Same sex marriages (2 Viewers)

[iBibah]

http://community.boredofstudies.org.../337665/same-sex-marriages-2.html#post6962958

that doesn't change the purpose. the fact you believe others can parent doesnt change the fact that same sex couples do not complement physically, and cannot, in principle, produce children.

 

[Graney]

But what I do know, is that I've grown up without a male influence for the majority of my child hood. My mum and dad split after a month and a half of being married because my father was an ass. But here's the problem, growing up without one of the sexes unbalances the childhood value system. Children gain certain values from both sexes, where a dad might say just deck the bully to solve the problem, the mum says try to show compassion and figure out why the person is bullying you.

I've always found that women are more likely to be less violent, I'm not exactly 100% sure if that's a societal expectation, and hence why it occurs, or if it's just a generalization that tends to happen. I'm not saying there aren't any violent women because I've seen plenty of them in the news, and from friends of friends. If I had a choice, I'd rather grow up with a Dad and a Mum, because having only one parent really is difficult. Sure statistics might say that it doesn't harm the child, but statistics can be biased rather easily according to the companies supporting or sponsoring the studies used to create the statistics.

I'm going to request that I be left out of this argument, because quite frankly I don't really care if same sex couples get married, but raising children is a whole different matter. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, but we need to remember that we're only talking about the marriage aspect, not the family aspect.

"If I had a choice, I'd rather grow up with a Dad and a Mum, because having only one parent really is difficult. Sure statistics might say that it doesn't harm the child, but statistics can be biased rather easily according to the companies supporting or sponsoring the studies used to create the statistics."

Nah bro the studies say that single parenting is much worse than having two parents. The scientific research supports exactly what your saying.

Research also says that two same sex parents are as good as two heterosexual parents.

Single parenting is much worse than parenting by two parents of any gender combination.

Same sex couples in Australia can currently adopt, foster, and access IVF/sperm donation, (there is some legal variation by state) like many people you mistakenly believe marriage law will have a legislative impact on the ability of homosexual couples to have children, it won't, same sex couples already have equivalent rights to heterosexual couples in regard to children, afaik.

 

[Graney]

that doesn't change the purpose. the fact you believe others can parent doesnt change the fact that same sex couples do not complement physically, and cannot, in principle, produce children.

why do you want parents to be 'physically complementary'? What do you specifically mean by 'physically complementary'? What evidence is there that there is insufficient complementarity between two individuals of the same gender in a way that will be detrimental to child development?

Why have you bolded the words 'in principle', why do you consider the origin of human life from ova and sperm an absolutely essential determinant of the correct gender for the raising of children, rather than considering developmental outcomes and health? Why do you consider biological relationship to a child to be essential, and it to be impossible that non-biological parents can be equal or better than a biological parent?

 

[isildurrrr1]

It was my understanding that there was a difference between married couples and couples in civil unions in terms of the legal and financial benefits they are entitled to. Same would go for any relationship not recognised by the state. Because if they already have the same benefits as each other already, as you seem to be saying, then gay marriage advocates would really have nothing to complain about whatsoever.

Because it's the commonwealth that governs acts of 'marriage'. The obligations are exactly the same including child custody.

There was a case in 1994 where a lesbian couple had a kid through IVF. They later split and the one who didn't birth the child is refusing to pay child support. Court ruled through contract/estoppel law the non-biological mother has an obligation to pay child support due to 'actions that would construe the other party to believe there would be an ongoing upbringing of the child'. It was funny that her lawyer brought up arguments AGAINST same-sex marriage and same-sex couples raising kids.

right now it's the state/territory government's that recognize de-facto/registered relationships. The entire process is about not discriminating people based on sexual orientation. If you only let straight couples to legally have a 'marriage' it's a form of state based discrimination.

that doesn't change the purpose. the fact you believe others can parent doesnt change the fact that same sex couples do not complement physically, and cannot, in principle, produce children.

How can they not? Get a gay couple and lesbian couple to cross-reproduce boom children. People have step kids and half brother's/sisters all the time, it's not exactly a new thing.

 

[iBibah]

How can they not? Get a gay couple and lesbian couple to cross-reproduce boom children. People have step kids and half brother's/sisters all the time, it's not exactly a new thing.

then that's not one couple producing kids, is it?

you're simply giving more incidental evidence which does nothing for what you're trying to prove. at the end of the day, two men or two women cannot produce a child. thats it. and while children are not a prerequisite for marriage, the physical complementarity which can, in princinple, produce a child is.

 

[isildurrrr1]

ever heard of surrogacy? End of the day they're still producing a child it's just who gets custody.

