Ice cream producers, Ben and Jerry's, is banning Australian customers from buying two scoops of the same flavour ice cream until same-sex marriage is legalised across the country, according to NBC News'

That's bananas.

Have they or others tried other stunts, maybe unsuccessful, to get free publicity?

Maybe the media might be waking up to that.

But honestly, who orders the same for two scoops?

Wait till the whole Marriage Act is repealed, then they will only be able to sell one scoop at a time and go out of business.

The conservatives should stop dragging their feet on gay marriage and legislate into law what the vast majority of Australians find acceptable, gay marriage is okay.

May be they should keep the other scoop until gay marriage is allowed then

@Yuyutsu i think this might take eternity.

Of cause the gays cound just find another word, couldn't they Paul.

This is one publicity stunt that I am sure will backfire, i mean, what if a quere asks for two scoops of the same flavour so he/she can share heir favourite icecream together.

What nonsense! It would appear a majority of the population cannot discern there is a physical difference between boys and girls; they only observe the clothed emotional behaviour of the child. The facts of biological science is being thrown out the window, for emotional behaviours.

I tried their 'Hoary Chestnut' flavoured confections the other night...it left a bad taste ~ I won't be buying their products again any time soon.

Paul1405: Yous say "The conservatives should stop dragging their feet on gay marriage and legislate into law what the vast majority of Australians find acceptable, gay marriage is okay."

Are you really sure that the vast majority support it? If so, then why didn't the left support a plebiscite? (I don't believe that rubbish excuse about it potentially negatively affecting the mental health of people.)

I suspect that the left fear that the vast majority are either apathetic, ambivalent or are opposed to it.

As for myself, being more or less an atheist I've no religious based moral problem with it and am not directly opposed to it but I do fall into the apathetic camp. I'm certainly not going to waste any of my precious time or effort to support it because it's just not important nor relevant to me. To me it is an insignificant, trifling matter that I'm sick of hearing about. The only way I could be bothered to do anything about it is if I was forced to-- eg. like being required to vote on it.

Now Paul, we know why your mates don't want the plebiscite don't we !

It’s a ridiculous idea on multiple levels. I feel sorry for the staff who, regardless of their stance on the issue, will likely feel embarrassed when telling the customer that they cannot have two of the same flavour, and then possibly face abuse from someone who only likes one flavour; a homophobe; or, Zeus forbid, a homophobe who only likes one flavour.

--

Josephus,

You’ve lost the plot. What does the physical difference between boys and girls, or the emotional state of children, have to do with anything?

For those questioning public opinion, the polling has shown it to be consistently in favour of same-sex marriage since 2004. The number of those in favour of marriage equality is still rising, too.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality

Anyone who could honestly doubt that a majority are in favour of marriage equality need to get out a bit more.

The main reason for rejecting a plebiscite was discussed extensively and in multiple forums (including this online one), I’m sorry some appear to have missed it.

That is an unusual stand for a business company to
take. Good for them. I'm not sure how effective it
will be though. Still the publicity is probably worth
it for the company.

What may achieve better results however -
is their having boxes
in all 26 of their Australian stores where customers
can grab a postcard and write to their Members of Parliament
asking them to support marriage equality. Now that move
might have more success.

Previous form,

"Members of a Vermont activist group called Migrant Justice protested at Ben & Jerry's stores on Tuesday while the ice cream vendors were giving away free cones. The activists complained that the famously liberal company had yet to fulfill a pledge to use milk only from dairy farms that pay workers fair wages.

The company signed an agreement to do so as part of the group's "milk with dignity" campaign in 2015. However, Ben & Jerry's, which is part of Unilever, has yet to make changes to its supply chain, Migrant Justice says. Protesters from the group tried to use Tuesday's giveaway to bring attention to their cause.

Ben & Jerry's spokesman Rob Michalak conceded they the company made the agreement but told the Huffington Post that they still needed to "work through final details" of how to implement it, indicating that it was proving much harder to do than anticipated."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/migrant-worker-group-protests-ben-jerrys/article/2619337

Foxy:

"Still the publicity is probably worth it for the company"

Now same sex couples are being used by businesses to get publicity for themselves. With 70 per cent of customers probably being in favour of same-sex marriage it makes sense to appeal to that 70 per cent if you want to make money.

Who knows whether they are truly in favour of same-sex marriage or whether it is just a marketing ploy?

Same-sex couples should have more dignity than to let themselves be used for commercial gain. They should distance themselves from any actions which could be mis-interpreted. They should not appear to be selling themselves off to business.

Same-sex marriage arguments should rise or fall on their own merits and people who support such businesses because of their recorded stance on same-sex marriage should be ashamed of themselves. They should support same-sex marriage because they agree with the arguments presented. Anything else looks like your support is based on gimickry.

If you want, support groups who have nothing to gain from their actions other than same-sex marriage.

This company surely has the right to promote homosexual marriage in this way, it's their right as part of our freedom of expression.

[Oops, I used the word 'homosexual', so you know what's coming :) ]

On the same logic, wedding-cake makers have the same right to refuse to make a cake for homosexuals.

We may not approve of one or the other actions, but both equally are legal expressions of free speech. Perhaps someone can explain where my logic has gone dreadfully wrong ?

Joe

Loudmouth:

Every business has a right to do those things but the question is what is their motive? The bakers stand to lose money because they only appeal to 30 per cent of the population whereas the ice cream sellers are appealing to 70 percent.

If you were in business what would you do?

What else does it look like except exploitation?

I see the bigots still wanting to deny the Australian people are vote.

AJ Philips,
So biological science is now dismissed as illogical, and emotional behaviour is what determines a person.

I am afraid I grew up in the science era and not in the flower power period, where confusion of gender reigned.

Of course I am not allowed to hold an opinion.

Dear phanto,

Of course the business company is probably
doing what's "good for their
business." But I'm not sure that the lobby groups for
same-sex marriage are being "exploited" as you put it.
I think they're doing what's good for them - in this
case - getting publicity and support for their cause -
all for free.

Joe,

What the cake makers did was NOT legal. That was one difference. Apart from that, it’s difficult to draw an accurate analogy between the two situations since there is no such thing as a gay or straight ice cream. Ben & Jerry’s aren’t discriminating against anyone for their sexuality, and there is no law against discriminating against people who insist on only eating one flavour of ice cream at a time.

--

Josephus,

Who is dismissing biological science, and how are they dismissing it?

<<So biological science is now dismissed as illogical, and emotional behaviour is what determines a person.>>

What is this "emotional behaviour" you speak of, and how is it defining people now? I'm concerned!

<<I am afraid I grew up in the science era and not in the flower power period, where confusion of gender reigned.>>

Gender confusion reigned in the ‘60s? Please, tell me more. And who are these people who are confused about their genders? I’m intrigued.

<<Of course I am not allowed to hold an opinion.>>

Aw, why not? That doesn't seem fair. We're all entitled to hold opinions.

Foxy:

Why would anyone support their business unless you were sure that they were in favour of same-sex marriage? How can you tell that their action is in order to support same-sex marriage and not just a ploy to get more business? You would want more evidence than the word of a business man. Business people exist to make money and not to further causes which should be judged on their reasonableness.

How can support for these business men be logically judged as support for same-sex marriage when we have no proof that such is the intention of the businessmen? You could be just gullibly lining their pockets.

AJ Phillips;
The argument against a plebiscite was that those opposed would abuse
those in favour.
However as we have seen it is just the other way around.
Those in favour are abusing those against.

You said to Josephus;
You’ve lost the plot. What does the physical difference between boys and girls, or the emotional state of children, have to do with anything?

Everything !

Not quite, Bazz.

<<The argument against a plebiscite was that those opposed would abuse those in favour.>>

There needn’t be any intent to cause harm, as is implied in the way you have framed it. What psychologists refer to as ‘minority stress’ would occur no matter how civil the inevitable public debate was kept (as has been the experience of countries that put the issue of same-sex marriage to a public vote), resulting in increased mental health issues in the gay community with measurable increases in drug and alcohol abuse, and suicides.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ilan_Meyer/publication/15461517_Minority_Stress_and_Mental_Health_in_Gay_Men/links/0deec53ad819484a10000000.pdf

Now, I’m not suggesting that we treat everyone like snowflakes. If there were rational arguments against same-sex marriage, then there would be cause to at least weigh up the risks and benefits of a public debate, but with no rational arguments against same-sex marriage, there’s no point in even doing that much. “I don’t like poofs”, “It grosses me out”, “It’s not natural”, “It’s against my religion”, and “The sky will fall in”, are not rational arguments.

<<Those in favour are abusing those against.>>

Yes, I’m sure that happens, and while I don’t condone abuse, we would probably expect abuse hurled at people who, say, wanted to end interracial marriage, too. As certain views are increasingly perceived to be vile by a society, they are met with harsher condemnation. Test it out for yourself. Try walking through the CBD wearing a swastika and watch the reactions you get.

<<Everything !>>

How so? After all, marriage is a social construct, not a biological construct. As for the emotional state of children, research suggests the children of same-sex couples fare better:

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635
http://teczowerodziny.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Anderssen-N.-Amlie-C.-i-Ytteroy-E.A.-2002.-Outcomes-for-children-with-lesbian-or-gay-parents.pdf

Which makes sense, given how much harder it is for same-sex couples to have children. No unwanted accidents.

Even if they didn’t, though, same-sex couples are still having children, so what positive effect could telling those children that their parents are not allowed to get married possibly have?

Philips:

“but with no rational arguments against same-sex marriage”

There is no rational argument in favour of it. It is based on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is logical and there is no way that you can possibly prove that. Our laws should be based on logic and where no such logic exists no laws should be made.

If homosexual behaviour is illogical then relationships based on homosexual behaviour should not be legalised by the government.

The assumption is being made ignoring the reason to register cohabiting heterosexual couples. The reason is that they are more likely to produce children and be their natural parents. Children have a right to the care of their natural parents. Homosexual couples cannot naturally between them produce children, so the child is deprived of one parent. Read the stories of teen girls brought up in lesbian homes desire to meet their fathers and have a bonding relationship.

Gauwd AJ Phillips;
What a load of waffle.
All that physcobabble is meaningless.
It is very simple, there is a proposition for a law.
You either vote for or against.

You can vote for it if you think that it is natural and reasonable
or you vote against if you think it is unnatural.

phanto,

We’ve been through this many times before. Are you sure you want to go through it all again? It never does end well for you.

<<There is no rational argument in favour of [same-sex marriage].>>

There’s equality. I’ve presented you with this one many times before in the past and you are yet to counter it. Furthermore, I had mentioned two of the benefits which flow from equality in my last post, so I don’t know where you get off claiming this.

Either way, the onus is on those who are against same-sex marriage to explain why it should not be legislated for. For the fifth or sixth time now, rights are granted until it can be shown why they should be withheld, not the other way around.

<<It is based on the assumption that homosexual behaviour is logical and there is no way that you can possibly prove that.>>

You have a short memory, phanto:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<Our laws should be based on logic and where no such logic exists no laws should be made.>>

Equality is a logical reason.

Whether or not homosexual behaviour is logical (which we had established in the above link/discussion that it was) is not the question. The question is whether or not legislating for same-sex marriage is logical, and the answer to this question is not determined by whether or not the behaviour is logical, it is determined by weighing up the risks and benefits of passing legislation to allow for same-sex marriage.

<<If homosexual behaviour is illogical then relationships based on homosexual behaviour should not be legalised by the government.>>

Try again.

--

Josephus,

I already addressed your last post towards the end of my last post. Not allowing for same-sex marriage will not address the issues you raise.

--

Bazz,

Nothing I said was "waffle", as it was all relevant to the issue of a plebiscite, and whether or not a plebiscite is "simple" is irrelevant to the arguments against one.

Philips:

“It never does end well for you.”

How very patronising of you! How do you know what ‘well’ is for me? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that it doesn’t end well for me?

“There’s equality.”

Equality of what? You have already assumed that homosexual relationships are logical and refuse to even debate the issue. In order for equality to be an issue at least two entities need to exist and you have presumed, rather than proved, there are two entities that need to be equalised. You just avoid the possibility that there is only one logical entity. Why not just present an argument in favour of homosexual relationships before you make the next logical point that they should be treated equally with heterosexual relationships. What have you got to lose? What are you afraid of?

“Either way, the onus is on those who are against same-sex marriage to explain why it should not be legislated for”

It shouldn’t be legislated for because it is illogical to legislate for relationships that are illogical in themselves.

“Equality is a logical reason.”

Only when there are at least two things that logically exist and you haven’t proven that there are in this case.

“it is determined by weighing up the risks and benefits of passing legislation to allow for same-sex marriage.”

If it is illogical then it should not be ‘weighed up’ on any terms at all. Governments should only consider legislation that is logical.

My god, who cares ?!

I thought you’d like that, phanto.

<<How very patronising of you! How do you know what ‘well’ is for me?>>

I don’t. But, generally speaking (and correct me if this does not apply to you), people would consider a debate to have gone well for them if they were to emerge from it having substantiated one of their claims, or at least learned something from it. For you, neither of these ever seems to be the case.

<<Equality of what?>>

Opportunity, recognition, legitimacy, etc.

Think back REALLY hard to our past discussions before you bother to ask why they should matter, because we’ve covered them all to varying degrees.

<<You have already assumed that homosexual relationships are logical and refuse to even debate the issue.>>

Refuse?! We went through it all in great detail in our last discussion. That link again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Either way, I’ve already explained why it doesn’t matter, so even if I had refused, that would have been perfectly reasonable.

<<In order for equality to be an issue at least two entities need to exist …>>

Sounds logical.

<<… and you have presumed, rather than proved, there are two entities that need to be equalised.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<You just avoid the possibility that there is only one logical entity.>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

<<Why not just present an argument in favour of homosexual relationships before you make the next logical point that they should be treated equally … What are you afraid of?>>

Why do you lie about what I have and have not done? What are you afraid of?

<<It shouldn’t be legislated for because it is illogical to legislate for relationships that are illogical in themselves.>>

You haven’t demonstrated that they’re illogical. I’ve already provided a link to a discussion where we both came to the conclusion that they were logical.

<<If it is illogical then it should not be ‘weighed up’ on any terms at all.>>

Just as well we both established in our discussion that it was logical then, eh? That link once again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Philips:

“I don’t. ......be the case.”

Either you presumed I did not know that things could end badly for me and you were concerned or you presumed I did know and you just felt like rubbing it in. In the first case you are being patronising because I am an adult quite capable of looking after my own feelings and in the second case you were trying to be aggressive.

You presented links that just show that homosexual behaviour exists but just because behaviour exists it does not mean that such behaviour is logical. In fact none of those studies questioned whether homosexual behaviour is logical and that is my question. None of your links answered the question I asked and so I stopped reading them.

I don’t see why it is so hard to answer. Heterosexuality is relatively easy and simple to be shown as logical. If you want to have a baby then one of the accepted methods is to have sex. It is logical to do what is necessary in order to create a child. You do not have to Google it. Heterosexuality can be proven to be logical at least some of the time whereas homosexuality cannot be proven to be logical any of the time. It might be logical but it cannot be demonstrated to be logical. We need to be able to demonstrate that a behaviour is logical before we jump to conclusions such as the logic of homosexual relationships and homosexual marriage.

People have sex for a great variety of reasons. Anyone who does not agree with this does not know much about sex. Heterosexuals often have sex for illogical reasons and homosexuals do as well. It is not always about babies and sexual pleasure. It can be about money, loneliness, fear of rejection, the need to appropriate the qualities of their sexual partner and many other things. If sex can be used for illogical reasons then you cannot prove that any particular sexual act is ever logical and we need proof in order to legislate.

Butch,
"Of cause the gays cound just find another word, couldn't they Paul."

