 9:47:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A human unit is a married term completing X and Y chromosomes that form a married unit of one. Obviously you not understanding marriage you do not recognise what a human unit is.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2011 12:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You just made that up, didn't you Philo?

>>A human unit is a married term completing X and Y chromosomes that form a married unit of one.<<

A human unit is a component of Warcraft III:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/589475-warcraft-iii-the-frozen-throne/faqs/53478

It can also be a measurement of urban space

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Human%20Unit

It was also used to describe the Incredible Hulk - "Human Unit Never Killed".

And it was a phrase adopted by the Victorian epidemiologist (cum eugenicist, some say) when totting up the casualties of a cholera epidemic.

But I'm sorry, nothing whatsoever about chromosomes.

Your "human unit" is a complete figment of your imagination, Philo.

I also venture to suggest that the fact that you are forced to resort to making up stuff, says a great deal about your confidence in the strength of your argument.

But logic is forever a spent force when it comes to combatting bigotry, is it not?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 October 2011 1:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
In every Jewish and Christian marriage ceremony in the last 4,000 years the phrase is used it comes from Genesis 2: 24; Matthew 19: 5; Mark 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6: 16; Ephesians 5: 31; The two shall become one unit, a uniting of the two sexes.

That is the problem when one is ignorant of another's culture. For Homosexuality to now be cosidered a human unit is falacious nonsense in Jewish, Islamic and Christian world view. Only a man and a woman form one complete flesh unit.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2011 1:59:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Why should Jewish and Christian scriptures apply to non-Jews and non-Christians? In our pluralist democracy, nobody expects Christians to obey Sharia law or observe hold cows as sacred. So it's entirely unreasonable for Christians to expect that everybody adhere to what is written in the Bible, when not everybody is Christian - and when not every Christian adheres to everything written even in the Bible (in fact, I doubt there are any who do - probably a good thing).

If a human unit composes a married a couple, then unmarried folk must only constitute half a person. Given the profound achievements that have been made by myriad unmarried individuals over the years, I put it to you that this is a fiction.

Also, the correct biological term for a 'human unit' with XY sex chromosomes is a 'male' or 'man'.
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 28 October 2011 2:32:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Acolyte Rizla,
Since most of the worlds population are either Jewish, Christian or Islamic and all believe Genesis 1: 24 it leaves few others to contradict them.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 28 October 2011 2:41:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo,

Actually, followers of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) only make up a little over 50% of the worlds population - leaving just under half the world who don't gives a rats hindquarters about Genesis 1:24. Probably more than that, because I know a lot of Christians who also don't give a rats hindquarters about Genesis 1:24.

And it doesn't answer the question of why you think it is reasonable for followers of any particular faith to force non-believers to adhere the strictures of that faith. Would you be happy to have to eat a Kosher diet or observe Ramadan? No, I didn't think so. So why do you think it's OK to force people who don't follow the Abrahamic faiths to adhere to Genesis 1:24?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Friday, 28 October 2011 10:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy