Ban on Gay Marriage (3 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

Originally posted by poloktim
In the laws, unless stated, if something is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Just imagine how much bigger the Crimes Act would be if it explicitly told us what we're allowed to do.

You're right that the UN Universal declaration of human rights does not say people can marry others of the same sex, however it doesn't state otherwise. Generally, this means that until this is changed, men and women of the correct age, consenting, etc. can marry, regardless of a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman, or a man marrying a woman.

Just because it says men and women can marry, does not mean it means men can marry men, women/women. It doesn't say they can, it doesn't say they cant.
That's why we can argue this point. There's no use trying to use something to back up your argument when it can be easily refuted. There needs to be solid evidence that supports somebodys view, if not it's just invalid.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by katie_tully
Just because it says men and women can marry, does not mean it means men can marry men, women/women. It doesn't say they can, it doesn't say they cant.
That's why we can argue this point. There's no use trying to use something to back up your argument when it can be easily refuted. There needs to be solid evidence that supports somebodys view, if not it's just invalid.

But that could be argued constantly, and would be. There is no backup to this argument. So play lawyer. If a law does not explicitally say something cannot be done, then it can be argued (and quite probably won) that it can.

The point you're trying to argue is that something must explicitly say that something is both allowed and prohibited. Obviously that is impossible. My side, is that you only need to express one side, whichever side and the rest is assumed the opposite. Such as the Australian law, it says a man can only be wed to a woman, this means that all else is prohibited, the UN marriage clause does not specifically prohibit, nor allow same-sex marriages, nor any other marriage. Therefore, normally until it is changed (if it is), it can be assumed and/or argued that both same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are permitted.

edit: I should use the preview button. I made a bit of a boo-boo that was fixed.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
Just because it says men and women can marry, does not mean it means men can marry men, women/women. It doesn't say they can, it doesn't say they cant.
That's why we can argue this point. There's no use trying to use something to back up your argument when it can be easily refuted. There needs to be solid evidence that supports somebodys view, if not it's just invalid.

i'm just wondering, does it say that men can marry women? because unless it specifies that, if we are going by your logic, then there is no solid evidence to support a man marrying a woman

 

[crazyhomo]

and katie: were you, or were you not stating that any law that specifically prohibited gays from marrying was discrimation? because that is how it read to me

 

[meisme]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
i'm just wondering, does it say that men can marry women? because unless it specifies that, if we are going by your logic, then there is no solid evidence to support a man marrying a woman

Originally posted by crazyhomo

yep it is in the 1961 marriage act it has only one reference when it says something along the lines of a a marriage is a legally bindind...blah blah blah...between a MAN and a WOMAN to the exlcusion of all others...blah balh

what i think is funny is how this debate started over the un dec of HR, does anyone else think that its funny that this doc was drafted in 1945, and homosexuality was still outlawed in most western countries!! so itd be fair to say that they wouldnt be promoting a pink lifestyle!!

basically we can bitch all we want about international declarations and treaties but they dont mean shit in Aust unless theyve been ratified

mmmmm...ive run out of steam, this is such an age old argument, and im bored with it!!

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Rorix
This isn't a logical argument. It's an argument from precedence.
A logical argument is of the form:
1. True premise.
2. True premise.
3. Logical conclusion.

Your argument is
1. Women were unequal, this was corrected. (true) (because it was unjust isn't necessarily true, as this implies were it not injust, it wouldn't have been changed)
2. Aboriginals were unequal, this was corrected. (true)
3. Gays are unequal. (arguable)
4. Ergo, this should be corrected. (invalid conclusion).


This argument would only be valid if you had a premise "where there is inequality, it must be corrected". It would only be true if you could prove this. But this was your attempt to prove this! Circular logic much?

My premise was that where there is inequality it must be corrected. Hence the two examples I gave of where inequality had to be corrected. My argument now is that gay discrimination (as I see it) is an example of inequality that needs to be corrected. Just because you don't agree that it's inequality doesn't mean my argument isn't logical and that it's emotional...

If I was unable to read I wouldn't be able to respond. This is another ad hominem argument.