They could Butch, they could, if the vast majority of Austrians were in favor of gay unions, but were opposed to the use of the term marriage, and demanded gay couples refer to their new union as, say being "carbuncled". Then we would have to accept the wishes of the vast majority and hence refer to gay unions as "carbuncling" and drop any reference to the word marriage. But since there is no such objection from the vast majority, gays can appropriately and rightfully refer to their unions as marriage!
The only ones in society who are bemoaning gays using the word marriage and gay marriage per se, are a handful of unrepresentative religious fruits.

p/s Ex tennis player Margret Court is opposed to gay marriage, and said so in the public arena, so what. No one is demanding Court marry Martina Navratilova, besides Navratilova is already married to her long-term partner Julia Lemigova, We don't want anyone committing bigamy now do we. Seems bigamy is not a problem for some religious fruits they actually are right into it. So what was old Margie banging on about?

But we covered that too, phanto.

<<… just because behaviour exists it does not mean that such behaviour is logical.>>

That link yet again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338963

Here’s another post where I addressed that point:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338907

Long story short: homosexual behaviour is logical because it provides intimacy and companionship to people who have no desire for it from the opposite sex, and there is nothing logical about depriving oneself of intimacy and companionship. I pointed this out (for a second time) after you said:

“There are only two logical reasons for having sex. One is to enjoy the pleasure it brings and the other is because you wish to naturally conceive a child.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338959)

<<In fact none of those studies questioned whether homosexual behaviour is logical and that is my question.>>

I wasn’t referring to the studies I linked to. I linked to those because you claimed homosexuality didn’t exist at all.

*Snigger*

<<I don’t see why it is so hard to answer.>>

It’s not. You’re just pretending that I didn’t answer it.

<<If you want to have a baby then one of the accepted methods is to have sex. It is logical to do what is necessary in order to create a child … whereas homosexuality cannot be proven to be logical any of the time.>>

Apparently it can. See above. Or do intimacy and companionship no longer matter to you?

<<If sex can be used for illogical reasons then you cannot prove that any particular sexual act is ever logical and we need proof in order to legislate.>>

So you want to return yet again to your argument that marriage shouldn’t exist at all? Fine. But equality should for so long as it does.

Philips:

“Long story short: homosexual behaviour is logical because it provides intimacy and companionship to people who have no desire for it from the opposite sex, and there is nothing logical about depriving oneself of intimacy and companionship.”

If you want intimacy and companionship with members of your own sex then you should pursue those things. Many people have those things without a sexual relationship so it is not logical to have sex to get what you can get without sex. Sex can only give you sexual pleasure or babies. Everything else you can have without sex.

There is nothing logical about depriving yourself of intimacy and companionship. No one said there was but it is illogical to do one thing when in fact your stated aim is to have something quite different. You want intimacy and companionship but go after sex which can only give you pleasure or babies. That is very illogical.

“Or do intimacy and companionship no longer matter to you?”

That is a very stunted view of human intimacy and companionship to suggest that they only exist in a sexual situation. So if you wanted to express your anger towards your partner, which is an example of intimacy, you could only do so whilst having sex? This seems a little like fetishism.

“So you want to return yet again to your argument that marriage shouldn’t exist at all?”

I don’t care if it exists as long as it is logical but I cannot see how homosexuality can be logical and therefore it stands to reason I cannot see how same-sex marriage is logical.

That's a non sequitur, phanto.

<<... it is not logical to have sex to get what you can get without sex.>>

Achieving intimacy and companionship through sex is not illogical just because they can be attained in other ways. Homosexuality and marriage aren't just about sex, either.

<<Sex can only give you sexual pleasure or babies. Everything else you can have without sex.>>

This statement is contradictory, and a non sequitur to any extent that it makes sense. Furthermore, none of the confused logic here necessitates that those things which can be found elsewhere must be sought elsewhere.

<<… it is illogical to do one thing when in fact your stated aim is to have something quite different.>>

Oh? So now you’re suggesting that one cannot get those other things from sex?

Improvise your reasoning long enough, phanto, and you will eventually get yourself tangled up in it, just as you have done now. It's what you're famous for:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7315#225289

<<You want intimacy and companionship but go after sex which can only give you pleasure or babies.>>

Sex can enhance intimacy and companionship. The two are not mutually exclusive. This is a false dichotomy.

<<That is a very stunted view of human intimacy and companionship to suggest that they only exist in a sexual situation.>>

This is the danger of taking what people say out of context. The last time you did it, I became a raging, walking hard-on:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338882

<<So if you wanted to express your anger towards your partner, which is an example of intimacy, you could only do so whilst having sex?>>

No.

<<I don’t care if [marriage] exists as long as it is logical but I cannot see how homosexuality can be logical and therefore it stands to reason I cannot see how same-sex marriage is logical.>>

Scroll up.

But since you're so concerned with what is and is not logical, tell me: How is discrimination logical when everyone suffers for it to some degree or another? And if it's just a matter of priorities, how do you determine what should be prioritised?

This'll be interesting.

Ice cream is a highly competitive business. With a rapidly growing proportion of the population being concerned about obesity, diabetes, heart and stroke risks, cancer too, this idiotic ice cream franchise should be considering their very first priority to be helping their customers with healthier choices such as Stevia, or way less sugar at the very least.

How 'socially conscious' is it to be loading already over-loaded pancreases with more sugar?

That is a far, far bigger issue than trying to trash the Marriage Act for the very few of the few who might prefer that and are bullying society to get it , and then would be getting a divorce soon after.

Time for Government to legislate for ice cream sellers to put kilojoules on those sugar loaded waffle cones and ice cream? That has already happened with some fast foods.

Frightening,
http://www.fatsecret.com.au/calories-nutrition/generic/ice-cream

Leo, does your group have any plans to place "stormtroopers" outside these gay ice cream parlors, thus preventing the "good folk" from frequenting such unclean establishments? Just asking.

Two roosters do not lay fertile eggs. Two hens do not lay fertile eggs to hatch chickens. A rooster and a hen is the only logical conclusion to lay eggs from which to hatch chickens. The combinations are not equal and never will be equal. If equality is to be achieved then it cannot be on gender basis. Thus the push to annul gender from society.

Our society is only aware of battery hens for eggs, and battery roosters for meat. Same gender has become normal practise in their psyche. They fail to see the huge breeding going on behind the scenes to give both laying hens and roosters from chickens; otherwise the breeds dies out.

Josephus, are you quoting from the bible there about the roosters and the hens? What came first the chicken or the egg? Sorry to correct you, the hens make the eggs, the hens also make the meat. The roosters, well they live for a day, then they talk a hot bath, in fact a very hot bath, the only one they ever take, and then they make fertilizer! Its all in the (Chicken) Bible.

Paul1405,
I thought all along you could not recognise difference in gender.

Hi Josephus,

A very good point ! Not only is it 'humanist' to ignore similarities between our own species and others, but as you say, it is quite politically-incorrect to ignore gender fluidity in chooks. Says who, that a rooster can't lay eggs ? Says who that a hen can't mount other non-gender-specific chooks ?

Obviously, Nature is discriminatory, denying egg-laying rights to 'roosters' (as some call them), and mounting rights to 'hens'. In fact, 'nature' is so obtuse and alt-right that it denies gender fluidity in chooks at all. And this anti-GF infects humans too - why aren't two so-called 'roosters' allowed to live together ? Hmmmm ? Not only is 'nature' discriminatory but it's anti-gay as well ! Probably anti-LBGQTARI too.

This all must be opposed ! Immediately !

Whaddawe want ? Chook gender fluidity ! When do we want it ? Now !

Expose 'nature' ! 'Down with 'nature' ! 'Nature' is a neo-liberal plot !

Cheers,

Joe

Government does not currently register the intimate relations between roosters and hens, roosters and roosters or hens and hens. Fortunately they also do not (yet?) register which and how many ice-cream scoops we have.

Why are some humans so eager to be discriminated against in a way that makes them worse off than hens and roosters?

Remember, any information Big Brother holds about you - can be used against you!

Homosexuals especially, and any other minority for that matter, should beware, for if one day the direction of the wind changes, having a record about your personal life would make it easier for them to make you disappear into concentration-camps or into thin air.

Josephus,

As you’ve been told many times before, marriage is a social construct, not a biological one. Your arguments against same-sex marriage will continue to be irrelevant for so long as you insist on appealing to reproduction. Homosexuality is not just something which is reducible to an individual’s psyche, either:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=the+evolution+of+homosexuality

<< The combinations are not equal and never will be equal. If equality is to be achieved ...>>

Equality is about equal treatment despite differences, it does not require that two variables be identical.

--

phanto,

You’ve got yourself into a mighty mess here, so let me help you untangle some of it to get you back on track…

I noted that there are no rational arguments against same-sex marriage. You then attempted to present one based on the premise that homosexuality is illogical.

To justify this claim, you falsely limit sexuality to the act of having sex and then claim that homosexuality is therefore illogical because it cannot produce children. When it is shown to you that there are other logical reasons to engage in sexual activity, you then attempt to write them off as ‘illogical’ simply because they can be attained in other ways.

Now THAT is illogical.

By that logic, most of what we do is illogical because we can usually attain what it is we are seeking via other means.

See what a mess you get yourself into when you engage in ad hoc, motivated reasoning? This is what I meant when I said these discussions never go well for you. You can write that off as “patronising” all you like., but them's the facts.

Conclusions are something which we arrive at, not something we presuppose and then defend at all costs. Opting for the latter has seen you test and abandon more lines of reasoning for an idea than should ever be necessary. You have it arse-backwards, and now you are paying the price for that.

You get yourself so tangled up in your own reasoning that you can no long move without tripping over your own contradictions and inconsistencies.

Josephus, I have done some research into what you have said, and have come up with the following bit of scientific evidence to support your wisdom on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XaW3VAknPY

Philips:

“So now you’re suggesting that one cannot get those other things from sex?”

Yes.

“Sex can enhance intimacy and companionship”

How does this work exactly? How does sex enhance intimacy? You can have the deepest levels of human intimacy with someone with whom you have no sexual relationship at all. If the ultimate levels of intimacy can be had without sex then how does sex enhance intimacy? How does it contribute to the levels of intimacy at all? Intimacy is one activity and sex is another. You may be having intimacy and sex at the same time but how does intimacy become enhanced? How can it be any better than what it is when you are not having sex?

How can sex enhance companionship? You have companionship when you are in the living room. How does the level of companionship increase or be enhanced when you go to the bedroom? It remains exactly the same level of companionship.

“The last time you did it, I became a raging, walking hard-on”

So I took you out of context and you deemed that to be a bad thing like having an erection. Why do you have such a negative attitude to your own erections? Are you afraid of being punished because of them or of losing control over your own body?

“How is discrimination logical when everyone suffers for it to some degree or another?”

What has discrimination got to do with anything? No one is being discriminated here unless you can prove that homosexuality is logical. If homosexual behaviour is illogical then homosexuality is illogical and so there is no one who is being discriminated. If your sexuality does not exist then you cannot be discriminated on its basis.

Philips:

“You’ve got yourself into a mighty mess here, so let me help you untangle some of it to get you back on track…”

Why not just do it or are you trying to convince yourself that I am in a mighty mess or that you are capable of helping?

“To justify this claim, you falsely limit sexuality to the act of having sex.”

What else is it about?

“then claim that homosexuality is therefore illogical because it cannot produce children.”

No I said it can be illogical and one of the ways that heterosexuality demonstrates logic is because it is logical to have sex if you want to have a baby. Homosexuality does not have any such demonstrable logic which is why it is always open to the possibility that it is never logical.

“When it is shown to you that there are other logical reasons to engage in sexual activity,”

I haven’t been shown at all. Just because you make an unsubstantiated claim that intimacy and companionship are enhanced by sexual activity does not mean I have been ‘shown’. You have given no reasons for this claim of yours.

“See what a mess you get yourself into”

What is wrong with being in a mess? I am not concerned with that. I am trying to find the truth. I do not presume to have all the answers and part of that search can be messy – it is called thinking. Why would you presume that I am uncomfortable with mess? Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I am in a mess because it makes you feel superior in some way. Or perhaps you are afraid of being in a mess because you need to be in control of every argument.

“Conclusions are something which we arrive at, not something we presuppose and then defend at all costs.”

That is what you are doing. Your conclusion is that homosexual marriage is reasonable and logical and yet you cannot prove the most basic premise of your argument which declares homosexual behaviour to be logical.

That’s interesting, phanto.

<<Yes.>>

Because, in that very same post, you suggested that those other things COULD be attained through sexual activity, but that it was illogical to do so because they could be attained via other means.

See what I mean about tripping over your own contradictions and inconsistencies when make it up as you go?

<<How does sex enhance intimacy?>>

By being an act of intimacy.

<<If the ultimate levels of intimacy can be had without sex then how does sex enhance intimacy?>>

What are the ultimate levels of intimacy, and how are you measuring them? That aside for a moment, and assuming that we could determine when two people reached a supposed maximum level of intimacy together, how do you know that such a level can be achieved without sex? Furthermore, even if you were right, it does not then follow that sex can NEVER enhance intimacy. That’s illogical.

Your argument is dumb.

<<How does it contribute to the levels of intimacy at all?>>

By promoting closeness.

<<Intimacy is one activity and sex is another.>>

Intimacy isn’t an activity, it’s a state.

<<How can sex enhance companionship?>>

By promoting closeness.

<<So I took you out of context and you deemed that to be a bad thing like having an erection.>>

At no point did I suggest that having an erection was a bad thing. Nor did I compare having an erection to what you said.

<<What has discrimination got to do with anything?>>

Not allowing homosexual couple to marry is discriminatory.

<<No one is being discriminated here unless you can prove that homosexuality is logical.>>

I have, you are yet to counter it.

<<If homosexual behaviour is illogical then homosexuality is illogical and so there is no one who is being discriminated.>>

So now heterosexuality is illogical, too? You haven’t demonstrated that either one is “illogical”.

<<If your sexuality does not exist …>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

Now that was one convoluted side-step to a very simple question.

Continued…

…Continued

<<What else is [sexuality] about?>>

Romance and romantic attraction. I’m sorry an asexual person like yourself doesn’t get that.

<<No I said it can be illogical and one of the ways that heterosexuality demonstrates logic is because it is logical to have sex if you want to have a baby.>>

Same thing. What I said still applies.

<<Homosexuality does not have any such demonstrable logic which is why it is always open to the possibility that it is never logical.>>

Again, you falsely limit sexuality to sex acts.

<<Just because you make an unsubstantiated claim that intimacy and companionship are enhanced by sexual activity does not mean I have been ‘shown’. You have given no reasons for this claim of yours.>>

Well, until your last two posts, I didn’t realise you were silly and/or obtuse enough to need it explained. But now I’ve explained it for the obtuse phanto.

<<I am trying to find the truth.>>

Oh, come now. People in search for the truth do not engage in mental gymnastics or change their argument every five minutes to favour only one conclusion

<<Why would you presume that I am uncomfortable with mess?>>

Because it suggests intellectual dishonesty.

<<Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I am in a mess because it makes you feel superior in some way.>>

Or perhaps you need to convince yourself that I need to convince myself because you are not convinced of your own... self.

Ah-HA! Gotcha there!

Seriously, though, the amateur psychology is boring and doesn't work.

<<Your conclusion is that homosexual marriage is reasonable and logical and yet you cannot prove the most basic premise of your argument which declares homosexual behaviour to be logical.>>

That’s an unnecessary premise which you have invented and not yet justified the need for. Despite that, however, I have provided you with a satisfactory answer many times before: Because people are sexual beings, and some are attracted to the same sex. But since you don’t think that constitutes a logical reason to be homosexual, then tell me: what is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?

Philips:

Unless you can show me an example of the logic of just one homosexual act then it remains possible that all homosexual acts are illogical. That it is fundamental logic.

So now we’re back to the acts, phanto?

<<Unless you can show me an example of the logic of just one homosexual act then it remains possible that all homosexual acts are illogical.>>

You keep switching back and forth between sexuality in general and sex acts (if I didn’t know any better, I’d say you were trying wear me down so that I give up and leave). We covered the ‘sex acts’ angle thoroughly in our last discussion. You keep returning to it because you forget that procreation is not a trump card.

