Civil Unions disallowed in ACT
Pages
| Author | Topic: Civil Unions disallowed in ACT |
|---|---|
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 13:06
Profile
Homepage
quote:I hate this argument. I see it so often, and it's so stupid. If you don't believe in murder, by all means, don't murder anyone. If you don't believe in third world poverty, by all means, donate your own money. If you don't believe in public masturbation, don't masturbate publically. If you don't believe in animal cruelty, don't be cruel to animals. Gah. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 13:13
Profile
Right, because like murder or animal cruelty, gay marriage generally involves an assailant and a hapless victim. [ Sunday, July 09, 2006 13:14: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 13:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:In my experience, however popular it may actually be, it's the point of view that's given all the airtime in the mainstream media. Bill Muehlenberg is basically the public voice of evangelical Christianity. If you don't like it, speak up and tell the world most of you don't agree with him. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 13:36
Profile
Homepage
quote:Fixed. quote:Hmm? I honestly cannot recall seeing Muehlenberg on the news even once. I see Cardinal George Pell heaps, though, and in terms of evangelical Christianity, I'd say Brian Houston has a higher profile. As to your second point, "most of us" is John Howard, Kim Beazley, Peter Costello, Kevin Rudd, Barnaby Joyce. It should be patently obvious that they take a more moderate stance. [ Sunday, July 09, 2006 13:48: Message edited by: Ash Lael ] -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 14:21
Profile
quote:[/b] I'll tackle the third world poverty analogy later, because it's specious but why takes a lot more and much more boring talking - why is it that public masturbation strikes you as an appropriate analogy? What definite harm does gay marriage actually do? The point I'm trying to make with my snippy responses is that, if you actually believe these analogies are appropriate - and are not using them as a squid uses ink - you display a pretty clear ignorance of why laws are made. 'It's icky' isn't grounds for a law, no matter how icky it is. It has to also be harmful. Murder isn't illegal because it's icky. It's illegal because people die. Public masturbation isn't illegal because it's icky. It's illegal because it's a blatantly sexual display that seriously disrupts day-to-day life - and in civilized jurisdictions it's a fairly minor crime, essentially a more severe form of disturbing the peace. I think at a very basic level the string of analogies you threw out there gives lie to the idea you actually have a base justification for your enthusiasm for anti-gay-marriage legislation besides 'Man, butt sex is gross.' I don't go for it myself, but I'm not my entire country and I don't pretend to be. Neither are you, and neither should you. ... Of course, all of these are rebuttals. My personal reason for supporting gay marriage is twofold: 1) I do not seek to deny, without reasonable cause, rights to others that I enjoy myself; 2) Disallowing gay marriage is an infringement on the separation of church and state, elevating a thin consensus of majority religions into power over a crucial element of society. Allowing GM to be suppressed - and I don't just mean civil unions or such crap, I mean marriage itself - is another unfortunate step towards theocracy. [ Sunday, July 09, 2006 14:34: Message edited by: The Worst Man Ever ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 17:51
Profile
Homepage
Very simply, third-world policy is a victim without any real assailant. Yes, there are causes, but you can't point a finger at anyone and say, "You cause poverty!" Gay marriage has an assailant (or two!) with no victim. It is by its nature a consensual act unless it's gun-point gay marriage, which is rather unusual. —Alorael, who still thinks gay marriage should be supported as the cheapest and easiest form of birth control. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Sunday, July 9 2006 18:16
Profile
Maybe deep down, people that are opposed to gay marriage fear that the progeny of a gay couple will in fact be gay themselves. And we certainly wouldn't want more gay people running around, would we? The ramifactions are pointless and appropriately bigoted. Like Alec I am not opposed to homosexuals getting married to each other and enjoying the same priveleges enjoyed by other voting members of our free societies. Falling back into my crappy analogy, it is none of our business since it doesn't affect us. Especially Ash, and while I respect your decision to remain involate prior to seeing your firstborn, it seems that you are speaking out of turn. Let those who are married rant and rave against the injustice of other people enjoying that feeling. Or not. But it is their choice, not yours. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 00:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Muehlenberg gets soundbited fairly often on current affairs shows and the like, and also gets the occasional interview. I'd never heard of Brian Houston until now; I'd heard of his church, of course, but the man himself doesn't appear all that often on the 6 o'clock news. quote:Most of the people on your list are Catholics or Anglicans. I was, as my post indicates, referring specifically to evangelical Christians. [ Monday, July 10, 2006 00:40: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7047
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 09:04
Profile
Homepage
