Australians Decisively Support Same-Sex Marriage

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-41992344

Nice to see that Oz is being dragged into the 21st Century, at last !

[naomi24]

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.

[jim360]

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.

[mikey4444]

I have made my position very clear, and I have awarded BA, so I am not sure I have anything left to say !

[HansUrbancka]

Tell me if you will JtH.....When you got married, did the Registrar/minister (or whoever conducted the ceremony) ask you to 'take this woman as your lawful wedded wife'.

Hans.

[naomi24]

Jim, //There is not a fixed, immutable definition.//

There always has been - until recently.

[jackthehat]

No. He didn't.

[jim360]

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.

[naomi24]

Jim, //At the heart of it all throughout history has been the idea of its being between a man and a woman. //

That is, in effect, what I said. What are you arguing for?

[jim360]

I was just curious how you can possibly say, with a straight face, that something was immutable until it changed.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//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.

[naomi24]

Jim, Oh right. You're being smart. Okay.

[jim360]

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.

[DTCwordfan]

For Gawd's sake, let the Aussies be happy and go bonking on, whatever the combination - it about the relationship not about MM fit MF fit, FM fit or FF fit whatever other sexual combinations there are out there in Ozzyland.

Maybe they could be more equitable to their indigenous populations now?

[naomi24]

Jim, Playing Devil’s Advocate, You shouldn’t harp on about nature. If you really think about it animals do a lot of things that human beings wouldn’t. They know no better. Just saying.

[HansUrbancka]

[email protected] which case I am going to suggest that you are Not married but have entered into a civil partnership.

Hans.

[pixie374]

That would mean it was uncivilized rather than unnatural, Naomi. Sorry, I did smile at your immutable changes too:-)

[jim360]

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".

[DTCwordfan]

Hans - eye of the beholder and all that....does it really matter and it ain't anything to do with me or you.....now if....? (lol)

[jackthehat]

For heaven's sake......suggest what you like, Hans.

I am married.

[pixie374]

I suspect jth probably does know which she did...