Gay marriage in Australia

[mojorising]

That's quite a straw man you've erected.

I think when you take my position of opposition to certain political demands being made by the homosexual political lobby and paint it as analogous to the complete blanket homophobia of human history prior to 50 years ago it is you who are erecting the straw man.

This strikes me as one of those areas where you're unwilling to concede anything, let alone agree there's a middle ground.

I have conceded a substantial degree. i.e. despite us not understanding homosexuality yet I believe that homosexuals should be protected from historical victimisation and have their partnerships legally recognised in a way that is analogous to, but not identical to, heterosexual marriage.

 

[Ford]

I have conceded a substantial degree. i.e. despite us not understanding homosexuality yet I believe that homosexuals should be protected from historical victimisation and have their partnerships legally recognised in a way that is analogous to, but not identical to, heterosexual marriage.

Ah. So "separate but equal." Sounds familiar for some reason.

 

[dystopian]

I have conceded a substantial degree. i.e. despite us not understanding homosexuality yet I believe that homosexuals should be protected from historical victimisation and have their partnerships legally recognised in a way that is analogous to, but not identical to, heterosexual marriage.

Ah. So "separate but equal." Sounds familiar for some reason.

They can use the servants entrance.

 

[bilby]

Ah. So "separate but equal." Sounds familiar for some reason.

They can use the servants entrance.

Surely that should be the Tradesman's entrance?

 

[mojorising]

^That was a bit below the belt bilby - ha ha!

 

[DrZoidberg]

I just don't get a sense of open and free enquiry from the current political mood. I get the feeling that studies are funded on the understanding that the only politically acceptable outcome is reached, which is one that supports the homosexual political juggernaut.

Politicians meddling in science is a problem across the board. From left to right. There is a worrying trend among politicians to try to dictate to scientists what they should discover with their studies. So don´t listen to politicians. None of them. They are all full of shit. Ask the researchers directly. Universities are always happy to show their research if you care to ask.

But I just don´t see the same "homosexual political juggernaut" as you do. Even in super gay friendly Sweden, the political pro gay side are still treating the gays like children, and passing laws above their heads. I´ve yet to see a country leave the laws governing gay issues in the hands of the gay community itself. I´d say that was a no-brainer?

 

[DrZoidberg]

1. Public street demonstration about homosexual 'pride' (it is a sexual orientation, not an achievement. Sexual orientation of any flavour is not a subject suitable for public demonstration)

It´s not about sex. It´s about love. If you all you see is sex, then it´s because you have a dirty mind. I think Pride is nice and clean family friendly fun.

2. Redefinition of the heterosexual tradition (as many people see it) of marriage between a man and a woman

I don´t understand why you keep insisting this? Traditional marriage is long dead anyway. It´s like you want to go back to a type of marriage that was practiced from about 1930 - 1990. And then you´re trying to pass it off as natural and eternal somehow. Why?

3. Acceptance that homosexuals have equal priority when it comes to adopting children

Stop trying to make gays out to be some sort of second rate citizen? Did you cry when apartheid was abolished to? Why can´t we all just get along?

4. The political assumption that homosexuality is 'natural' and an evolutionarily justified product of nature when we don't know this yet and other theories (such as recurrent aberration) are just as likely to be true

It´s not politics. It´s science. Gays exist, therefore homosexuality is natural. If it hadn´t been gays wouldn´t exist. Since they exist we have to deal with it. Pretending they don´t solves nothing.

5. Acceptance that public displays of homosexual behaviour are OK when the vast majority finds them distasteful

It´s just you. I´m fine with it. I think everybody else who has posted in this thread are fine with it to? And fundamentally, being offended now and again is a small price to pay for our political freedoms. I´m cool with it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think when you take my position of opposition to certain political demands being made by the homosexual political lobby and paint it as analogous to the complete blanket homophobia of human history prior to 50 years ago it is you who are erecting the straw man.

So...the PROgay righters are, in your mind, binary in their approach to homophobes, but then, so are you. You think all homophobia is the same, and if you don't want to beat gays to death, you must not be homophobic.
But you offer no evidence for your position beyond it just offends you to see it and think about it. Your claims are counter to history and to science but you keep plugging away at them.

You haven't got any evidence of this mythical majority that would agree with you, if only they had the balls to speak their mind. It's your mind rationalizing the silence as actually being in agreement with you.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Today I learned there's a political push in Sweden ro remove legal gender completely. That solves all the transsexual/gay marriage/gay adoption issues in one go. I think it is brilliant.

Obviously its only the legal definition. People are obviously free to call each other whatever. They're not trying to ban gender. This is only about making life easier for everyone. It also does away with affirmative action based on gender. It makes it impossible to define marriage as anything other than just plain marriage. I aprove.

 

[Jarhyn]

Today I learned there's a political push in Sweden ro remove legal gender completely. That solves all the transsexual/gay marriage/gay adoption issues in one go. I think it is brilliant.

Obviously its only the legal definition. People are obviously free to call each other whatever. They're not trying to ban gender. This is only about making life easier for everyone. It also does away with affirmative action based on gender. It makes it impossible to define marriage as anything other than just plain marriage. I aprove.

