I believe in gay marriage

[husaberg]

Yup, and due to changes in culture, its definition has been expanded to include the microwave ovens too.
Funny thing there, is it can be argued it's insecurities about differences that seem to be one of the big reasons there is so much opposition to it. A truly enlightened society treats all its members as equals, and that seems to be all they want.

No due to changes in technology microwaves came into being, Oven fits as they still heat the food.
Don't agree i doubt anyone, truly wishes to be the exact same as all members of society, do they really? same pay, same car, same job same clothes.................
An enlightened society celebrate the differences i feel.

[husaberg]

I'm a lover not a fighter.

Not surprised. KATMAN
I have a mate that can fix both for you, A gumboot and a razor blade will be required.

[bogan]

No due to changes in technology microwaves came into being, Oven fits as they still heat the food.
Don't agree i doubt anyone, truly wishes to be the exact same as all members of society, do they really? same pay, same car, same job same clothes.................
An enlightened society celebrate the differences i feel.

Indeed, and technology is a product of society. A microwave oven fits the changes as the rest of the description still applies, sound familiar?
Treated as equals, with equal rights and opportunities is what the statement means, not clones, I'm surprised you haven't heard it before and got the meaning from that.
Celebration has to be mutual though, and before that they must be accepted into society. Evidently they felt the segregationist civil union thing wasn't enough.

[husaberg]

Indeed, and technology is a product of society. A microwave oven fits the changes as the rest of the description still applies, sound familiar?
Treated as equals, with equal rights and opportunities is what the statement means, not clones, I'm surprised you haven't heard it before and got the meaning from that.
Celebration has to be mutual though, and before that they must be accepted into society. Evidently they felt the segregationist civil union thing wasn't enough.

If everyone was always treated the same, it won't work now will it. People will always demand to be treated differently because of their differences.
Due to anti-discrimination laws people expected to be treated different. As a kneejerk overreaction i guess
All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual.
Its unlikely we will agree. I see where you are coming from but i don't agree the change was anything but a pandering to a well meaning vocal minority on the basis that marriage was being excluded to a percentage of a population based on their sexual orientation.

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.
After-all its only fair that they would.

Boy scouts, they have to go, and the guides too they are just too sexually discriminate arn't they.

[reggie1198]

So given a choice what kid wants to go to school and have everybody know that daddy and daddy are a couple of turd tappers,,or mummy and mummy are a couple of rug munchers,both of which have already proven to everybody that they simply can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of society.

So kids from poor homes, where mum or dad is on the dole/dpb/sickness bene, should be to embarrassed to show up at school, they have proven that they can't function in the real world without special conditions and considerations from the rest of us.

[Katman]

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

[husaberg]

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their innate lack of fertility (together) wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

[Katman]

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their lack of fertility wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

Methinks you're inventing scenarios to try to suit your argument.

Same sex marriages are capable of providing the same degree of stability for children as different sex marriages are.

Why you would think that their "lack of fertility" would suddenly move them up the eligibility list bewilders me.

[huff3r]

All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

So it's ok for couples of the same, or the opposite sex to have a civil union, but marriage should be exclusive to the opposite sex couples?

And your oven/fridge argument is ridiculous. A couple does the same thing as any other couple, regardless of the composition. An oven and a fridge do completely opposite things. Not really a relevant comparison, the oven/microwave argument is far more suitable.

Just let them get married in peace, yeah the definition has changed, well guess what, several others have too over the past few millennia.

I can't see what the big deal is! Seems like people are making a fuss just because they want to. Or just because they don't like Gays. I haven't seen any actual convincing arguments yet.

Although lets be honest, arguing on an internet forum is about as likely to cause change, as it is to cause me to obtain an icecream. Unfortunately I don't have an icecream yet....

[FJRider]

Not preferential but I'm certain that a same sex marriage could provide an equally stable environment for adoption.

Not ALL married relationships can guarantee a stable environment for adoption. A same sex relationship will not automatically ensure any greater degree of stability ... than a male/female relationship would.

[huff3r]

Methinks you're inventing scenarios to try to suit your argument.

Same sex marriages are capable of providing the same degree of stability for children as different sex marriages are.

Why you would think that their "lack of fertility" would suddenly move them up the eligibility list bewilders me.

Last I checked there was a shortage of willing adopters, and an abundance of children up for adoption, so I can't understand why there would even be an eligibility list?!

[Virago]

...Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual...

To be mutual, both group would have to agree to the differentiation. Personally, I doubt that will happen.

...Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together. After-all its only fair that they would...

I am totally sure they would. but they would have to go further up the list due to their innate lack of fertility (together) wouldn't they?
They would have to be considered less fertile than an average infertile hetro couple surely.....

That's altogether rather fanciful - you're desperately grasping at straws.. There is nothing to suggest that same sex couples will receive preferential family planning assistance. Nor should they.

[Kickaha]

Unfortunately I don't have an icecream yet....

If you could get an icecream what flavour would it be?

[huff3r]

If you could get an icecream what flavour would it be?

I'm not racist, I'll take chocolate or vanilla!

[bogan]

If everyone was always treated the same, it won't work now will it. People will always demand to be treated differently because of their differences.
Due to anti-discrimination laws people expected to be treated different. As a kneejerk overreaction i guess
All the people that choose to be part of a civil union were treated the same it wasn't exclusively the domain of same sex couples, now was it.

Celebration by definition is not discrimination so its is unlikely not to be mutual.
Its unlikely we will agree. I see where you are coming from but i don't agree the change was anything but a pandering to a well meaning vocal minority on the basis that marriage was being excluded to a percentage of a population based on their sexual orientation.

Should same sex marriages have preferential adoption rights and fertility treatments now based on the fact they are infertile together.
After-all its only fair that they would.

Boy scouts, they have to go, and the guides too they are just too sexually discriminate arn't they.

Treated as equals is not identical to being treated the same. Its about evaluating their needs as being of equal importance to your own.
No, but marriage was exclusively the domain of traditional couples, and that's the issue, why the segregation for something that gives the same rights? Or why not do away with marriage as a legal term and make civil union the only binding thing? It seems tptb would rather just change the definition of the word in likely thousands of legal documents already, to encompass another group. I don't have a problem with either approach.

Exaclty, how can a society claim to be celebrating some members differences when those members are not happy with their current standing within that society? It doesn't sound mutual at all.
Vocal minority? What are the figures again?

Not sure why they would get fertility treatments, don't think that will help. Adoption rights, why should they get preferential treatment there either? They should be judged to the same criteria as the rest of the applicants.

Has it devolved into a slipper slope, the sky is falling argument again? Well, credit for not bring in pedos I guess.