I cannot believe you wrote that. Man you take things too literally. If the mush between your ears turned into the neurons and nerves that we all call a brain you'd realise that I was being sarcastic and implying that you keep missing the point. But well done, another class comeback.

-----------------------------------------



You yourself said that you were trying to redefine the defintion of marriage. You haven't disputed marriage to be between two different sexes, just a desire to CHANGE THIS DEFINITION.

Well, I don't know where you live, but GAYS DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO A HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Thus, there is no deprivation!

I haven't disputed marriage between two sexes because there's nothing wrong with that. If you're heterosexual, then it's fine. I have a desire to "CHANGE THIS DEFINITION" because it is depriving gay people to marry the person they both choose and love. They cannot do this. Thus, there is obvious deprivation.

Not true. I am perfectly able to critique your reason without partipating in the debate. What happened is that you were stuggling with the perfectly valid point that you actually want to give gays an extra right, so you tried to draw me off track by debating whether or not it is good to give rights. It's not going to happen.

Firstly I was struggling with the concept of why giving anyone what you call an 'extra' right is a bad thing? I was also struggling with the idea of 'extra' rights as I don't believe it's a game of comparing.
If you're not joining in the debate then perhaps here is the wrong place to critique. You may PM me or if you desire to do it publicly start a new thread. BUT, we are in a gay marriage thread talking about things DIRECTLY related to gay marriage and should you feel the need to attack my logical argument then do so but I'm going to attack yours in regards to the topic and the context in which you have brought yours up in. Understood?

As you can see, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your logic, and then you're trying to debate morals with me.

You're trying to point out a flaw in my logic on gay marriage... a moral debate. And I'm trying to point out why my argument is flawed in regrads to gay marriage... the topic AND a moral debate.

This point doesn't make any sense. I said that there was a flaw in your argument which was the claim that gays were being deprived the right to marry. You then stated you were talking about the right to gay marriage. While that is perfectly true, I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish.

I'm saying that if you're arguing that gays aren't being deprived the right to marriage then we are arguing the concept of gay marriage which you keep ranting and screaming that you're not arguing. Do you understand now or would you like pictures to go along with it?

To summarise (this is the bit I actually care about your response to):

I'm glad you care, if only it was mutual.

You don't dispute that the definition of marriage is something like 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
However, you claim that gays are being denied the right to enter marriage, which is 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes.'
Then you claim that we should change this defintion so that gays aren't deprived the right to enter marriage!

Oh well done you've pointed out my argument for me. YES the law MAY BE that only the opposite sex may marriage. That doesn't make it infalliable and that doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. And that is my point. I acknowledge that the current definition allows only heteros to marry and that is why I want it chagned so it allows all to marry.

See, the problem is, half the time when you say marriage you mean 'a bond between two persons of opposite sexes', and half the time you mean ' a bond between you and whoever you choose'.

No, ALL the time I mean that the definition should allow 'a bond between whoever you choose'. Show me when I've ever argued that the current definition is a good one?

I accept that were the second definition accurate, then the people of Australia are being denied a right. But it's not - marriage is between a man and a woman. Until this definition is changed, a gay man is not being deprived the right to marriage, as he is free to marry a woman. Likewise, a lesbian can marry a man.

No the homosexuals are not being denied the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. THat is agreed and I never disputed that. They ARE, however, being denied the right to marry someone they both choose and love. And there's the deprivation.

NO DEPRIVATION.

OBVIOUS DEPRIVATION

Originally posted by katie_tully
Originally Posted By the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

I see race, I see nationality and I see religion. I do not see it specifically saying homosexual couples have the right to marry and found a family. It isn't half obvious that this refers to heterosexuals. The word family proves that. Homosexual couples can not procreate or "have a family". Heterosexual couples can.

