We've got no hope.

[Psylo]

Your stance makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you think that inequality & discrimination is the least of humanity's concern? Maybe if you see no issue with sexual segregation then we could bring in a system of racial apartheid, and while we're at it, to hell with a woman's right to vote.

This is 2012, not 1957. Gay couples SHOULD be afforded EQUAL status to their heterosexual counterparts. But it appears that EQUAL is asking too much.

[qualia]

The subject of allowing homosexual marriage is probably the least important of humanities problems.

Many would say "who gives a shit" viewing the matter as extremely trivial.

Peeps really need to get a grip and a sense of prespective about what is important.

We also need more people to think for themselves(and think deeper) instead of being so damn politically correct believing that this is progressive thinking when it is just fashionable swarminess.

Kudo's to Thelema for having the courage to be politically incorrect, myself being no stanger to controversy.

 

oooooo, edgyy

[nabraxas]

we could bring in a system of racial apartheid, and while we're at it, to hell with a woman's right to vote.

& a war on some drugs & their users....oh wait...

[Sallubrious]

[Mycot]

Your stance makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you think that inequality & discrimination is the least of humanity's concern? Maybe if you see no issue with sexual segregation then we could bring in a system of racial apartheid, and while we're at it, to hell with a woman's right to vote.

This is 2012, not 1957. Gay couples SHOULD be afforded EQUAL status to their heterosexual counterparts. But it appears that EQUAL is asking too much.

 

Yeah 2012 and the thinking still very much in the dark ages. Is an apple equal to an orange or a banana equal to a stick of celery. No and we treat them differently.

Gay couples are also different to heterosexual couples in many respects and laws created with heterosexual couples in mind with the circumstances pertaining to heterosexual couples may not be applicable to gay couples. Too much of this is like a man demanding the right to make babies. Yes I see many rights as much more important than gay marriage. How about some real and important rights that make a real tangible improvements for all of us rather than some rather triviale "rights"(the claim of great suffering cannot be made) for a minuscule minority that has no benefit for the rest of us. Not everything is about rights and more than just this ought to be considered.in things that may have a more global impact. Seriously fucking off the heterosexual majority in order to satisfy the "II want List" of a tiny minority is not sensible to me. .Playing the histeria card doesn't really do it for me as I am not of a PC nature.

Again I plead that we tackle the serious problems that threaten our collective future and that make a real difference which is far more important..

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mycot

[Mycot]

& a war on some drugs & their users....oh wait...

Not everyones pet campaign needs to be related to the War on drugs. The issues are completely different.

If children don't get some rights that are afforded to adults this has nothing to do with the war on some drugs.

And yes I do think your thread title is somewhat disingenuous.

Not trying to piss anyone off , just expressing how I see things.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mycot

[Anodyne]

I keep thinking that there must be a simple solution here. Like maybe if we stopped using the word "marriage" and called it something else, all of those senators would go "oh, well that's alright then". Yep, dreamin'

But it does make me despair a little. If de facto gay couples can't get the same legal rights as their straight counterparts, what hope do those in even less-standard formats like poly relationships, have? I think the title said it all, really.

[goneski]

Gay couples are also different to heterosexual couples in many respects and laws created with heterosexual couples in mind with the circumstances pertaining to heterosexual couples may not be applicable to gay couples.

 

Please elaborate.

As far as ability to raise happy, healthy children for example, same-sex couples are just as well off as heterosexual couples. There are plenty of studies around this.

I'm not sure how laws for same-sex couples would need to be any different. Last I checked, laws applicable to heterosexual couples don't stipulate anything about penises entering vaginas,

wife beating, who wears the pants/skirt and so forth.

What a total red herring.

Yes I see many rights as much more important than gay marriage. How about some real and important rights that make a real tangible improvements for all of us rather than some rather triviale "rights"(the claim of great suffering cannot be made)

 

"triviale" [sic] rights? What the fuck are you smoking? Given that marriage has all kinds of ramifications within the legal system, it's hardly trivial and it's definitely tangible.

Plenty of claims of suffering can be made -- surrounding adoption, visitation rights, hospitalisation.. the list goes on and on.