 

[iBibah]

why do you want parents to be 'physically complementary'? What do you specifically mean by 'physically complementary'? What evidence is there that there is insufficient complementarity between two individuals of the same gender in a way that will be detrimental to child development?

Why have you bolded the words 'in principle', why do you consider the origin of human life from ova and sperm an absolutely essential determinant of the correct gender for the raising of children, rather than considering developmental outcomes and health? Why do you consider biological relationship to a child to be essential, and it to be impossible that non-biological parents can be equal or better than a biological parent?

I say in principle because I'm not talking circumstantially, i talk by definition of. So by definition, male and female make babies. Marriage exists for male and female (because they can make babies). If, in principle (by definition of), two cannot make a baby (e.i two males, two females), then marriage is irrelevant. Whether you believe two males or females can raise kids is irrelevent when we talk about definitions. What you're debating is whether this institution (as it's defined) is in the greatest interest of society. If you don't believe it to be so, get rid of it, or make a new one. To say "gay marriage" is an oxymoron to the fullest extent. Like I've said many times now, it would be wiser to fight for the removal of marriage, then for an irrational redefinition.

Physical complementarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbJYUcK9F40

Summary: penis and a vagina, genetically male and female.

 

[iBibah]

ever heard of surrogacy? End of the day they're still producing a child it's just who gets custody.

im actually not sure if you're serious

 

[Amleops]

Because it's the commonwealth that governs acts of 'marriage'. The obligations are exactly the same including child custody.

There was a case in 1994 where a lesbian couple had a kid through IVF. They later split and the one who didn't birth the child is refusing to pay child support. Court ruled through contract/estoppel law the non-biological mother has an obligation to pay child support due to 'actions that would construe the other party to believe there would be an ongoing upbringing of the child'. It was funny that her lawyer brought up arguments AGAINST same-sex marriage and same-sex couples raising kids.

right now it's the state/territory government's that recognize de-facto/registered relationships. The entire process is about not discriminating people based on sexual orientation. If you only let straight couples to legally have a 'marriage' it's a form of state based discrimination.

Child custody is more of a family issue though, rather than one of marriage. Marriage and family are distinct concepts; while marriage creates a family, you can have a family without marriage. Unmarried same sex couples are perfectly able to start their own families by adopting or surrogacy, so naturally family laws such as child custody would apply to them in the case the parents were separated.

I was thinking more of things like tax benefits and next of kin laws. Aren't same sex couples not excluded from those? I'd imagine the way to address those would be legislature at a federal level.

As for your point on discrimination, it is not the act of discrimination itself that brings negative effects. When discrimination is accompanied by one group being worse off and given less opportunities, then it is an ethical issue. So currently, to exclude same sex couples from marriage, with civil union laws the way that they are, would indeed be state based discrimination. But if the laws were reformed to bring civil unions to be on equal footing with marriage, then it would no longer leave same sex couples worse off then non-same sex couples. And then, as I have said, the distinction between marriage and civil union would then become a purely semantic one. The fact that same sex couples can't access marriage, and that non-same sex couples can't access civil unions, becomes a trivial issue, as the institutions are exactly the same, and being a member of one institution gives you no extra benefit over those in the other.

 

[Graney]

I say in principle because I'm not talking circumstantially, i talk by definition of. So by definition, male and female make babies. Marriage exists for male and female (because they can make babies). If, in principle (by definition of), two cannot make a baby (e.i two males, two females), then marriage is irrelevant. Whether you believe two males or females can raise kids is irrelevent when we talk about definitions. What you're debating is whether this institution (as it's defined) is in the greatest interest of society. If you don't believe it to be so, get rid of it, or make a new one. To say "gay marriage" is an oxymoron to the fullest extent. Like I've said many times now, it would be wiser to fight for the removal of marriage, then for an irrational redefinition.

Physical complementarity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbJYUcK9F40

Summary: penis and a vagina, genetically male and female.

Okay, so you're defending the semantic definition of marriage, rather than defending marriage as an institution you believe in the best interests of society?

Previously in the thread you claimed marriage was essential as a social structure to protect children, and you explicitly said "the social reality that children need both a mother and a father", which is wrong and you seem to backing away from defending that position.

In regards to the semantic definition, word meanings evolve, the meaning is not static for hundreds of years and in modern english when considering marriage people are not considering the root latin origins of 'mater' and 'mony'.

Ask 100 people what 'matrimony' means, and 99 will not say "to make a mother".

You're defending marriage on the basis of an archaic root definition which isn't considered in modern society, by reference to root origins of 'matrimony'. Marriage is a union of two lovers for the purpose of celebrating and publicly solidifying commitment to their union, and formalising the financial relationship between partners.

 

[iBibah]

Okay, so you're defending the semantic definition of marriage, rather than defending marriage as an institution you believe in the best interests of society?

