Alison Mau - social activist, or attention whore?

[Boob Johnson]

Aye... that they have to campaign for it speaks volumes, as does campaigning for recognition instead of just getting on with it. Damned either way I guess.

All minority groups that are discriminated against pursue the same thing & fair enough too. Not sure you thought this one through from their perspective. "Just getting on with it" is easy for anyone not closely associated with the plight to say.

[mashman]

All minority groups that are discriminated against pursue the same thing & fair enough too. Not sure you thought this one through from their perspective. "Just getting on with it" is easy for anyone not closely associated with the plight to say.

That was covered under the "that they have to campaign for it speaks volumes", as in it should be common place by now

[Boob Johnson]

That was covered under the "that they have to campaign for it speaks volumes", as in it should be common place by now

Roger that. Right you are, that it should be. I'm just not personally sold on how far to go with the law. The pendulum has a tendency to over shoot it's mark when trying to make a point.

[mashman]

Roger that. Right you are, that it should be. I'm just not personally sold on how far to go with the law. The pendulum has a tendency to over shoot it's mark when trying to make a point.

Surely not, over shoot you say ... my point is, there shouldn't need to be a law that says that people who are gay are allowed to have the title of Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.

[AllanB]

Usual media shit with the minority preaching to the majority. Which always makes me laugh when minority groups are telling the majority that the majority have it all wrong......

I have no interest in her bleating - she spent years as a media presenter poking poorly researched shit as fact. Suck it up. Or maybe lick it up would be more apt ...

[MisterD]

my point is, there shouldn't need to be a law that says that people who are gay are allowed to have the title of Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs.

Exactly, it's no business of the State's at all, and if we're saying the State should recognise gays as married, what business is it of the state to limit the number of people in a marriage to just the two? Let's ditch the prohibition on polygamy as well.

But why are teh gays so all-fired determined to change the meaning of the word "married" all of a sudden? It's easy, innit, the difference between a CU and a "marriage" is that CU couples can't adopt - this is a tactial campaign for gay adoption, because they don't think they can win that argument directly.

[mashman]

Let's ditch the prohibition on polygamy as well.

absolutely.

But why are teh gays so all-fired determined to change the meaning of the word "married" all of a sudden? It's easy, innit, the difference between a CU and a "marriage" is that CU couples can't adopt - this is a tactial campaign for gay adoption, because they don't think they can win that argument directly.

Bang on, as the law stands they can't adopt... what marriage has to do with children's welfare I'll never know.

[Winston001]

... what marriage has to do with children's welfare I'll never know.

The bond of marriage goes back into pre-history in virtually every society. The reason is tribes recognised the benefit of the family unit - mother father and child. By giving formal status to that unit, the tribe/group provided social boundaries which protected it. The children benefited by knowing who their parents were, and the fathers could be reasonably confident they were killing mastodons to feed their own progeny.

[Kickaha]

Should Alison just shut up and show us her tits?

Yes.......Can you please arrange that for us

[rainman]

The bond of marriage goes back into pre-history in virtually every society. The reason is tribes recognised the benefit of the family unit - mother father and child. By giving formal status to that unit, the tribe/group provided social boundaries which protected it. The children benefited by knowing who their parents were, and the fathers could be reasonably confident they were killing mastodons to feed their own progeny.

Bit primitive, though, innit? Why feed only your "own" progeny?

[HenryDorsetCase]

The bond of marriage goes back into pre-history in virtually every society. The reason is tribes recognised the benefit of the family unit - mother father and child. By giving formal status to that unit, the tribe/group provided social boundaries which protected it. The children benefited by knowing who their parents were, and the fathers could be reasonably confident they were killing mastodons to feed their own progeny.

Really?

what about that whole "it takes a village to raise a child" malarkey?

[Crasherfromwayback]

I'm a raving fucking lesbian. Believe me...it's fucking cool as shit.

[mashman]

The bond of marriage goes back into pre-history in virtually every society. The reason is tribes recognised the benefit of the family unit - mother father and child. By giving formal status to that unit, the tribe/group provided social boundaries which protected it. The children benefited by knowing who their parents were, and the fathers could be reasonably confident they were killing mastodons to feed their own progeny.

and then it was in the eyes of god, and then it was for social convention, and then it was to signify commitment, and then it was a law etc.... what was it before the tribes decided what it should be? and the confidence that they were killing to feed their own is absolutely nuts as that's absolutely no guarantee at all really is it. Today marriage means absolutely nothing, to some, but it is used to stop people from doing things that they're not allowed to do because social convention says so. It's ok to have 3 or 4 girlfriends even if they know about each other, but marry more than 1 woman and you face jail. Madness gone mad.

[MisterD]

Really?

what about that whole "it takes a village to raise a child" malarkey?

Successful families being the building blocks of society, villages being a group of such families...doesn't seem contradictory to me.

[Winston001]

Bit primitive, though, innit? Why feed only your "own" progeny?

Biological imperatives. If you don't protect your gene pool it evaporates. This operates across all animals.

Some species such as humans cooperate and form communities on the basis of strength in numbers, so contributing to the wider group benefits the individual.