No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings (well, most of us at least), therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings.

What.

Part.

Of.

This.

Do.

You.

Not.

Understand?

None of it, I suspect. You are simply ducking and weaving, and shifting the goal posts now. It’s all you have left.

<<That it is fundamental logic.>>

I’m not even sure you know what logic is, anymore. Logic, in the context of this discussion, is the quality of being justifiable by reason (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).

You still haven’t answered my question, by the way. What is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?

Philips:

"What is logical about ignoring one’s sexuality?"

Which sexuality are you talking about? If you are talking about homosexuality then you presume it exists. I can't agree with you unless I see evidence that homosexual behaviour is logical. So your question has no meaning for me until I see that evidence. It is pretty basic scientific method. You do not advance an argument unless you can show proof of your first premise.

If homosexuality is logical then why can't you provide me with a concrete example that demonstrates it? Show me one homosexual act that is logical. Just one example - it can't be that hard.

And stop whinging about what I am doing or not doing. You sound like a spoilt brat. No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.

Human sexuality in general, phanto.

<<Which sexuality are you talking about?>>

All of them. I made that clear.

<<If you are talking about homosexuality then you presume it exists.>>

No, there's enough evidence to not have to presume. The evidence for the evolution of homosexuality is a case in point:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=the+evolution+of+homosexuality

Unless, that is, you think it's possible to study and find evidence for the evolution of a non-existent trait?

<<I can't agree with you [that homosexuality exists] unless I see evidence that homosexual behaviour is logical.>>

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

<<So your question has no meaning for me until I see that evidence.>>

Which is exactly why you pretend you haven't.

<<If homosexuality is logical then why can't you provide me with a concrete example that demonstrates it?>>

I did:

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings (well, most of us at least), therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

<<Show me one homosexual act that is logical.>>

Oh, so we're back to 'acts' now? Okay then: pairing off.

<<... it can't be that hard.>>

It hasn't been.

<<And stop whinging about what I am doing or not doing.>>

I will continue to hold you to account whenever you are dishonest or speak rubbish. That doesn’t make a “whinger”.

<<You sound like a spoilt brat.>>

Spoilt brats throw tantrums. I have not thrown a tantrum. You, on the other hand, sound like you are. What’s the matter? Is it frustrating when being obtuse doesn’t have the desired effect?

<<No one is forcing you to participate in the discussion.>>

Oh, I know. But I enjoy it, so...

Philips:

All that lovely theory and yet you are unable to present even one example of it at work in practice.

Um ...... what was the topic again ?

Get a room, you blokes :)

Oh, I'd certainly be able to do that for you, phanto.

<<All that lovely theory and yet you are unable to present even one example of it at work in practice.>>

But I don't think Graham would appreciate it. Try Googling 'Pornhub'.

I'm sure you'll find your way from there.

Just because they do it does not mean it is logical though does it? You think that sexual behaviour is always and everywhere logical?

That’s true, phanto.

<<Just because they do it does not mean it is logical though does it?>>

What makes it logical is the fact that it is reasonable to respond such an innate and primal instinct as sexuality:

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

<<You think that sexual behaviour is always and everywhere logical?>>

I guess that would depend on what one considers to be reasonable. Either way, it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made.

"What makes it logical is the fact that it is reasonable to respond such an innate and primal instinct as sexuality:"

But its not always logical or reasonable to do that - surely it is tempered by reason. That is what makes us distinct from animals. We think before we act. If we had sex every time we were aroused we would get arrested.

"Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings.”

Scroll up.

"Either way, it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made."

How do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time unless you can prove it to be so? Presumption is not good enough especially when you are talking about government legislation.

Like I said, phanto.

<<But its not always logical or reasonable to do that …>>

“... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240427)

<<That is what makes us distinct from animals.>>

No, to equate what I said with just mounting anyone we like when we feel like it is a misrepresentation of what I said.

<<We think before we act. If we had sex every time we were aroused we would get arrested.>>

Like I was saying..

<<Scroll up.>>

Yeah, you missed the mark, sorry.

<<How do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time unless you can prove it to be so?>>

The reasoning I provided was good enough. You are yet to counter it.

<<Presumption is not good enough especially when you are talking about government legislation.>>

At no point have I presumed anything

"The reasoning I provided was good enough"

But it is just a theory. If it is true then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true by concrete examples.

You haven't done that. Why is it so difficult?

We can't change legislation just because you have a theory. We need to see proof that your theory is true.

You pointed to some pornography site but unless we know why people engage in pornography we can't really say whether or not it is logical. Are they forming intimate, romantic relationships?

If businesses are publicly involved in political decisions then it is divisive even as this subject, and it is better to keep the status quo.

The Roman Governments in the first century kept records of census of its citizens, and the Churches were the first to act to keep records of persons marrying for the Roman Government. Though marriage was celebrated by many cultures for thousands of years. It has always been between a man and a woman cohabiting for life, though divorce was permitted in some circumstances.

The purpose of records of citizens has been for national security, the purpose of marriage institution is for procreation, protection, nurture welfare of children, the most vulnerable of citizens.

Dear Josephus,

Given that:

1. Marriage is no longer required for procreation, even for the middle-class (the others did not bother to marry for procreation anyway).
2. Procreation is no longer desirable in our already overcrowded planet.
3. Homosexuals do procreate, they just do the fertilisation part with someone else (usually a homosexual of the opposite gender) then raise the children with their partner.
4. The welfare of children is already dealt with by other government agencies (not that I agree with governments' involvement with our children, but that's another story) regardless of the parents' marital status.
5. Records can be abused, for example to round up politically-unwanted people or of a certain race, religion or sexual orientation. Regimes can change and you can never tell what a different new regime can do with them. We just read in the news today that China is trying to take control over Australia.

The status quo whereby government knows about our private relationships needs to be changed, so marriages are no longer registered by the state or mentioned in any laws and all existing records of marriage and relationships should be erased and shredded.

So now you’re going to fallaciously shift the goalposts, phanto?

<<But it is just a theory.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#Logical_fallacy

Logic, in the context of this discussion, is that which conforms to reason. I have provided you with ample reasoning as to why conforming to one’s sexuality is reasonable. It is now your turn to explain why my reasoning is unsound. Instead, you ask for concrete examples…

<<If it is true then you should be able to demonstrate that it is true by concrete examples.>>

How to you define a “concrete” example? You need to clarify that. I suspect you haven’t done so yet because not even you know what you mean, you’re just foundering now.

Do you mean tangible? Because providing a tangible example of human behaviour is not possible (especially on a forum) so asking for it is unreasonable.

<<We can't change legislation just because you have a theory.>>

It’s not just me, phanto. That aside, there is no such rule. You are making this up.

At this point, I think you need to define what you mean by “theory”, too, because legislation certainly has been based on it (e.g. &#145;No jab, no pay’ is based on several theories).

<<We need to see proof that your theory is true.>>

You mean YOU do. I think everyone else is either laughing at you, or wincing because they too are opposed to marriage equality and realise your arguments are absurd.

<<… unless we know why people engage in pornography we can't really say whether or not it is logical.>>

That will change from person to person. In the US, where support for those in need is minimal, it may be reasonable for someone to do a few scenes, if it gets them out of a rut.

But porn isn’t an example of what I’ve been talking about. I only referred you to it to highlight the poor wording of your request; poor wording which reflects how muddled your thinking has become trying to rationally justify an irrational position.

<<Are they forming intimate, romantic relationships?>>

In pornographic videos? Not usually, although it has happened.

Gosh, this is fun, isn't it AJ ?

Just to get back to the original topic: I'm a bit more confused than usual about homosexual 'marriage' if Tom and Jerry forbid any customers from having the same sort of ice-cream in both scoops, everybody has to have two different flavours.

I would have thought that this is what any company opposed to homosexual 'marriage' would do: that it would anathema to them to allow same-scoop servings, that all double-cones had to have - for want of better terms - a 'male' scoop and a 'female' scoop ?

Or am I just being thick as usual ?

Joe

'Female scoop'? Well it is about time!

Lesbians are fuming, raging and lesbians excel at both, about cartoonists only depicting 'Gays', which is men. 'Gay' is exclusively male where they want it to be, or otherwise, where it suits their purpose.

Now, about those scoops, they are strap-ons of course. Huge and 'diverse' too?

All that is left is for OLO's 'anal-sex-is-so-good-and-empowering-for-girls' advocates to leap into the flavours - dipping chocolate before pink is so hip, teacher says so.

Simplifying the world: there are other ice cream suppliers. Where ice cream is just ice cream.

Philips:

“I have provided you with ample reasoning as to why conforming to one’s sexuality is reasonable.”

But people do not always conform to their sexuality when having sex. They do not always conform to the reasons you give such as a desire for intimacy or romance. They sometimes have sex for other reasons don’t you agree? Are all these other reasons logical? What is wrong with a one night stand where no romance or intimacy is expected or desired?

Is every sexual act between two people always and everywhere reasonable? That is all that I am asking? If it is not then how can we be certain that any particular act between two people is reasonable?

For example when Prince William and Kate decided they were going to have children they had sex in order to bring about children. It was logical for that couple to have sex in order to produce children.

Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?

They do to the extent that they are sexual beings, phanto.

<<But people do not always conform to their sexuality when having sex.>>

Who cares if, say, alcohol might cause them to stray from their usual boundaries?

<<They do not always conform to the reasons you give such as a desire for intimacy or romance.>>

“... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240427)

Do you even know what it is that you’re arguing anymore?

<<They sometimes have sex for other reasons don’t you agree?>>

Agreed.

<<Are all these other reasons logical?>>

“... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240427)

<<What is wrong with a one night stand where no romance or intimacy is expected or desired?>>

Depends on the situation. Probably nothing, most of the time.

<<Is every sexual act between two people always and everywhere reasonable?

Probably not. What does it matter if it’s not?

<<If it is not then how can we be certain that any particular act between two people is reasonable?>>

“... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240427)

<<For example when Prince William and Kate decided they were going to have children they had sex in order to bring about children. It was logical for that couple to have sex in order to produce children.>>

Yes.

<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc.

“No-one who responds to their sexuality by forming intimate, romantic relationships is being illogical. Sexuality is innate to human beings ... therefore, it is logical to respond to those feelings.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240406)

And remember...

"Achieving intimacy and companionship through sex is not illogical just because they can be attained in other ways. Homosexuality and marriage aren't just about sex, either." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240358)

"... it doesn’t matter, because it only needs to be logical some of the time for my point to have been made"

But how do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time?

"<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc."

That is just generalising. I have given you an example of a particular couple with a particular outcome consistent with their stated reason. Why can't you do that?

If gender fluidity is the norm, then - please someone help me with this - the terms 'homosexual' and heterosexual' are redundant: after all, as the Unsafe Schools program teaches, there are no dichotomies, except perhaps neo-liberal and Utopian.

OR is there complete fluidity in-between what old-fashioned people used to mistakenly call homo- and hetero-sexual ? Not only in-between but, of course, beyond each.

But if the terms homo- and hetero-sexual are redundant, then so is the controversy over 'marriage'. [Apart from the fact that old lefties like me were supposed to consider marriage so bourgeois, back in the day. How times change.]

If anything, we should be talking about 'equal marriage' between people of infinite sexual variety, stemming from gender fluidity., not just one and/or the other.

Not to mention the vertical to the horizontal, so to speak - trans-everything off in one direction, no-anything in another.

Gosh, it's such fun to get neurotic over such piddly issues when there are no other substantial problems in the world, none that impinge on the inner-suburbs anyway.

Joe

Loudmouth:

If you are gender fluid then marriage has no meaning for you. Gender fluidity and marriage are contradictory. You can’t be tied down to marriage and also a practising gender fluid person. This makes a nonsense of marriage or gender fluidity. How can you identify as gender fluid and also be dedicated to one person of one gender at the same time?

It is all about identity. The same for homosexuals. They want to be married and also identify as homosexuals. They want to marry because they think that being married aids their identity as homosexuals. That is why they clamour for equality as if marriage makes them more homosexual than they are without marriage. Heterosexuals do not need to identify as heterosexuals. They do not get married in order to ‘identify’ as anything

Good question, phanto, and one I’ve answered many times.

<<But how do you know for certain that it is logical some of the time?>>

Because intimacy, companionship, sexual release, pleasure, etc. are logical reasons.

<<Is there such an example you can point to where a particular act of homosexual sex turned out to be reasonable?>>

Shifting the goalposts once again, eh? I cite 'pairing off' as an example earlier and you change it to sex specifically. Why have you confined it sex specifically now? Even you said earlier that the above can be achieved without sex.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240354

<<That is just generalising.>>

No, it’s not. I am not assuming that those examples therefore apply to every instance.

<<I have given you an example of a particular couple with a particular outcome consistent with their stated reason. Why can't you do that?>>

I can, and I have: paring off.

This request of yours is a combination of the McNamara fallacy and the Argument from Silence fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Or would you like to once again shift the goalposts and demand an example of two homosexual people conceiving a child? Requesting the impossible is usually where people end up when they shift the goalposts long enough.

Do you remember our old friend, one under god? He was a big fan of fallaciously shifting the goalposts, too. If you debated evolution with him long enough, he would eventually shift the goalposts so far that he would work himself to a point where he was asking you to, on a forum, hold a creature in front of his face so that he can see it evolve into another species.

That's where you’re at now, and it's a new low for you.

Dear Joe,

«please someone help me with this - the terms 'homosexual' and heterosexual' are redundant»

Not exactly redundant: yes they do not describe yourself in any way, but they do describe a condition of your body, perhaps of your mind, so they could be somewhat useful - it's like having a sore-throat and high-temperature one day, then being over it in the next.

«If anything, we should be talking about 'equal marriage' between people of infinite sexual variety, stemming from gender fluidity., not just one and/or the other.»

Marriage need not stem from gender, it need not have anything to do with gender.

---

Dear Phanto,

«How can you identify as gender fluid and also be dedicated to one person of one gender at the same time?»

One can happen to have a fluid gender - but one need not identify with it!

Is gender that important anyway?

I think it's just a nuisance - what a waste of a life to identify with the petty needs of one's body or even of one's mind!

People can love each other and marry without even thinking of gender.
That of course, is a private matter and you don't need anyone to tell you that it's OK.

Yuyutsu,

So ...... the very notion of identity is fluid, to the point of irrelevance ? We all can be anything we like at any time ? Does this mean there is not necessarily such a thing as identity ?

Fluidity seems to have become something of an Irish stew, depending what you put in it today, and something else tomorrow, according to your taste that day ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

We can only be what we are, this cannot change.

While there is evidence that the sexual inclination of our body can be fluid, even more so the sexual inclination of our mind, neither is our true identity.

If we identify with something that we are not, then we are in error and when we are in error, we suffer.

When it suits them, gay activists deny that heterosexuals who also dabble with their own gender are gay, or even bisexual, just that they are preferring change for a while and are not 'true' gays.

They are probably right in that. There are many examples reported in the media of men and women who have lived heterosexual lives, marrying and raising children who oddly decide their preference was homosexual all of the time or 'bisexual'.

Of course one gets a very misleading impression from the media reports and most definitely so from the ABC. It is called (psychological) heuristics and are responsible for most mistaken impressions, judgement and decisions. That is cynically and ruthlessly exploited by activists, the Greens protest party and the media of course and all for their own secondary gain.

While the proportion of homosexuals in the population is quite low and the other variants of the 'alphabetical' categories is even lower still, the constant over-reporting by the ABC and other media conveys the lasting impression to the public that such unusual and in some cases very rare conditions are common, whereas the exact opposite is the case.

Gay activists and others who piggyback a ride on gay politics for their own political benefit, for example the Greens, shamelessly and unethically exploit heuristics in manipulating public opinion. As a parallel, the media's preference for sensationalism and stereotyping (especially negative) has the Australian public irrationally fearing very rare firearm homicide as a likely cause of death, and disregarding the risks culminating in the very prevalent heart disease, cancer and chronic respiratory disease.

