ChatterBank1 min ago
Australians Decisively Support Same-Sex Marriage
http://
Nice to see that Oz is being dragged into the 21st Century, at last !
Nice to see that Oz is being dragged into the 21st Century, at last !
Answers
No..... Let's not compare it with other things, let's celebrate the fact that Australia has said that it will allow committed same-sex couples to marry. A very good day, indeed.
18:46 Wed 15th Nov 2017
Mikey, //Naomi....its clear that I will not agree with you on this issue. //
I haven’t given my opinion so you wouldn’t know whether you agree with me or not. Since v-e says that sex isn’t the issue, and you subsequently said that those who disagree with you are ‘obsessed with what people do in bed’, I’ve simply asked you which bit of v-e’s post you didn’t understand.
I haven’t given my opinion so you wouldn’t know whether you agree with me or not. Since v-e says that sex isn’t the issue, and you subsequently said that those who disagree with you are ‘obsessed with what people do in bed’, I’ve simply asked you which bit of v-e’s post you didn’t understand.
I tend to agree with v-e that it's possible to feel that calling same-sex partners "married" isn't consistent with the meaning of marriage without also being homophobic. I just think that such people are wrong.
Like so many other things, society chooses what it means by "marriage", and who is allowed or is not to marry. There is not a fixed, immutable definition. The definition has now expanded; here, in Australia, in the US recently also.
Like so many other things, society chooses what it means by "marriage", and who is allowed or is not to marry. There is not a fixed, immutable definition. The definition has now expanded; here, in Australia, in the US recently also.
Well, if it's changed recently, then it's not immutable is it?
Also, that ignores the fact that marriage *has* changed in meaning. It wasn't until recently, for example, that we lost the whole religious element to it (that was, anyway, bolted on in the first place).
Also I could point to the situation in the US, where marriages between people of different races were effectively illegal until only fifty years ago.
At the heart of it all throughout history has been the idea of its being between a man and a woman. Well, now that's changing as well.
Also, that ignores the fact that marriage *has* changed in meaning. It wasn't until recently, for example, that we lost the whole religious element to it (that was, anyway, bolted on in the first place).
Also I could point to the situation in the US, where marriages between people of different races were effectively illegal until only fifty years ago.
At the heart of it all throughout history has been the idea of its being between a man and a woman. Well, now that's changing as well.
//At the heart of it all throughout history has been the idea of its being between a man and a woman. Well, now that's changing as well.//
Thank you, Jim. Such a radical redefinition of marriage should be capable of discussion without imputations of senility, bigotry or malice. Not, however, on this forum.
Thank you, Jim. Such a radical redefinition of marriage should be capable of discussion without imputations of senility, bigotry or malice. Not, however, on this forum.
v-e, I think the problem is that -- at least before you showed up -- AOG and particularly Hans' points have not exactly been expressed with that in mind. Hans literally referred to the whole shebang as unnatural, which is anyway, in point of fact, demonstrably false. Plenty of animals are going at it every which way all the time if you look closely enough.
[email protected] which case I am going to suggest that you are Not married but have entered into a civil partnership.
Hans.
Hans.
That may be so, but in this case it certainly misses the point, because what I'm saying is that anyone who argues that homosexual activity is somehow unnatural is clearly and demonstrably wrong. It's very natural. Since the aim is to refute someone else's argument there's no need to go further, because I'm not arguing that "it's right because animals do it" -- simply that "it's not wrong because animals don't, because they do".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.