Seriously fucking off the heterosexual majority in order to satisfy the "II want List" of a tiny minority is not sensible to me. .Playing the histeria card doesn't really do it for me as I am not of a PC nature.

Again I plead that we tackle the serious problems that threaten our collective future and that make a real difference which is far more important..

 

It's not 'I want'. We're not talking about terrorists making demands here. We're talking about one group receiving the same right everyone else receives. Equal rights. Nothing more.

And how is this 'seriously fucking off' the heterosexual majority? What business is it of theirs who a person is married to? None.

I'm not sure of the 'histeria' [sic] you speak of, either. The only histeria seems to be coming from heterosexuals or deeply closeted people -- right wing religious nuts and morons who think

they have the right to determine who another person can be with.

Edited September 25, 2012 by SYNeR

[Mycot]

Please elaborate.

As far as ability to raise happy, healthy children for example, same-sex couples are just as well off as heterosexual couples. There are plenty of studies around this.

I'm not sure how laws for same-sex couples would need to be any different. Last I checked, laws applicable to heterosexual couples don't stipulate anything about penises entering vaginas,

wife beating, who wears the pants/skirt and so forth.

What a total red herring.

 

If you cannot see any difference between a heterosexual couple and a gay couple then you are trully blind. For one hetersexual couples are how we all got here and all sorts of social and cultural institutions have been built up around this fact.

While politically correct the Idea that there is no difference between a gay couple or a single parent raising a child and a heterosexual couple raising a child is pure bull.

All my research indicates indicates that children raised by both sexes are best off gaining something from both and this has been happening for milloins of years.

But lets ignore the wisdom of evolution and screw the children as long as we can be PC.

As for how the laws may be different I'm no legal expert and you yourself admit that there are many ramifications and these have to all be taken into consideration.

"triviale" [sic] rights? What the fuck are you smoking? Given that marriage has all kinds of ramifications within the legal system, it's hardly trivial and it's definitely tangible.

Plenty of claims of suffering can be made -- surrounding adoption, visitation rights, hospitalisation.. the list goes on and on.

 

As you say the issue is complex and each claim ought be examined on its own merits. However in our society many more male devorcees suffer things of this nature than gay couples not having a marriage recognised by the state.

It's not 'I want'. We're not talking about terrorists making demands here. We're talking about one group receiving the same right everyone else receives. Equal rights. Nothing more.

And how is this 'seriously fucking off' the heterosexual majority? What business is it of theirs who a person is married to? None.

I'm not sure of the 'histeria' [sic] you speak of, either. The only histeria seems to be coming from heterosexuals or deeply closeted people -- right wing religious nuts and morons who think

they have the right to determine who another person can be with.

 

How about children having equal rights to adults?. Nothing more..

The institution of marriage has been bowlderized and trivialized plenty and further erosion is not what many people want. And they probably don't care who a person has sex with or even who a person marries ( yeah have that pagan wedding) they just don't want the marriage recognised by the state because that is a more complex matter.

I see histeria in the thread title and many elements of this thread. These days the politically correct are just as capable of histeria as the the right wing nut that you portray.

And many are not right wing nuts or neccesarily homophobic but merely people who recognise the issue as being more complex than a mere simplistic portrayal of the problem.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mycot

[chnt]

If you cannot see any difference between a heterosexual couple and a gay couple then you are truly* blind. For one heterosexual* couples are how we all got here and all sorts of social and cultural institutions have been built up around this fact.

yes but who really gives a fuck (obviously you), what does it matter really?

While politically correct the Idea that there is no difference between a gay couple or a single parent raising a child and a heterosexual couple raising a child is pure bull.

of course there is a difference, an M/F couple is different to a M/M couple is different to a F/F couple, but what the fuck does it matter?

All my research indicates indicates that children raised by both sexes are best off gaining something from both and this has been happening for millions* of years.

But lets ignore the wisdom of evolution and screw the children as long as we can be PC.