Oh darling I didn't realise that we were implying things in our laws. So the only people that can marry are those who can procreate and have a family. Soooo... someone who is sterile or infertile cannot marry then, right? That's going by your logic. Clever work Katie, yet again.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by meisme

Originally posted by crazyhomo

yep it is in the 1961 marriage act it has only one reference when it says something along the lines of a a marriage is a legally bindind...blah blah blah...between a MAN and a WOMAN to the exlcusion of all others...blah balh

what i think is funny is how this debate started over the un dec of HR, does anyone else think that its funny that this doc was drafted in 1945, and homosexuality was still outlawed in most western countries!! so itd be fair to say that they wouldnt be promoting a pink lifestyle!!

basically we can bitch all we want about international declarations and treaties but they dont mean shit in Aust unless theyve been ratified

mmmmm...ive run out of steam, this is such an age old argument, and im bored with it!!

firstly, i was not talking about australian law. secondly, would you support slavery if it were part of australian law? or what about aboriginals and women not having the right to vote? these are also human rights, so why are you selective in which human rights you support?

 

[tWiStEdD]

Fellas, fellas, fellas...
I'm taking time away from my exension history to do this, so I shall be breif.
a) The Universal Declarations of Human Rights is an international convention, and not applicable to Australian Law
b) This thread is about a ban on gay marriages, and not about the concept of a homosexual couple being a 'family' (which, as per the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), includes ANY sort of domestic relationship from caregivers (Private Nurses etc) to De Facto Relationships)
c) Marriage is a special sort of relationship; it is exclusive to a man and a woman as per the Marriage Act 1961 (Union of a man and a woman entered into voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others and for life)
d) You all need to accept that marriage is a special comittment between a man and a woman, a SACRED comittment.
e) Tradition -such as marriage- is extremely important to the stability of society; it binds us together as one, and ensures that there is some things for men and some things for women and some things that specifically involve both of them.
f) If you want homosexuals to be able to 'show their love' or 'make their relationship/commitment public' then an alternative needs to be reached.
g) Access to the adoption of children and birth technologies should be regulated by an independent body, and granted with respect to circumstances such as need and the best interests of the child. NB: It is in the best interests of a child to have both a mother and a father; not two mothers or two fathers.

Please, think about the effects of what you're considering. Do not blindly expect that to do the 'right thing' by one group is to do the 'right thing' by others. 'Others' includes, existing or potential, parents, children, friends, extended family, siblings and society in general. Weigh everything up before making a judgement.

 

[eviltama]

[My apologies for this being so slow in its arrival, i was capped by optus until this morning. ]

All righty then... the Declaration of Human Rights was posted... now lets see what it says...
---------------
From http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
-----[ Score one for Matthew Shepard indeed. (Well 2 actually..) ]----
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
-----[ This means homosexuals are people too! ]----
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
-----[ Can you read plain english yes? Good then i don't need to explain this point ]-----
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
-----[ “Men and women of full age” doesn't imply hetero or homo or bi, or trans -sexual. It only implies that “Men and women” “have the right marry”. It does not imply that they have to marry each other (opposite sex), nor does it imply that they can't marry the same sex. Its neutral obviously since it lacks any other definitions as to what is a “family” or to what constitutes a “marriage”. BUT what it does say is “They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage...” which means “Men and women of full age” are both equally entitled to “equal rights as to marriage”... think it over a bit before replying. And maybe this time i might get a response to my criticisms... who knows i might even get an educated response. ]----
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
----[ Once again a neutral statement, they don't define what a “family” in anyway other than to imply that as the “fundamental group unit of society” that its societies view as to what makes a family. And if we work off this definition we have a lot of family groups including but not in anyway limited to, the nuclear family, extended, adopted and so on. This includes Breanna (not sure abt spelling on the name) and her two Mummies. ]----