An attempt was made to reframe this discussion earlier to get some balance, but to no avail.

tbc..

continued..
The ABC, through its programs like Q&A cynically take advantage of the human weaknesses concerning heuristics, to exploit 'news' and 'public interest' it has manufactured itself. The ABC has a long record of failing its trusting public by doing that and by not putting its dollars and effort into investigative journalism of the big issues confronting Australia.

The original post rightly expresses utter contempt for the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster, the $1.billion pa, ABC, that is up to its usual tricks of exploiting and sensationalising gay (Gay Pride) activist priorities, even where that means lending a hand to an ice cream franchise that is out for free publicity from a stunt.

If Occam's Razor is applied, the ABC's cynicism and frivolousness are laid bare and yes, definitely, what has happened to its real priorities, accepting that it still has some? - Although the last mentioned is doubtful where digital has taken over and the ABC has no interest in assisting its trusting public to adapt and make full use of digital.

For how long will the public be content with paying taxes to cater for the excesses and laziness of some ABC producers and for those celebrity 'journalist' personalities, who don't seem to much interest in the bigger issues that the public needs independent reporting on and investigative journalism?

Hi Leoj,

But if identity is so fluid, any talk of 'false' or 'true' gays' is pointless - anybody can be what they like at any moment.

Of course, one's DNA doesn't change: I'll bet that even the DNA of a trannie who was once a bloke, is still a bloke's. You can't dictate your DNA :)

Christ, I wish I cared.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

It sounds to me like you're confusing gender with biological sex. While the two are often used interchangeably nowadays (I suspect some prefer 'gender' because 'sex' sound rude), gender refers more to a culture construct based on biological sex.

I don't think anyone is claiming that a boy can think their penis into a vagina. Some people, however, are born feeling like they are in the wrong body, and there are many explanations for this, but more research is needed. Sex is not as binary as we had long assumed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

Hi AJ,

Perhaps you might need to concentrate your comments towards someone who gives a toss. Why then, you may ask, do I even write on this thread ? Because it's all such a huge joke, ludicrously funny and pointless like a lot of good comedy is, and such a slightly refreshing break from the real problems of the real world.

Joe

Sorry, Joe, but I don't find mental illness and suicide, due to ridicule or having to pretend to be someone you're not to avoid ridicule, very funny or unimportant.

And, yes, I still think you care very much about this topic. There is something about it that annoys you immensely. It comes through in your mockery.

"Christ, I wish I cared"

But you do care and that is all for the good on public forums, OLO is exceptional in allowing freedom of speech.

I am the one who should be apologising, for my habitual quick draft and hit send.

Today as every day it has been amusing observing the PC mob explain away a revealing drop of the tweeds by 'someone who ought to know (his PC) better'.

Thus far in what is becoming known as 'C*bleep*gate', guru 'First Australia' Noel's depiction of senior federal parliamentarians as 'C*bleep*s' or 'F*bleep*ing C*bleeps*' is being explained away by, 'Anyhow, some celebrity chef does it'.

Waiting for some OLO posters to do better. They will excel too, even though there is an understandable delay for leads from 'their' ABC and others (Waleed? LOL).

Dear Joe,

«anybody can be what they like at any moment.»

No, no one can be any other than themselves!

Certainly, one can change their mind and the jury is still out regarding to what extent one can also change their physical body and its DNA in particular, yet no matter how often or how extensively one changes their mind and body, no one can change themselves.

So long as one identifies with their mind or body, they also identify with the sexual orientation of that particular mind/body, so if it happens to be fluid then they consider themselves to be fluid as well - but that's a mistake: your body and mind are not you.

«Christ, I wish I cared.»

I also do not care about the specific sexual orientation of one's body/mind. What I care about is the needless suffering that is caused by the ignorance of identifying oneself with one's sexuality and turning it into a big-deal.

In the context of this discussion, Ben and Jerry encourage the public to turn sexuality into a big issue rather than allow it to rest in its proper proportions - just a small hiccup on our spiritual journey.

Dear Joel - Yes, the ABC is guilty of the same.

I'm greatly amused that anybody takes this idiocy seriously.

AJ, we might have to agree to differ :)

Oh well, off to get a life.

Joe

Joe,

You are yet to demonstrate that any of it is idiocy. The science seems to disagree with you. What is your evidence that it is mere idiocy? I thought you cared about evidence, or is that only when it suits your cause?

By the way, did you notice that I assumed earlier that you had confused gender with biological sex? I could have accused you of a straw man, but gave you the benefit of the doubt. Yet here you have been running around accusing me of straw men on various threads; straw men that were never there to begin with.

Like I once said (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7732#237838), it’s good that you’re trying to identify and avoid logical fallacies - and, yes, it would be rather amusing to catch me out committing a fallacy given how quick I am to point it out in others - but I also warned that you should be careful to not see them where they don’t exist.

It makes you come across as a bit of douche if you do.

Heuristics
It doesn't matter how silly, it is how often the subject appears that matters in persuading/manipulating public opinion.

Also, it doesn't matter if a report is wrong, but is followed by a correction. Both contribute to similar recall, ie., that there 'was a problem/wrong being done'.

- Psychologists know that and so does the ABC. Or else the entire ABC Board and management ought to be sacked.

The ABC does not have to respond to market forces either. It gets its $1.3billion pa anyhow. It is in a uniquely privileged position and one of trust that must not be abused.

Of course the ABC would report this cr@p. The ABC will always preference, even make, stories that relate to its hidden secondary agenda of being a change agent for its leftist 'Progressivism', of which gay marriage is a staging point towards destroying the feminist-hated 'traditional' marriage and family

The ABC has so many good people with heaps of skills who can make such good programs. What about increasing the public's access to digital communication and learning?

Why put millions into the circuses like Q&A and ringmasters, like the smug Tony Jones?

I am not criticising the quest of some for marriage (that is being aimed by the self-titled 'Progressives' for the refuse tip anyhow).

I am not sure that where gays are concerned they were wise to allow the feminists, especially the feminist radicals of the Gillard government (and the Gay Pride activists to a lesser extent), to lead them by the nose, They were lazy and are now paying for that lapse I believe.

A argument could be put to choose a different label and regulation to the highly contested and conflict-ridden heterosexual model. Others can play with that.

What I do believe though is that the ABC is often failing to provide for the digital needs, ESSENTIALS, of young and old alike, and for that matter all Australians. A convincing argument could be put for wiping out the entire ABC to morrow and giving everyone internet access even if slow, a tablet (or private access) and some regular training.

Dear Joel,

On the one hand you criticise the progressive movement, for whatever it's worth, while on the other, your suggestion is more progressive than all - to push even more people onto the internet, playing straight into Gillard's hands.

I regularly listen to the ABC radio while driving, both for news and current affairs and for classical music on ABC/FM, I don't listen to other stations as I am not willing to allow commercial advertising to enter my ears. I believe that I am mature enough to separate between hard facts and silly opinions, so I would be quite unhappy if your suggestion goes through.

Note also that the internet is subject to all kinds of malicious abuse and is controlled from overseas. If America flips the switch, all routing (both at DNS and IP level) can be diverted, effectively shutting the internet down and/or directing users to the wrong sites where anything can happen. Traditional radio is more reliable, doesn't depend on external fixtures and is much more difficult to divert: lose it - and lose your independence.

Alan Joyce a homosexual stated in April,""If you're unhappy with a company that's involved with the (homosexual marriage) campaign, you won't be able to bank and you won't be able to fly anywhere."

This tells customers to embrace the rainbow agenda or take their business elsewhere. This is bullying the public, and Joyce deserves a rebuttal.

Not really, Josephus.

<< This tells customers to embrace the rainbow agenda or take their business elsewhere. This is bullying the public …>>

Those against marriage equality still have the right to use those services. They’re just going to have a hard time of it if they want to boycott companies because of the stance they hold on the issue.

For centuries homosexual people have been bullied, bashed, killed, and even tortured, and now you lot want to have a whinge because you’re in the minority and on the wrong side of history. Well, cry me a flippin’ river.

You would probably garner more sympathy if any of you could support your opposition to same-sex marriage with a rational argument, but until you do, you will just look like a pack of bigots. It reminds me of all the hypocritical complaints from Christians in the US about how they're being persecuted as a majority.

“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe - dare I dream it? - maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them consecutively.” - Jon Stewart

'For centuries homosexual people have been bullied, bashed, killed, and even tortured, and now you lot want to have a whinge because you’re in the minority and on the wrong side of history.'

amazing AJ that you know history before its happened. Yeah it is true that history has been written in advance and you seem far to ignorant to see that you are on the wrong side of it. Luke 17:28-30 Just another little lie from secular dogma (you are on the wrong side of history)that will prove wrong.

No matter how proud the 'gay pride mob' and supporters become you will not win out.

Yuyutsu, "you criticise the progressive movement"

I am usually careful to indicate that 'progressive' is usually being observed in its absence by those who have borrowed the term. Also, I am not keen on masks. Particularly where it is International Socialism that is being masked. Just use that or simply 'Socialism'. Labor's leaders (to use some examples) don't like using socialism in public any more but it is a rallying call at their knees-ups. That is sly and fake.

You are normally polite and use correct user names.

AJ.
You make a fuss about a few homosexuals being abused, and they should not be abused. Yet you downplay the deliberate mowing down and murder of innocent people by Muslims. Double standards on your part. Homosexuals in our society are equally protected by the law.

runner,

I don’t have to be psychic.

<<… amazing AJ that you know history before [it’s] happened.>>

All I need to know is that there are no examples throughout modern history where discrimination turned out to be the best course of action.

<<No matter how proud the 'gay pride mob' and supporters become you will not win out.>>

You keep telling yourself that, runner.

--

Josephus,

Oh, that’s rich.

<<You make a fuss about a few homosexuals being abused ... Yet you downplay the deliberate mowing down and murder of innocent people by Muslims.

Accuse me of 'downplaying' while you wave off possibly millions of homosexual people, over thousands of years, being bullied, bashed, killed, and tortured as just “a few homosexuals being abused”. Get real.

And where have I ever downplayed the deliberate mowing down and murder of innocent people by Muslims?

How dare you.

<< Homosexuals in our society are equally protected by the law.>>

Sure, but that’s not the issue now, is it?

and here in the west by far the biggest perpetrators of violence against 'gays' is other gays. At a far higher rate than the hetro community. Just more misleading rants from one who claims to be rational.

Dear Leoj,

Had I used your name incorrectly?
I just assumed that 'Leoj' is a fancy way to write 'Joel', right-to-left, like 'Rehctub' who is a butcher by trade.
Sorry if this caused you any trouble.

While I share your feelings about international socialism, I also disagree with the notion of human 'progress' through technology: I suppose that the dual use of the word can be confusing.

That’s true of most groups, runner: Muslims, Christians, criminals, spouses, races, gangs…

What’s your point?

Do you think they’ll look like evil Muslims if you make them out to be the biggest cause of their own grief?

The irony of this line of argument is that such situations (to any extent that they're true) can be improved with greater equality and reduced stigmatisation, which results in less drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. Yet you want to deny them that, too.

Bigotry perpetuates a downward spiral for all concerned.

As usual AJ you are totally wrong. The more homosexuality is promoted the more heartache for those choosing the lifestyle. You deny the obvious as usual.

Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your kind reply. I am sorry if I came across a little peeved about the name. It was not intended.

I might agree with you where some uses of technology are concerned. Scientists are very curious, driven, people and they rely on others to decide what to do, or not do with discoveries.

At least as far as I am concerned I am challenging some, make that many, of the notions of success, life and so on that I grew up with. Science of west and east (although we are late to recognise the east as having any science tradition at all) are converging, in the area of neuroscience for example.

In typical fashion, the bigoted movement led here by the forums own pair of religious fundo's, runner and Josephus, continue to put forward spurious argument in opposition to gay marriage. Not content to simply propagate an irrational argument, runner like the criminal who blames the victim for his crime, tries to blame homosexuals for their own misfortune, claiming violence against gays is mostly the work of other gays. If that is true, and I do not deny it, domestic violence is the source of your claim, and it occurs in gay relationships, just as it does in heterosexual relations, so what? How does that impact on the rights of gay couples to have legal recognition of their relationship. Josephus denies that there was ever any widespread abuse of homosexuals by the broader community , simply claiming that acts of violence against gays was nothing more than "the abuse of a few". Maybe you should claim gay bashing is simply boisterous youth letting off steam.
In fact you could use a similar argument to justify pedophilia by your Catholic clergy, the Church admits 7% of priests are pedophiles, a small number, so 83% are engaged in something else, consenting relationships with other men or women. or simply masturbating alone behind their alters, no harm in any of that you could say. That should justify pedophile priests, after all they are only a few in number compared to the overall mass, they would only cause minimal harm, nothing more. Agree?

Hi Paul,

As one of the tag-along bigots that you allude to, I have to defend Josephus when he writes that " .... a fuss about a few homosexuals being abused, and they should not be abused. Yet you downplay the deliberate mowing down and murder of innocent people by Muslims."

As he says, of course homosexuals should not be abused, if it ever happens - i.e. that homosexuals are abused specifically because they are homosexuals. I recall going to a homosexual party in my young and adventurous days in about June 1963, and nobody worried much about the issues then, legal or not. I don't recall much from that night, except I woke up around 6 or 7 am still there.

I don't know all that many homosexuals, they don't seem to mix in my tiny circles, but for what it's worth, I don't know any who have been assaulted. Yes, tiny sample, very poor research.

Now Islamist-fascist abuse and violence - thy are probably more salient. I hope we don't have to wait until an Islamist-fascist drives his van into a Gay Pride march to test the theory, or a group of fascists throw a homosexual off some high-rise in inner Sydney. Now THAT would be 'abuse'.

Joe

Joe,

I’m not sure what your point was supposed to be there. I don’t see how you have defended anything Josephus said. Your whole post seemed to tinker around the edges of a point that was never really made in the end there.

The closest you came to defending what Josephus said was to use your personal observations to suggest that he wasn’t downplaying the abuse homosexual people have suffered for hundreds or thousands of years, only to negate your own point by explaining yourself why your observations aren’t reliable enough to count for anything anyway.

<<I hope we don't have to wait until an Islamist-fascist drives his van into a Gay Pride march to test the theory, or a group of fascists throw a homosexual off some high-rise in inner Sydney.>>

Test what theory? There was a massacre in a gay club committed by an Islamist in Orlando last year. Was that enough to test this theory?

Hi AJ,

You inadvertently put your finger on an interesting point: often Islamist terrorists are just run-of-the-mill crims, turds, philanderers, drug addicts, scum-bags, who see the promises of Islam - 72 virgins forever, wow - and are told by beautifully-dressed, polite and quietly-spoken, extremely well-mannered imams etc. that all they have to do get to Paradise is kill a few random innocent people, any way they can. So, they commit these vile acts - although I suppose the pro-fascist-left will compare them with those in the Middle Ages, or with the times and mores of Ishmael and Hammurabi - and do it in the name of Islam.

So clearly, one option is that either mosques have to be shut down and imams interned or deported OR - an important OR - those mosques and imams must very loudly and explicitly tell their parishioners that, even though the Korans supports such vile atrocities, this is now the 21st century and such crimes must - surely ? - be condemned by Allah himself.

Of course, the problem is, that there may be nothing in the Koran to back that strategy up. So perhaps, if I may be so bold, there may be just a few small problems with Islam.

There you go, AJ, plenty to nit-pick there :)

Cheers,

Joe

The claim by AJ that I condone abuse of Homosexuals is a spurious claim as I do not support violence or abuse. I have several close friends homosexuals living in relationships. They are fine individuals. I do not approve of their sexual practices, but that is not hate or bigotry of the person, as I can mix and converse with them.

My wife and I have friends, mothers of Lesbians and they are very disappointed with their life decisions; yet they dearly love them. They had hoped to have grandchildren, and a happy family. These young women do not see marriage as important as they do not want children.

The true facts are not represented by the advocates of SSM.

