|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2012 12:38:00 GMT 10
There is a bit of discussion about whether homosexual marriage is a good or bad thing for society.
Do you think it is a good or bad thing, and does it impact on the fabric of society?
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 9, 2012 13:58:40 GMT 10
It is a good thing for society. It has a positive impact on the fabric of society. It makes society a more loving place. Sodomy is loving? |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 9, 2012 14:02:25 GMT 10
Oh Matt you and your bloody silly tendentious polls. Yes I voted "yes" but that doesn't mean I'm a passionate advocate.
You ask if it has a negative impact on society. If we aqccept Skippy's figures of gays being no more than 3% of the population then you'd have to conclude from that that we'd be looking at a tiny number of gsy marriages. So what sort of impact could such a small number have anyway?
Therefore, assuming (and I don't!) that people like you are right and that legalising gay marriage would have an adverse impact - if it became widespread and in your face, and you had an excellent chance if you had a house in Baukham Hills or the Sutherland Shire of having a gay couple as neighbours (newsflash! They're already there! Ask any real estate agent about the "pink dollar" - gay couples who buy into real estate either as a residence or an investment), given that the numbers are so small - and remember these are Skippy's figures - how big can the problem be? And if the "problem" is tiny in terms of the numbers involved, then isn't your response just a teeny bit over-the-top and hysterical?
But let's look at it from a different perspective and reject Skippy's figure of no more than 3%. I've also heard it's over 10%. I don't know how these figures are collated and how reliable they are so it's anyone's guess. Thing is though that if the numbers are tiny to the point of infinitesimal (and that's Skippy's 1-3%) then there is no "problem" because such a tiny number cannot impact on society. On the other hand if the numbers are over 10% then we're starting to look at a significant segment of the population and social justice issues intrude.
Gays aren't automatically criminals or rapists or paedophiles. They are your work colleagues, your neighbours, your kids' schoolfriends or the bank manager you talk to about a mortgage on a house you're interested in. If (perish the thought!) your child is sexually abused and you place it in the hands of the police, how do you know the officer who takes down your details and conducts the investigation isn't himself (or herself) gay? If people like that in large numbers want a slice of matrimonial action then who are you to deny it to them?
There is a left wing critique of course which is summed up in Engels' very seminal Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. If you read that critique, and I have, then you'd have to conclude that a Marxist socialist (which I'm not, but Engels certainly was!) would oppose gay marriage on the grounds that a Marxist socialist rejects marriage and condemns it as a bourgeois institution. That's not necessarily my view but it exposes as ratbags people like Sarah Hanson-Young with her so-called "left" advocacy in favour of gay marriage.
Personally I don't have much time for either extreme, neither the lollipop campus trotskyite "left" nor the god-bothering fruitcake freakshow paranoid hysterical "right", each of whom is striving to dominate the discourse and to emit as much "white noise" about it as possible. The debate is about neither of those two extremes. There are Liberals who would be in favour of gay marriage just as there are Labor people who would oppose it. There are atheists who oppose gay marriage just as there are Christians who support the idea. It's a mainstream issue, not a fringe one.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Nov 9, 2012 14:31:00 GMT 10
The stain on the fabric is not offering one demographic of society equal rights as citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 9, 2012 14:43:30 GMT 10
Spindrift I think someone just farted in a lift
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 17:20:23 GMT 10
It is a good thing for society. It has a positive impact on the fabric of society. It makes society a more loving place. Biologically pathological behaviour is beneficial for society? 'a more loving place' - so permitting a man or woman to marry their dog would make society a more loving place? It's PC nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Nov 9, 2012 17:50:19 GMT 10
It is a good thing for society. It has a positive impact on the fabric of society. It makes society a more loving place. Biologically pathological behaviour is beneficial for society? No, it's not biologically pathological. Sorry Skippy but I have spoken to more than one medico about this. Yes there can be trauma with anal penetration, but anal penetration is not restricted to gay sex. And in any case sex isn't only about penetration of proferred orifice by erect penis. I don't really want to dwell on it. "Pathological" means deviating from the "normal" state. At least I think that's what you mean by it. If you're gay, you're gay. Yes I know, we'll both lock ourselves into pre-determined positions and keep arguing. You know the arguments, so do I. We disagree. You don't like gays. I get it!! I'm not gay, I'm ferociously hetero. But whether you or I or anyone has a "problem" with gays is neither here nor there because gays are just going to go on being gays. No, Skippy, you're being mischievous. You've also said elsewhere sometime back in the past that gays are child molesters. Look, I can accept that you don't like gays. I don't like marmalade! But I accept that plenty of people love marmalade so it bothers m not one bit if someone spreads marmalade on their morning toast. Same with fruit cake. I loathe fruitcake. Would you believe that at my wedding I nibbled on the icing on the wedding cake but gagged on the fruity stuff? My wife swore a solemn oath that she would ensure that any kids we had would be brought up to love fruitcake - and she was as good as her word. My point is that if I hate marmalade and loathe fruitcake then that's my problem and I'm the one who has to deal with it. Same with your aversion to gays. They are not into bestiality or child abuse. Gays are ordinary people. A gay is the bank manager you see about a loan, a gay is the GP you go to see about your annual blood tests. A gay is the fellow soldier who's your buddy in Afghanistan who you know is covering your back while you're in action against the Taliban and you'd trust him with your life. Skippy, the PC nonsense is coming from you. I personally don't carry a brief for gays. Right now I don't know any gays. Not personally among my acquaintances and friends. Correction!! That's not true!! My lady friend and I happen to be friends with a lesbian couple whom we see occasionally at dinner parties. You see? I had to think! I don't judge them on the basis of their sexuality. As far as I'm concerned it's their business. I do know a lady who's a widow, had had a 30 year marriage and her stockbroker late husband had been bisexual. She disclosed this after he passed away. And no, it wasn't AIDS. He was in his 80s and died of dementia, poor guy. I understand she and her children are scattering his ashes today. Cory Bernardi dared to utter your sort of sentiments in the Senate, Skippy, and for his pains Tony Abbott sacked him from his front bench position. Abbott said that Bernardi was entitled to his opinions, that Abbott didn't share them (and I believe Abbott on this, given that Abbott has had to come to terms with the fact that his sister came out as lesbian), that what Bernardi said was a "freelancing" comment. It's fine to "freelance" said Abbott, but if you want to "freelance" you do it on the backbench. I don't often agree with Tony Abbott but on this one I reckon he was right on the button. |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Nov 9, 2012 17:59:43 GMT 10
Matt if you have an issue with anything sexual to do with ones butt.....best you don't read the 50 Shades trilogy.
|
|
megan
Member
Ignorance of scientific knowledge is NOT proof that god exists!
Posts: 114
|
Post by megan on Nov 9, 2012 18:15:01 GMT 10
It is a good thing for society. It has a positive impact on the fabric of society. It makes society a more loving place. Sodomy is loving? Lesbians ? |
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Nov 9, 2012 19:53:01 GMT 10
I'm not sure what sodomy has to do with loving or not loving, Matt. Nor what vaginal intercourse or oral sex has to do with it, either.
|
|
