Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[Paradoxica]

firstly, this is purely research and not pragmatic/practice yet, and for good reason, there are massive ethical questions about allowing that, even just the stem cell research

which the question is why historically speaking, the focus has primarily been on male-female relations for procreation?
you can argue exemptions as say:
- what about infertile couples
- what about older people

There is a reason why procreation is principle is restricted to male-female, because that is the regular pattern we find in nature, for reproduction.

Some quotes on the subject:




Yeah I don't think that rabbit hole is a good idea to go down.

"it's challenging and scary and complicated, therefore we shouldn't do it"

hm, wonder where I've heard THAT before.

 

[spaghettii]

if it is as you say an arbitrary legal definition, then why is it so important to emphasise the fact that it discriminates supposedly on sexual preference, if it is not about sex?

Marriage has always be linked with sex and procreation, it is one of the reasons the institution exists.

Historical definitions have be changed, for instance the definition of humanity. However, changing a definition isn't necessary in the best interests especially when the concept then becomes devoid of meaning.

You are committing a fallacy of some kind, you think that you can throw as many ridiculous historical definitions that would violate even the UN charter of rights to somehow argue that marriage needs to be redefined.

If marriage is linked with sex and procreation, then technically same sex couples should be allowed to marry, since there are many opposite sex couples who marry but either don't have children or aren't able to have children.
Many same sex couples choose to have children through surrogacy, adoption, using sperm/egg donors, etc, so procreation shouldn't necessarily be a problem.

 

[dan964]

If marriage is linked with sex and procreation, then technically same sex couples should be allowed to marry, since there are many opposite sex couples who marry but either don't have children or aren't able to have children.
Many same sex couples choose to have children through surrogacy, adoption, using sperm/egg donors, etc, so procreation shouldn't necessarily be a problem.

addressed earlier. it is a matter of principle/definition. it comes down to what marriage is. it is a question on why marriage over just giving them civil rights in a defacto relationship/some other name relationship.
https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustralia/videos/902321679922044/

there has historically been a distinction between the two, and the debate would not exist if marriage had no meaning/relation to the raising of children.

 

[buysogoodonitunes]

Same-sex marriage should be legalized because 1. to the no voters, what does this do to you / how does this affect you in any way 2. dont be an ahole

 

[OkDen]

Same-sex marriage should be legalized because 1. to the no voters, what does this do to you / how does this affect you in any way 2. dont be an ahole

Nice /s

 

[SammyT123]

addressed earlier. it is a matter of principle/definition. it comes down to what marriage is. it is a question on why marriage over just giving them civil rights in a defacto relationship.
https://www.facebook.com/VoteNoAustralia/videos/902321679922044/

there has historically been a distinction between the two, and the debate would not exist if marriage had no meaning/relation to the raising of children.

You never address it
you always bring it back down to
"By definition/principle marriage is ..."

Historically we also didnt give black people the same rights as white people.
Yet we reason and conclude this is a double standard

It's delusional to think that there's some sort of loss associated with modifying the definition

Nice little appeal to nature fallacy too

 

[SammyT123]

if it is as you say an arbitrary legal definition, then why is it so important to emphasise the fact that it discriminates supposedly on sexual preference, if it is not about sex?

Marriage has always be linked with sex and procreation, it is one of the reasons the institution exists.

Historical definitions have be changed, for instance the definition of humanity. However, changing a definition isn't necessary in the best interests especially when the concept then becomes devoid of meaning.

You are committing a fallacy of some kind, you think that you can throw as many ridiculous historical definitions that would violate even the UN charter of rights to somehow argue that marriage needs to be redefined.