Previously in the thread you claimed marriage was essential as a social structure to protect children, and you explicitly said "the social reality that children need both a mother and a father", which is wrong and you seem to backing away from defending that position.

In regards to the semantic definition, word meanings evolve, the meaning is not static for hundreds of years and in modern english when considering marriage people are not considering the root latin origins of 'mater' and 'mony'.

Ask 100 people what 'matrimony' means, and 99 will not say "to make a mother".

You're defending marriage on the basis of an archaic root definition which isn't considered in modern society, by reference to root origins of 'matrimony'. Marriage is a union of two lovers for the purpose of celebrating and publicly solidifying commitment to their union, and formalising the financial relationship between partners.

Oh I do believe it is in the best interest of society, and I am not backing away from that. I simply said it's irrelevant when we talk specifically about definitions.

I say "marriage is between two physically complementary people, male and female, who in principle can procreate." You reply with "what makes a man and a woman better parents than two males or two females". The definition doesn't have anything about parenting abilities. This is not me backing from a point, this is you missing it.

 

[Graney]

Oh I do believe it is in the best interest of society, and I am not backing away from that.

I didn't say you're backing away from your belief, I said you're backing away from defending it. You initially made the assertion that children need a mother and father, I've objected ~3 times, you haven't defended it once (to me or anyone else), so you have backed away from defending it.

I simply said it's irrelevant when we talk specifically about definitions.

Earlier in this thread you were not talking specifically and solely about definitions, but in my last post I did talk specifically about definitions since I correctly understood that is the direction you wished to take discussion, so who is missing the point?

I say "marriage is between two physically complementary people, male and female, who in principle can procreate." You reply with "what makes a man and a woman better parents than two males or two females". The definition doesn't have anything about parenting abilities. This is not me backing from a point, this is you missing it.

Aside from one sentence, my last post was entirely about the definition, and I gave you a free opening to argue definition, and you've replied with a timewasting contentless post that doesn't mention anything I said about definition, so who is missing the point?

 

[iBibah]

I didn't say you're backing away from your belief, I said you're backing away from defending it. You initially made the assertion that children need a mother and father, I've objected ~3 times, you haven't defended it once (to me or anyone else), so you have backed away from defending it.



Earlier in this thread you were not talking specifically and solely about definitions, but in my last post I did talk specifically about definitions since I correctly understood that is the direction you wished to take discussion, so who is missing the point?



Aside from one sentence, my last post was entirely about the definition, and I gave you a free opening to argue definition, and you've replied with a timewasting contentless post that doesn't mention anything I said about definition, so who is missing the point?

The reason I haven't defended it because discussing it is a whole new question, and would detract from the question of this thread. While it is an element, I think if we talk about parenting, pro-SSMers will be under the impression that showing SS couples can be good parents somehow justifies SSM.

 

[liamlolz]

I assume you are interested in Politics? I am GLAD Bill Shorten brought this bill into the House. Although, I believe that because a lot of the Politians are older than us and they are quite traditional and this is our current problem. Senator Cory Bernardi will be blind to the fact that there IS discrimination against same-sex couples in this country, and it is all because of our influences. We may be a generation that is quite capable to make up our own minds about what we observe in our micro and macro worlds, but we are still subject to influence as a sign of respect to our elders. Another point is that Mr Bernardi isn't working it correctly, because there is in fact this discrimination present. People are discrimination against 'marriage equality'.

Yes, I 100% agree with you. I see that a large proportion of politicians being older a huge hurdle in passing any marriage equality bill because they are generally less accepting of LGBT people (I know I'm largely stereotyping).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kiraken]

wait so why does a prerequisite to marriage have to be the ability to produce kids?

 

[Graney]

wait so why does a prerequisite to marriage have to be the ability to produce kids?

Because to do otherwise will be too confusing to academics who study the Latin origin of words.

 

[Squar3root]

Because to do otherwise will be too confusing to academics who study the Latin origin of words.

wait what?

that is a job

 

[iBibah]

wait what?

that is a job

It might be.

But in this case he was insulting me considering I referred to the Latin root of a word. That's ok though just another leftie making digs at the person rather than making sense. Probably throws the word bigot around a fair bit too.

 

[isildurrrr1]

wait what?

that is a job

PhD in latin or linguistics would be one.

You can get an academic job studying anything if you got a nifty enough powerpoint to convince a uni to fund your research.

I even read a paper on how the israeli gay-porn industry is ignoring the plight of the Palestinians by ommitting Palestinian suffering whilst two judens get their schmeckel sucked.

 

[isildurrrr1]

wait so why does a prerequisite to marriage have to be the ability to produce kids?

Because secretly somebody doesn't want sterile people to marry.