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
-----[ Which means that 'minority' or not, we have the right to “take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”. * Cheers for the homosexuals in government * It also says that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”, its been repeatedly mentioned within this thread that a majority of people don't support gay marriages, but its also been argued that a majority of people support civil unions and other changes which give homosexuals the same rights to marriage... but just not called that. Polls taken in recent times show that in truth, most youth support gay marriages and its the older generations that don't. They also show that its nearly a 50/50 split.
“The poll, commissioned by Australian broadcaster SBS, found that gay marriage has been gaining support since the last survey with the country now split almost evenly on the issue.Thirty-eight percent of likely voters say they would favor same-sex marriage while 44 percent are opposed to gay unions. Eighteen percent of respondents said they were undecided. With the margin of error the poll shows the country almost equally divided.”
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/06/061404ozPoll.htm
The above article also points out “It indicates that the Howard government isn't legislating for future Australians”, which i think is a fair enough statement. As we get older we will be the 'people' whos 'will' should be what the government is guided by when making legislation, right now we (those who only recently turned 18+) are on the cusp of this group called the 'people' and our ideas and opinions are the 'minority' group. Unless of course you happen to have all your ideas conform with a major political group. * Shrugs * Howard is making legislation for his peers (50+ years old and over) and since a large majority of people in parliament are that age i guess it means that things like HECS and homosexual marriages are just gonna have to wait because the government is staid and the current opposition can't keep promises and won't be able to keep its mouth shut. http://www.greens.org.au/samesexmarriage
]-----
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
-----[ ... Now if i can read this right... it means that by banning gay marriage and making overseas marriages (of homosexuals) void that the government would be putting in place legislation that is “aimed at the destruction” of Article 16. Now lets hear the screams of 'discrimination!' and 'you're breaking the declaration of human rights', because that is what the legislation would mean. ]-----

End Note: Let the churches redefine their marriages as only man + woman, they have the right to do so. The government can support them (the relevant churches) in this act as much as they want to, but they have no right and never will have the right to say that <insert act, be it marriage, be it voting, be it to drive even, be it to enrol in a certain school> can only be done be undertaken by people of a certain sexual preference. The argument used by the government and the redefinitions supporters doesn't make sense. Redefining marriage doesn't make sense, we all know what marriage is... what it means to us and what it may or may not mean to our religion. Why should the government be able to tell us what marriage is? Will it tell us that we can only get married in a government approved church next? That we can only marry someone from the same background (religious, cultural, social)? Statistics say that ~70% of australians are some denomination of Christianity/Catholicism, but yet it can't tell us how many of those churches approve of homosexuality, nor can it tell us how many of that ~70% approve of homosexuality. The Pope may give out his opinion on the issue but it doesn't mean that the individual churches follow it to the letter. The catholic church i used to go to (when i was catholic) supported homosexuals, ran groups for them and so on. * Shrugs * Each to his own, and hopefully never to anothers. If only that was true.

 

[eviltama]

------
Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Fellas, fellas, fellas...
I'm taking time away from my exension history to do this, so I shall be breif.
a) The Universal Declarations of Human Rights is an international convention, and not applicable to Australian Law
-------

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/miscinfo/carta.htm
" On 10 December 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, the 58 Member States of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with 48 states in favour and eight abstentions (two countries were not present at the time of the voting). General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, which proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was adopted as follows: In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela. Abstaining: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia. The General Assembly proclaimed the Declaration as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", towards which individuals and societies should "strive by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance"."


---------
b) This thread is about a ban on gay marriages, and not about the concept of a homosexual couple being a 'family' (which, as per the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), includes ANY sort of domestic relationship from caregivers (Private Nurses etc) to De Facto Relationships)
----------
This thread has covered a very broad sense of what is considered to be involved in not only the banning of gay marriages, but also many other debates around that topic, one of which is family and the definitions of such as relating to society today. Threads go off topic... it happens.

---------
c) Marriage is a special sort of relationship; it is exclusive to a man and a woman as per the Marriage Act 1961 (Union of a man and a woman entered into voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others and for life)
---------
For something to be a 'special sort of relationship' does it now require legal backing to show its validity as 'special'? And yes it is 'special' because it is exclusive.. its like one of those resort/golf clubs that are 'exclusive' to the rich and those considered... the right sort of people. It doesn't mean that its right that only those people are allowed access to these facilites, and many people have argued and debated about how 'right' it is to have places like that where it is 'exclusive' because they do discriminate against ordinary people by only catering to those they want to accept(this is not an argument about catering to the highlife or those who can afford it... money isnt the issue here obviously). Which in a way is what this about. Homosexuals are being discriminated against because they aren't seen as the 'right sort of people' and in fact at times they aren't even considered to be a part of the human race.. much less worthy of being allowed to take part in a ceremony which is only for a man and a woman.. because they (homosexuals) just aren't the right sort of people. Churches can go make marriage as special and as whatever the fk they want, but the government shouldn't be able to make the decision for everyone.