Im very new to this forum and got bored so i looked at lots of topics on the forum and decide to respond to this one. Dont kill me after this post im reporting facts. One reason homo marriage is bad and wrong. IS that it destroys normal marriages and makes children insecure. It has been proven that for a child to grow up healthy they nead a mother and father. Second it would destroy us economicaly. Think about it 2 million more people married with all the benefits. Plus if homo are allowed to marry that 2 million will grow exponetionally as more people thinks its okay resulting more marriages and more strain on economics. ( I'm not a good speller sorry) Third divorce rates would sky rocket resulting in mass confusion as whos married to who? Fourth things like sex with animal would come up sooner or later which people should know results in diseases. -------------------- TRIDON777 Posts: 3 | Registered: Tuesday, April 18 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 09:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:Welcome to Spiderweb! Leave your sanity at the door! After all- quote:-Okay, it appears that you've already left your sanity at the door. Cite your sources, good sir. Without any sort of proof on your part, this just comes across as unfounded paranoia. quote:Okay, any world economy has bigger problems than keeping up with marriage benefits. Think of all the legal costs that get fed into the economy from divorce cases... that should support the cause of allowing gay marriage benefits. Then there'd inevitably be more divorce cases, more legal fees, and a stronger economy. And think of what it would do for the wedding industry... Your argument's falling flat so far... quote:You're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. Divorce rates are so high already (at least in the U.S.) that gay divorces would be a single drop in the bucket. As for the second point... whatever induced that logic is probably prohibited by law in most countries. quote:This already happens. Allowing gay marriage would not affect this. Sure, people might end up being more vocal about the stuff they already did, but seeing same-sex couples get married certainly isn't going to make anybody swoon for a penguin anytime soon. You sir, are a loon. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 3521
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 09:52
Profile
Really, all monetary benefits bestowed upon married people by the government ought to be cut off entirely. They discriminate unfairly against folks that choose to stay single. With an end to benefits to married couples, governments would no longer have as pressing of a need to keep marriages on the books. Perhaps the government could leave off issuing marriage citations at all, and leave the task of marrying people where it belongs: with religious institutions. I highly doubt that those agitating so strongly for the legalization of gay marriage would pursue the matter much further if informed that gay marriage, like straight marriage, would offer no monetary benefits to the married couple. Like most anything else, this issue is all about money at its core. Those gay couples wishing to be married for sentimental reasons could find the appropriate progressive religious institution to do the job, or just be content with considering themselves married. Of course, divorce settlements and the like would be problematic. Perhaps marriage can never be entirely taken off the books, but certainly its financial implications could. -------------------- Stughalf "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 13:52
Profile
Homepage
While the fallacies of your arguments have been nicely skewered already, I would like to point out that "homo" is considered an offensive term and should not be used on these boards. —Alorael, who would like to know what kind of slippery slope logic results in legalization of gay marriage resulting in people becoming gay. He'd rather not know what slippery slope logic results in gay marriage leading to zoophilia. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 16:23
Profile
Homepage
What's unfortunate, really, is that I can't recall any conservative politician in the U.S. ever espousing the view that Ash seems to hold. It's one that I feel that I can work with, even if I may not entirely agree with it on all points. Most politicians in America who oppose gay marriage tend to do so in a manner that resembles Paul the second. I can't speak with knowledge of how this issue is discussed in other countries, but over here, opponents of gay marriage tend to argue on the basis of bigoted and frequently circular reasons. [ Tuesday, July 11, 2006 06:46: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 16:56
Profile
I think Stug is right: the trouble is that money (here, in the form of tax subsidies and legal benefits) ever entered the picture. I don't mind that there are tax breaks and insurance benefits for married couples - I think that there are some definite benefits to having people paired off in stable, loving, accountable relationships - and frankly, I believe that anyone should have a right to determine how his or her estate is handled when they die (and for the most part, this is entirely possible through well-crafted wills and deeds). What disturbs me is that people would use an extant legal/financial benefit to prosecute their religious agenda. