Labor party and gay marriage

Well, I agree, it's simple. Let's just have a national vote on same-sex marriage and end the debate for a couple of years (or days? or seconds?).

Things can change for the worse, too. "Change" doesn't necessarily mean good change ......pres Obwana discovered that in his election campaign!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is worse for you may be better for others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Morality is determined by the society. So what I've been saying all along remains the same.

If society doesn't want gays to marry, then that's the law. If society doesn't want people to jaywalk, then that's the law. If society doesn't like people shitting and pissing on the sidewalks, then that's the law.

Yes, homosexual acts are perversions ....even if they exist in nature, it's still a perversion! Monkeys can also do perverted acts, ya' know. Just remember, monkeys also pick the corn out of their shit and eat it ...which is pretty fuckin' perverted, wouldn't you say?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what authoritarian figure decided homosexual acts to be perversions?

 

Well, they were considered to be perversions by society as a whole (or as a majority), when laws concerning marriage and the like were written. I'm definitely in favour of them being updated, but it was no authoritarian figure.

 

Society. And lest you don't fully grasp that concept, that can also mean something as simple as the few residents of a very small town. The word "society" does NOT have to mean some greater thingie like the US population or the world population, etc.

Baron Max

 

anything that deviates from the norm is a perversion:

perversion Show phonetics
noun [C or U] DISAPPROVING
1 sexual behaviour which is considered strange and unpleasant by most people:
The novels of the Marquis de Sade deal with sexual perversion.

2 the changing of something so that it is not what it was or should be:
His testimony was clearly a perversion of the truth.

 

L.A.: But what is normal? Homosexuality has been around through untraceable times. It's normal for people to be gay just as its normal for people to be straight.

 

See, this is a bunch of shit. I can ask what gives the government the right to take my money. What gives them the right to take it?

Either, they don't have that right

Or, people give them the right in which case people can also give the government the right to ban gay marriage.

See? Simple.

 

i cannot even start to answer that question, becuase no one knows what is normal, what my life style is may seem abnormal to some while some homosexuals see hetrosexual relationships abnormal, but saying that some people (ok a very small percentage) believe that having sex with children is normal!

 

So, knowing that, why would you disapprove of a lifestyle that is different than your own, given that it doesn't cause harm to another person and all parties are consenting?

 

how many more times....i DO NOT....disaprove of homosexual lifestyle, i just disaproove of them wanting to get married and adopt children, why should a lifestlye that goes against procreation and marriage be allowed to marry and have children

 

Do you know what solves this problem?

Capitalism!

 

Why do you think homosexuality goes against marriage? Why do you think they shouldn't be able to adopt? What does procreation have to do with marriage?

Norsefire: What?

 

Idle Mind: marriage should not be the business of the state in the first place.

The state ought to stick out of the private affairs and wallets of its citizens.

 

Agreed.

Not so much. But this isn't the thread for this discussion.

 

It isn't consistent and contradictory to suggest that the state can't get involved in x, but can in y.

It's completely arbitrary. Therefore, no, it's very relevant, and it's ironic that people use the 'the government can, the majority says so' argument for taxation, but not for gay marriage?

If the government can, it can, if it can't, it can't.

 

Emphasis mine.

It's not a matter of can or can not. It's a matter of should or should not.

 

Well, we've replaced one arbitrary and vague term with an even more arbitrary and vague one

Why shouldn't the government get involved in marriage? Why should it get involved in my wallet? Why not?

It comes down to consistency.

Besides, some people think government should get involved in marriage. You see?

 

We already know that it can and does, so that's not the point of discussion.

Because it is an agreement between two consenting adults, and does not affect anyone other than those involved.

I already said that I'm not going to get into this with you here.

That's why we have democratic votes, and society chooses what is and isn't acceptible based on majority.