Perhaps you should take the time to read where we are up to, it might enlighten your view.tWiStEdD said:We've all been pretty keen on this thread, havent we... i for one have not been able to keep up.... Perhaps i will read it all tomorrow....
Marriage has also been defined as a religious, social, cultural and individual event.. all such events have different definitions. And if you hadn't noticed this thread is about the banning of homosexual marriage, which would essentially lock in the definition making it less open to the change we are argueing for and against in the thread.Marriage has been defined by law. It will stay that way until such time as a 'change' is needed... but the institution of marriage relies so greatly on the union of a man and a woman.... Perhaps an alternative can be worked out for gay couples... that would be fair to all of us, wouldnt it?
You're sorry to everyone you offend? You're telling me in your perception (as great and as worldly as it is) a good handful of my friends and family have mental problems. Thats really nice. Thanks. And homosexuality is not brought about throught the conditioning of an individual from a young age, but the debate as to how homosexuality comes to be has been had and there is no definite proof to either side... just as their is no proof to say heterosexuality is natural.. we just assume that is because a majority of people claim to be heterosexual and its echoed in the animal kingdom... so is homosexuality by the way, but that doesn't seem enough proof to most that its still a natural occurance within nature. Also with your expert opinion, perhaps you'd like to go out and meet some homosexuals and tell them exactly how you think they came to be. I'm sure they wouldn't hurt you much...I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.
Fair enough the so called 'natural' roles of men and women in society have been blurred and in some cases changed entirely. It doesn't imply for the best nor does it imply for the worst. An interesting example... men are seen as hunters... yet it is the lioness that hunts for food for her cubs. Women are seen as caretakers and home makers, yet in various species of birds the male and female birds take equal care of the egg and chicks, often it is the female who hunts and the male who stays to warm the egg or mind the chicks. Life, regardless of in human nature or the animal kingdom is never so simple. Its even more complicated when choice is a factor, some men don't want to work.. and their wives do. Seperate but equal doesn't cut it when talking about humans. Seperate implies difference. not equality.The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.
So marriage is the exclusive realm of heterosexuals, how quaint that you think so. Now see this is where those silly little ideas about homosexuals being 2nd class citizens come from. Those ideas are false of course, but they have to get started somehow... And i'm sorry if i offend you, but go get f*cked. Homosexuals are not 2nd class citizens, there is no 'grade', humans are not categorised at birth and graded, we are not prime quality beef and no man or woman is any more or less than his or her brother or sister. Thats just fkn ridiculous. Heterosexuality is not a 'grade', it is not something we all strive to achieve, it is not perfection personified in sexual acts, hell its not even anything remotely similar. No one is born with a stamp on their butt saying 'imperfect' or 'perfect' or anything the like. We do not live in gattica.If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years, and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority. Let them initiate their own tradition but let us change such an important tradition to suit others who dont make the grade.
lol homosexuality didn't begin in the 20th century you know...tWiStEdD said:I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age. The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. We have men doing traditional female jobs and females doing traditional male jobs and as such kids do not seperate males and females as much, rather they are percieved to be equal. I have no 'clinical' explaination for this, but its true that since the early 20th century the genders have been made more and more equal as time goes by.... men and women are different, but should be equally respected. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.
This option has already been discussed. I've made a few statements on how this is segregation. In an egalitarian society, segregation should be kept to a minimum. However, no matter what anyone says, Australia is far from egalitarian, this is mirrored in government. The current government are conservative. In my opinion it's nice to have a conservative government, but there are some issues in which conservativeness (I doubt that's a word, mind you), is bad. Again, in my opinion, this is one of them.tWiStEdD said:Marriage has been defined by law. It will stay that way until such time as a 'change' is needed... but the institution of marriage relies so greatly on the union of a man and a woman.... Perhaps an alternative can be worked out for gay couples... that would be fair to all of us, wouldnt it?
You can perceive homosexuality as anything you want, hell you can perceive cancer as a mental problem if you want. Your theories would be uneducated and ignored. Research has been taken up in the field, and people will believe the researchers (who have educated opinions), over yours.tWiStEdD said:I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem... i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.
I've already explained that seperate but equal means segregation. Also that segregation is bad.tWiStEdD said:The line between males and females is blurred nowadays. We have men doing traditional female jobs and females doing traditional male jobs and as such kids do not seperate males and females as much, rather they are percieved to be equal. I have no 'clinical' explaination for this, but its true that since the early 20th century the genders have been made more and more equal as time goes by.... men and women are different, but should be equally respected. I am by no means advocating the 'rule of thumb', rather setting down that men have general roles and women have general roles... and they should stick to them, just like they do in the animal kingdom. seperate, but equal.
I agree with eviltama to a point. Not to the point of swearing though. We are not in the setting of Brave New World*, there are no definitive castes for society. The law itself has deemed it wrong for people to publically (by publically I mean in such places as the workforce) treat homosexual people as epsilons while heterosexuals are treated as alphas.tWiStEdD said:If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years, and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority. Let them initiate their own tradition but let us change such an important tradition to suit others who dont make the grade.
Incorrect. Homosexuality was specifically removed from the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Check the DSM IV, you won't find it there.tWiStEdD said:I percieve homosexuality to be a mental problem...
There is no conclusive evidence of that, and even if it were the case, gay people exist who have no choice over their sexuality.tWiStEdD said:i'm sorry to everyone i offend by saying that, but homosexuality IS brought about through the conditioning of an individual from a young age.
A huge fallacy here of appealling to tradition.tWiStEdD said:If gays WANT to publically declare their union, then they should not be given access to the age-old tradition that [is] marriage. We have had this tradition for thousands of years
Fallacy: appeal to majority.tWiStEdD said:and it should not be changed to suit what is a vocal minority.
I disagree. By noticing someone's gender you're not at all discriminating unless you're treating them in a way that is derogatory or unfair in relation to the way you would treat someone of the other gender.neo_o said:there will always be equality between women and men.
While in an ideal situation it'd be lovely if both genders were on equal footing and had equal oppurtunity but there are inherant differences between both genders. By merely noticing someone's gender, you are discriminating, it's human nature to judge someone on what we see...
Oh yes, of course, it all comes down to my maturity. It's got nothing to do with your hypocracy. But oh well, truth is in the eye of the beholder, they say. I didn't say what you said 2 weeks ago was 'timelessly true' i said it was 'ironic'. Big difference, son.Rorix said:Yes. I can understand how, when one hasn't matured in 10 years, one might consider something said over two weeks ago as timelessly true.
Because marriage isn't always (and often is not) used as a religious sacrament.Generator said:If the issue concerns marriage, then how can religion be left out of the debate?
Now. Not always. I know that the term is evolving, but you cannot just ignore the past.400miles said:Because marriage isn't always (and often is not) used as a religious sacrament.
No, but we're debating a contemporary issue about marriage in a contemporary society. And thus, it's pretty inappropriate to say that marriage has to be concerned with religious views.Generator said:Now. Not always. I know that the term is evolving, but you cannot just ignore the past.
It is just as inappropriate to not consider relgious views, too. 'Contemporary society' is far from being as progressive (and widespread) as you believe.400miles said:No, but we're debating a contemporary issue about marriage in a contemporary society. And thus, it's pretty inappropriate to say that marriage has to be concerned with religious views.
No but in discussing a debate over marriage you're discussing marriage as it is today, a social institution, not a religious institution. Homosexuals have been banned from all marriages, not just religious ones. Sure most people probably would go for a religious marriage (being as the majority of Aus. seem to be religious) but still, we're talking about marriage as a whole, which is (like I said before) a social institution and not a religious one. When bringing up religious arguments you're arguing for marriage as a religious institution instead of a social one. At least, as a social institution, you're arguing for marriage in general, which includes religious forms of marriage.Generator said:It is just as inappropriate to not consider relgious views, too. 'Contemporary society' is far from being as progressive (and widespread) as you believe.
Contemporary Australia has a diverse range of religions and of non religious people. This cannot be ignored either. We don't have to look at the past when deciding what our laws should be today... we have to look at today, at society right now. Civil law has a Christian background, but Christianity doesn't fit in with it like it once did and THAT'S what we have to recognise.Generator said:Civil law in Australia has a Christian background, and it cannot be ignored so easily.
What I am saying is, it is a fallacy of argument to use a controversial premise in your reasoning; the very essence of most religious arguments are centered around the existence of God, ergo the inclusion of a religious rationale cannot contribute to a logical argugment.Generator said:If the issue concerns marriage, then how can religion be left out of the debate? I can see no reason to hold the values of the 'civil left' up above those of the 'christian right'* (very broad generalisations, but I hope that my point gets through).