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 22:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:Please note that the only reason that public masturbation seriously disrupts day-to-day life is because it's icky. It doesn't actually harm anyone. Which, I grant you, is indeed a different situation, though the difference is a fine one. Mind, I doubt you'd support a ban on gay marriage even if the level of revulsion it produced was equivalent to public masturbation (i.e. sufficient to disrupt day-to-day life). So I suspect you're being a touch inconsistent here. However, I think the foreign aid example is probably a better one to illustrate the point I'm making. Now, I wholeheartedly believe that relieving third world poverty is a very good thing. That's why I sponsor a child. However, is it my right to impose my morality on others who may not agree? And isn't that what I'm doing, by supporting the government spending taxes on foreign aid? What I'm getting at is that I think that the argument "The government should not impose the morality of the majority" seems to only apply when the majority is not overwhelming. I think you're quite happy for the government to impose morality when 99.8% of the population agree with it. -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 23:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:Okay, I'll grant you that Houston isn't seen in the mainstream media much. Mind, neither is Muehlenberg in my experience (maybe because I can't stand watching those vomit-inducing current affairs shows?), and Houston is the president of the Assemblies of God in Australia, so he at least can be fairly said to represent evangelical Christianity. quote:Okay, fair enough. Though I'm given to wonder why we're specifically talking about evangelicals, since they don't seem to be particularly prominent -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, July 10 2006 23:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, the short answer is because you're both an evangelical Christian and one of the participants in this debate, while so far nobody in this topic has so vocally used Catholic or Anglican values to inform their position. Oh, and also because your religion is involved in a global conspiracy to rule the world with an iron fist, while the Catholics gave that up decades ago. :P quote:A libertarian, of course, could coherently argue against your position by simply asserting that it's also wrong to force people to pay taxes for foreign aid. But I'm not a libertarian, so I'll have to use a different strategy. The poor in third world countries cannot eliminate the harm caused to them by poverty, so since they can't help themselves, somebody else has to help them by eliminating their poverty. People offended by gay marriage can eliminate the harm caused to them by gay marriage by ceasing to be offended by it, so there's no need for anybody else to help them by eliminating gay marriage. In short, unlike poverty, gay marriage doesn't harm anybody who doesn't choose to be harmed by it. [ Monday, July 10, 2006 23:32: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 03:41
Profile
quote:For people opposed to gay marriage, I don't think the revulsion comes from the marriage aspect of it so much as the "being gay" part. Public masturbation is probably a bad analogy, however: anyone can masturbate publicly, after all. I think a more appropriate analogy would be "being of ethnicity x in public." Does Australia have anti-discrimination laws for sexual preference? I know that the US federal gov. doesn't, though some states (and many corporations) do. [ Tuesday, July 11, 2006 03:41: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 06:49
Profile
Homepage
There are economic and diplomatic advantages to foreign aid above and beyond the fact that it's morally pleasing. I do hold that the government is not really in the business of legislating morality per se, and I can justify foreign aid despite this. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 10:34
Profile
The purpose of a government is to protect and support its constituents. This leads to foreign aid in two ways: a) Poverty is a breeding-ground for the worst kinds of radicalism and, incidentally, epidemics; b) When a country grows to a certain size, its constituent population expands beyond its national ones and must serve them as well. By working for American interests and purchasing American products, the populace of a good part of the rest of the world is essentially participating in the American economy and society and should be protected by American government. If we don't like that, we're perfectly entitled to stop exporting and raise barriers to foreign trade and see how well that works for us. The same goes for Australia, but to a lesser extent. It would take a far slicker man than me to allow this analogy to even continue to map onto the issues of gay marriage considering that. BTW, while we're on foreign aid: the only fundamental difference between Saudi Arabia and Turkey is a more stable quality of life. That's why one country's reactionaries limit themselves to reading Mein Kampf in translation and the other's hijack airliners. Food for thought. Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 7047
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 13:45
Profile
Homepage
www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/ssuap/a0027554.cfm http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/142006a.asp Okay to show how Ephesos here are the sources that took me 5 secs to locate on Google and yes i read them not just copy and paste. Second until government destroys marriage completely gays still get all the benefits which results in government losing a LOT of money more than divorces depending on how long they are toghether. Also who cares about the marriage industry?? I mean is it so more important than the government? Wouldnt be better to have a stable government or a huge rich can do whatever they want marriage industry? Third yes its high 50% but with gays it would go up to 75%max (note= please look up studies for increase in divorces with gays on google it wouldnt take more than five seconds and save me some time.) thats not a drop in the bucket thats 1/4 of all divorces. Fourth it would make it more popular. Plus others things like sex with young children would be okay eventually. Sir we all have different views of the world and I would like you to respect that and not call me a loon. -------------------- TRIDON777 Posts: 3 | Registered: Tuesday, April 18 2006 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 14:12
Profile
Homepage