As for how the laws may be different I'm no legal expert and you yourself admit that there are many ramifications and these have to all be taken into consideration.

the world isn't perfect get the fuck over it... that goes for the natural world and the fucking world of society... children are getting screwed completely independently of MF MM FF, it does not matter get the fuck over it.

humans didn't spend hours every day on computers and phones for millions of years either.

The institution of marriage has been bowlderized and trivialized plenty and further erosion is not what many people want. And they probably don't care who a person has sex with or even who a person marries ( yeah have that pagan wedding) they just don't want the marriage recognised by the state because this is a more complex matter.

yes marriage is a meaningless concept (that comes with legal benefits), but people still seem to hold onto the concept of marriage, as long as straight people have the right to partake in a meaningless concept, gay people should also have that right.

many people are bigots and can get the fuck over themselves.

you're holding onto a whole bunch of things that dont matter and need to move on with your life my friend.

the issue is simply equal rights and nothing more. if you do not want equal rights for gays then you are a bigot.

[Thelema]

ahhh I had a great response, but now I can't even be bothered. Let that be a lesson to all of ye.

[Torsten]

Mycot - I am really torn in this discussion. On one hand I personally don't care about getting 'married' as long as I have the same rights. On the other hand I feel that as long as same sex couples are denied total equality there will be discrimination, which I find a very important issue. So my support for gay marriage is ONLY because it is being fought so hard by the bigoted conservatives.

The problem with maintaining some system that does not have total equality means where do you draw the line? How about at parents rights? I am quite shocked by how you trivialise the issue. You seem to care so much about the children yet you completely neglect the last point I made in my post #12, which deals directly with the best interest of the child.

if you establish a system that is not equal then you need to make it clear which rights you do not want same sex couples to have. Please have a read of the major legal issues that are at the cente of this debate [my post #12] and elaborate where you would draw the line.

I am also bemused by your reference to evolution. our society is so far outside the normal evolutionary processes that it is quite ridiculous to use this as a reason the way you did. The natural order of things also demands that mature men get 13 year old girls pregnant, yet in most countries we now know this is very unhealthy for the girl and hence restricted by legislation. Such legislation is not that old when you look at it in an evolutionary scale, yet hardly anyone in the developed would question the scientific data that backs it up. So if we are able to use science to make better social decisions then this is obviously acceptable to you in some cases. Why then deny the clear and overwhelming scientific evidence about same sex parenting? This has nothing to do with being PC, but with evidence.

In australia 22% of all families are single parent. If you care so much about kids then maybe you should focus on them, because the overall outcome for same sex family kids is MUCH better than that for single parent kids. Most same sex couples don't even want kids. Many of the ones that do actually have them from previous relationships. The legal issues previously discussed are primarily for them. Hardly any gay couple is going to suddenly decide they want kids because the laws have changed, so the legal changes will not increase the number of same sex families, they will just give legal certainty to those that already exist.

[Mycot]

Mycot - I am really torn in this discussion. On one hand I personally don't care about getting 'married' as long as I have the same rights. On the other hand I feel that as long as same sex couples are denied total equality there will be discrimination, which I find a very important issue. So my support for gay marriage is ONLY because it is being fought so hard by the bigoted conservatives.

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Torsten. Yourself and a good many of the gay community similarly don't personally care too much about marriage and the punters out there know this. So it's a case of lets give these rights (marriage) to a bunch of folk who can't even take the damn thing seriously, the root idea of marriage being joined toghetr in holy matrimony.remember. With the poor state that marriage is in these days further demoralising of the institution is probably the last thing we need. Young guys out there ought to remember that to a large extent getting married is how they get to have meaningful sex and live a fulfilling and complete life. Living the single life is not all its cut out to be. Lonely older men and cat ladies is what our society is turning into and not too many males are overly thrilled about hooking up with a woman who's been with dozens of males because she was busy looking after her carreer during her younger years. With all the legal changes, marriage these days is not the same deal as what it was for previous generations. So much so that I consider any young man considering marriage under our present legal system as positively insane. For starters they should spend a few days observing divorce proceedings in the family law court to know what they are really letting themselves in for. which is often getting screwed in a very big way. So it's become quite unattractive to many males these days.

