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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > ABC's Q&A is on the nose

ABC's Q&A is on the nose

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. All
Joe,

Marriage has been a fluid concept in most (probably all) societies concept since its origins. The idea of marriage being about love is actually relatively recent development. It’s been a form of trade and a way of forming alliances at various times in various societies.

But even if marriage had never before changed, that still wouldn't be an argument against changing it, and to insist that it was would be a fallacious appeal to tradition.

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

<<There are no gods, so nothing can be 'divinely-inspired'.>>

Of course. So then how do you justify your insistence that marriage can never be inclusive of same-sex couples? From what authority or source is this supposed truth coming?

<<God, I wish I cared.>>

Obviously you do because you express your disdain towards such gay activism quite frequently. The question is why do you care? If the thought of two blokes kissing just irks you, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that your stance against same-sex marriage is in any way rational.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 10 April 2017 11:31:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi A,

How do your examples show that marriage is fluid ? Do you mean, the social significance of it, or the legal standing of it ?

As someone in a society in which freedom of opinion is allowed, I really don't give a toss about changing the legal definition of 'marriage': 'leave it alone' is my opinion, which I am entitled to without some jerk trying to bully me on-line. No offense :)

And I am entitled to 'show disdain' for homosexual activity: yes, it can be legal, as long as nobody tries to run their hand up my leg. They can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes or back alleys. What actual activity would constitute 'marriage' that they haven't access to already ? And yes, I approve of heterosexual activity and other normal behaviour.

Nope. Still don't care.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 April 2017 11:43:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Up until the very recent joining together of Gay Pride activists and radical feminists,

who believe that women on women with strapped-on super-large faux penises
is 'empowering' ('lesbian intercourse', we are now being informed . LOL) and
consensual heterosexual lovemaking is actually 'rape',

homosexuals and especially the many red-quaffing and Jazz-loving Left homosexuals, would have laughed and objected strenuously in good humour, few were like the angry, egocentric faux leftists of today, if anyone was silly enough to mention marriage.

Marriage was seen as one of society's, the State's, unmentionable, unfair restrictions on heterosexuals and never on the horizon for homosexuals who loved living on the edge and largely unaffected by the State.

Then along came the foxy Faux Redhead, Gillard and her faux Marxist, goose-stepping radical feminist push, who cozied up to the young and stroppy, attention-seeking, US Gay Pride inspired 'Gays' (who were anything but the dictionary's definition of gay) and soon had them believing that the revised de facto definition (desired by the womens movement) was good for gays too. The rest is history, err, make that 'her'story. The educated middle class public bureaucrats and politicians did well out of it though.

It is always interesting that so many who are behind the push for 'gay marriage', which finalises the State's institutionalisation and control of homosexual relationships, claim not to be homosexual themselves and are also NOT supporters of the institution of marriage. Feminists hate marriage and have never concealed their death wish for it.

To think that those cavalier, outlaw homosexuals once used to be able to make and break their own relationships without the 'support' of a State official or lawyer. So much for the freedom they had, but lost, through allowing feminists and some young attention-seeking activists to take over. -Short-sighted activists whose main interest is in forcing 'authority' and 'society' to bend to their wishes, a selfish power trip.
Posted by leoj, Monday, 10 April 2017 11:44:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

By “fluid concept”, I mean marriage is always changing - in both its social significance and its legal standing (I’m not sure what difference that makes, though).

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what a fluid concept is? Either way, it doesn’t matter because whether or not marriage has ever changed says nothing about whether or not it should, hence the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. In fact, let’s agree that marriage has never changed in any way.

So what?

<<… 'leave it alone' is my opinion, which I am entitled to without some jerk trying to bully me on-line.>>

How does pointing out the fallaciousness of your reasoning, or your lack of reasoning, constitute bullying? If I ever express a view that is not grounded in reason, you can be damn sure I want others to point that out. Why would I not want to be alerted to that?

<<And I am entitled to 'show disdain' for homosexual activity:>>

Absolutely. No one has argued otherwise. Likewise, I am entitled to point out the fact that your disdain is irrational.

<<What actual activity would constitute 'marriage' that they haven't access to already ?>>

Probably none (that's a very pragmatic way of approaching your question, for someone who prides themselves on being a lefty).

I could still list a whole heap of benefits to marriage equality, though, such as, well, equality (being a big lefty, I presume you don't need me to expand on that one for you) and immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

<<And yes, I approve of heterosexual activity and other normal behaviour.>>

Strange thing to say but, okay, what do you mean by “normal” then? Do you mean ‘usual’ and ‘typical’ (and if so, what is wrong with homosexuality not being “normal”?), or are you fallaciously appealing to nature here?

<<Nope. Still don't care. >>

Your contempt for gay people (or their activities, at least) suggests otherwise.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 10 April 2017 12:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi AJ,

Thanks for that Appeal to Newness fallacy :) Sorry, I can't discern much fluidity in the legal position of marriage: throughout the West, it's been between one man and one woman, and I can't for the life of me see any point in changing it: homosexuals have the rights to behave as they like, and to live together, etc. and I'm happy to leave it at that. I don't feel I have to be remotely interested in their battles. There are actually much more important issues in the world.

Otherwise, as the great Lionel Hampton used to say during recordings, 'Meeeeeeh.'

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 10 April 2017 1:00:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Joe, but I haven’t committed the Appeal to Novelty fallacy because my arguments for marriage equality do not rely on the fact that it’s new (or even appeal to that, for that matter). I have (here and in other discussions) presented many demonstrable benefits to marriage equality.

<<Sorry, I can't discern much fluidity in the legal position of marriage: throughout the West, it's been between one man and one woman, …>>

Well, I gave you a couple of examples. But that doesn’t matter because I’m happy to assume, for the sake of argument, that it hasn’t. As I pointed out earlier, appealing to tradition is fallacious.

<<… and I can't for the life of me see any point in changing it: homosexuals have the rights to behave as they like, and to live together, etc. ….>>

“For the life of you”? That’s a pretty strong way to put it given that I just provided you with a couple.

<<… I'm happy to leave it at that.>>

I understand. The problem is, however, that others aren’t. So if you want to argue against the changes they want, then it needs to be reason-based.

<<I don't feel I have to be remotely interested in their battles.>>

And you don’t either. No one is asking that you be interested.

<<There are actually much more important issues in the world.>>

Correct. But that doesn’t mean that marriage equality isn’t important.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 10 April 2017 1:14:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. All

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