1. Umm...It is important because legal definitions should not be discriminatory?

2. Please tell me how marriage will be "devoid of meaning" if we extend the right to SSM

3. Wrong. You stress the importance of maintaining the historical definiton of marriage. Yet you would not accept other historical definitions. The double standard is real

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

 

[dan964]

1. Umm...It is important because legal definitions should not be discriminatory?

2. Please tell me how marriage will be "devoid of meaning" if we extend the right to SSM

3. Wrong. You stress the importance of maintaining the historical definiton of marriage. Yet you would not accept other historical definitions. The double standard is real


Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

Again the 1984 sex discrimination act clearly stipulates that it is the marriage act as it is not discriminatory, in the sense of the word that you are using.
that is the whole issue, those who disagree with the changes, do not view the current definition of marriage ad discriminatory because it isn't just the government stepping into a couples lives and affirming them (that can be done some many other ways, such as with recognition of defacto partners etc.). Marriage is unique in the sense of the foundations behind the institution, which has been marriage is a gendered institution linked with the natural biological reproduction of children, and as an institution is closely linked to the family.

The government reason's for investing in marriage, are about as much as much their interest in ensuring the rights of children to their biological parents (except where a retrieval ethic applies), is the case. That is a common reason for opposition.

This historical definition/understanding is the one that has been consistently accepted across cultures, across time periods, and has any significant meaning/reason behind it. It is the one inferred in common law up to 2004, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in legislation.

For instance out of 53 countries in Europe, only 15 have marriage including same-sex marriage. Many of explicitly define marriage in their constitution in man-woman. So I am pretty sure you understand what historical understanding is in view.

 

[Paradoxica]

Again the 1984 sex discrimination act clearly stipulates that it is the marriage act as it is not discriminatory, in the sense of the word that you are using.
that is the whole issue, those who disagree with the changes, do not view the current definition of marriage ad discriminatory because it isn't just the government stepping into a couples lives and affirming them (that can be done some many other ways, such as with recognition of defacto partners etc.). Marriage is unique in the sense of the foundations behind the institution, which has been marriage is a gendered institution linked with the natural biological reproduction of children, and as an institution is closely linked to the family.

The government reason's for investing in marriage, are about as much as much their interest in ensuring the rights of children to their biological parents (except where a retrieval ethic applies), is the case. That is a common reason for opposition.

This historical definition/understanding is the one that has been consistently accepted across cultures, across time periods, and has any significant meaning/reason behind it. It is the one inferred in common law up to 2004, even if it wasn't explicitly mentioned in legislation.

For instance out of 53 countries in Europe, only 15 have marriage including same-sex marriage. Many of explicitly define marriage in their constitution in man-woman. So I am pretty sure you understand what historical understanding is in view.

ok so to stipulate your ideas: you believe that language is inflexible.

that summarises your entire position on this.

 

[Paradoxica]

which is quite disappointing really because language evolves very quickly even over human lifespans

society will continue to change and the law must address these changes, not ignore them or attempt to suppress them.

 

[cosmo 2]

Poll shows Australians have overwhelmingly voted ’yes’
A MAJOR poll has revealed a clear result is looming in the same-sex marriage postal survey, with almost 11 million forms completed and returned.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/ga...s/news-story/fa0bd193eb073ce7dcf576ad0b1b71b0

 

[Queenroot]

When will the final results be released

 

[BLIT2014]

When will the final results be released

November 7th apperantely.

 

[dan964]

ok so to stipulate your ideas: you believe that language is inflexible.

that summarises your entire position on this.

nah I more believe that if something is a good thing and works for the benefit of our society why change it.
if that means a particular legal concept/definition should be retained, it should be retained.

 

[Paradoxica]

nah I more believe that if something is a good thing and works for the benefit of our society why change it.
if that means a particular legal concept/definition should be retained, it should be retained.

"it works"

well so does a burning bus.

 

[BLIT2014]

It's very likely that the marriage act will be amended, and I personally think more religious protections will be put in place if the marriage act is amended soon, rather then delayed.

 

[dan964]

"it works"

well so does a burning bus.

haha no.

 

[dan964]

It's very likely that the marriage act will be amended, and I personally think more religious protections will be put in place if the marriage act is amended soon, rather then delayed.

yeah I think so

 

[BLIT2014]

Only 4 days left to post "votes".

 

[Graney]

nah I more believe that if something is a good thing and works for the benefit of our society why change it.
if that means a particular legal concept/definition should be retained, it should be retained.

If marriage is a good thing, then opening up marriage to more people must be good. If marriage is beneficial to the raising of children, then allowing the marriage of same sex couples must be a good thing, because many couples are raising children.