CJ

How exactly is excluding the Christian value of procreation within a marriage broadening the definition of marriage?

Doesn't it follow that by including homosexual people within a marriage definition it does exactly that?

Or is it that you want a definition of marriage to include both the christian value and the desire of equality for homosexual activitists?

That'd be a tad silly now wouldn't it and would only highlight the obvious difference/inequality?

Fractelle and CJ can you both point to where I've said christians invented marriage?

You'll both find if you re-read my posts that all I've said is Christians added procreation to their meaning of marriage ... and that reflected their morality.

That is exactly what the activists are doing today and if the community accepts that ... then that's ok by me but I would then want a definition acceptable to me and consistant my values to be also recognised ... even if it must be by another name.

And if you're both going to be consistant and logical you'd support my endeavour.

I don't think keith realises how ludicrous his argument is to people who think rationally. Personally, I couldn't be bothered spelling it out again.

Foxy nailed it, I reckon.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139760

Foxy,
<<Jesus loves you.
(everyone else thinks you're an asshole).>>
<<I thought it appropriate
to use here to make light of KMB's "religious
stance," on things>>
I don't mind ad hominem attacks because those who use them usually don't have much of an argument.
However I'm not sure that calling someone what you called me on a public forum could be defined as "making light of".
I guess we each have our standards.
I'm further guessing that you'd describe your gold standard as tolerance.
Never mind.
As for my "religious stance on things", I'm sure you know what you mean but it sounds like stereotyping to me.
But tolerant people like you aren't guilty of stereotyping so I must be wrong again.

Fractelle,
I don't need to "imagin(e) what consenting adults do to each other in private" because my kids get taught about deviant behaviour in Sexual Diversity Indoctrination 101 at primary school and they come home and tell me all abour it.
Isn't it marvellous that the progressive education system ensures that little kiddies are informed that anal sex between men is just as normal and just as natural as, aaahh, normal and natural sex.
Who'd have thought?

Dear KMB,

May I suggest that you go back and re-read some
of your own posts on this thread - then try
speaking about tolerance again with a straight
face.

What is happening in our society is an increasing
toleration for a variety of alternative marriage and
family styles. The reasons are linked to economic
and cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism. In this environment
people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce,
abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of
what they, personally want - rather than in terms of
traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or the
other impersonal pressures that previous generations
unquestioningly accepted.

You talk about stereotyping - but as your posts indicate -
you're doing exactly that, by referring to couples (who
you don't know), as "incestuous,"
because their life-style differs
from what you find as acceptable, in terms of your
values.

It's allright for you to bandy terms about and sling
mud at people, but when someone else tries to turn
the tables on you, and give you a dose of your own
medicine, that's too much for you to take.

If you can dish it out - you should be able to take it.

Cheers.

<”Being “completely anti religious” could explain how out of step your views are. In future, if you want to sally forth in support of this country’s Christians, I think you should do your homework first.”>

Woulfe, I am certainly not supporting christians, just saying it's their ceremony, so let them have it and if your homosexual, undergo a state civil service or accepted agreement. From July centrelink will accept civil state unions and de facto homosexual relationships in determining next of kin and benefits. This is no different from everyone else, so the push for religious weddings against the tenets of the church, is a fracturing ideological push, not equality or human rights. What has USA statistics to do with Aus, the USA is so mentally disturbed and violently dysfunctional, any example is doomed to end up as they are.

Relying on a law made 500 years ago is not a progressive sign, but a primitive outlook and poor excuse. As pointed out, homosexual couples are no different to others. When you look at the huge amount of dysfunctional heterosexual relationships in this country, there is no argument as to their standing, they are on the same par. The only problem I have with homosexual relationships is having children, as I believe children should have equal association with both biological parents in their upbringing and that goes for single mothered or fathered families as well. No matter how well they operate, how balanced they are and how loving they are, when you deal with the later consequences of them, you see both approaches have long term detrimental outcomes for many offspring of single sex upbringing of all persuasions.

Foxy,
I'll try to keep it simple.
There are people out there now fighting for incestuous rights.
You talk about an "increasing toleration for a variety of alternative marriage and family styles."
On what basis do you exclude incestuous couples?
In this "environment of cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism" why don't you allow that incestuous couples "make (their own) decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally want - rather than in terms of (your) morality, obligations to kin, or the other impersonal pressures".
Why do you "unquestioningly accept" that they be excluded from your brave new world.
The reason of course is that you can't justify your position rationally.
You can only parrot inclusion and diversity while actually limiting it to your own unquestioned standards.
I'm not "referring to couples (who I don't know), as "incestuous, "because their life-style differs from what I find as acceptable, in terms of my values".
I'm only saying that your muddled thinking stops you from including them along with any other couple.
In terms of being able to take what I dish out I don't recall ever calling you an ---hole, but if I did I apologise.