I like this, but I still think it doesn't go far enough. At some point we'll still need to de-sexualize marriage into some manner of unconcerned civil contract, so that people can have domestic relationships not centered around sex, and so that sexual relationships are not 'preferred' above other domestic partnership.

It's hard to say this, but the republicans have been leading on that front recently, and I want them to win. I mourn the fact that they failed here in Minnesota when it came up as an amendment. Not 'domestic partbership' for gays and 'marriage' for heteros, but 'domestic partnerships' for EVERYONE, and leaving the power to call it a 'marriage' to individuals and personal conscience.

 

[mojorising]

Today I learned there's a political push in Sweden ro remove legal gender completely. That solves all the transsexual/gay marriage/gay adoption issues in one go. I think it is brilliant.

Obviously its only the legal definition. People are obviously free to call each other whatever. They're not trying to ban gender. This is only about making life easier for everyone. It also does away with affirmative action based on gender. It makes it impossible to define marriage as anything other than just plain marriage. I aprove.

It is complete nonsense.

Men and women are very different animals.

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

What we need in this and other areas is more overt recognition of sexual difference, not less recognition.

There is good reason for discriminating against women when selecting individuals for roles in special forces and front-line fighting roles for the armed forces. There is nothing to apologise about here. It is recognition of the factual difference between men and women.

There is good reason for discriminating against men when selecting staff for childcare facilities as women have better evolved skills for these roles.

 

[Ford]

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

So this is the law in Australia?

 

[mojorising]

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

So this is the law in Australia?

No, the only distinction made is in sentencing guidelines.

The law makes no overt distinction which is wrong because they are very different crimes because men and women are evolved as sexually different animals.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Men and women are very different animals.

What are the legally significant differences, Mojo?

When a male 30 year old teacher involves himself sexually with a female 15 year old student he is committing a very different and far greater crime than when a female 30 year old teacher involves herself sexually with a 15 year-old male student.

The only difference you're pointing out here is their relative ages. Not adifference between genders.
What is the difference?
Can you describe it?

What we need in this and other areas is more overt recognition of sexual difference, not less recognition.

So, tell us the legal differences, mojo.

There is good reason for discriminating against women when selecting individuals for roles in special forces and front-line fighting roles for the armed forces. There is nothing to apologise about here. It is recognition of the factual difference between men and women.

Such as....?

There is good reason for discriminating against men when selecting staff for childcare facilities as women have better evolved skills for these roles.

Evolved skills?

Evolved SKILLS?

Evolved SKILLS?
Yer fukkin' kiddin', right?

 

[Ford]

So this is the law in Australia?

No, the only distinction made is in sentencing guidelines.

The law makes no overt distinction which is wrong because they are very different crimes because men and women are evolved as sexually different animals.

Wait...what?


So a school teacher who has sexual relations with a child who cannot legally consent should be treated differently based upon gender? That a woman teacher molesting a boy should be treated differently under the law than a male teacher who molests a girl?



If this is what you're saying, I must ask again...what planet do you live on?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If this is what you're saying, I must ask again...what planet do you live on?

Further, if the gender is significant, a M/m molesting is yet another situation, and a F/f molesting is another nother one yet.

I suppose such sexism shouldn't be an incredible surprise to find in mojo, but it is disappointing.

 

[mojorising]

The victim impact is greater for the girl than for the boy.

Women are evolved to protect their sexual reproductive capacity and be choosy about who they consent to mate with since their reproductive capacity is a constrained resource.

Men are evolved to look for casual sex on the side as well as to form pair-bonds.

Sexual promiscuity then is a greater social crime for a woman than for a man.

A boy's reputation is not impacted to the same extent as a girl's when they have sex with an older member of the opposite sex.

A male teacher is exercising his male predatory sexual instinct against a minor.

A female teacher is exercising her female right to consent with a minor.

Quite different things really.

 

[Ford]

A female teacher is exercising her female right to consent with a minor.

So you think raping boys is okay, so long as the rapist is a woman.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The victim impact is greater for the girl than for the boy.

Au contraire. Getting laid by your teacher as a young man teaches the gratification of easy sex, and who is most evolved for easy, casual sex? Other men. It basically triggers their evolved responses and turns them gay, left to live a life in which they cannot get married and can only adopt the leftover children no one else wanted. It's all true because of reasons, and also I used words like 'evolved' making it all sound sort of sciencey 'n shit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The victim impact is greater for the girl than for the boy.

At this point, i have to say that you asserting it means less than nothing with respect to my even considering it a fact.

Women are evolved to protect their sexual reproductive capacity and be choosy about who they consent to mate with since their reproductive capacity is a constrained resource.

In all this, it's kind of silly hearing you flog the evolution argument, though. Considering that evolution is, for whatever reason, preserving homosexuality, you still want to treat that as a bad thing, but here you're treating evolutionary traits as something the law is (or should be) based upon.

This would be another reason i view your posts as 'preaching.' You're so terribly inconsistent on the methodology you use, as long as your homophobia and your sexism is supported as if it were real.