On the discrimiatory/ equality issue many things that may appear discrimatory are actually not. An example is cheating that may occur in heterosexual couples. The PC would insist cheating is the same thing regardless of which sex performs it where the more insightful knows full well in their bones that cheating is a very different scenario for a male performs it than when a female performs it. I'm not saying that either is good but just different. The case of gay couples may be somewhat similar. For example laws and perks may exist that are really intended to encourage hetersexual couples to get married and have children which is a different set of circumstances than that applying to same sex couples. Similar but different.

Yeah I know bigoted conservatives get up to some crazy assed shit but that doesn't mean that we should react to them in a kneejerk fashion.

The problem with maintaining some system that does not have total equality means where do you draw the line? How about at parents rights? I am quite shocked by how you trivialise the issue. You seem to care so much about the children yet you completely neglect the last point I made in my post #12, which deals directly with the best interest of the child.

if you establish a system that is not equal then you need to make it clear which rights you do not want same sex couples to have. Please have a read of the major legal issues that are at the cente of this debate [my post #12] and elaborate where you would draw the line.

 

Had a reread of post # 12 and agree that there are legal changes that ought to be made both for fairness and for what is best. Personally I've never been comfortable with the state getting involved with marriage which is esentially a religous or spiritual affair. Just the man, woman and God, the state should stay out of it and also the church also as much as possible. I agree that systems need to put in place that make clear what rights we want same sex couples to have. Where would I draw the line, there are many areas that ought to be addressed with laws intended to encourage procreation being one area and laws pertaining to children another. Perhaps like Thelema suggested we should have a separate institution that recognizes legal issues that same sex couples face but also recognizes that it is not the same thing as heterosexual marriage just as a marriage that is sacred and meaningful is different to a marriage for more secular porposes. Call it G-marriage or G-hookups.

If i've come across as trivializing the issue perhaps part of the reason is because I have never been legally married and yet have never felt any great sense of deprivation because of this.

Don't know what I'm missing I guess and yet am glad that I missed it. Seriously though the ramifications and issues are complex and this ought to be recognized and understood rather than overly simplistic portayals which don't aid true understanding of the issues faced by same sex couples.

I am also bemused by your reference to evolution. our society is so far outside the normal evolutionary processes that it is quite ridiculous to use this as a reason the way you did. The natural order of things also demands that mature men get 13 year old girls pregnant, yet in most countries we now know this is very unhealthy for the girl and hence restricted by legislation. Such legislation is not that old when you look at it in an evolutionary scale, yet hardly anyone in the developed would question the scientific data that backs it up. So if we are able to use science to make better social decisions then this is obviously acceptable to you in some cases. Why then deny the clear and overwhelming scientific evidence about same sex parenting? This has nothing to do with being PC, but with evidence.

 

the way I see evolution is that as organisms our bodies have lived and addapted to certain circumstances for millenia and many of these circumstances are important for physical and mental health, Eg paleolitic diet and tribal structures and the more we fall outside of the natural the worse our situation becomes. Yes I agree that science can enable us to make better decisions but too often science is hubristic enough to believe it can dispense with nature that we have conquered nature. I believe that much of this so-called scientfic evidence is skewed by political correctness just as PC may skew many statistics and possitions.

The evidence that I have examined strongly implies that mothers are most important to babies but come todlerhood when ego structures are being formed then fatherhood is most important to the child.

In australia 22% of all families are single parent. If you care so much about kids then maybe you should focus on them, because the overall outcome for same sex family kids is MUCH better than that for single parent kids. Most same sex couples don't even want kids. Many of the ones that do actually have them from previous relationships. The legal issues previously discussed are primarily for them. Hardly any gay couple is going to suddenly decide they want kids because the laws have changed, so the legal changes will not increase the number of same sex families, they will just give legal certainty to those that already exist.

 

I have no great fondness for single parent families and it may well be that children raised by two or more persons may be better off than a single parent families but not as good as children raised by both sexes.

I have no great issue if the occasional child should fall under the care of a same sex couple and yet would hesitate at this being accepted as some type of norm as your last sentence addresses and many heterosexuals fear..

