How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2015 11:54AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

My 60 year old stepmothers' body was trying its best!!

I must tell her that one!

floggg · 30-01-2015 11:55AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

Fact is, biologically a man / man exclusive or woman / woman exclusive relationship cannot procreate offspring without the direct intervention of a third party which in turn does not really seem like an exclusive marriage / relationship between two people anymore does it ?

If at some stage in the future male / females suddenly develop a-sexual reproductive capacity then that fact changes.

Sorry, but that is such a bull**** distinction.

If nature intended infertile people to procreate, it wouldn't make them infertile. They have zero possiblity of procreation.

At least nature gave me the ability to procreate (assuming I am actually fertile myself - never tested the theory), just not the desire to do it. More than it ever gave the infertile couple.

And clearly infertile peoples bodies aren't trying, because they are infertile!

Also, the bolded bit again applies equally to infertile couples - so are you saying that they don't have an exclusive marriage between two people any more either?

PS - i thought procreation/the ability to procreate wasn't a requirement for marriage.

PSS: Not an attack on infertile people, and sorry if it comes off a little crude or insensitive. I'm just trying to show the absurdity of the reasoning.

Bannasidhe · 30-01-2015 11:55AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

.

:eek:

Then how the hell am I biologically a grandmother?????

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:55AM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous non-sense. So nature intended for biologically infertile people to reproduce but definitely did not intend for the biologically capable gay people to reproduce. I mean for God's sake.

OK can you explain to me how:

a male / male married couple could reproduce without a third party?

OR

a female / female married couple could reproduce without a third party?

Infertility aside from straight or gay people because it is a mute point your using to try and obfuscate the simple fact of procreation which has around since the evolution of mankind but you so quickly dismiss as nonsense.

And we will also take away the InVitro argument because that won't work obviously for male / male.

MrPudding · 30-01-2015 11:56AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Surely, you can see you are now being contradictory and looking to enforce your views on others to suit your agenda ????

But it isn't trying to enforce a view on someone. No one is going to be forced to marry someone of the same sex. The impact of this referendum on some that that is not gay is exactly zero.

All the pro-ssm people are trying to do is remove a piece of discrimination and try to balance rights more equally. The anti-sms side are trying to keep discrimination. If you are suggesting discriminatory rules, or trying to keep discriminatory rules in place, then you need to justify that. There should be no need to justify the removal of discrimination. Seriously.

All we are asking for are valid reasons why the discrimination should stay in place. So far there haven't been any. Plenty of reasons have been given, but they fall far below the level of 'valid'.

MrP

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 11:56AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

:eek:

Then how the hell am biologically a grandmother?????

Well obviously at some stage I would assume you either "explored" other sexualities or artificially.

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 11:57AM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK can you explain to me how:

a male / male married couple could reproduce without a third party?

OR

a female / female married couple could reproduce without a third party?

Infertility aside from straight or gay people because it is a mute point your using to try and obfuscate the simple fact of procreation which has around since the evolution of mankind but you so quickly dismiss as nonsense.

And we will also take away the InVitro argument because that won't work obviously for male / male.

Why not without a third party? This is your new thing you won't explain. Do you actually just have a list of potential no side arguments and you're slowing working your way through them, looking for one that someone accepts without argument?

Sheldons Brain · 30-01-2015 12:00PM

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like. One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue, if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread. Same sex marriage must be justified on some positive benefit to society, not on marriages with problems of one sort or another.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 12:00PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Why not without a third party? This is your new thing you won't explain. Do you actually just have a list of potential no side arguments and you're slowing working your way through them, looking for one that someone accepts without argument?

Well I would have thought that was obviously given it is a marriage equality referendum and everyones open definition of marriage is:

"the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."

If you are suggesting then a third party has to become involved then its not really marriage by definition is it?

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 12:01PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK can you explain to me how:

a male / male married couple could reproduce without a third party?

OR

a female / female married couple could reproduce without a third party?