Joe,

I don’t nit-pick. To nit-pick is to be excessively concerned with inconsequential details (that wasn't meant to be ironic, either, I'm entitled to defend myself against offensive suggestions).

But thanks for providing me with the opportunity to do so, anyway. I mean, that did seem like an unnecessarily long way to say that the Qur’an doesn’t have anything to interpret nicely in a 21st-century context.

But I’m not sure what that has to do with Josephus’s downplaying of abuse towards homosexuals, or how it is a defence for it. Nor do I see how I have inadvertently raised the issue apart from the fact that I mentioned Islam (which I suppose is enough around here).

So, if you don’t mind, I might just keep smiling and… slo-o-o-owly step backwards now…

--

Josephus,

Where have I claimed that?

<<The claim by AJ that I condone abuse of Homosexuals is a spurious …>>

It's bad enough to claim that someone has said something they didn't even say, but to then to go to the extent of assessing what wasn't said, and coming to a conclusion about it (i.e. that it is spurious), is just downright delusional. What is wrong with you?

I think it’s time you started providing quotes. You can’t be trusted to paraphrase anyone, anymore.

<<I do not approve of their sexual practices, but that is not hate or bigotry of the person, as I can mix and converse with them.>>

But you oppose their right to marry, even after it is made clear that you have no rational reason to oppose it, and that DOES make you bigoted.

<<The true facts are not represented by the advocates of SSM.>>

Please, tell us, what are these “true facts”?

On second thoughts, I might just continue smiling while slowly stepping backwards...

AJ,
Because a person holds a historical view different to yours according to you they are "Bigoted".

My Reason: Because two persons of the same gender who choose to live together, they of that relationship cannot have children is of no business of the Government. Somewhere those two same gender persons have been previously registered by the union of a man and a woman as citizens. Government only need register citizens. Only the union of a man and a woman can produce citizens. It is that union that defines a marriage.

The issue is contemporary, Josephus, not historical.

<<Because a person holds a historical view different to yours according to you they are "Bigoted".>>

Nor does what I believe have anthing to do with it.

Thanks for stating your reason for objecting to marriage equality, as disjointed as it read. If I understand you correctly, you think that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't produce a child together. But they can still have children, and indeed, many of them do. Marriage is a social construct, too, not a biological one.

Sorry, josephus, but your reasoning is still irrational.

Hi Josephus,

Don't tease him :)

Hi AJ,

An interesting phrase: " ..... two persons of the same gender who choose to live together ...." used to be called a "de facto" relationship, and people lived in it quite happily with no ill effects throughout their love for each other.

But now, poor homosexuals MUST get 'married', since suddenly a de facto relationship is so intolerable. So, while marriage is defined as between a male and a female human, they are heartlessly and brutally barred.

Gosh, what a pity. Oh well, you just have to get over these little things. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Joe

Joe,

How was Josephus teasing me? That was a weird thing to say. Both of you seem to be a little off today. Is something wrong?

<<But now, poor homosexuals MUST get 'married', since suddenly a de facto relationship is so intolerable.>>

Yes, I'm familiar with this line of reasoning, and it's stupid. Your mockery doesn't do your argument any favours, either.

Back in “the day”, gay people were just happy to not have their expressions of intimacy declared illegal. They were hardly going to start fighting for marriage equality. This is also not a reason to deny them the right to marry now.

Try again.

<<Oh well, you just have to get over these little things.>>

Given that marriage equality is inevitable (and people on both sides of the debate seem to agree there), I don't think it's me who has to get over anything. One thing I will never "get over", however, is bigotry.

Equality is never a “little thing”, either, by the way.

Hi AJ,

No worries: put it to a plebiscite and let the Australian people decide. End of kerfuffle.

Joe

' One thing I will never "get over", however, is bigotry. '
no AJ you just can't see it in your own life. Quite obvious to others.

Hi Runner,

So who defines 'bigot' ? One person's bigotry is another's reasonableness, so as George Brandis pointed out, there's no law against it simply because it can't, after all, be defined.

And I wasn't aware that defending the current legal position on homosexual marriage was in any way illegal. So how can defending something that's legal be bigotry ?

Cheers,

Joe

.

A plebiscite, Joe?

<<No worries: put it to a plebiscite and let the Australian people decide.>>

That’s an interesting suggestion from someone who assures the rest of us that they don’t care about the issue. After all, why would someone who didn't care want such a costly solution - both socially and economically - when there’s no reason our elected MPs can’t vote on it like they do with most other things that don’t involve the constitution?

<<So who defines 'bigot' ? One person's bigotry is another's reasonableness …>>

We define 'bigot' through the use of our language. Who is deserving of the label depends on who is not willing to change their mind on a given position, even after it is shown that they cannot rationally support it. Which is why I ask those who are opposed to marriage equality for a rational argument against it.

<<And I wasn't aware that defending the current legal position on homosexual marriage was in any way illegal. So how can defending something that's legal be bigotry ?>>

Bigotry has nothing to do with legality.

Although, trying to redefine bigotry to exclude yourself from the label is another strange thing, for someone who supposedly doesn't care at all about this issue, to do. Why should you be affected?

I think someone's being a tad dishonest with himself...

--

Is it really now, runner?

<<... you just can't see [the bigotry] in your own life. Quite obvious to others.>>

Well, then, you shouldn’t have too much trouble providing an example of me being a bigot, should you?

Unfortunately, though, I suspect your evidence of my alleged bigotry will be as about as plentiful as your examples of my misrepresenting the Bible (i.e. not very).

Either put up or shut up.

AJ,

Yeah, plebiscite: get this crap over with and let the people decide. End of. Hopefully in my lifetime.

Let anybody live together with anybody else, who cares, it's their private life, nothing to do with us or with the state, do your thing and leave the rest of us out of it. Ask nothing of 'us' and we'll leave 'you' to do what you damn well like.

Joe

But the cons far outweigh the pros with a plebiscite, Joe, that was one of my points earlier.

<<Yeah, plebiscite: get this crap over with and let the people decide. End of. Hopefully in my lifetime.>>

And why in your lifetime if, again, you don’t care? Furthermore, are you really so naive as to think that if it were voted down then it would NEVER happen, despite the fact that we’re becoming more enlightened, civilised, and tolerant with each generation? Is that what it takes for someone who supposedly doesn't care about the issue to Rest in Peace?

<<Let anybody live together with anybody else, who cares, it's their private life, nothing to do with us or with the state, do your thing and leave the rest of us out of it. Ask nothing of 'us' and we'll leave 'you' to do what you damn well like.>>

But preferably without the option of getting married, though, am I right? Do you not see the contradiction there?

AJ

In that case, whaddawe want ? Plebiscite ! When do we wanit ? NOW !

Contradiction ? Do you see the contradiction, AJ, between 'marriage' as defined as the union of a woman and a man, the legal definition of marriage, and the inappropriateness of 'marriage' as involving other forms of union which are currently not recognised by law ? Whatever it is, let it be but it's not marriage.

Christ, there are so many more important issues. My last post on the issue, it's just so boring.

j

Loudmouth:

You could be right when you say that homosexuals 'have' to get married.

They could be getting married in order to enhance their identities as homosexuals. Of course they may not be too. It is always a possible motive that you could not accuse heterosexuals of since they do not have to enhance their sexual identities by getting married.

There will always be that doubt in people's minds when they see a same-sex married couple. Did you get married for love or just to take the heat off your identity as a homosexual? We may never know and they will not be able to prove their motive no matter what they say since motivation cannot be so easily tested.

They will always be suspected of abusing marriage for the wrong reasons and so they will never really have 'marriage equality' in the minds of the general public who actually bother to question these things. Their marriage will always be suspect and no amount of paperwork will convince those truly looking for their motivation.

It is this possible abuse of marriage that is behind a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage. Those who do not think about the issue are easily conned into believing it is about simple equality but it is not simple at all. Their reasons for marrying, whether or not they agree, will always be suspect and there is no way that the susceptibility of their motivation compares to heterosexual marriage.

The only way that their motivation can be truly tested is whether or not they are prepared to accept some other type of arrangement other than marriage. If they had any integrity at all this is what they would be lobbying for but whilst it ‘has’ to be marriage then their motivation will always appear suspect and so too will their attitude to marriage.

You're not making much sense now, Joe.

<<In that case, whaddawe want ? Plebiscite ! When do we wanit ? NOW !>>

How does the fact that the cons of a plebiscite outweigh the pros mean we should have one? I'm starting to think you're just trolling now.

<<Contradiction ? Do you see the contradiction, AJ, between 'marriage' as defined as the union of a woman and a man, the legal definition of marriage, and the inappropriateness of 'marriage' as involving other forms of union which are currently not recognised by law ?>>

No, I don't. Could you explain it to me? I'm not seeing where the inappropriateness is either. Surely if there were an inappropriateness, you would be able to rationally justify opposition to same-sex marriage.

<<Whatever it is, let it be but it's not marriage.>>

The face of marriage has changed a lot over the millennia. You have no justification to assert that it should stay as it is now.

<<Christ, there are so many more important issues.>>

Correct, but like I said the last time we discussed this issue, that doesn't mean this isn't important. The fact that it could be so easily fixed is also an important factor when prioritising issues. If marriage equality were complex, time-consuming, and expensive to achieve, the fact that there are more important issues might have meant more. And if there are so many more important issues to consider, then why continue to waste time standing in the way when there is no rational reason to do so?

<<My last post on the issue, it's just so boring.>>

That's a strange thing for someone who is still here 120 posts later to say. I don't even look at the discussion threads of topics that bore me.

--

You just going to resort to ad hominems now, phanto? You have nothing left, so you're just going to invent some dubious reasoning to suspect a sinister motive that doesn't exist, which completely ignores equality as a more simple explanation. Is that it?

The State can register persons living together in a sexual relationship if they are on welfare or joint ownership of property and have their welfare reduced to that of a married couple. However the LTBGT are by wanting the term "marriage" is so as to take legal action against anyone who refuses them services, IVF or employment. It is not merely the term marriage they seek it is the normalizing of their relationship in every area of society, This is for them equality, genderless equality.

The responsible Church today as matter of care would not allow homosexual males to care for boys; as exampled by the Catholic Church. However Homosexuals reaction, if the Church denied access to boys would call this discrimination.

The Church marriage alone is not recognised by the State today, so the Church has adopted the term "Divine Covenant before God and man".

Phillips:

Who said they were ad hominem?

There are thousands of examples of homosexuals declaring that they are second class citizens and wanting to get married in the hope that it will turn them into first class citizens.

Thousands march with banners implying that homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love. They want to get married so that homosexual love is given equal attention but why wouldn't it be?

There are many reasons that homosexuals give us themselves which could be assumed as abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or based on selfish and neurotic motives.

But let's not look at their motivation - let's just focus on equality and perhaps no one will notice what contempt for marriage homosexuals really have. Especially should we look away if we have spent years trying to kid ourselves that their motivation is so squeaky clean.

phanto,

I referred to your post as ad hominem because, in the absence of a rational argument against marriage equality, you question motives.

<<There are thousands of examples of homosexuals declaring that they are second class citizens and wanting to get married in the hope that it will turn them into first class citizens.>>

Possibly. That's not a reason not to legislate for same-sex marriage, though.

<<Thousands march with banners implying that homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love. They want to get married so that homosexual love is given equal attention but why wouldn't it be?>>

Why do you assume it's about attention? Sounds to me like you're getting a bit precious there.

<<There are many reasons that homosexuals give us themselves which could be assumed as abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or based on selfish and neurotic motives.>>

Such as?

And when did we suddenly start caring about the institute of marriage? One of your many failed angles, attempting to justify an opposition to marriage equality, relied on the premise that marriage shouldn't exist in the first place. Now we suddenly care about the institution of marriage. See what happens when you're disingenuous?

<<But let's not look at their motivation …>>

You can assess motives all you like, but for so long as your reason for doing so is based on an irrational opposition to same-sex marriage, your conclusions are always going to be dubious at best.

<<... let's just focus on equality and perhaps no one will notice what contempt for marriage homosexuals really have.>>

Really? All of them? What is your evidence for this?

<<Especially should we look away if we have spent years trying to kid ourselves that their motivation is so squeaky clean>>

Yes, it's all a sinister plot to destroy marriage! The phanto who's against marriage altogether should be hoping they're successful.

Philips:

“I referred to your post as ad hominem because, in the absence of a rational argument against marriage equality, you question motives.”

What is wrong with questioning motives if there is nothing wrong with them? You do not have to have an argument in order to question motives. If you had an argument why would you bother questioning motives? We question motives in order to determine what people truly want. Perhaps homosexuals say they want marriage but in actual fact they are looking for something else like affirmation of their identity. It would be very gullible just to take their word about what they want and so we analyse their motives to see if what they want is logical.

“That's not a reason not to legislate for same-sex marriage, though.”

So why do so many people present it as an argument for SSM? Even the esteemed Justice Michael Kirby has presented it as an argument along with many others.

“Why do you assume it's about attention?”

If you are holding a banner which says “Love is love” what is your point other than to draw attention to the fact that you believe homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love? Who ever said it was not? That is not an argument for SSM but a statement of belief which no one is challenging.

“Such as?”

You can look that up yourself if you are genuinely interested in the truth about motivation.

“And when did we suddenly start caring about the institute of marriage?”

Just answer the questions.

“Really? All of them? What is your evidence for this?”

The fact that they are ready to abuse marriage in order to promote their sexuality. It is not necessary to promote your sexuality if you are comfortable with it.

Nothing, phanto.

<<What is wrong with questioning motives ...?>>

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

<<You do not have to have an argument in order to question motives.>>

Your questioning motives wasn't the ad hominem, it was the offensive and baseless conclusions you came to.

<<If you had an argument why would you bother questioning motives?>>

Exactly.

<<We question motives in order to determine what people truly want.>>

Yes, but doing so is a waste of time when there is no reason to suspect an ulterior motive.

<<It would be very gullible just to take their word about what they want ...>>

Yes, but again, when there's no reason to suspect an ulterior motive… Your opposition to marriage equality is not a reason to suspect an ulterior motive.

<<So why do so many people present [being treated as second-class citizens] as an argument for SSM?>>

I never said they didn't. I said the fact that they do isn't a reason to not legislate for same-sex marriage.

<<If you are holding a banner which says “Love is love” what is your point other than to draw attention to the fact that you believe homosexual love is equal to heterosexual love?>>

Probably nothing. But, before, you made it sound like it was about attention seeking.

<<Who ever said it was not?>>

It is implied every time some fool insists that a different word be used, in the lack of justification for such a demand.

<<You can look that up yourself if you are genuinely interested in the truth about motivation.>>

So, in other words, you cannot justify your claim that homosexual people are “abusing the institution of marriage, having little respect for marriage, or [have] selfish and neurotic motives.” I didn't think you could.

I wasn't asking about motivation in general, either.

<<Just answer the questions.>>

What questions?

<<The fact that they are ready to abuse marriage in order to promote their sexuality.>>

You haven't justified this claim either. You can't justify a claim with another unjustified claim.

Actually, phanto, I did say your questioning motives was an ad hominem, and it was. It's a fallacious ad hominem, too, in the absence of an argument against their reasons for wanting marriage equality. It's a way of playing the man instead of the ball.

"... short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

“it was the offensive and baseless conclusions you came to”

Who did they offend - you? Others may have not found them offensive at all.

“Yes, but doing so is a waste of time when there is no reason to suspect an ulterior motive.”

How do you know there is no reason until you enquire? Can’t we even have suspicions anymore?

“Yes, but again, when there's no reason to suspect an ulterior motive…”

I have several reasons. If someone talks of second class citizens it is reasonable to ask why? Are they talking about sexuality or about marriage since marriage has nothing to do with your class of citizenship. You have dismissed this as not being a reason to stop SSM but it is a reason to question what it is that they truly want. If they wave a banner in the street I would ask them why they are doing it since homosexual love is not under question. They say they want marriage but are asking for acceptance of homosexual love which is not under question. There are many other examples I could provide but if you cannot see the incongruity in these two then no amount of examples would make you question what it is they really want. If there is a whole string of illogical behaviours then it would be reasonable to question what it is that they really want. Such illogical behaviours make me suspect they do not want what they say they want.