Again thanks for your thoughtfulness.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mycot

[whitewind]

I have no great fondness for single parent families and it may well be that children raised by two or more persons may be better off than a single parent families but not as good as children raised by both sexes.

 

People are bad parents or they are good parents, sexual orientation has nothing whatsoever to do with parenting skills. In my book, it would be much more acceptable to ban marriage for people (male and female, hetero- or homo -sexual, black or white) who are convicted of aggressive behaviour towards others. Unless they can prove that they have changed. At the moment, caring, lovely homosexuals are not allowed to get married yet convicted murderers and psychopaths are - if they choose a member of the opposite sex. If there is inequality, look right there - it's accepted and in plain sight.

The PC would insist cheating is the same thing regardless of which sex performs it where the more insightful knows full well in their bones that cheating is a very different scenario for a male performs it than when a female performs it.

Cheating is cheating. If someone cheats you out of anything, does it matter whether that person is white, black, female, male, Chinese or African, or whatever? They are still depriving you of something that is rightfully yours, and that's not nice. In fact, your attitude says that it's okay to cheat people out of doing something they really want to do, simply because you think it's not important enough to worry about, which is really quite unpleasant.

Not everyones pet campaign needs to be related to the War on drugs. The issues are completely different.

If children don't get some rights that are afforded to adults this has nothing to do with the war on some drugs.

 

Bigotry is bigotry, and in both cases bigotry and the laws that are made because of bigots are cheating people out of something which is rightfully theirs to enjoy (drugs, parenthood, sharing each others wealth). But as we saw above, cheating (in your book) is okay in some instances (sometimes because you think it's not important enough to worry about!).

That's really not nice, Myco.

[Darklight]

*sigh* I should know better than to reply to your stuff Mycot, but some deep and reasonable part of my soul continues with the delusion that a well reasoned discussion actually changes things

Frankly, for someone who is attempting to neutrally explain their case I find your tone belittling:

We also need more people to think for themselves(and think deeper) instead of being so damn politically correct believing that this is progressive thinking when it is just fashionable swarminess.

 

I mean, aside from the assumption that people who disagree with you are your intellectual inferiors, the notion that political correctness ( such a loaded term touted by the right... I preferred it when public consideration for others was simply called good manners ) is some kind of default position of weakness for the sheep who need to harden the fuck up and agree with you... is laughable

Gay couples are also different to heterosexual couples in many respects

You say this and other random examples with such certainty and yet have not been able to produce any reliable evidence. Which gay couples? Which heterosexual couples? Aside from the obvious difference, that heterosexual couples are partnered with people of the opposite sex and homosexual couples are partnered with people of the same sex, I've seen as much difference between all relationships over the years as I've seen similarities. Are these gay couples you're talking about people you know well? Or are they on Youtube?

I have no great issue if the occasional child should fall under the care of a same sex couple

Gosh, that's so nice of you. Thanks! Please advise the rest of us as to the statistical figure you'd accept as 'occasional' so we don't go over quota

For one hetersexual couples are how we all got here

Um, heterosexual intercourse between fertile individuals of the opposite sex is how we all got here, if you're going to bring it back to purely biological terms. The rest of it is a social construct which has changed markedly over the course of history

The institution of marriage has been bowlderized and trivialized plenty and further erosion is not what many people want.

Who are these *many people*. Do you believe they consitute the majority? Do you have the published study to back this? And how implicit are these imaginary many in bowderlizing the institution itself? If they have benefited in ther relationships from such modern advances as contraception, legal adoption, second and third marriages and no-fault divorce then they have been as complicit in bowderlizing the institution as the rest of us

Do you acutally *know* many gay people? I mean, like, have them in your life, close up and personal as friends? Have you had these discussions with them in person? I'm primarily interested as the examples of couples you have quoted seem to be largely theoretical, or at least the product of very distant acquaintance. You keep citing these apparantly distant examples, yet I havent seen you say " I've spoken to a bunch of my gay frinds about this and I have gathered that..."

Or are we quoting straw man arguments again?

Call it G-marriage or G-hookups.