Infertility aside from straight or gay people because it is a mute point your using to try and obfuscate the simple fact of procreation which has around since the evolution of mankind but you so quickly dismiss as nonsense.

And we will also take away the InVitro argument because that won't work obviously for male / male.

Unless you are equally willing to apply the same criteria to straight couples, including those who cannot have children through reproductive difficulties, through age or simply because they can't be arsed you are singling out gay couples for special negative treatment under the law. Until you accept that fact you are not meaningfully or honestly engaging in this debate.

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 12:02PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like. One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue, if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread. Same sex marriage must be justified on some positive benefit to society, not on marriages with problems of one sort or another.

It's only offensive when talking about infertile couples? It's completely relevant because it's pointing out how your logic isn't adding up. Your negative value on SSM can be applied elsewhere. They're not the only couples with that negative value. Why does it only apply, in your mind, to SSM?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Well I would have thought that was obviously given it is a marriage equality referendum and everyones open definition of marriage is:

"the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."

If you are suggesting then a third party has to become involved then its not really marriage by definition is it?

They're not marrying the third party. Now your definition of marriage is changed. Funny that.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 12:02PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples

I think both sides have actually sought to remove reference to infertile people in this point.

It is also why i actively tried to avoid until someone else kept pushing infertility because ultimately it leads down the same undeniable circle

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 12:04PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like. One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue, if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread. Same sex marriage must be justified on some positive benefit to society, not on marriages with problems of one sort or another.

Point out the offensive references to infertile couples and point out what makes them offensive, in comparison to entire a referendum on the worthiness of gay couples to marriage.

Secondly, coupling has long been demonstrated as having benefits for society. The same is true of gay couples.

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 12:04PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I think both sides have actually sought to remove reference to infertile people in this point.

It is also why i actively tried to avoid until someone else kept pushing infertility because ultimately it leads down the same undeniable circle

It's actually a reapplication of logic (yer logic) to show it doesn't make sense.

"Gays can't marry cause they can't have children"
"Neither can infertile couples"
"Blah blah, irrelevant! Offensive!"

You really can't see the problem here?

30-01-2015 12:05PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I think both sides have actually sought to remove reference to infertile people in this point.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like.

You take offence easily it seems.

The only reason infertile couples are mentioned is in response to people who try to define marriage as being a union based around procreation. That is all.

If the people making that false point stopped making it - then you would stop hearing infertile couples mentioned. Just like in religious debates if religious people stopped making the crass non-point of "Well you can not prove NO god" - you would instantly stop hearing about russels teapot.

But the counter argument is not limited to infertile couples - so your easily offended sensibilities can be mollycoddled a little. There are people who get married and simply choose never to procreate too. And there are people who procreate and choose never to get married.

Which just belie the irrelevancy of mentioning procreation in this discussion about marriage _at all_. It is a red herring but - alas - the lack of any coherent "no" arguments from the "no" side necessarily forces them down the track of talking about children - born and unborn - it seems. Just to give them _something_ to talk about.

MrPudding · 30-01-2015 12:05PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK can you explain to me how:

a male / male married couple could reproduce without a third party?

OR

a female / female married couple could reproduce without a third party?

Infertility aside from straight or gay people because it is a mute point your using to try and obfuscate the simple fact of procreation which has around since the evolution of mankind but you so quickly dismiss as nonsense.

And we will also take away the InVitro argument because that won't work obviously for male / male.

But why have you decided on this arbitrary rule? And why does it not apply to infertile people that also can't pro-create without the help of a third party?

I might just be best if you come out of the closet and give you actual reasons for being against equality. To save you some trouble I will suggest a few, you can simply pick the number that matches you reason closest.

Bum sex is icky. Girl on girl is ok, but I need to be against both otherwise my position is inconsistant.
My pope, the great lord cthulhu, my pastor, my saviour or the voices in my head tell me it is wrong.
I once had sex with a gay guy and he didn't call me back. Fcuk him, I am going to spoil his chance of ever being happy. Will also spoil it for gay women too, internal consistency is very important to me.
I secretly think I might be gay, this causes me pain, pain which I am trying to redirect by stopping gay people from being happy.