---------
d) You all need to accept that marriage is a special comittment between a man and a woman, a SACRED comittment.
----------
'marriage is a special commitment', i don't think anyone denies this. Its a cultural symbol.. its a social truth. But what is being argued is that as 'SACRED' as it is, marriage isn't the secure stronghold people would like to see it as. The definition of marriage needs no enforcement, it can ask for none because everyone has a different definition. Culture decides it, society, people themselves decide it... their religion decides it.. but the law shouldn't have a say in something that is mainly a personal decision. I don't need to accept your opinion about anything, neither does anyone else. Thats just a fact, so why should the government be able to push THEIR opinion on us? Teachers can't do it, and to an extent our parents and family can't. Your parents and family can try, but in the end its up to you. Teachers can lose their jobs over it. So what gives the government the right to force upon us its own ideas. We are a democracy we aren't in a dictatorship, the government is mean to reflect our ideas and its not meant to get on its own high horse and use a sensitive issue like this to A) win the election B) cause more controversy or C)enforce the conservatives ideas upon everyone regardless of religion, culture or anything else.

-------
e) Tradition -such as marriage- is extremely important to the stability of society; it binds us together as one, and ensures that there is some things for men and some things for women and some things that specifically involve both of them.
-------
If tradition was so important to our society then wouldn't there be more respect paid to the indigenous traditions which were here before colonisation? And there comes a point where traditions get old, and people move on and create new ones. Traditions aren't always right, aren't always correct and aren't even always legal.. it doesn't mean that everyone should support a tradition that may not belong to them. "ensures that there is some things for men and some things for women and some things that specifically incolve both of them' What are you on? I mean tradition is important to the social construct sure... but that last part is ridiculous! Its like saying that FGM (female genital mutilation) is a tradition for women and its right because its one of those 'things for women'... and since when has tradition ever said that these things must be genderised? These are mens traditions, theses are womens.. and these ones here must be done by both. Think outside the box that you seem to live in. Because that box mustn't have seen the light of day for decades!

-----
f) If you want homosexuals to be able to 'show their love' or 'make their relationship/commitment public' then an alternative needs to be reached.
-----
Because 'they just aren't the sort of people' for marriage? They aren't good enough for marriage? Marriage is too sacred a commitment to be given to people like that? It sounds like something you would have heard during the segregation period.. or even further back in medieval times.

---------
g) Access to the adoption of children and birth technologies should be regulated by an independent body, and granted with respect to circumstances such as need and the best interests of the child. NB: It is in the best interests of a child to have both a mother and a father; not two mothers or two fathers.
-----------
NB: Since when have the best interests of the child ever been up to you?
The best interests of the child lie wherever they lie, irrespective of the sexuality of its care givers. Homosexuals are just as good as heterosexuals, who are just as good as bisexuals and transexuals. Sexuality doesn't come into it. For some children the best interests lie with their mother (single parent example here) for some its their father. And they grow up devoid of a father or mother, maybe they grow up with their mothers string of boyfriends, and dads line of whores... who knows. But none of 'the childs best interests' are dependant on the sexuality of a couple/single parent. Stability, responsibility and etc are what makes it 'in the best interests' and if a homosexual couple can match that criteria then good on them, they deserve the right to a child. Perhaps even more than alot of heterosexual couples that can be made examples of.

-------------
Please, think about the effects of what you're considering. Do not blindly expect that to do the 'right thing' by one group is to do the 'right thing' by others. 'Others' includes, existing or potential, parents, children, friends, extended family, siblings and society in general. Weigh everything up before making a judgement.
--------------
"Do not blindly expect that to do the 'right thing' by one group is to do the 'right thing' by others" By this you mean that by doing the 'right thing' by homosexuals that in some way shape or form heterosexuals will suffer. But yet you don't consider that by doing the 'right thing' as seen by those against homosexual marriage will mean that homosexuals will have to suffer. That doesn't bother you at all to think that these 'others' that you talk about may or may not be themselves homosexual and want children or want to marry, want to have lives and live like everyone else.

