Australia on Gay Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

I actually think my “numbers” (which I plucked out of the rhetorical aether, by the way) are overly generous. You cannot honestly tell me that for every one hundred instances of heterosexual intercourse, one or more conceptions occur. Really? Counting all heterosexual couplings everywhere? Most sex is non-procreative, by a probably incalculable factor.

To use your firearms analogy, the ratio is probably equivalent to the ratio of the total number of bullets fired from every firearm in the world, to the number of bullets that actually hit their intended target. Astronomical.[/quote]

We’re both snatching numbers from the aether and playing fast and loose with the definition and that was kinda my point. If you can say the figure is astronomically low, I can say it’s not. For some, hitting the target is tough for others it’s not. If we count reproduction on a per sperm basis, you win, hands down. If we count it on a strictly fertile penis entering a strictly fertile vagina and nothing else, 1% seems very low.

Hmm? It would be like comparing the hit/kill rate of a firearm used for hunting and a firearm that would take a possibly-Nobel-worthy scientific achievement to hit the target.

And giving homosexuals the ability to reproduce ‘sexually’ would be like giving sponges the ability to reproduce sexually. I’m reminded of ‘The 6th Day’ where the central conflict is around the villain’s ability to clone himself and the movie completely glosses over the fact that the entirety of a human’s consciousness can be ‘backed up’, to the minute, instantaneously. Why would we screw around mixing two guys or gals DNA (based on sexual proclivity) when you’re talking about technology that would (or has) quite readily established cross-species or individual reproduction?

122

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

All I have to reference is my 75 year old lesbian aunt who has been in a committed gay relationship for thirty years. When I look at them I see a loving couple who I am pretty sure are not just in it for the sex (shudder).[/quote]

They’re just like Romeo and Juliet…

123

[quote]pat wrote:

No[/quote]

This guy is a serious embarrassment to Australians…well what’s left of them anyway.

124

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
If a gay couple wants to spend their lives together, that is their choice. Yet you can NOT use the word marriage to define what they have. Redefining words to change what the majority emotionally wants, that is completely wrong. Otherwise where do you draw the line?

[/quote]

Methinks you missed the sarcasm.

125

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]

You do realise that Rudd was against gay marriage until the polls and his advisors told him it was a winner right? Rudd is a professional politician.

“The former PM and current backbencher’s announcement marks a significant shift for Mr Rudd. In September 2012, Mr Rudd voted against gay marriage legislation introduced by fellow ALP backbencher Stephen Jones.” - NOVA

It never ceases to amaze me how many people like this walking pile of turd. If compulsory castration was popular he’d make an ‘impassioned plea’ for it. What a dud you are.[/quote]

Oh, please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t vote for Rudd in a million years - the man is as shortsighted as they come. The changes to the FBT he wanted to make were the first in a very long list on blunders he would have made if he’d won.

126

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Religious people, who probably think that keeping women from suffereing through childbirth is somehow an affront to God (and are leery about the whole “sex for pleasure” thing)[/quote]

I don’t know who you are talking about, but I am one of the Religious people that loves Sex for Pleasure, and God would not have made it pleasurable if it was not suppose to be. He just set up boundaries.
[/quote]

Really, could you explain the Prostate gland then? More cherry picking from religious idiots who want to project their own insecurities and hang ups onto everyone else in a society.

127

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Religious people, who probably think that keeping women from suffereing through childbirth is somehow an affront to God (and are leery about the whole “sex for pleasure” thing)[/quote]

I don’t know who you are talking about, but I am one of the Religious people that loves Sex for Pleasure, and God would not have made it pleasurable if it was not suppose to be. He just set up boundaries.
[/quote]

Right, but many religious people (maybe even you) believe that sex for pleasure should only be within the confines (or “boundaries” as you put it) of a committed, monogamous, heterosexual married relationship.

And the rationale usually used is that sex is (and should remain) primarily for procreation. Sex that doesn’t (or can’t) result in a child is somehow valued less than sex that does. Ergo, relationships that will never (without a lot of technological intervention) result in a child are condemned or at least looked upon as less valuable than relationships that can or do. [/quote]

The boundaries were set up in the Garden of Eden. I do not want to get into another argument about multiple partners and all that; we have beaten that to death.

Now lets discuss the other topic you brought up, procreation or pleasure. Well I have had a vasectomy so I am not wanting to conceive another child with my wife. All sex I am having with my wife is 100% for pleasure (2-3 times a week). I am Southern Baptist and my church says that sex for pleasure is alright and ok if within the confines of marriage. I even took a class at Seminary on the Christian Home, and it is taught in Southern Baptist Seminary that sex for pleasure is a-ok and it is being taught to future Pastors to be presented in church as such.

Now I do know there was a sect of the RCC that taught that sex for any other purpose that conceiving a child was bad, but that was taught back in like 1000-1200. I have no clue if they do it today though.

Anyone else is willing to chime in on other Denominations if you want. I can only speak for Southern Baptists.
[/quote]

The evidence suggests that the myth about the garden of eden, and therefore the idiotic christian and jewish creation myth never happened.

How do we know that it’s bullshit? Mitochondrial DNA.

128

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Yeah, I didn’t read any of this, but IMO, this topic is debated far too often. Only about 2% of people are gay. Not 10%, not 25%, not 33%, just two.