If you say you want marriage and then act as if you actually want affirmation of your sexuality then I am not going to vote for you to have marriage. I don’t trust you. I think you are lying.

Not only are you lying but you lack all integrity to try and get something by abusing marriage beyond its purpose. You are showing how little self-respect you have as a human being. You should let your sexuality talk for itself and not try and manipulate acceptance by misleading the public.

Because, phanto, there is no rational reason to suspect it in the first place.

<<How do you know there is no reason until you enquire?>>

You have not yet provided one, either. Nor are you enquiring, for that matter. You are simply throwing around accusations which you cannot substantiate.

<<Can’t we even have suspicions anymore?>>

At no point have I even alluded to that. Don’t get precious.

<<I have several reasons [to suspect an ulterior motive].>>

This’ll be good…

<<If someone talks of second class citizens it is reasonable to ask why?>>

Yes, but when the answer doesn’t extend beyond, ‘Because that’s how they’re treated’, then there is no reason to take it any further, and any attempts to do so make one’s motives look suspect, as do yours.

<<Are they talking about sexuality or about marriage …>>

Why can’t they be talking about both? You have created a false dichotomy here.

<<… marriage has nothing to do with your class of citizenship.>>

Perhaps, but access to it can.

<<You have dismissed this as not being a reason to stop SSM …>>

No, this is the first time you have presented this specific reasoning.

<<… but it is a reason to question what it is that they truly want.>>

Well, as you can hopefully see now, it’s not. Because you haven’t yet presented a reasonable cause for suspicion, and your attempt to do so relied on a false dichotomy.

<<If they wave a banner in the street I would ask them why they are doing it since homosexual love is not under question.>>

Actually, it is. Many homophobic people assume homosexuality is simply the manifestation of mental illness.

<<There are many other examples I could provide but if you cannot see the incongruity in these two ...>>

Well, as you can hopefully see now, your examples weren’t examples of anything at all, other than perhaps the perils of motivated reasoning.

<<Such illogical behaviours make me suspect they do not want what they say they want.>>

Your examples demonstrated no illogical behaviour, only illogical thinking on your part.

Try again.

Philips:

“Yes, but when the answer doesn’t extend beyond, ‘Because that’s how they’re treated’, then there is no reason to take it any further, and any attempts to do so make one’s motives look suspect, as do yours.”

So why mention in the first place? There is no class of citizenship in Australia. It is just a manipulative attempt to get people to feel sorry for them. SSM should be introduced because it is reasonable to do so and not out of sympathy.

“Why can’t they be talking about both? You have created a false dichotomy here.”

There is no logical reason to talk about both. There is only a logical reason to give reasons for SSM. There is no logical reason to talk about non-existent classes of citizenship unless you are trying to manipulate the argument for SSM.

“Perhaps, but access to it can”

How does this happen when we do not have classes of citizenship in this country? Where is the legislation which defines classes of citizenship? Why are they trying to dramatise the situation when their arguments should be good enough?

“Actually, it is. Many homophobic people assume homosexuality is simply the manifestation of mental illness.”

Why would they assume any difference after marriage? Marriage says nothing about your sexuality. Why would you have a banner which states that love is love unless you were trying to gain some kind of sympathy? What opponents of SSM think of homosexual love is irrelevant. Love is not the issue here – it is marriage and they need to present arguments for marriage and not for homosexual love.

“your examples weren’t examples of anything at all,”

They are perfect examples of people who are trying to manipulate the debate. Why would you try and manipulate the debate if you have perfectly good reasons in the first place?

“Your examples demonstrated no illogical behaviour, only illogical thinking on your part.”

It is perfectly illogical behaviour to try and win sympathy when you should be presenting arguments.

<<However the LTBGT are by wanting the term "marriage" is so as to take legal action against anyone who refuses them services, IVF or employment.>>

Josephus. the cheek of these "Nancy boys", not only do they want to take away your right to be a bigot, they also want you to stop discriminating against them. What a hide they have! That job add of yours with the line "poofters need not apply" and the sign in your shop "Faggots will not be served" seem quite reasonable to me.

"The responsible Church today as matter of care would not allow homosexual males to care for boys; as exampled by the Catholic Church." What a stupid statement! Is that before or after they told their pedophile clergy to hide their disgusting practices underground, and whatever you do just don't get caught.

When do you think Archie Pell will stop hiding out in the Vatican with the Popes blessing, and return to Australia to face the music over those child sex abuse allegations. You would think if he was innocent he would want to return to Australia and clear his name. Not so! Catholic proests should not be allowed within 100 meters of children, yet without any police check of any kind these types are still eyeing off children in school playgrounds. Disgusting.

Paul1405:

Anyone can refuse to serve faggots if they want. It can’t be proven that they have been refused service because they were faggots so what is the point of having laws against it. Thousands of faggots are refused service every day around the world.

No one can take away your right to be a bigot. You can have all the laws you like but it is not going to change anyone’s attitude to homosexuals. You can maintain you right to bigotry as long as you want.

“Catholic proests should not be allowed within 100 meters of children”

Stop being such a drama queen. There are a lot more priests who are not pedophiles than who are. Parents also molest their children. Should they be kept 100 metres away from their own children?

Does anyone remember when sodomy was decriminalised and people started talking about the " slippery slope"?
" will never happen" said the gay lobby. "All we want is to not be seen as criminals and be able to live our lives in privacy without fear of being charged."
Well of course that was the start but naturally people are still denying it exists.
But funnily, a German ethics committee has ruled that consentual adult incest should be decriminalised saying "Criminal law is not the means to maintain a social taboo".
Whilst in Canada, some forms of bestiality have now been decriminalised.
If anyone really thinks that changing the definition of the word t marriage is not going to open the legal right to all forms of union, they are living in an alternate universe.

Because that's the way they're treated, phanto.

<<So why mention in the first place?>>

You're treating them like second-class citizens, too, for so long as you object to marriage equality with no good reason to.

<<There is no class of citizenship in Australia.>>

Not legally, no.

<<It is just a manipulative attempt to get people to feel sorry for them.>>

Or they could just be raising awareness. Why do you assume it's an attempt to manipulate?

<<SSM should be introduced because it is reasonable to do so and not out of sympathy.>>

Correct.

<<There is no logical reason to talk about both.>>

Yes, there is. Because both issues need to be addressed, and they both overlap.

<<How does this happen when we do not have classes of citizenship in this country?>>

I don't know. I guess some bigots just don't want same-sex couples getting married. You're in a better position to answer that than I am.

<<Where is the legislation which defines classes of citizenship?>>

No-one has claimed that any such legislation exists. This is a red herring of your own creation.

<<Why are they trying to dramatise the situation …>>

You are yet to demonstrate that they are.

<<Why would [homophobes] assume any difference after marriage?>>

No-one has suggested they would. We’re taking about two issues which overlap.

<<Why would you have a banner which states that love is love unless you were trying to gain some kind of sympathy?>>

To raise awareness.

<<What opponents of SSM think of homosexual love is irrelevant.>>

No, it's not irrelevant when we all share the same space.

<<Love is not the issue here – it is marriage… >>

Another false dichotomy that ignores overlap. The two go together like a horse and carriage.

<<... they need to present arguments for marriage and not for homosexual love.>>

They have been. You are yet to counter any of them.

<<It is perfectly illogical behaviour to try and win sympathy when you should be presenting arguments.>>

You are yet to demonstrate that sympathy is being sought, or how you ruled out awareness-raising as a possibility.

Big Nana, "If anyone really thinks that changing the definition of the word marriage is not going to open the legal right to all forms of union, they are living in an alternate universe"

But that would be so Hip! That is, among the 'Progressive' set who believe that the State should be replacing parents where raising children is concerned.

Multiple 'partners'? Soooo Liberating (with a capital 'L') for some!
Talking about Hip, tearful Medal of Freedom recipient Ellen DeGeneres, the icon of lesbians who like free gifts on shows and herself a celebrated virtuoso at playing a tune or two on 'ladys parts', will be able to realise an ambition and enjoy having different designer-model shag carpet available in each room ('to match her changing drapes', as she might flippantly amuse her enthusiastic TV fans).

That will solve this problem that might be vexing this adorable, 'evolved', 'Progressive' celebrity,

<Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi sell Montecito home ahead of split

.. it seems Portia's alleged jealousy is the reason the couple are calling time on their eight-year relationship.

"Portia is convinced that Ellen manipulates her friendships with sexy movie stars to get under her skin. It works," the insider told OK!.

"It used to be Olivia Munn and Sofia Vergara that Ellen openly flirted with and now Ellen simply adores actress Kristen Bell, who she's said is a younger version of Portia.">

Of course while it is fun to prick the ballooning egos of gay activists who are on a power trip to make 'authority' bow to their bidding on SSM, there are powerful interests who are pulling the strings and for their own agenda, which is always totalitarian.

“<<So why mention in the first place?>>

You're treating them like second-class citizens, too, for so long as you object to marriage equality with no good reason to.”

You didn’t answer the question.

“Not legally, no.”

So why mention it at all if it cannot be legally righted by marriage?

“Or they could just be raising awareness”

Awareness of what?

“Yes, there is. Because both issues need to be addressed, and they both overlap.”

How do they overlap?

“I don't know. I guess some bigots just don't want same-sex couples getting married. You're in a better position to answer that than I am.”

You don’t know so you resort to labelling people and trying to insult me by inferring that I am a bigot.

“No-one has claimed that any such legislation exists. This is a red herring of your own creation.”

So how do we determine who is first class and who is second class?

“No-one has suggested they would. We’re taking about two issues which overlap.”

How do these two issues overlap? You are just making glib statements about overlaps without explanation.

“No, it's not irrelevant when we all share the same space”

We all share the same space but we can’t have different opinions about homosexual love? How does having different opinions about homosexual love negate SSM? You can negate homosexual love for many reasons but still agree with SSM. Legal marriage has nothing to with love.

“The two go together like a horse and carriage.”

Brilliant argument that one! You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

“You are yet to demonstrate that sympathy is being sought,”

You have yet to demonstrate that is not.

“you ruled out awareness-raising as a possibility.”

Awareness of what?

Big Nana,

The truth is that the legalisation of gay marriage
will lead to the legalisation of gay marriage.
Dire warnings of slippery slopes are scaremongering.
The countries that have so far legalised same
sex marriage have not crumbled yet. Ultimately the
argument of the slippery slope is hyperbolic nonsense
designed to instill confusion, fear, and mistrust of
gay people.

American attorneys are now having a field day, as SS persons seeking marriage functions at private wedding reception venues are being refused by the conscience of their owners.

There is a slippery slope at work where homosexuals have been emboldened to fight for further ‘rights’. Canada is a prime example where legislation seeks to protect homosexuals from being offended and attacked in ways which they do not protect heterosexuals. You dare not criticise homosexuals at all lest you risk serious consequences such as losing your job.

Homosexuals know that they can bully and emotionally manipulate the public and they use these same tactics to try and get things which they have no right to.

Same-sex marriage might be legal but that does not make it reasonable. Unless we continue to watch for such manipulation then we could be facing a situation where a very small minority has a disproportionate influence over the rest of society’s rights.

phanto,

One of the prerequisites for Democracy is a tolerance
of dissenting opinions. That is considered fundamental
to a democracy. Democracies must avoid the danger of the
"tyranny of the majority."

In some cases the democratic
process may work in such a way that a small minority -
Sikhs in India, for example - is rendered permanently
powerless. For groups in this position, democracy might
as well not exist, and it is important that governments
should recognise the grievances of minorities that
have little political clout. If the losers in the
political process do not accept the legitimacy of the
process under which they have lost, they may well resort to
more radical tactics outside the institutional framework.

Why should same sex couples be treated differently to
anyone else in the society in which they live, work,
pay taxes. Why should they have less rights then anyone
else?

Yes, I did, phanto.

<<You didn’t answer the question.>>

“Because that's the way they're treated ….” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#240878)

<<So why mention [second-class citizenship] at all if it cannot be legally righted by marriage?>>

It would be, to some extent. I never claimed otherwise.

<<Awareness of what?>>

Their plight.

<<How do [love and marriage] overlap?>>

Because most people marry out of love.

<<… you resort to labelling people and trying to insult me by inferring that I am a bigot.>>

You demonstrate that you are a bigot. I don’t need to infer anything.

<<So how do we determine who is first class and who is second class?>>

By how people are treated.

<<How do these two issues overlap?>>

You don’t think marriage has anything to do with love at least some of the time? Please explain.

<<We all share the same space but we can’t have different opinions about homosexual love?>>

At no point have I even alluded to such a suggestion.

<<How does having different opinions about homosexual love negate SSM?>>

It doesn’t, and nor have I suggested anything of the sort.

<<You can negate homosexual love for many reasons but still agree with SSM.>>

How would one “negate” it? I’m intrigued.

<<Legal marriage has nothing to with love.>>

I think most here would disagree with you on that.

<<You have yet to demonstrate that is not.>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). You made the claim first.

<< Same-sex marriage might be legal but that does not make it reasonable.>>

Correct. What makes it reasonable is the notion of equality.

--

Big Nana,

There are an infinite number of things we could ‘not do’ because of where they may lead, but we can’t live like that, nor could rights be distributed or withheld like that.

It is irrational to stand in the way of something that is harmless because of what people might then want in the future. Why not save your energy for when some start asking for recognition of genuinely harmful relationships, if that’s your only concern?

Somehow I don't think it is.

AJ Philips,
De' facto relationships are not marriage as registered as such. Are they EQUAL to a married couple? Are they fighting for equality. NO! Yet they happily exist as equal in our society without marriage certification. It is the bonds they mutually share that keeps them together, not a Government certificate.

Homosexual relationships are not marriage as such. Are they EQUAL to a married couple? NO! What is the real reason to fight for marriage certification? Certainly not to happily exist in our society, though they imagine their relationship will improve because they have registered it with the Government

Foxy, "..Sikhs in India, for example"

Same scoopers you imply?

http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-youth-issues/sikh-attitude-to-homosexuality/

Foxy:

Homosexuals have all the rights they need already.

Josephus,

phanto already tried the ‘de facto’ angle. It was unsuccessful. You see, heterosexual de facto couples still have the option to marry, and therein lies the difference.

<<Are they EQUAL to a married couple?>>

What do you mean by “equal”? I find some like to keep what they mean there vague to leave their options open in case they need to commit the fallacy of equivocation by pointing to any petty, irrelevant difference as an example of why there can never be total equality.

<<Are [de facto couples] fighting for equality. NO!>>

Of course they’re not. They already have it and choose to forgo it. This is a false analogy.

<<Yet they happily exist as equal in our society without marriage certification.>>

Yes, out of choice, not because it is not an option for them.

<<Homosexual relationships are not marriage as such.>>

No, but they could be if people like you got out of the way..

<<What is the real reason to fight for marriage certification?>>

Equality.

<<... because they have registered it with the Government>>

Ah, but it’s not just about having it registered with the government now, is it? It’s about the privileges and benefits that the registration entails (not to mention the symbolic value). The registration itself is merely a necessary formality. phanto’s tried this angle, too. It didn’t work either.

You guys don’t give up, do you? Ten points for persistence!

--

Speak of the devil… where do you think you’ll go next, phanto? So far you’ve tried the Qualitative fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy):

1. There’s no reason to think that same-sex marriage is reasonable (as if it needed to be).
2. There’s no reason to think that same-sex marriage is logical (as if it needed to be).

Then you tried a Ignoratio elenchi fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi):

3. Marriage shouldn’t exist at all (which didn’t address what the arrangement should be while it does).

Now, finally, we’ve come to the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem):

4. Their motives are (supposedly) suspect.

Where do you think you’ll go next, phanto? The suspense is killing me. It’s what keeps me going.

Philips:

Why should anyone care what keeps you going?