You don't care that they might suffer because you're not one of them? Or because you just don't give a shit, you tell everyone your opinion on the issue and then thats the entirety of your involvement in the issue. The issue doesn't affect you as you see it, but you'll jump on the band wagon anyway and spread your ideas just because you can. Regardless of the real people out there who are affected by this and regardless of what is really happening. You see one side of a multifaceted issue which affects more people than you or i could ever know, but yet ... i find it difficult to express how blind sighted alot of people are. I am well aware of my narrow mindedness in this issue but yet i know that the issue is going to continue alot longer than to the next election and much longer than it stays in the public lime light. I have been apart of this issue for a long time, how long will you and the others like you stay?

NB: That last part was an observation not only on the comment made at the end of the post , but also on the general thread participants themselves and how the issue may or may not affect them and their reasoning behind 'jumping on the bandwagon' so to speak.

 

[Ziff]

The UN Declaration on Human Rights is only a declaration. The ICCPR and ICESCR are the two covenants which implement the declaration in the domestic law of nations (if those nations choose to implement it in their domestic law and don't just wack it in as a meaningless schedule under the HREOC Act 1986 like the Australians did...)

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Ziff
The UN Declaration on Human Rights is only a declaration. The ICCPR and ICESCR are the two covenants which implement the declaration in the domestic law of nations (if those nations choose to implement it in their domestic law and don't just wack it in as a meaningless schedule under the HREOC Act 1986 like the Australians did...)

i went thru both of those too. But i have 8 pages from the ICESCR and but i haven't finished writing up the rest of the ICCPR. When i've finished i'll be sure to post them too.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I agree with eviltama - a very nice reply.

I still can't believe there are people who try to justify such discriminatory thinking.

 

[neo o]

I agree with eviltama - a very nice reply.

I still can't believe there are people who try to justify such discriminatory thinking.

I think it has been adequately proven over the last 15 or so pages why it isn't discriminatory.

 

[eviltama]

I think it has been adequately proven over the last 15 or so pages why it isn't discriminatory.

If it had, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[neo o]

If it had, then this wouldn't be an issue.

You can argue till your blue in the face, but anyone with some sense of objectivity would have found at least some sort of middle ground. Both arguments are valid, yet you refuse to accept that.

 

[400miles]

I think it has been adequately proven over the last 15 or so pages why it isn't discriminatory.

What a laugh.

 

[eviltama]

You can argue till your blue in the face, but anyone with some sense of objectivity would have found at least some sort of middle ground. Both arguments are valid, yet you refuse to accept that.

So you have no sense of objectivity then? I can accept a middle ground but its no reason to lose sight of the bigger picture. And its the bigger picture for which i argue... i see no point in spending all this time on this topic to accept a middle ground and then have others abandon the bigger picture because they think the problem is solved.

I can accept both arguements have their valid points, they wouldn't be arguements if they didn't. What i refuse to accept is ignorance. And ignorance is what i see here in most if not all of your arguements.

 

[neo o]

What a laugh.

Post something constructive or shutup. If you want to make a constructive reply fine, otherwise shutup. This isn't a spam forum, if you want to randomly flame people take it to non-school.

So you have no sense of objectivity then? I can accept a middle ground but its no reason to lose sight of the bigger picture. And its the bigger picture for which i argue... i see no point in spending all this time on this topic to accept a middle ground and then have others abandon the bigger picture because they think the problem is solved.

I can accept both arguements have their valid points, they wouldn't be arguements if they didn't. What i refuse to accept is ignorance. And ignorance is what i see here in most if not all of your arguements.

Please point out some instances of said ignorance. Also, what is this "bigger picture" you speak of?

 

[crazyhomo]

I think it has been adequately proven over the last 15 or so pages why it isn't discriminatory.

what about when you admitted your 'its not a extra right coz they can marry the opposite sex' argument was complete bs?