Just pick a number.

MrP

Zubeneschamali · 30-01-2015 12:06PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Infertility aside from straight or gay people because it is a mute point your using to try and obfuscate the simple fact of procreation which has around since the evolution of mankind but you so quickly dismiss as nonsense.

You already agreed with me in this thread that it was totally cool for my Dad to marry my stepmother even though there was no possibilty of procreation. Procreation is a complete non-issue for opposite sex couples getting married. No-one makes them promise to have kids, no-one revokes their license if they don't try, no-one...

Oh wait - in the Roman Catholic sacrament, they do indeed promise to accept any children they are sent (by the stork):

The priest asks the couple to state their intentions about their freedom of choice, faithfulness to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children

That wouldn't by any chance be what's getting your knickers in a knot, would it? Because civil marriage already completely ignores that issue, and of course, you are not just trying to impose RC doctrine on the rest of us, right?

And note that even there, they add this exception: (unless the couple are beyond the child-bearing years).

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 12:07PM

sup_dude wrote: »

This post is going to fall completely on deaf ears but... the no campaign don't have an argument. They have a bunch of lies and misinformation. How is that fair? Why are they allowed to spread lies and misinformation in order to poison the yes sides chances? If the no side have an argument, fair enough but they don't. I don't think you understand equality...

Even if you think my rationale is the most idiotic, purile ridiculous , pie in the sky drivel you have ever read I still have the right to express my opinion of it.

Any lies or misrepresentation by the no side needs to be addressed by the yes side similar to how I addressed and clarified a few posts from spikes yesterday when she misrepresented the Yes side (and in fairness so did one or two yes side people too).

Problem is you are failing to see the No sides argument / rationale (regardless of what you actually think of the rationale). In a referendum thats usually a bad thing when it comes to debates and so on because you can't just dismiss the other side

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 12:09PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In a referendum thats usually a bad thing when it comes to debates and so on because you can't just dismiss the other side

You realise that is literally all you have done since you started posting in this thread...

of course maybe you feel thats justified because you probably believe gay people shouldn't even have a vote on gay marriage.:rolleyes:

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 12:09PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You already agreed with me in this thread that it was totally cool for my Dad to marry my stepmother even though there was no possibilty of procreation. Procreation is a complete non-issue for opposite sex couples getting married. No-one makes them promise to have kids, no-one revokes their license if they don't try, no-one...

Oh wait - in the Roman Catholic sacrament, they do indeed promise to accept any children they are sent (by the stork):

The priest asks the couple to state their intentions about their freedom of choice, faithfulness to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children

That wouldn't by any chance be what's getting your knickers in a knot, would it? Because civil marriage already completely ignores that issue, and of course, you are not just trying to impose RC doctrine on the rest of us, right?

And note that even there, they add this exception: (unless the couple are beyond the child-bearing years).

Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 12:09PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Even if you think my rationale is the most idiotic, purile ridiculous , pie in the sky drivel you have ever read I still have the right to express my opinion of it.

Any lies or misrepresentation by the no side needs to be addressed by the yes side similar to how I addressed and clarified a few posts from spikes yesterday when she misrepresented the Yes side (and in fairness so did one or two yes side people too).

Problem is you are failing to see the No sides argument / rationale (regardless of what you actually think of the rationale). In a referendum thats usually a bad thing when it comes to debates and so on because you can't just dismiss the other side

You do have that right, and I have the right to call it out.

You aren't explaining anything. At all. That's why people are getting annoyed with you. Now you have the gall to say you are?

I'm completely failing to see it, you're right. You're completely failing to explain it. I'm not dismissing it. I've said from the very start that I am open to listening to a rational, well thought out reason for voting no. Thus far, there isn't one.

shruikan2553 · 30-01-2015 12:10PM

sup_dude wrote: »

It's actually a reapplication of logic (yer logic) to show it doesn't make sense.