You have gone to a lot of trouble to tell us.

I meant, “in my debates with you”, phanto.

<<Why should anyone care what keeps you going?>>

Because having the patience I do with someone as deliberately obtuse as yourself might seem, to some, like a strange way to spend one’s time.

<<You have gone to a lot of trouble to tell us.>>

Oh, I wouldn’t call five words “a lot of trouble”. But, you're welcome.

What you call patience I'd call addiction.

Hi Paul,

Just going back to your rant earlier today, why do you think you're not a bigot ? I'm not saying that you can't be, you have as much right to be one as anybody else on the 'Left', especially since the term can't actually be defined. Actually, I think you are, and that you should keep it up :)

I've always been a bit hesitant to use terms like nancy-boy, poofter and faggot, but now that they have your imprimatur, I'll feel much more at ease using them. But maybe not just yet, even at your urging :)

On another topic entirely, but one which seems to consume you, Pell - like your Muslim terrorist mates - is entitled to a presumption of innocence until he has been proven guilty of a crime. Much as I think he is a sanctimonious, phony right-winger - and you know how I despise right-wingers - I suggest that we give him the benefit of the doubt. Of course, I think he is as guilty as hell of molesting young boys in Ballarat, but like you, I'm constantly trying to keep an open mind.

Cheers,

Joe

phanto,

They don't have the legal right to marry like the
rest of us. Except in - England, Wales, Scotland,
Canada, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Argentina,
Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Belgium,
Netherlands and South Africa.

So why not in Australia?

What's the big deal?

Dear Josephus,

«However the LTBGT are by wanting the term "marriage" is so as to take legal action against anyone who refuses them services, IVF or employment.»

So that is a much broader issue - let's forget about marriage and the specifics of this particular pressure-group and see the big picture:

How come, a business owner, on their own private premises, is not allowed to decide whom they serve and whom they don't? I don't care about the owner's reasons (if any): forcing someone to serve another against their will is a form of slavery, it's utterly unacceptable.

(of course, if a business receives public/government support or privileges, that completely changes the picture, but I was referring to businesses that are completely private)

Had the law not interfered with the way private individuals choose to run their businesses, no pressure-group would ever consider such ugly schemes.

Refusing to serve someone because they are homosexual is utterly stupid, but it's not for government to punish that stupid person, but for the general public to shun, blacklist, boycott and ridicule such businesses.

Foxy:

They don't need the legal right to marry in Australia.

Phanto,

When did same-sex marriage become legal in
Australia?

Have I missed it?

Dear Foxy,

Please distinguish between state-recognition and legality:

To the best of my knowledge, same-sex marriage has never been illegal in Australia.

No Australian law (can anyone correct me please if I'm wrong?) ever forbade a priest/minister to conduct a religious ceremony which established the marriage of two people of the same gender.
At no point in Australian history would criminal charges be laid against either such couple or their celebrant.

Regrettably, for many years, charges could be laid if the above couple had sex, but that's a different matter, it's sad but it's separate from the act of marrying.

Yes, the state never recognised such marriages and still doesn't - but people's private relationships, as well as their religious affairs, ought never to have been the state's business anyway.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The right to marry is the one significant difference
between the legal treatment of same sex and heterosexual
relationships in Australia. Same sex couples do not have
the right to marry in this country.

Dear Foxy,

I agree that same sex and heterosexual relationships should be legally treated the same, I agree that this is currently not the case. The way to fix it, is for the state to become completely oblivious to such private individual matters and remove all references to private relationships from legislation.

Now you claim that "Same sex couples do not have the right to marry in this country":
I do not believe it - please show me where this is written in the law, please show me what criminal penalties are there for same sex couples who defy and break the law by marrying anyway, show me this if you can.

That's a total cop-out, Yuyutsu.

<<The way to fix it, is for the state to become completely oblivious to such private individual matters and remove all references to private relationships from legislation.>>

That is yet another line that phanto tried, and failed miserably with. It is merely the Ignoratio_elenchi fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

This line doesn't work because it doesn't address what should happen while marriage is in the hands of the State.

Which, mind you, will always be the case, as marriage cannot work on any other level. Spiritual-only marriages are meaningless to anyone who does not share the given spirituality.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is the federal law.

The Marriage Act amended in 2004 by John Howard
clearly states that marriage must be between
a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
That same-sex marriage is not allowed in Australia.

It's in Wikipedia if you want to Google it.

Dear Foxy,

I have already gone over the Marriage Act.
This Act is only relevant if you want to have a marriage that is recognised by the state (why would you?).

If you want to marry and do not care for your marriage to be recognised by the state, be it by a religious ceremony or in any other way, then no law prohibits that (in Australia - some other countries do have draconic laws against unauthorised marriages, in one case with a penalty of 2 years imprisonment).
Indeed, the state will not consider you married - so what? If you know in your heart of hearts that you are married, then who cares what others think?!

Now if the state does not allow something, then it is punishable and corresponding penalties are written into the law. Can you show me where those penalties are for the "offence" of same sex marriage? I think not.

As it stands, in Australia anyway, if I marry someone of the same gender, no police will ever knock on my door and I will not receive any court summons - that's because it is perfectly legal.

As far as the state is concerned, all that will happen is that they will look at the Marriage Act and say "this is not a marriage". Ha Ha Ha...

In fact I have asked for an expert advice from a registered marriage celebrant. He told me that there would be nothing illegal about any couple (including same sex) using his services without informing the government or signing official documents. The only legal limitation he would have as a registered celebrant, is that he could not describe such marriage as "legal marriage": to be on the safe side, so long as the word "legal" is not mentioned in the ceremony, no problem whatsoever could arise. Well, I would never want to use that word in my wedding anyway - that would spoil the day!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex couples (also most people who want to get married)
want to have their marriage recognised legally.

Australian law defines marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Therefore same-sex couples can not legally be
married in this country and they are fighting for the right
to do so and to have their marriage recognised legally.

They want equal rights that heterosexual couples currently
have. They want to be able to have that choice. You have
that choice at present, whether you use it or not is up to
you. Same-sex couples want to have that basic right as well.

If you have any further questions on this subject you
can give the Attorney-General's Department a call in
Canberra on 1800-550-343.

http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Getting-married.aspx

Dear Foxy,

«Same-sex couples want to have that basic right as well.»

Having one's relationship recognised by a state/government is indeed a right, but not a basic right.
It is a right which I believe to be unhealthy and which should not exist.

«Therefore same-sex couples can not legally be married in this country»

That statement can become correct once two words are switched:

"Therefore same-sex couples can not be legally married in this country"

And neither should any couple.

«They want equal rights that heterosexual couples currently have.»

They will have equal rights once heterosexual couples also do not have this ridiculous right.

Yes, something needs to change, but if anyone asks me at all (say in a referendum), then I will only agree to changes for the better, not for the worse: expanding a [dis]"service" which should not exist is for the worse, so I will not support it.

I have nothing against homosexuals, I wish them well (and I even have a homosexual in my family), but I have everything against the state registering information about our personal private affairs and playing God with that information.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have some interesting views.

I personally wanted my marriage to be legal.
That was my choice. We all have choices in
life
except it seems for same-sex couples. They
don't have that choice in this country
and whether you agree
with that or not, it's a choice that they should
have just like the rest of us.

Foxy:

“Same-sex couples (also most people who want to get married)
want to have their marriage recognised legally.”

You can have legal relationships without being married and you can have marriages that are not recognised legally as Yuyutsu says.

If marriage is about love then why does the marriage have to be legal?

“I personally wanted my marriage to be legal.
That was my choice. We all have choices in
life”

Why did you want your marriage to be legal?

Isn’t legal marriage an abuse of both marriage and the law? Marriage is a relationship based on love which you can never control by law and law is about rights that should not be dependent on being married.

Dear Phanto,

Same sex couples cannot have a marriage that is
legal in this country. They want to have that
choice. They do not want the government to tell
them that their marriage will be illegal.

You may think that illegality is unimportant. But
that is irrelevant. Same sex couples
want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples
regarding marriage. It's as simple as that.

Why did I want my marriage to be legal?

Because I was in love and I wanted to publicly celebrate
our commitment.

I wanted society to recognise our union.

phanto,

I see we’ve switched back to the marriage-shouldn’t-exist-in-the-first-place angle. And this, after just recently expressing concern for the institute of marriage, as though it needed protecting.

<<You can have legal relationships without being married …>>

Yes, you can, but marriage offers simplicity in its standardisation. We went though this in our last discussion:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753

<<… and you can have marriages that are not recognised legally as Yuyutsu says.>>

And what use would they be to those who are not religious?

<<If marriage is about love then why does the marriage have to be legal?>>

Because the benefits of marriage require it to be a legal arrangement. We addressed the reasons for this in our last discussion (see the link above).

<<Isn’t legal marriage an abuse of both marriage and the law?>>

No, it’s not.

<<Marriage is a relationship based on love …>>

Oh? It was only a few days ago that you had no idea what the connection between love and marriage was. You even accused me of not being able to draw a connection between the two because I addressed your obtuse question with a line from a Frank Sinatra song, suggesting that I was scraping the bottom of a barrel. Now suddenly we understand the connection?

<<… which you can never control by law …>>

Actually, it can be. But that’s not what legal marriage is about. This is red herring.

<<… law is about rights that should not be dependent on being married.>>

The law is about a lot of things. And, yes, some of those rights should be dependent on being married. We’ve discussed this before, too (see the link above).

Foxy:

“Same sex couples cannot have a marriage that is
legal in this country. They want to have that
choice.”

I know that but why would they want to take advantage of legal marriage?

“Same sex couples
want to have the same rights as heterosexual couples
regarding marriage. It's as simple as that.”

What rights are these and why can they only be attained by marriage?

“Because I was in love and I wanted to publicly celebrate
our commitment.”

You can do all that without legal marriage. Are couples who live together without legal marriage not in love? Can’t you have public celebration of your commitment without having legal marriage? How does the legality of it make it any more public? The ‘publicness’ depends on how many people know you are married and not on how many know you are legally married.

“I wanted society to recognise our union.”

Society recognises many types of union between people and refuses to accept others. SSM does not guarantee that society recognises their union. You cannot force society to recognise what it does not want to recognise. A majority of people may vote for it but that doesn’t mean that they agree with it. People do not always vote based on reason and logic. Sometimes they are manipulated or bullied into voting for something.

Dearest Foxy,

There is no law stopping two men or two women from living together. If they want to for some reason 'formalise' such a deep love and friendship, they can always choose another word :) This side-track that they are otherwise living illegally, is really just are herring.

And you may be - unintentionally of course - mixing 'illegality' with illegitimacy'. I have enough ancestors in my family to be all too familiar with illegitimacy, and the extreme fragility of man-woman bonds that aren't sanctioned - protected - by the law as a 'marriage', often more honoured in the breach.

No such fragility affects same-sex couples, by definition. So they do not meet an essential criterion of the need to get married. Neither one in such a relationship can get the other pregnant, and then piss off. After all, it's one of the attractions of homosexual relationships that the partners are forever free of that worry.

I'm suggesting that marriage, the possibility of pregnancy and inhibiting the rapid departure of the 'father', and the burden on the State (or in early days, the parish, and workhouse) are a package, which is not relevant to homosexual relationship. Marriage, in other words, gives women some (perhaps false)sense of security.

Nor, of course, is marriage quite so relevant in relationships involving post-menopausal women: I wonder what the rate of de facto relationships amongst such couples is. But it would still give them security in the unequal power balance almost inherent in gender relations, that feminists have so easily forgotten.

Love always,

Joe

Foxy, " I want society to recognise our union".

Firstly, society already recognises unions, regardless of their official status. You would be surprised at how many couples that you believe to be married are actually de facto. I know lesbian couples that have been recognised by the local community as having a relationship, and no, they don't feel the need for " marriage".

Secondly, a civil contract would be official recognition, by both government and society. Unfortunately the gay lobby has rejected the offer of civil contracts, they are holding out for the word marriage, as if somehow that will magically transform their union into the same type of relationship as heterosexual marriage.

I fully understand that some gay couples wish to have the same type of legal recognition heterosexual couples can choose to have, however I don't accept that it has to be called marriage. Marriage has always meant a heterosexual relationship, even with polygamy. A same sex relationship, being different, should have its own name to recognise that difference.

This has never been about " marriage equality", because if so, supporters of SSM wouldn't be so horrified by the thought of equality for polygamy, group marriage and adult incest couples. This has always been about trying to prove that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are the same

Philips:

“marriage-shouldn’t-exist-in-the-first-place angle.”

Legal marriage – no.

“Yes, you can, but marriage offers simplicity in its standardisation.”

So everyone has to get married in order to have legal rights between two people in a relationship?

“And what use would they be to those who are not religious?”

Who says they have to have a use?

“Because the benefits of marriage require it to be a legal arrangement.”

Obviously not or every couple would marry.

“some of those rights should be dependent on being married.”

No rights should be dependent on being married.

Dear phanto,

Here is the telephone number of the Attorney General's
Department in Canberra. They will be more than happy
to answer your questions regarding same-sex marriage:

1800-550-343

Or alternatively you can speak to a social worker
on - 13-1794

Cheers.

Big Nana,

The de-facto/civil-unions argument doesn’t work because the laws for these arrangements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

<<Unfortunately the gay lobby has rejected the offer of civil contracts, they are holding out for the word marriage, as if somehow that will magically transform their union into the same type of relationship as heterosexual marriage.>>

No, it’s due to issues regarding equality.

<<I fully understand that some gay couples wish to have the same type of legal recognition heterosexual couples can choose to have, however I don't accept that it has to be called marriage.>>

Why not? I have never heard a justification for the insistence on a different word.

<<Marriage has always meant a heterosexual relationship, even with polygamy. A same sex relationship, being different, should have its own name to recognise that difference.>>

This is the Appeal to Tradition fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

Why do you need to know the difference through terminology? Are you that easily confused?

<<This has never been about " marriage equality", because if so, supporters of SSM wouldn't be so horrified by the thought of equality for polygamy, group marriage and adult incest couples.>>

We have already been through the differences there. Your argument, that it cannot be about equality, flopped:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7778#239749

--

phanto,

You’re being obtuse again.

<<So everyone has to get married in order to have legal rights between two people in a relationship?>>

That depends on what rights you're referring to.

<<Who says [marriages] have to have a use?>>

Standards of equality do. Why should the marriages of one group have a practical purpose, while the others' don’t?

<<Obviously [the benefits of marriage do] not [require it to be a legal arrangement] or every couple would marry.>>

Yes, they do require it to be a legal arrange (again, see my link). That some people choose to forgo those benefits is irrelevant.

<<No rights should be dependent on being married.>>

Yes, they should (Once again, see my link).

Foxy:

Don’t be so patronising. I am well aware of where I can gain such information. I am not after information I am after a reasonable argument in favour of same-sex marriage.

Philips:

“That depends on what rights you're referring to.”

Can you give me an example of one such right?

“Why should the marriages of one group have a practical purpose, while the others' don’t?”

Because that is the way the couples want it to be.

“Yes, they do require it to be a legal arrange (again, see my link). That some people choose to forgo those benefits is irrelevant.”

Which benefits are you talking about exactly?

I'm sick of the whole ridiculous subject that in the long run, boils down to anal sex and plastic penis's.

There are groups out there now calling for pedophilia to be recognized as a genuine and normal way to go. Any love is good love apparently.
Why anyone bothers to marry these days is beyond me as %50 don't last and all it does is make rich lawyers and upset kids.

Here is a list of genders these days..who the hell is going to end up marrying who or what defies logic and any morals the world might have left, which are few it seems..along with commonsense.

http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2013/01/a-comprehensive-list-of-lgbtq-term-definitions/#sthash.kGk2f6QS.dpbs

Dear oh dear, phanto.

It would save us both a lot of time if you were to refresh your memory whenever I linked you back to a past discussion of ours. I even go to the extent of finding to most relevant post to link to.

<<Can you give me an example of one such right?>>

Sure. Access and decision-making in emergency situations.

