Australia: Martyr complex among "no" voters

[Ravenshire]

Nah. It's just the ones who wish to impose that view through the law that are a problem.

Nearly everyone who has a value system, regardless of how they justify it, wants to have their value system reflected in civil law. People only call it "shoving it down throats" when its not their value system that's being codified.

Perhaps you can explain how allowing same sex marriage limits your rights under the law. If not, I can't see your arguments against it having any real points.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well it may be harmless bigotry to hold the view that not all sexualities deserve equal rights if you don't intend to shove that bigoted viewpoint down someone's throat, but it's still bigotry. Just as believing that black people don't deserve equal rights but never telling anyone about it ever for fear of being called racist may be harmless if such racism is kept entirely in the confines of one's own mind and not expressed to everyone ever, but it's still racism. And pedophilia that isn't acted on may indeed not be child molestation, but it's still pedophilia.

If someone has the 'perspective' that homosexuals don't deserve equal rights, that perspective is bigoted, period.

[GrandizerII]

I guess if someone thinks proponents of traditional marriage are by definition bigots there isn't much room for discussion, is there? Shall we talk about those pro-abortion baby-killers now?

You can be a proponent of traditional marriage without forcing others to subscribe to your views and thereby deprive them of their rights. It's when you want others to be deprived of the rights you have, that's where the problem lies. Note that there were proponents of traditional marriage who still voted yes, simply because it's the right and respectful thing to do.

And as for abortion, be my guest. But women only get to have a say what they do with their own bodies, no one else.

[The Valkyrie]

Lambie and her ilk are nothing but professional victims.

I'm waiting for the cry of, "Won't someone think of the children!!"

But, of course, the Catholics have that angle covered...

[Neo-Scholastic]

The concern of marriage law is the regulation of a particular kind of social bond, the on-going commitment of a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse of the kind that can, but need not, lead to pregnancy. No homosexual relationship, regardless of the level of physical intimacy or emotional commitment, can lead to pregnancy. Marriage as traditionally defined is completely different from any other kind of sexual enterprise or living arrangement. The potential for offspring is what differentiates a traditional marriage from friendships, roommates, business partnerships, drinking buddies, and such. There is no discrimination or prejudice in recognizing the distinct character of a traditional marriage and affording it unique legal privileges such as tax benefits, and responsibilities like child custody arrangements and mutual financial obligations. No one is being denied rights based on sexual orientation. Theoretically, anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can enter into an enduring union capable of producing children married. Just because some people, because of their sexual preferences, don’t want to be in that kind of relationship doesn’t mean they are being denied it.

[The Valkyrie]

So, people who decide not to have kids, or can't have kids don't fall within the definition of "traditional" marriage?

[Ravenshire]

The concern of marriage law is the regulation of a particular kind of social bond, the on-going commitment of a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse of the kind that can, but need not, lead to pregnancy. No homosexual relationship, regardless of the level of physical intimacy or emotional commitment, can lead to pregnancy. Marriage as traditionally defined is completely different from any other kind of sexual enterprise or living arrangement. The potential for offspring is what differentiates a traditional marriage from friendships, roommates, business partnerships, drinking buddies, and such. There is no discrimination or prejudice in recognizing the distinct character of a traditional marriage and affording it unique legal privileges such as tax benefits, and responsibilities like child custody arrangements and mutual financial obligations. No one is being denied rights based on sexual orientation. Theoretically, anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can enter into an enduring union capable of producing children married. Just because some people, because of their sexual preferences, don’t want to be in that kind of relationship doesn’t mean they are being denied it.

So, not only does same sex marriage not abrogate your rights, according to the above argument, those who are unable to conceive should be denied oposite sex marriage since they can't, whether they would choose to or not, reproduce.

You're really not making much of a case.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To argue otherwise, outside the framework of natural law, is to deny any objective distinction between marriage and other types of human relationship. Of course we could have a reasonable discussion about the nuances of my position but we cannot since you've already concluded that the defense of traditional marriage is an irrational prejudice.

[Pat Mustard]

I guess if someone thinks proponents of traditional marriage are by definition bigots there isn't much room for discussion, is there? Shall we talk about those pro-abortion baby-killers now?

You have a point. I suppose one could be a proponent of "traditional marriage"* and not be a bigot. However, if you ARE bigoted against gays, then "pro traditional marriage" is probably a very attractive position to take.


*Not traditional in the sense that a marriage is a contract between two fathers as it has been since antiquity. Rather a very narrow 19th and 20th century version of traditional marriage in which a man and a woman freely chose one another to be life partners.

Persecution to a Christian is when they can't force their religion down other people's throats.

Funny enough, they'll attack LGBT people for being upset they can't marry their partner because in Iran you get killed for being gay, and then turn around and bitch about gay people getting married and starbucks holiday cups when being Christian gets you killed in Iran.

It took me a sec to get the second point. Yes, this is hypocrisy.

First of all Chad Wooters is a bigot, and a hypocrite and a closet neo fascist. Any time he says something that seems reasonable you have to remember he's including "but this only applies to you plebs. My cheistianity means I don't need to folliw these rules" as an unsaid rider.

Second of all he's lying about christians in Iran. Being christian in Iran is as likely to get you killed as being muslim in the US, and being jewish there is far less likely to get you killed than being muslim in either Israel or Palestine.

[Edwardo Piet]

I guess if someone thinks proponents of traditional marriage are by definition bigots there isn't much room for discussion, is there? Shall we talk about those pro-abortion baby-killers now?

You can be a proponent of traditional marriage without forcing others to subscribe to your views and thereby deprive them of their rights. It's when you want others to be deprived of the rights you have, that's where the problem lies. Note that there were proponents of traditional marriage who still voted yes, simply because it's the right and respectful thing to do.

And as for abortion, be my guest. But women only get to have a say what they do with their own bodies, no one else.

Nah, they're by definition bigots whether they enforce it or not. A racist who keeps their racism to themselves is still a racist too.

Obviously it's far worse and far more immoral for them to enforce it. But bigoted is bigoted. I'm not suggesting they are an entirely bigoted person, at all, but the belief that an entire group of people doesn't deserve equal rights is certainly bigoted. How the hell can Neo think it's remotely reasonable to think that denying an entire sexuality equal rights is not by definition bigoted? Of course that's fucking bigoted by definition. Sure, fair enough, being pro-Christianity is more important to him than being anti-bigotry, but to say his Christian belief is not bigoted when his belief is that an entire sexuality should be denied equal rights, is just him flat out denying reality and ignoring what basic words mean.

Pro-abortion baby killers is a false analogy because aborting a fetus is not killing a baby. However denying an entire sexuality of equal rights is denying an entire sexuality of equal rights. One is true by definition the other isn't. How about you actually make a an analogy that isn't false for once, Neo?

---

I guess if someone thinks proponents of traditional marriage are by definition bigots there isn't much room for discussion, is there? Shall we talk about those pro-abortion baby-killers now?

The former is true by definition, the latter isn't. Time to learn logic Neo.

Actually, no, don't bother, you've demonstrated many, many times you're not capable of learning it.