Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 15 August 2016 5:46:45 PM

" ... Why would a new word for same-sex marriage be necessary? I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.

They didn't come up with a new word for interracial marriage, why should it be any different in this instance? ... "

Yes, I am wondering how long ago it was in Australia that my current marriage would be found to be illegal on the grounds that it is interracial?

..

But back to AJ's quote at hand, and if I do not misunderstand, marriage is a sacrament of a religious organisation, but the state defines the parameters of what constitutes a marriage.

So, for those religious entities which continue to practice a sacrament of marriage which is also extended to those of the LGBT community, it has already created a situation wherein these Unions are legally required to be given a different name. One that comes to mind is the so called "Covenant of Love."

Of course, these Unions currently do not have the same status in Law as marriage, and that seems to be the point for those who want to maintain the status quo as others have pointed out.

DreamOn:

If you were not patronising me then there is no need to try and explain yourself.

The fact that you needed to patronise more or less gives me the information I needed to know. I am not interested in your arguments against my claim - I am only interested in the emotional reaction that such a claim invokes in you and others who have responded. The fact that anyone needs to patronise, belittle, 'educate' and advise is a sure sign of a very defensive reaction. It is the kind of reaction I expected but you have laid it all out there for everyone to see.

One way to test the truth is to observe the unreasonableness of responses to a simple claim which has no evidence to back it up. The fact that anyone would respond at all is remarkable - that they need to be so defensive is a sure sign that they consider there to be some truth in the claim. You cannot hide such defensiveness no matter how hard you try but once you have reacted there really is no taking it back.

So you have been helpful despite yourself - not because of what you have said but the way you have said it.

DreamON,

In many if not all States, inter-racial marriage has never been illegal. In SA, if an Aboriginal woman married a non-Aboriginal, she could be given a lease of land, enough to support a family. If she died, it reverted back to the State to be set aside until the children had reached 21. The first such lease was in about 1845, eight years after settlement. Such marriages were between a man and a woman.

Joe

Joe,

So is it because same-sex marriage would be going from not-legal to legal then? Is that why same-sex marriage (as opposed to interracial marriage) requires a different word for it? That doesn’t sound like very sound reasoning to me.

--

phanto,

So, according to your amateur psychology, how does one correct a misunderstanding without looking like they're not doing the very thing they’re trying to explain that they didn’t do in the first place?

<<If you were not patronising me then there is no need to try and explain yourself.>>

Answer: they can't. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions now, this is just a sloppy debating tactic of yours used to leave others damned if they do and damned if they don't.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7136#218946
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18217#323735

<<I am not interested in your arguments against my claim - I am only interested in the emotional reaction that such a claim invokes in you and others who have responded.>>

So when did this change? Because, before, you were interested in the opinions of others:

“I am interested only in your opinions about homosexuality. Everything else is boring.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18439#327317)

It seems you're only interested in opinions of others when they're not too confronting.

<<The fact that anyone needs to patronise, belittle, 'educate' and advise is a sure sign of a very defensive reaction.>>

No, I think a better sign is an inability to respond to certain rebuttals, and persistence in the face of conclusive defeat.

<<One way to test the truth is to observe the unreasonableness of responses to a simple claim which has no evidence to back it up.>>

To a small degree, yes. The claims being responded to don’t require a lack of evidence though. Just look at the claims your unreasonable responses are responding to.

//Why would you interpret 'the behaviour which can lead to procreation" as the behaviour that must lead to procreation.//

Phanto, I didn't even touch on the conditions on the conditions that are necessary for procreation.

I mentioned the conditions that are sufficient: a fertile man, a fertile woman, and a male ejaculation. All the shagging in the world won't produce issue if one of the above three sufficient causes is unfulfilled. Further research into the necessary causes for procreation are left as an exercise for the reader.

//Whether two 20 year olds or two 70 year olds are having sex it is exactly the same behaviour and it can lead to procreation.//

No, it can't. Not in the case of the two 70 year olds anyway. It's rather embarrassing that I should have to be explaining the menopause to you on a public forum, so we'll cut to the chase and say that being 70 years old means the woman is not fertile and that one of three sufficient conditions mentioned above cannot be met.

//It is the only behaviour which does lead to procreation.//

Nope, there's all sorts of things they can do with machines and pipettes and petri dishes that are a long way from good old-fashioned shagging and still produce issue.

But that's more medicine than sex, and I believe we were discussing the relative pleasures of various sexual acts...

//As for marriage issues, it shouldn't be much trouble to find another word besides 'marriage' for homosexual unions: union, perhaps.//

Nah, I've tried running that idea up the flagpole a few times and it won't fly.

//I've seen this proposed many times before by those on OLO who have issues with gay people, but there never seems to be a reason for having a different word beyond a refusal to see such unions as legitimate.//

Which is why it won't fly. A rose by any other name etc.

Homophobes aren't so silly to realise that giving gay marriage a different name means that gay people aren't being wedded.

phanto, Sunday, 14 August 2016 8:18:46 PM

"No one has sex only for procreation."

If you continue to spew forth bald assertions like this then you will confirm an opinion of you that is fastly gathering currency among contributors here.....that you are a gormless opinion holder who can provide no cogent reason for forming those opinions. If you had thought for a moment you would not have made such a foolish and incorrect statement as you have above.

Sex has been a political tool devoid of the mundane joys that the headcount normally ascribes to it. From earliest times a family, tribe or clan leader was expected to produce a male heir, the more the better. That practice can be observed, to a greater or lesser degree in royal families even today. Japan is a classic example, one of many in history and up to the present day almost world-wide, where if the coupling of the royal pair is unsuccessful in producing a male heir then a succession of royal concubines kept in the royal vicinity are brought into play. Science has largely made such arrangements redundant. As well, social mores are far less strict so that a much broader genetic diversity is entering the royal hierarchies. Nevertheless, sex purely for procreation was once common but still practiced today in some societies

Barren couples, desperately trying to induce conception naturally, certainly endure bouts of repetetive boredom, even to the point of resignation and reluctance toward what was once a shared transcendence. For them, it is something like a family duty, a yearning blighted by diminishing returns. If you allow for the existence of such unfortunates, it is easy to conjecture that among a population of 6.5 billions several million couples suffer thus. Regrettably, I can find no reliable statistics.