<<Because that is the way the couples want it to be.>>

Clearly not. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here discussing this.

<<Which benefits are you talking about exactly?>>

Apart from the one I already mentioned? A nationally- and international-recognised relationship status for brevity, convenience, and simplicity when legal rights are challenged.

I see, too, in your address to Foxy that you are in search of reasonable arguments for marriage equality, but you have not yet successfully countered any of the ones I’ve provided you with. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what you’re looking for at all.

--

moonshine,

Comparing consenting adult relationships with child sex abuse is a false analogy. I hope I don’t have to explain why.

If you think that list you linked to is a list of “genders”, then clearly you don't know the difference between gender and sexuality.

Why does a diversity in gender and sexuality defy common sense or imply a lack of morals?

What does 'equal' mean, since the term is bandied about ? An equal right to get married, i.e. to someone of the opposite/other gender.

Would it be 'equal' for a man and his dog to get 'married' ? Perhaps as long as they of different genders, I suppose. Oops, that's a bit homocynophobic.

Can a man 'equally' marry more than one 'wife' ? If a man can marry one wife, why not extend the 'equal right' to two, or four, or sixteen 'wives' ? Surely, if it's proper for a man to marry one wife, it's even more proper to marry several ? Why this unreasonable polyphobia ?

Why not a group of men having 'equal rights' to marry a group of women ? Like in the good old days of very ancient tribalism, according to Engels ?

Why just animate objects ? Why not 'equal marriage' between people and trees ? [Bloody dendrohobia !] Bridges ? A football crowd and the MCG ?

An astronomer and his favourite stars ? Why should an esteemed scientist be denied his expression of love ?

So what's the limit ? What, there is none ? To the point where 'marriage' comes to mean nothing at all? Is that the ultimate aim ?

Joe

Just for you, Joe, since this topic bores you so much:

Equality:
The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

I don’t see the word being “bandied about” at all. The people I see using the word seem to understand it very well.

Equality stops where harm begins, since you don’t seem to be sure. Big Nana and I have discussed this in quite some depth.

And just in case you’re tempted commit the Slippery Slope fallacy, or be as obtuse as phanto can be: the harm of registering pointless marriages to inanimate objects and pets is that it is a waste of tax-payer resources. Other than that, they’re free to go for it if they can obtain consent from their objects or pets. They can have one of Yuyutsu's pointless marriages.

Dear Foxy,

«I personally wanted my marriage to be legal.»

From your correspondence with Phanto, it seems that you are using the term 'illegal' incorrectly:

When you are caught doing something that is illegal, you go to jail for it.

Obviously I do not want to go to jail for being married, who does?

As I consider the government unwelcome, I do not invite them to my wedding.
In some other countries they force their way in anyway without invitation, but fortunately not in Australia.

«That was my choice. We all have choices in life»

You have the choice over your own life, but not over others'.
For example, you could choose to invite me to your wedding, but I might refuse or simply not come - what can you do about it?

«except it seems for same-sex couples. They don't have that choice in this country»

Same-sex couples will never go to jail for marrying each other, well not in Australia.

To take it to the extreme, one could legally even marry a sheep or several people at once (so long as they don't have a sexual relationship with the sheep, but that comes under different laws). One could even have a formal and sumptuous wedding to encourage society to recognise this union.

The state would not recognise such marriage, they would shrug it off but they won't take you to jail either for it.

«and whether you agree with that or not, it's a choice that they should have just like the rest of us.»

It's not that they do not have this choice now, it's only that there are others (in this particular case it's the government) who do not approve of their choice. No matter what you do, there will always be some others who would not approve of it.

Same-sex couples should indeed be just like the rest of us and that will happen once government stops approving of marriages altogether.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I do not care to continue this discussion with
you.

Have a nice evening.

Cheers.

Philips:

“Sure. Access and decision-making in emergency situations.”

So if a couple have lovingly lived together for forty years but have never legally married should they be denied access and decision making in emergency situations? That seems rather cruel.

“A nationally- and international-recognised relationship status for brevity, convenience, and simplicity when legal rights are challenged.”

This supposes that those legal rights should be determined only by marriage status which as I said could be rather cruel.

You don’t seem concerned about the harm done to those human beings who choose not to marry. You are more interested in maintaining a situation where people have to go against their own will in order to achieve rights which should be granted them on the basis of the closeness of their relationship and not on whether that relationship is called a marriage.

You talk of bigotry a lot but this kind of distinction is itself a form of bigotry in which you would deny people rights simply because they refuse to marry. You are saying that if they want rights then you should have to be married to get them.

It is more damaging than the bigotry you claim is at the heart of those who do not agree with SSM. Such ‘bigotry’ only denies homosexuals the right to marriage but does not deny the right to things like access and decision making in emergency situations. No one needs to be married by the state they only need the rights that the state can grant. No one is denying homosexuals these rights but you would deny them from people simply because they refuse to call their relationship a marriage.

People like you are a far more danger to the egalitarian nature of our society because you want to control who has rights to their partner and who does not.

Get married or get out of the emergency room! What a bitter and cruel attitude you have.

Good point, phanto, and one which further strengthens my argument.

<<So if a couple have lovingly lived together for forty years but have never legally married should they be denied access and decision making in emergency situations?>>

Morally speaking? No. But if the two are married, then it certainly simplifies the situation.

Those dealing with the emergency wouldn't have to rely on their better judgement of how close a de facto couple are with a game of 20 questions, and there would be no risk of legal action because of an error in judgement should a deceased person’s family not like the fact that a de facto partner was included in an important decision-making process, or allowed to be there in the first place.

<<This supposes that those legal rights should be determined only by marriage status which as I said could be rather cruel.>>

No, it doesn’t suppose anything. But if you can think of a fairer system which is just as simple, cost-effective, and has all the same legal rights and protections, then, by all means, let the world know about it.

<<You don’t seem concerned about the harm done to those human beings who choose not to marry.>>

They at least had the choice. But, like I said, if you can think of a better way…

<<You are more interested in maintaining a situation where people have to go against their own will in order to achieve rights which should be granted them on the basis of the closeness of their relationship and not on whether that relationship is called a marriage.>>

And how will we effectively and efficiently determine that closeness, particularly in emergency situations? With a qualitative questionnaire over tea and scones, perhaps?

<<You talk of bigotry a lot but this kind of distinction is itself a form of bigotry in which you would deny people rights simply because they refuse to marry.>>

The feigned outrage is adorable, phanto, but we’ve been through this all before. Get a grip.

I didn’t provide that link earlier to practice my copying-and-pasting skills.

Philips:

“Morally speaking? No. But if the two are married, then it certainly simplifies the situation.”

So you would prefer simplification to morality? It says a lot about your values.

“Those dealing with the emergency wouldn't have to rely on their better judgement of how close a de facto couple are with a game of 20 questions,”

How does marriage guarantee closeness of relationship? There are millions of people who are married who cannot stand each other and there are millions of people who love each other dearly but are not married.

“But if you can think of a fairer system which is just as simple, cost-effective, and has all the same legal rights and protections, then, by all means, let the world know about it.”

Why not just register relationships that guarantee all those things without the need to be married? It does not have to be marriage.

“They at least had the choice.”

Well they don’t have a choice if they want all those rights as you would have it. They have to get married in order to get those rights which is not a choice at all.

“feigned outrage”

Everyone who is exposed as cruel and unjust always blames it on the other person. Like bullies who blame their victims for being too sensitive

Not at all, phanto.

<<So you would prefer simplification to morality?>>

It is the simplification that makes the current arrangement the more moral (albeit imperfect) one. Unless you want to argue that the inevitable complex legal mess, that would result in the absence of marriage, would actually be the more ideal scenario?

Are you not familiar with the concept of utilitarianism? Or are you just being obtuse again?

<<How does marriage guarantee closeness of relationship?>>

It doesn’t. But if there is no closeness then divorce, or not getting married in the first place, are always options.

<<There are millions of people who are married who cannot stand each other and there are millions of people who love each other dearly but are not married.>>

I’m sure there are.

<<Why not just register relationships that guarantee all those things without the need to be married?>>

What? You mean, like getting married? We already have that.

<<It does not have to be marriage.>>

So, how would this not-married marriage (let's call it "schmarriage" for simplicity's sake, I've got a feeling you'll be going around in circles on this one for a while yet) be different to actual marriage?

<<Well they don’t have a choice if they want all those rights as you would have it.>>

Yes, they do. By getting married.

<<They have to get married in order to get those rights which is not a choice at all.>>

And how would this supposed non-choice to marry or not marry be any different from the arrangement that would exist with your proposed relationship registration (or "schmarriage")?

<<Everyone who is exposed as cruel and unjust always blames it on the other person.>>

Now, that's the pot calling the silverware 'black'. You are yet to demonstrate any cruelty or injustice on my behalf. All we’ve gotten from you so far is hyperbole and feigned outrage based on simplistic assumptions of what I have been saying.

Again, get a grip.

Philips:

If marriage is just a glorified registration system to ensure rights then why bother getting married at all? Let’s just have a registration system for all couples regardless of whether or not they choose to marry. If they want to marry they can but there is no need for government involvement in marriage if we have a universal registration system.

Marriage does not have to be sanctioned by government. Only the registration of couples who want to avail themselves of rights as a couple in relation to the government needs to be sanctioned by the government.

Those who want to can marry and those who do not want whatever marriage has to offer can have their rights as a couple sanctioned by government.

You are making people do something which they do not want to do and should not have to do in order to get the official recognition they need to obtain rights.

You say we already have such a system so if there is no difference between marriage and government registration then why are people so desperate to get married. What does marriage offer that a registration system without marriage does not offer?

There are important symbolic factors too, phanto.

<<If marriage is just a glorified registration system to ensure rights then why bother getting married at all?>>

We’ve been discussing why for the last few posts.

<<Let’s just have a registration system for all couples regardless of whether or not they choose to marry.>>

Sounds like a useless double-up to me.

<<If they want to marry they can but there is no need for government involvement in marriage if we have a universal registration system.>>

Okay, but why would we bother to set up such a system when the one we have already works fine, and would work even better if it were opened to same-sex couples?

And why would you - someone who is not religious, and doesn’t care for marriage - be so desperate to protect marriage from same-sex couples? Remember, phanto, that one of your many failed angles in this debate over the years was to argue that implementing marriage equality would waste time and money:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227160

Now suddenly you want to spend a heap of money and time implementing a redundant system to protect an institution that you have spent years criticising?

Something’s not adding up here.

<<Those who want to can marry and those who do not want whatever marriage has to offer can have their rights as a couple sanctioned by government.>>

Okay, but why block same-sex couples from one of the options? It’s discriminatory. This tangent you’ve taken us on still doesn’t explain that.

<<You are making people do something which they do not want to do and should not have to do in order to get the official recognition they need to obtain rights.>>

No, it is you who is preventing some from being able to do something they should be allowed to do. That aside, I'm fine with your improvised solution.

<<... if there is no difference between marriage and government registration then why are people so desperate to get married.>>

Because marriage is an internationally-recognised relationship status, and because equality is symbolic as much as it is practical.

Philips:

“Sounds like a useless double-up to me.”

How is it a double up? All couples whether they want to marry or not and who want the rights to accessibility register for them. No couples then need government sanctioned marriage since there is nothing to be gained from government sanctioned marriage.

Everyone has to register one way or the other in order to get the rights. Your way insists that they also have to marry which is not what they want. They only want the rights to accessibility etc. and are prepared to register for them. In order to get their rights you are saying that they also have to marry. No marriage no rights.

There is no doubling up since they already have to register one way or the other. You are insisting on marriage as being a condition of anyone having these rights. You are imposing your conditions on what are fundamentally human rights and human rights should have no conditions upon them at all.

“Okay, but why would we bother to set up such a system when the one we have already works fine, and would work even better if it were opened to same-sex couples?”

It doesn’t work fine since it denies human rights unless a certain condition is met.

“Okay, but why block same-sex couples from one of the options? It’s discriminatory.”

You are not blocking them from one of the options since there would be no option to have government sanctioned marriage. It would be unnecessary under a system of registration of couples who have accessibility rights.

“Because marriage is an internationally-recognised relationship status, and because equality is symbolic as much as it is practical.”

This is not dependent on government involvement in marriage at all. Either marriage has those things and has had them forever or it does not. Government involvement in marriage does not alter those things.

Apparently they do, phanto, and apparently there is.

<<No couples then need government sanctioned marriage since there is nothing to be gained from government sanctioned marriage.>>

In fact, the case I put forward was apparently so convincing that you devised a plan to take care of the legal needs of couples with a means of registering relationships with the government.

<<Your way insists that they also have to marry which is not what they want. They only want the rights to accessibility etc. and are prepared to register for them. In order to get their rights you are saying that they also have to marry.>>

They're entitled to such rights if they assign their partner as their next-of-kin. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that marriage simplifies the situation and is a complete, convenient, and standardised package of rights, and you want to deny that to same-sex couples.

<<There is no doubling up since they already have to register one way or the other.>>

But same-sex couples can only access one method with your improvised system, right?

<<You are imposing your conditions on what are fundamentally human rights and human rights should have no conditions upon them at all.>>

We've been discussing why restrictions are necessary. You even devised a new system to account for the necessity. Remember?

You don't get to sit there and make me or to be the monster with your feigned outrage when you are the only one here imposing unreasonable restrictions by saying that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

<<... it denies human rights unless a certain condition is met.>>

Yes, "human rights". So does your schmarriage.

<<You are not blocking them from one of the options since there would be no option to have government sanctioned marriage.>>

But you just said that there would be no double-up because both methods would be registered with the government.

You're all over the shop here, aren't you?

<<[International recognition] is not dependent on government involvement in marriage at all.>>

Actually, it is with some ultra-conservative countries that expect couples be married (e.g. UAE).

Philips:

You want to deny basic human rights to couples simply because they refuse to get married. This is discrimination pure and simple.

The whole system is discriminatory and not because of sexuality but because of married status. Government involvement in marriage and the distribution of rights according to marital status is discrimination of the first order.

Anyone who agrees with government involvement and distribution of rights according to marital status is basically in favour of discrimination. Anyone who avails themselves of government involvement in marriage continues to make an inhuman system even worse whatever their sexuality might be. Anyone with any integrity would not be a party to this system.

You are one of those people who want to perpetrate an unjust system.

Nothing else needs to be said here.

No, phanto, I don’t.

<<You want to deny basic human rights to couples simply because they refuse to get married.>>

I suggest you look up what human rights are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Australia

And whatever happened to that apparent agreement we reached regarding the need for a speedy and reliable way to determine relationship status in certain circumstances? The one that had you devise a system, to unnecessarily replace marriage, just to deal with it? Have you changed your position on that one already? That’s gotta be a record for you!

<<This is discrimination pure and simple.>>

No, it’s not, and we already established why:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753

<<Government involvement in marriage and the distribution of rights according to marital status is discrimination of the first order.>>

Why?

<<Anyone who agrees with government involvement and distribution of rights according to marital status is basically in favour of discrimination.>>

How so?

<<Anyone who avails themselves of government involvement in marriage continues to make an inhuman system even worse whatever their sexuality might be.>>

Why?

<<You are one of those people who want to perpetrate an unjust system.>>

How so?

<<Nothing else needs to be said here.>>

Yes, I can certainly see why you’d be in a hurry to shut this down quickly now that you think you’re finally on to something after nearly two years of failed arguments, but you still need to explain why same-sex couples should be discriminated against, and I’m not leaving until you do.

(You realised you were heading for a dead end with that double-up of an arrangement before, didn't you?)

You now also need to explain why marital status is discriminatory, despite the circumstances we’ve discussed:

"Circumstances which require two people to have considered their relationship seriously, and contemplated the level of trust they are willing to place in each other.

Circumstances which require more commitment and trust than, say, the relationship of a pair of horny kids who have shacked-up together ‘cause mum and dad suck, and they wanna smoke weed.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753

Or are you just going to dig your heels in now and assert that marriage is discriminatory?