Let 'em get hitched, it won’t make a fucking difference. You wouldn’t have even noticed if you hadn’t made such a big deal about it. Pick your battles, people. There’s better things to waste your time arguing about.[/quote]

I think your statement is a little backwards. 2% if it’s that high, should not have a majority control over what people actually think.

Give domestic partnerships all the rights you want, I don’t care. But you cannot call something it is not. And marriage it is not. I have yet to find one person to make a single compelling argument that a ‘gay’ marriage is in anyway the same as a real marriage. And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]

What is marriage really other than an agreed social contract between two people? Fuck all, that’s what it is.

IF a piece of legislation doesn’t affect you at all, doesn’t come with obligations that you must marry someone of the same sex, why would you even care?

Marriage is NOT what you claim, and it never has been. It has always been about the creation of an interdependent social pairing, for both the stability of an individual and to give strength and comfort/consolation in times of hardship or despair.

Any connotations you wish to impose upon the pair bonding within the realms of your fanciful idiocy that you call religion is your business, but don’t claim that somehow your religion created the institution of marriage because quite frankly, you’re fucking deluding yourself if you do.

129

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]

You do realise that Rudd was against gay marriage until the polls and his advisors told him it was a winner right? Rudd is a professional politician.

“The former PM and current backbencher’s announcement marks a significant shift for Mr Rudd. In September 2012, Mr Rudd voted against gay marriage legislation introduced by fellow ALP backbencher Stephen Jones.” - NOVA

It never ceases to amaze me how many people like this walking pile of turd. If compulsory castration was popular he’d make an ‘impassioned plea’ for it. What a dud you are.[/quote]

Oh, please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t vote for Rudd in a million years - the man is as shortsighted as they come. The changes to the FBT he wanted to make were the first in a very long list on blunders he would have made if he’d won.[/quote]

The FBT were a loophole that needed to be closed. Allowing for industries to be generated helping people screw the rest of the population by avoiding tax that they should have been paying is unconscionable.

130

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that gay marriage is just about sex? Or that gay couples can’t have the same relationships as hetero couples?

[/quote]

Gay couples cannot have the same relationship as hetero couples. The dynamic that exists in a famale/ male pair bond cannot be replicated in a same sex couple. In the end a man is a man and a woman is a woman. The inherent traits that belong to each make same sex coupling impossible to be the same.[/quote]

But this simplistic (and i understand that you’re simple, and needed to ride the short bus to school) explanation doesn’t take into account people who are intersex, and it happens with significantly higher frequency than is publically acknowledged, or the spectrum of gender traits and identities which are exhibited in each of the sexes. At the end of the day, if it doesn’t affect you, why are you so vehemently opposed to it.

Your argument appears to essentially boil down to, if it gets made legal, I’m just going to be forced to marry a guy and get fucked in the arse for the rest of my days. You are trying to say that the only reason you don’t do it now is because the law prohibits it, and that once that prohibition is gone, there’ll be nothing stopping you. As a result of how uncomfortable this makes you feel about acknowledging your underlying tendencies, you’re going to fight tooth and nail to make sure that it never happens.

131

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Oh well, pity Abbot will probably win this election.[/quote]

You do realise that Rudd was against gay marriage until the polls and his advisors told him it was a winner right? Rudd is a professional politician.

“The former PM and current backbencher’s announcement marks a significant shift for Mr Rudd. In September 2012, Mr Rudd voted against gay marriage legislation introduced by fellow ALP backbencher Stephen Jones.” - NOVA

It never ceases to amaze me how many people like this walking pile of turd. If compulsory castration was popular he’d make an ‘impassioned plea’ for it. What a dud you are.[/quote]

Oh, please don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t vote for Rudd in a million years - the man is as shortsighted as they come. The changes to the FBT he wanted to make were the first in a very long list on blunders he would have made if he’d won.[/quote]

The FBT were a loophole that needed to be closed. Allowing for industries to be generated helping people screw the rest of the population by avoiding tax that they should have been paying is unconscionable.

[/quote]

Horsecrap. Every taxpayer has access to basic tax breaks, if you’re too stupid to utilize them, the government deserves your money.

It’s like the teachers who complain they only earn 60k a year and don’t realize their effective salary is almost 100k because of the tax breaks they are given.

132

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
And all the people who are for it and are married will not ever compare that their marriage is the same as a gay marriage or that it could be compared in anyway other than there are two people and they have sex. Marriage is much more than just that.[/quote]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that gay marriage is just about sex? Or that gay couples can’t have the same relationships as hetero couples?

[/quote]

Gay couples cannot have the same relationship as hetero couples. The dynamic that exists in a famale/ male pair bond cannot be replicated in a same sex couple. In the end a man is a man and a woman is a woman. The inherent traits that belong to each make same sex coupling impossible to be the same.[/quote]

I am really not trying to be difficult but I don’t get this. They can’t feel the same love? Maybe you are referring to the joy of parenthood a couple can feel, but I don’t think that is what you are pointing to.

All I have to reference is my 75 year old lesbian aunt who has been in a committed gay relationship for thirty years. When I look at them I see a loving couple who I am pretty sure are not just in it for the sex (shudder).[/quote]

That’s not what I am talking about. I don’t know what kind of ‘love’ people feel or don’t feel. That’s a bit difficult to define. Marriage isn’t about just love.
What I am saying that men are men and women are women and they are different from each other. So a relationship between a same sex couple lacks the dynamic of what the opposite sex brings to the table in the relationship.