"Gays can't marry cause they can't have children"
"Neither can infertile couples"
"Blah blah, irrelevant! Offensive!"

You really can't see the problem here?

For people who think marriage is about procreation you would think couples would be split into can procreate and can't procreate. They continue to split them into heterosexual and homosexual, it's as of their issue isn't in face procreation which suddenly becomes irrelevant as soon as a straight couple gets mentioned.

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 12:10PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

You did actually! Its in your posts.

shruikan2553 · 30-01-2015 12:11PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Another common thread Yes people seem to like to do is bring it back to the Church, I've not mentioned the church but yet pro people seem dying to bring it up for some reason.

You said that your view on marriage was partially based on religious reasons.

MrPudding · 30-01-2015 12:12PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And so we have the usual, offensive, references to infertile couples and the like.

Have you considered that what you are saying might be offensive to lgtb people? Or do their feelings not matter?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

One way or the other this is not relevant to the issue,

You don't get to do this. Why is it not relevant to the issue?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

if you believe that such people should not be allowed marry then make your argument in another thread.

No one is suggesting this. All that is being said is, if being unable to have children is a bar for same-sex couples getting married, why is the same requirement not being applied to opposite sex couple that either can't or won't have children? please don't be surprised if you reasoning is being questioned for inconsistency.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Same sex marriage must be justified on some positive benefit to society, not on marriages with problems of one sort or another.

No. Wrong. one does not need to justify the removal of discrimination. We do not need to show a positive benefit to society, surely treating people equally and allowing them to be happy is justification enough? The burden of proof for this should lie with those supporting discrimination. You need to provide reasons and justifications why discrimination should continue. We don't need to show a benefit for removing discrimination, you need to show a harm that justifies keeping it.

MrP

Sheldons Brain · 30-01-2015 12:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which just belie the irrelevancy of mentioning procreation in this discussion about marriage _at all_. It is a red herring but - alas - the lack of any coherent "no" arguments from the "no" side necessarily forces them down the track of talking about children - born and unborn - it seems. Just to give them _something_ to talk about.

Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

jobbridge4life · 30-01-2015 12:13PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

Why should gay people pay more tax to support an institution to which they are barred access? I've already answered the benefit question several times at this point.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 30-01-2015 12:13PM

0

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You realise that is literally all you have done since you started posting in this thread...

of course maybe you feel thats justified because you probably believe gay people shouldn't even have a vote on gay marriage.:rolleyes:

You see in your eagerness to be so dismissive of me, you cannot see that I plainly am not being dismissive of your points, but thats good if little quips like saying I probably "believe gays sholdnt be allowed to vote" make you feel better.

Gays of course should be allowed vote and I've not once even remotely suggested that gays shouldnt be allowed vote.

But like I said feel free to come up with random assumptions and statements like the above, they do nothing to me other than prove your absolute blindness and we can be considered "equal" in that regard along with many other posters in this thread as I said before neither side will sway.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why should gay people pay more tax to support an institution to which they are barred access? I've already answered the benefit question several times at this point.

Your the one who wants the yes side to win so "answering questions with questions" doesn't do anything further to put your point across does it.

I definitely haven't read a response from you on why more taxes should be paid

Zen65 · 30-01-2015 12:13PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

So to sum up . .

If it's not your fault (because you are infertile) then you can join the marriage club!

But if it is your fault (because you are gay) then you cannot join the marriage club?

And nature's intention is the underlying rationale? Nature has intention? Surely that's a belief that is exclusive to theists and deists. Why should our constitution reflect these beliefs?

Ave Sodalis · 30-01-2015 12:13PM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Ok, then. Why is marriage a privileged institution? Why, exactly, should I pay more tax to support same sex marriage, what precisely is the benefit to me?

Same benefit to you if John and Mary from down the road get married

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments