Penny Wong tells Labor party members there is nothing to fear over gay marriage

[WAN]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

That's all you had to say. You didn't have to drop pages worth of idiocy.

Listen nigger, you think by misquoting me you are "winning" the debate? nope. My points are still valid, and I was and am still right, the gay people would STILL be pestering the straight folks about changing their attitude as well as their vocabulary to accomondate their sensibilities, even if the government were to treat all marriages as civil unions.

Also, did you just call my posts "pages of idiocy"? this sounds like an ad hominem to me. Apologize to me, nigger, to your racial and argumentative superior, lest I put your nigger ass on ignore.

seriously though, nigger, stop with the fucking ad hominems. Just because I disagree with your niggerly stance it doesn't mean my thoughts and posts are "pages of idiocy". Nigger. Although i understand how in your simian mind, you fail to make the distinction between debating civilly and throwing around ad hominems; but it's ok, I forgive you, because you are just a nigger.

[Tachosomoza]

Umad?

And no, they wouldn't be pestering straight people. They want equal rights, not revisions to your dictionary.

[WAN]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Umad?

Unigger?

[WAN]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

And no, they wouldn't be pestering straight people. They want equal rights, not revisions to your dictionary.

But demanding straight people about changing the definition of a pre-existing word IS pestering them. And what they are doing and most likely will continue to be doing in the future, is exactly that--demanding their own definition of the word marriage be added to EVERYBODY's vocabulary whilst expunging the old, which they the gay people don't like.

[ShyStar]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Like the rest of the anti equality movement.

Anti-monoculture, I like diversity.

Also, the pretense of 'equality' is flawed, there is too much variation in life to get anything near it...let alone establish what the fuck you're striving to become in the first place or have others molded into the image of.

[ShyStar]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Umad?

And no, they wouldn't be pestering straight people.

They already are.

[Tachosomoza]

Originally Posted by WAN

But demanding straight people about changing the definition of a pre-existing word IS pestering them. And what they are doing and most likely will continue to be doing in the future, is exactly that--demanding their own definition of the word marriage be added to EVERYBODY's vocabulary whilst expunging the old, which they the gay people don't like.

It's not changing everyone's vocabulary, it's changing the definition in the eyes of the law. You dont have to call it marriage, but courts and public officials will. Nobody's going to fine you as a private citizen if you don't recognize a gay marriage, but if you are an official who refuses to treat a gay couple as legally married, you will get in trouble. It hurts absolutely no one. Nobody gets special privileges.

[dysik]

ok tacho i see where your going and i can agree with parts of both sides but i kinda agree with WAN here..

why cant we have two separate things, this way we could (hopefully) appease everyone

one, marriage:

between a man and women. this is called marriage because of the thousands of years of social and religious tradition which it is based upon. a tradition which does NOT include gay couples.

two, civil unions:

anybody who wants to be seen as a couple in the eyes of society and the law. this could be gay couples, trangender, whatever freaky deeky shit you want really, non-religious couples, whatever.

if both of these things allow the same tax benefits, and every other legal status is equal... i don't see how there is inequality.

if all things are equal, other than the title, then we are talking about a social issue, not a legal one. basically gay couples feel offended they are only being offered "civil unions" and not "marriage", but in order to change that, we would be offending the overwhelming majority by (to them at least) debasing the sanctity of marriage.

ie my solution, offer same rights in a civil union as a marriage, any other problem is a social problem and not the domain of government.

P.S, penny wong and the labor governmental are Australian, stfu about constitution this and constitution that. you americans should go and fuck the constitution if you love it so much. fuck why dont you even go get married to it?

[Tachosomoza]

Separate but equal was used for schools in America up until the 1950s. It was a failure. No separation. It's either recognize all marriages under the law equally, or stop recognizing them under the law.

[Mantikore]

Just remove the concept of marriage in politics. Marriage is a lot of things. To some, its a spiritual bonding under God, to others, its nothing more than piece of paper stored in a file. With that being said if the government didnt control marriage, the definition of it will be up to each person. Is it less valid than a 'couple' that married purely to gain citizenship for one of them?

it will go something like this

Straight couple gets married (does it in a church etc) ---> No one cares.
Gay couple gets 'married' (has only the symbolic celebrations, which we cant stop now anyway) ---> religious guy refuses to acknowledge its validity. Both sides go on living their lives with their respective notions in mind and nothing else happens. All is good.

[dysik]

Originally Posted by Tachosomoza

Separate but equal was used for schools in America up until the 1950s. It was a failure. No separation. It's either recognize all marriages under the law equally, or stop recognizing them under the law.

i don't really see the relevance of racial segregation in the 50's in the US to the topic at hand...

the fact is, in those times, "blacks" didn't have the same rights as "whites" they couldn't vote, they had to sit at the back of the bus and so on.

but in this case, all rights are equal, the only difference is the title. the NAME.

and at the end of the day your still black and im still white and men are men and women are women, we have equal rights now, but we arent all classified as "human". Im a white male, your a black male, WAN is an asian female.... the courts of law still give us equal rights and treat us equally, even though my name is dysik and yours is tachosomoza.

[Tachosomoza]

Oops... American gay marriage debates and the US constitution in a thread about Oz.

[Rolf]

Rolf notes that secular society should care not if marriage is between man and woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, provided said people being married are consenting adults there is no harm being done.

Religious minorities and other members of the anti-fabulous coalition can decide their positions on marriage of people with alternate sexualities, but Rolf proclaims that effect society of enlightened secular peoples it should not.

[Yggdrasil]

Originally Posted by ShyStar

I hate the topic because I don't see the "ZOMG DISCRIMINATION", I think it's stupid that gays want to engage in an activity which is (religiously) based on a piece of literature that they think is backwards or from "the dark ages", and because this ridiculous topic which doesn't warrant any attention redirects it (attention) from relevant issues.

The problem, I think, is that we use the same term, "marriage", to refer both to the ceremony performed and recognized by religious institutions, and to the union between two individuals that is recognized by the government. They are two completely different things that do not necessitate each other (This is why a gay couple's marriage issued by the state of Vermont may not be recognized by, say, the Catholic Church, and in the same way a man from the FLDS may be married by his church to several women, even though the federal or state government may not recognize such marriages).

The government can either extend civil marriage rights to two consenting adults of the same sex, even though it will anger religious conservatives/pricks who are pissed about the same term they use for their religious ceremonies being used by the government for unions between gay people, or the government can call all civil marriages civil unions and leave the term "marriage" alone so that the 'sanctity' of Christian/other religious ceremonies can be left intact

[Cooking with Zyklon B]

Originally Posted by crazzyass

Marriage used to be defined as between a white man and white woman with biracial marriage being illegal and frowned upon. Do you support that definition?

I would if it meant no more black reproduction.

...But on a more serious note...

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

and leave the term "marriage" alone so that the 'sanctity' of Christian/other religious ceremonies can be left intact

As far as America is concerned, we have already raped the sanctity of marriage with such a high divorce rate. If gay people want to be just as miserable and vulnerable to the legal fallout of a failed marriage, I say let 'em.
I have no problems with the gay crowd, as long as they restrict their 'alternative lifestyle' to their own home, behind closed doors.
The second they get flagrant about it, and wanna be 'loud and proud,' then I take up issue. Of course my stance may or may not be affected by my lack of subscription to fairy tales of jewish zombies and rape cover-stories.

In the grand scheme of things it's fairly probable that issues like gay marriage are just used as tools of distraction. Because who cares that predator drones are whizzing overhead in US airspace when gay people can't get married?