See, this is what I mean by belittling. But I'll go with you on this as long as we can use the terms S-marriage or S-hookups for all heterosexual relationships. Sorry, I was joking about that last one, but you probably got that

Gay people are remarkably like everyone else. I know you find that hard to believe, but we are. We have a range of opinions, and like everyone else, many of those opinions change over time. I find the notion that you have conducted your own straw poll of the Gay Community ( TM ) and found that those who view marraige as trivial and irrelevant highly unlikely.

Historically, as you say, marriage in our own culture began as an institution to ensure the transfer of properties down through the generations ( at a time when paternity was not yet able to be scientifically established ). Love matches are a recent thing, and in some cultures are still frowned upon, however in Western tradition they have been acceptable and even encouraged for a few centuries.

Until the introduction of marriage based on mutual attraction, it was considered counterproductive for most social classes.

Im interested to see which part of this alleged tradition you're insisting is traditional for you. The bit where two people of opposite genders fall in love, reproduce and remain emotionally attached and physically faithful for an entire lifetime is not the entire tradition. You're yearning for something which has not been the socially sanctioned truth for the entire existance of the institution.

I'd suggest a look at marriage laws through history as a true indication of the nature of what has been a very motile social meme

All my research indicates indicates that children raised by both sexes are best off gaining something from both and this has been happening for millions* of years.

Oh, you mean your own personal research? I'd love to see the data. That's if you mean actual research. The stuff you claim as yours. I'd weigh money on it that whatever formal data you have acquired was third party. Possibly via a UN conspiracy website.

If you're going to cite research, please cite it in full so we can establish which paramaters were investigated

Honestly, you seem like a troll. I can't work out whose side you're on though. I have this feeling you are actually working for the homosexual illuminati and fucking up the 'opposition's case by making the argument as badly as you can

[whitewind]

Myco, how about the theoretical gay partners (female) who hooked up with the theoretical gay partners (male) in order to have children which they so desperately wanted, and the (polygamous?) group had several beautiful children who have not just one mum and dad but TWO mums and dads? (I know of this arrangement in one case, I imagine there are more).

Does that make the children twice as better off as hetero couples because they have four parents? Possibly 8 times better than a single parent (who might as well be gay if they have no steady "other sex" partner to act as a parent)? The marriage laws are so outdated not even this arrangement would be covered under the new proposed homosexual marriage laws.

[goneski]

*facepalm*

So much fail in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

I might write up a proper reply once I get over the insanity of how bigoted people are and can muster the energy.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SYNeR

[waterboy 2.0]

And I thought I came from the backwards state.....

[Mycot]

And I thought I came from the backwards state.....

 

By the look of your avatar I can understand why you may think this.

[chnt]

By the look of your avatar I can understand why you may think this.

 

that's right, waterboy is a fucking muppet..

 

Edited September 26, 2012 by chnt

[space cadet swami]

Maybe mycot has religious beliefs that run deep...if your told something enough it surely will become your truth.

All I can say is...your obviously lucky to not have an alternative sexual orientation, otherwise you would be completely confused.

Do you feel for the plight of the so called "boat people"...or does your truth allow you to feel for them, as long as they're straight..

[Mycot]

*facepalm*

So much fail in this thread, I don't even know where to start.

I might write up a proper reply once I get over the insanity of how bigoted people are and can muster the energy.

 

You think that you have problems. You only have to reply to one person. How am I supposed to muster the energy to reply to many many people, some who have written quite long posts, some quite rhetoricle and some maybe just goofing off and also posts that reveal severe misunderstanding of my position. So that I may have to choose who and what to reply to because I simply do not have the energy to get round to everything by everyone. Requests to adress specific items will be given special consideration.. I'd like to think that an arguement here may make some progression rather than just spinning its wheels. So far I have found my conversation with Torsten the most satisfying.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Mycot

[Mycot]

that's right, waterboy is a fucking muppet..

 

 

I like the drummer. The rest should be sacked.

[waterboy 2.0]

^ attack me if you like matey

[etherealdrifter]

long deep breathing gets anyone through anything