Marriage equality (2 Viewers)

[Queenroot]

What's wrong with marrying inanimate objects tho

 

[Squar3root]

that's why I'm doing engineering just gonna build a robot to be my wife one day

 

[soloooooo]

That's called the slippery slope argument, which is basically relating a future event to the result of a current event.

It's a poor argument... And how do you know it will happen ?

By that same logic, then how can you ensure it won't happen? I get why people want to change marriage rather than introduce a separate form of gay marriage. However, why shouldn't the marriage rules (age, number of wives etc) then also be amended to suit religious organisations? That is what other special interest groups will argue if we change marriage. It will be hard to say no to them if we set a precedent in changing marriage.

As I said, if you start changing marriage for one group of people then other groups of people will also want to change it in due time.

 

[Queenroot]

that's why I'm doing engineering just gonna build a robot to be my wife one day

k

 

[Squar3root]

k

 

[Paradoxica]

By that same logic, then how can you ensure it won't happen? I get why people want to change marriage rather than introduce a separate form of gay marriage. However, why shouldn't the marriage rules (age, number of wives etc) then also be amended to suit religious organisations? That is what other special interest groups will argue if we change marriage. It will be hard to say no to them if we set a precedent in changing marriage.

As I said, if you start changing marriage for one group of people then other groups of people will also want to change it in due time.

It still isn't a valid argument. Induction doesn't work that way.

 

[KingOfActing]

By that same logic, then how can you ensure it won't happen? I get why people want to change marriage rather than introduce a separate form of gay marriage. However, why shouldn't the marriage rules (age, number of wives etc) then also be amended to suit religious organisations? That is what other special interest groups will argue if we change marriage. It will be hard to say no to them if we set a precedent in changing marriage.

As I said, if you start changing marriage for one group of people then other groups of people will also want to change it in due time.

"If we educate kids, some kids will learn how to create bombs and kill people, therefore we shouldn't educate kids" is an argument equivalent to yours. "If I help some starving people, other starving people will also want food and be unhappy, therefore I shouldn't help any starving person."

 

[Flop21]

The point was that new 'minorities' (as you put it) keep popping up all the time.

Once homosexual marriage is introduced into Australia (whether this year or 10 years time etc) then what will the far left want? Marriage with inanimate objects? Polygamy for those practicing certain religions in Australia? It comes back to the 'give an inch and people take a mile' slope.

So pretty much what I've understood from your posts, you don't believe homosexual relationships are the same or equal to heterosexual relationships, hence why you don't think homosexuals should have marriage (you want them to have their own different system).

We are talking about humans here. Not animals, not inanimate objects. And humans only have 2 genders. So obviously this issue stops once all humans are able to participate in marriage.

And by comparing homosexual marriage to human and object marriage, you're pretty much saying that homosexual marriage is ridiculous right? Just like marrying an object is?

 

[Squar3root]

in all srsness, l do look forward to getting married one day and I think everyone should be able to if they want to regardless of being gay or not

 

[Queenroot]

How do you get consent from an inanimate object? That is why I think the government should only be in charge of civil unions, as long as it is between consenting adults. Simple. No having civil unions with inanimate objects, children, animals, etc.

I don't think consent matters if it's inanimate lol

Do people consent when they masturbate with fleshlights and vibrators? No

in all srsness, l do look forward to getting married one day and I think everyone should be able to if they want to regardless of being gay or not

Coming from someone who gets sexually assaulted by gay people and glitter thrown at him
not bad

 

[Sien]

Marriage is just a mutual consent between 2 parties. Why shouldn't gay/lesbian people not have the same right as straight people? The only difference between them is just one pair has the same genitals and the other has different genitals. There is no real reason why homosexuals' marriage should be any less than hetrosexuals' marriage

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[Squar3root]

Coming from someone who gets sexually assaulted by gay people and glitter thrown at him
not bad

one thing gay people should stop doing is blocking roads

I'm trying to get to work and all these detours and shit on anzac parade and oxford street etc

 

[dan964]

"I like it coz I'm a good Christian that reads my Bible every night and I don't like giving people basic human rights which I already enjoy"

Marriage is just a mutual consent between 2 parties. Why shouldn't gay/lesbian people not have the same right as straight people? The only difference between them is just one pair has the same genitals and the other has different genitals. There is no real reason why homosexuals' marriage should be any less than hetrosexuals' marriage

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

that is if, it is a right that can indeed be extended (which you would answer yes) the rhetoric is strong on this one.

"The right to marry is protected under art 23(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
but the question of whether this right includes same-sex couples remains open to interpretation. Domestic courts, treaty committees, charter-based bodies such as the United Nations (‘UN’) Human Rights Council, and civil society have all proffered various interpretations of art 23."

The articles in for instance the declaration of human rights are also not explicit either.

most articles such as this by the Australia HR Commission from 2012:
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary...ttees?url=spla/bill marriage/subs/sub 010.pdf
would be in favour of saying it is; and hence concluding in favour of the bill, that was consequently voted down in 2012.

Most of the discussion for those not in favour, tends to recognise the significance of heterosexual marriage and nuclear family, as the main building block of society; and recognises the significance of children having direct access where possible to their biological mother and father.

 

[dan964]

RE:

queenroot said: "A civil union is a legal relationship between two people that provides legal protections to the couple only at the state level. A civil union is not a marriage, though. Civil unions do not provide federal protections, benefits, or responsibilities to couples."
is this claim actually true though?

I thought he main point of the same-sex marriage debate was recognition? Or am I misguided?

 

[dan964]

That's called the slippery slope argument, which is basically relating a future event to the result of a current event.

It's a poor argument... And how do you know it will happen ?

Because you can study the effects in countries such as Canada for instance, and then make inferences. Yes it is a slippery slope, but there are genuine flow-on effects from introducing a radically changing legislature such as SSM. You can also note for similarities between pushes by those groups (that are often suggested) and compare them with earlier pushes from the GLBTIQ (or LGBTIQ) lobby for same sex marriage.

You also have to look at the vagueness of the legislation proposed as well.

Already though you can see the effects of even having this attitude of SSM being the "way to go forward" if you like, in education (re: SSC thread for instance), religious freedom (consider the case in Tasmania for instance where the catholic church is being sued for being honest and respectful about their view on traditional marriage and there are other cases) and the implications for topics such as surrogacy laws for instance and how that would affect the rights of children or even the exploitation of women etc. etc. These are factors, of varying degrees that need to be considered, to varying degrees.

 

[dan964]

What's wrong with marrying inanimate objects tho

...if it was a cooking show...

 

[Queenroot]

...if it was a cooking show...

What

 

[dan964]

What

the ingredients marry well. sometimes they talk about marriage of different ingredients

 

[Queenroot]

the ingredients marry well. sometimes they talk about marriage of different ingredients

i see

 

[Drsoccerball]

Allowing people to follow their desires isn't always the best thing to do.