Million Aussie Bucks to say Lesbians and Gays shouldn't be equal

[Nearly Sane]

I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself. Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them - but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.

In what way do my friends John and George who are getting married next month not 'complement each other', the way my wife and I do?

[Aruntraveller]

NS

You know the answer to that - it's all to do with sockets and plugs. 

Reduce everything to the mechanical. Real feelings don't count.

It's obvious innit?

[SteveH]

In what way do my friends John and George who are getting married next month not 'complement each other', the way my wife and I do?

I'd've thought that was obvious. As TV implies, it's to do with the shape of the naughty bits.

[SteveH]

NS

You know the answer to that - it's all to do with sockets and plugs. 

Reduce everything to the mechanical. Real feelings don't count.

It's obvious innit?

I emphatically did not say that real feelings don't count. I know that gays can have as loving and meaningful a relationship as heteros.

[Aruntraveller]

I emphatically not say that real feelings don't count. I know that gays can have as loving and meaningful a relationship as heteros.

But you have admitted that you have reduced it to the mechanical in the previous post, no? That appears to be your sole criteria.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd've thought that was obvious. As TV implies, it's to do with the shape of the naughty bits.

what about the shape of the naughty bits is relevant to a form of discrimination?

[SteveH]

But you have admitted that you have reduced it to the mechanical in the previous post, no? That appears to be your sole criteria.

I pointed out the mechanical aspect. I didn't say that that was all there was to it.

[Nearly Sane]

I pointed out the mechanical aspect. I didn't say that that was all there was to it.

So what else is there?

[SteveH]

what about the shape of the naughty bits is relevant to a form of discrimination?

The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.

[Nearly Sane]

The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.

That's just repeating yourself. In what ways do they complement each other, leaving aside your mechanical irrelevance, that my friends John and George don't?

[floo]

The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.

Gays would disagree with you.

[Shaker]

The fact that the two sexes complement each other, whereas two of the same sex don't.

I don't think you've defined the word 'complement'? If you're going to argue that it's something that applies only to heterosexuals but mysteriously vanishes when it's a same-sex couple surely it behoves you to do so.

Oxford says: "A thing that contributes extra features to something else in such a way as to improve or emphasize its quality", which certainly can apply to gay couples, so maybe you have something else in mind.

[SteveH]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?

So other than your plugs stuff, you actually have nothing about 'complements each other' idea that makes any difference, and given you have said that it isn't significant, as you seem to to agree, at a loss as to what you are arguing.

ETA. You know when talking about sex it would be good if you showed some knowledge of how people might have sex with one and other. . Your rather simplistic idea about it being penetrative seems to be hugely simplistic but then to ignore what that might mean is scarily ignorant, but then at base the issue is you still want to define a relationship and what it means by your rather jejune view of physical love making.

[Shaker]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage

That's marriage for the disabled down the pan then.

it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.

Untrue.

Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?

Common decency by the look of it.

[Nearly Sane]

Why treat peoole equally when I don't like their bits 

[Robbie]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.

So you are saying that all gay men & women have penetrative sex ?

[Owlswing]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?

Quoted direct from the Christian book of "Our way or not at all"!

[Owlswing]

Oh, for heaven's sake: a man has a dick, and a woman has a fanny. The former fits, and is meant to fit, into the latter. Two men have to make use of the rear entrance, and two women have to use dildos. Is that clear enough? That does not mean that relationships can be reduced to the physical: two men, or two women, can have a loving, faithful, life-long relationship just as much as a man and a woman. However, since it is not the norm, I don't think it is a good idea to have gay marriage, and it isn't necessary, since civil partnerships give the same legal protection as marriage.
Floo - what entitles you to speak for gays?

What entitles you to speak against them?

[jeremyp]

I must admit that I'm not altogether happy with gay marriage myself.

Luckily for you, you don't have to do it.

Civil partnerships, which give them all the rights of married couples, by all means; and if civil partners want to call themselves married, no-one's stopping them

Good. We'll call it marriage then.

but men and women are designed (or have evolved) to complement each other in a way that two men or two women can't. That doesn't make gay relationships sinful, but it does make them the exception, not the rule, and completely equating heterosexual relations and homosexual ones is a step too far.

Since marriage equality has been the law in most of the UK since the end of 2014 and the sky has not fallen in, clearly it wasn't a step too far.

[SteveH]

What entitles you to speak against them?

I'm not speaking against them.
Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not speaking against them.
Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).

Just to be clear there are still differences between civil partnerships and marriage but even if it twere not so, and they were legally identical why indulge in a piece of apartheid because the means of making love are not always wholly identical. I do find it odd that people with this discriminatory approach always seem to think it's about bum sex

The reason you were pucked on on seeming to make it all about the plugs and sockets was when asked what way my friends relationship was not 'complementary'  in the same ways as my wife and my relationship that's what you said was the difference. Despite mentioning that there were other things, you haven't said what they are.

[Shaker]

Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm

Lots of things aren't 'the norm' but are not regarded as a bar to marriage. Why this one?

the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population.

Where's your evidence for this 'fact'?

since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples

Repeating this won't make it true.

marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap.

Good for him.

The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).

Civil partnerships, to me, were a half-hearted and second-best effort predicated on the idea that same-sex couples didn't merit full marriage. A two-tier system doesn't exactly scream equality, does it.

[Owlswing]

I'm not speaking against them.

Some posters on here have falsely accused me of thinking that a relationship is about nothing but sex. They seem to think that it's about nothing but romantic feelings. In fact, a healthy relationship is about both. Gays can certainly have a healthy relationship, but it isn't the norm, as is evidenced by the anatomical facts, and by the fact that gays form only about 2% of the population. That doesn't make it sinful, any more than anal sex between a heterosexual married couple is sinful if it's fully consenting on both sides, but since civil partnerships give gay couples all the legal rights of hetero married couples, marriage was a mere cosmetic change, made by a Tory prime minister trying to gain a reputation as a liberal sort of chap. The change that mattered was civil partnerships, introduced by Labour (and it was Labour that decriminalised gay relationships in the first place).

NO! Refusing the gay community the right to be married is discrimination imposed by the religious on those that they arbitrarily condemn as non-religious.

I know gays, male and female, who are as firmly attached to their religion as are Sassy, Alan Burns and others are to theirs.

Why do Christianity and Islam, there may also be others but I can't think of any at the moment,  demand the right to legally discriminate against anyone they choose without let or hinderance, a right denied every other individual and group in the country?

[SteveH]

Why do Christianity and Islam, there may also be others but I can't think of any at the moment,  demand the right to legally discriminate against anyone they choose without let or hinderance, a right denied every other individual and group in the country?

You have a valid point there, and I agree that they should be subject to the same equality laws as everyone else, but that's not really relevant to the topic.