I believe in gay marriage

[Quasievil]

see, we agree.

Interesting, so you declare that you agree that a Sister and a Brother should be able to get married, what about a Mother and Son ? by your rational thats ok also.

Clearly you have a perverted view on decency

[imdying]

So I take it from your lack of answers that you have no response, other than a discriminatory one.

Not only is their attitude discriminatory, but it's also incorrect according to Alan Bittles of Murdoch University in Perth.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Interesting, so you declare that you agree that a Sister and a Brother should be able to get married, what about a Mother and Son ? by your rational thats ok also.

Clearly you have a perverted view on decency

sure thing.

they might have issues in getting the necessary licence to have children, but if they can convince the Eugenics board that there will be no negative consequences, I dont see an issue.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Not only is their attitude discriminatory, but it's also incorrect according to Alan Bittles of Murdoch University in Perth.

consider your source, Sir. there are a couple of red flags there: "Perth" and "University" for starters.

[imdying]

consider your source, Sir. there are a couple of red flags there: "Perth" and "University" for starters.

He's not the only one, look for yourself

[Tigadee]

Of course gay marriage should be legal. It's immoral that it can't be.

Why? Does a gay relationship get any better/stronger/deeper with the word marriage attached to it? 60% of marriages end in failure/divorce. Gays want that now too, do they? And when you say immoral, what then is moral?

Through-out civilisations and through-out nature it is occuring.

Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's OK. Rape occurs but that doesn't mean it's legal, moral or natural, is it? War occurs both among men and animals, does that mean it's OK?

Is that a strong logical argument?

They should be able to marry, adopt, and do the same daft stuff straight people can do.

And divorce and cheat and lie just as straight people do...

What is it about marriage appeals again so much to gays that they want it so much? Can't be the social and moral benefits... Legal? So that they can adopt? Can divorce "like regular people"?

Would gays live longer? Love deeper? Stay faithful easier if they had the words marriage or married attached to them? I want to know...

[Quasievil]

sure thing.

they might have issues in getting the necessary licence to have children, but if they can convince the Eugenics board that there will be no negative consequences, I dont see an issue.

OMG and I suppose you vote in NZ also........................we are fucked !!

[HenryDorsetCase]

And when you say immoral, what then is moral?



Just because something occurs doesn't mean it's OK. Rape occurs but that doesn't mean it's legal, moral or natural, is it? War occurs both among men and animals, does that mean it's OK?

Is that a strong logical argument?

interesting technique for advancing your position: advancing something (rape) which is by definition morally repugnant no matter your values (except perhaps to psychopaths: used here in the medical context) then by implication equating that with the position you disagree with. Bad form. And does nothing to advance your argument.

When you day immoral, then what is moral? (to descend to the level of debate here, the obvious cheap shot which I am not above using is: "So, you obviously have no concept or set of morals no wonder you weakly wait to have them handed to you by beardy sky-man"

The deeper question is of course that that is the heart of all ethical debate pretty much. A few pages back I recommended some courses of study, and books to read. Have a look for that post, and do some educifying.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Is that a strong logical argument?



And divorce and cheat and lie just as straight people do...

What is it about marriage appeals again so much to gays that they want it so much? Can't be the social and moral benefits... Legal? So that they can adopt? Can divorce "like regular people"?

Would gays live longer? Love deeper? Stay faithful easier if they had the words marriage or married attached to them? I want to know...

logical argument? On KB? Yeah, right.

[HenryDorsetCase]

OMG and I suppose you vote in NZ also........................we are fucked !!

I've given it up, it only encourages them.

When I rule you all (and I will) the Eugenics Board and licences to have children will be a real thing. And maybe something like the Hunger Games too.

Gotta keep the proles entertained, and under control.

[Quasievil]

On the Basis that the "NO'S" have one I vote this goes to pointless drivel

[Tigadee]

logical argument? On KB? Yeah, right.

Fair point...

(to descend to the level of debate here, the obvious cheap shot which I am not above using is: "So, you obviously have no concept or set of morals no wonder you weakly wait to have them handed to you by beardy sky-man"

Well, I do have my own morals but I am open to hearing what others' defining morals are. Some have morals where killing an innocent is justifiable, some are abhorrent to any killing at all, even in defense of others.

interesting technique for advancing your position: advancing something (rape) which is by definition morally repugnant no matter your values (except perhaps to psychopaths: used here in the medical context) then by implication equating that with the position you disagree with. Bad form. And does nothing to advance your argument.

If you feel that way, let me switch lanes then: How about sodomy? Is sodomy morally repugnant too? I'm sure it is when performed by an adult on a child as part of the act of rape/abuse. But if by two consenting males, it is not?

[blue rider]

interesting technique for advancing your position: advancing something (rape) which is by definition morally repugnant no matter your values (except perhaps to psychopaths: used here in the medical context) then by implication equating that with the position you disagree with. Bad form. And does nothing to advance your argument.

When you day immoral, then what is moral? (to descend to the level of debate here, the obvious cheap shot which I am not above using is: "So, you obviously have no concept or set of morals no wonder you weakly wait to have them handed to you by beardy sky-man"

The deeper question is of course that that is the heart of all ethical debate pretty much. A few pages back I recommended some courses of study, and books to read. Have a look for that post, and do some educifying.

anal sex between heterosexuals = moral albeit kinky
anal sex between lesbians = moral, c'mon their lesbians...and hopefully pretty




anal sex between two men = inmoral, ack ack ack

[imdying]

Surely the logical action here is abolish marriage! (as a legal standing, then everyone is either defacto or not, and anyone who wants to get 'married' is welcome to find a church that'll do the deed good luck with that faggots)

[superman]

I love the people complaining that if you give homosexuals the right to get married it's altering the word 'marriage'... that's hilarious!

Let's not forget in past centuries homosexual marriages of a sort were conducted by churches... "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century)." These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th/early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.

It seems only after the 14th century and the introduction of evangelists and fundamentalist Christians began to spread their views on anti-homosexuality. And of course it still permeates into our society today, much as the Victorian model of 'female modesty' does.

Perhaps read The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe by John Boswell, it may enlighten some people...

Let's not forget also that marriage for a lot longer than our current definition, was of selling a women to become the property and chattels of a man. Yet we royally fucked up that definition for the most part... We've also ruined the word rape, because 'rape' between a husband and wife was nonsensical over many centuries.

Ye old conservatives need to die already...