Masturbation in public is a crime because it's sexually traumatic, not because it's "icky." That's a legacy of our stigmatizing of sex in general and masturbation in particular, although the taboos are so widespread that maybe it's some primitive instinct. Paul, your second article cites only conservative think-tanks and the like, not any impartial organizations. Since those conservatives are trying to discredit unbiased research, I question it. The first article is a little better, but citing snippets of other works on an unabashedly agenda-driven website is still not exactly impartial. I don't know all the facts and statistics, but there are many adoptions by single parents. That can't be worse than same-sex couples adopting as far as mommy and daddy go. If the money lost to marriage bothers you, why not push the government to stop giving any tax breaks to married couples? That's the obvious solution. Only preventing gays from marrying is about as reasonable as preventing Asians from marrying, or anyone with last names starting with N-Z. Since gay marriage is a very new phenomenon and still largely nonexistent in the US, I don't see where you could possible get an astronomically high divorce rate from. There's no evidence, period. Besides, the government is not in the business of preventing marriages that end in divorce. Fourth, you seem to have some belief that gay marriage causes homosexuality. I believe you will find that it is actually the other way around. Gay people already exist and would like to marry. Prohibiting that won't make them suddenly turn straight. Being gay isn't a choice. You are committing a wonderful slippery slope fallacy in arguing that gay marriage will cause sex with children. Gays aren't pedophiles. Pedophilia has nothing to do with gay marriage. —Alorael, who has just noticed a very nice mathematical flaw. Assuming 50% of the population is gay and the divorce rate is about 50% right now, every single gay marriage would have to end in divorce for the average to rise to 75%. Far less than half the population is gay, and not every gay marriage is likely to end in divorce. Please think for a minute before pulling numbers out of thin air. [ Tuesday, July 11, 2006 14:16: Message edited by: Dropkick Culture ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 14:19
Profile
quote:First of all, if the divorce rate were to go up to 75% from 50%, the extra 25% would account for 1/3, not 1/4 of the total 75%. Second, I think the solution based on your logic is clear: legalize same-sex marriage and illegalize heterosexual marriage. The divorce rate goes down to 25%, cutting it in half. Voila! Edit: Alorael beat me to the mathematical mistakes. [ Tuesday, July 11, 2006 14:23: Message edited by: wz. As ] -------------------- 5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0... Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 15:09
Profile
quote:These are both opinion articles by biased sources and cite no studies that seriously substantiate the claims they make. (They cite studies, but studies saying that parents communicate differently with children - not studies saying that all-male or all-female childraising hurts children in any particular way.) Besides which, just because a child doesn't have a father or mother doesn't mean it won't have male or female influences. (Were your parents the only adults in your life?) quote:If you read them and think they fly as evidence, you're an idiot. Furthermore, I could locate 'evidence' for the Holocaust being a fabrication in 5 seconds on Google - doesn't make it true. Reputable studies making relevant claims are necessary. Your links are normative speculation, nothing more. quote:So what? The Pentagon spends $5000 on hammers; you're seriously arguing that a hundred thousand or so more marriage licenses are going to cause serious damage to fiscal solvency of the government? Get real. quote:[/b] What the hell is your problem? The financial hardship is inconsequential to the government (we're talking millions of dollars, tops, in a budget of trillions). If you're looking for ways to increase government revenue, perhaps it'd be more efficient to look at companies claiming to operate out of Bermuda than two men filing taxes as a unit. The former costs the country more than thousands, in some cases millions, of the latter. quote:Dude: gays are 10% of the population. Even if every homosexual marriage ended in divorce, the divorce rate would only go up by 5%. Also, your logic is disingenuous horse ****. First we're to worry about the costs of more marriages, now we're to worry we'll have more divorces? Either marriage is good for the country and divorce is bad or marriage is bad for the country and divorce is good. One or the other. quote:[/b] If you want to live in a society that doesn't tolerate homosexuality, I'm sure we can get a collection started to buy you a ticket to Saudi Arabia. quote:[/b] Because the rise of interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, interclass marriage, and non-arranged marriage all lead to the dystopian world we live in now where sex with children and animals is not only legal but widely accepted. [quote] Sir we all have different views of the world and I would like you to respect that and not call me a loon.[/quote]You don't deserve loon, you cretinous imbecile. If you were a loon at least you wouldn't be trying to appeal to nonsense authority and throw out logical chaff to hide your shameful bigotry. Dealing with your nonsense wasn't worth the 10 minutes it took. Please don't bother sending more. Thank you! Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, July 11 2006 18:52
Profile
Homepage
One of your "sources" links to the other, your articles both display blatant disregard for psychological convention, and the language is so twisted-around that near-facts become completely untenable positions. Bias be damned-- those articles are horrible. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |