The moderates and the conservatives - the state of the NSW Liberal Party (3 Viewers)

[MoonlightSonata]

Bshoc, I have dealt with your comments in the appropriate place, here.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Nah im finished anyway, to debate something where the subject matter itself is rediculous, is pretty stupid.

There is a fair amount of stupidity involved, with that I agree.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I understand you entirely, however to suggest that gay people are "suffering" (people in this country would not know the meaning of the word btw.), and this negatively impacts the rest of society is laughable.

Suffering doesn't necessarily mean it's huge in impact. I didn't suggest that it negatively impacts the rest of society either.

If anything it would be a detriment, as for every gay person there is probably 10 poeple who would be detrimentaly effected by the permission of your so called "gay marriage," special rights never give society posative factors in the long run.

It's not just numbers that matter. While there may be more people whom would be unhappy about gays being able to marry than those that would be happy (I would say it's no where near as large as you claim), the removal of the suffering gays have had because of not being allowed to marry each other is overall greater. Thus a net gain in happiness.

 

[gnrlies]

Um, gay people can be committed to another person. How should they be prevented from marrying?

And marriage is no longer a religious institution by the way. Do not try and impose your archaic and irrational religious views on others who do not share them.
No. Why must I?

Umm.... thats what im saying!

A heterosexual couple should be able to commit together through marriage under god if they are religious (but a homosexual one cannot - unless you an imbacile and want to argue that the major religions dont have something to say about gay marriage).

And if you arent religious, you would probably not see a need to adhere to the traditional principles of marriage, and therefore you can have marriage be whatever you want it to be - including same sex marriages.

The whole point is that we arent legislating what marriage is and can provide that flexibility to couples.

to many marriage is something that is only religious, and can only be done in a church, temple, mosque or whatever - and anything else is meaningless. Howevor thats not to say that non religious couples cannot hold a ceremony to symbolise their dedication. In fact there is nothing stopping homosexual couples doing that anyway. Its not as though gay marriages will ever be accepted in a religious context

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Umm.... thats what im saying!

A heterosexual couple should be able to commit together through marriage under god if they are religious (but a homosexual one cannot - unless you an imbacile and want to argue that the major religions dont have something to say about gay marriage).

And if you arent religious, you would probably not see a need to adhere to the traditional principles of marriage, and therefore you can have marriage be whatever you want it to be - including same sex marriages.

The whole point is that we arent legislating what marriage is and can provide that flexibility to couples.

to many marriage is something that is only religious, and can only be done in a church, temple, mosque or whatever - and anything else is meaningless. Howevor thats not to say that non religious couples cannot hold a ceremony to symbolise their dedication. In fact there is nothing stopping homosexual couples doing that anyway. Its not as though gay marriages will ever be accepted in a religious context

After reading that I don't quite understand what your position is, but if you would like to discuss it, please do so here.

 

[gnrlies]

After reading that I don't quite understand what your position is, but if you would like to discuss it, please do so here.

Well I dont think there is any question about it....

i take a liberalist approach whereby people should have the right to individual freedom regarding marriage (therefore it should not be legislated on irrespective on what I, you, or david clarke thinks of gay marriage).

 

[loquasagacious]

Abit dated now the thread has progressed:

I think the debate gets too bogged down in the terminology, specifically the use of the word marriage by both parties. Conservatives use the word even when discussing civil unions because it is emotive and by doing so they are able to rabble rouse. For their part gays use the word marriage because to do otherwise feels inferior eg that a civil union is somehow lesser than marriage. Also shock jocks use marriage to shock. And finally gays use the word marriage because of their background eg in our society which has a history of various forms of christianity marriage has become one word with a dual religious and legal meaning. The word marriage is culturally ingrained, we don't afterall have an office recording 'births, deaths and civil unions'.

Therefore my position centers on splitting the whole idea of marriage into its component legal and religious parts. I would like to see an office of 'births, deaths and civil unions'.

On the note of civil unions I would like to take consul to task. Maybe he is trolling from the US however his statement that in several states gay civil union is legal seems contrary to my (albeit limited) knowledge of the issue in Australia. Infact quite recently the ACT introduced gay civil unions, a move subsequently declared illegal by the federal attorney general and over-turned. In fact even as far as talking the US situation, moves are afoot their to ban gay civil unions at a federal level and over-ride any states that permit it.

So overall your statement that why bother with marriage they can just travel interstate seems fairly meaningless. Even though if it did mean something it is still discriminatory if a hetrosexual couple may be wed at the local church or court however a homosexual couple must travel interstate.

Finally: Moonslight Sonata, good to see you back around these parts.

 

[Generator]

Back on topic -

MP quits with spray at 'grubby' Libs

Liberals' 'hijacked' by right-wing extremists

The fun continues.