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

[Robbie]

I had no idea of your views on the subject Humph & wasn't thinking of people on R&E but those I've read about in publications (including Christians), and some that I've met who feel differently now to how they did a few years ago.

[SteveH]

https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-centre/blog/2016/01/what-are-the-differences-between-marriage-and-civil-partnership/

ok, but the legal protection provided is the same.

[Nearly Sane]

ok, but the legal protection provided is the same.

Not quite, but as I covered earlier, let's suppose they are exactly the same, what's the justification for this apartheid you want?

[SteveH]

I've already given it.

[Nearly Sane]

I've already given it.

Where?

[SteveH]

Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.

[Shaker]

Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.

1. My answer to anybody who invokes "the norm" as a justification for doing/not doing something is usually the Fry response - so fucking what?

2. Do you apply that principle equally, i.e. to other things which aren't the norm either?

I seem to recall that two people (I was one, Rhiannon the other) who asked this with regard to disabled people. What's it to be this time - flounce or answer?

[Sebastian Toe]

Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.

..just for marriage or is there any other area which needs to be considered?

[Nearly Sane]

Upthread. I haven't got time to find the relevant post now. I'll do so later, but basically, it was that while homosexual activity isn't sinful, it isn't the norm either, and shouldn't be treated as absolutely on a par with heterosexuality.

So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?

[Shaker]

So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?

That's the third time ...

[Owlswing]

That's the third time ...

It appears that the answer to your question is - FLOUNCE!

[Nearly Sane]

It appears that the answer to your question is - FLOUNCE!

People not answering questions instantaneously, or indeed ever is not s flounce, not does it mean they are wrong.

[Aruntraveller]

Leaving aside flounces, no one has ever given an answer to me as to why my partnership shouldnt be considered equal to any of my straight counterparts. And noone has ever quantified how it affects their marriage in any way. It really sounds to me like the dying howls of some assumed right and privelidge being dealt a long awaited death blow.

And if you really are worried about marriage just think it survived Britney Spears, the Gabors, Liz Taylor. There is nothing gay people can throw at marriage that it won't easily overcome.

[SteveH]

So because disabled people aren't the norm- you support apartheid for them?

I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.

[Robbie]

Though I am more than happy that we now have gay marriage I completely get where you're coming from & don't see you as being discriminating in any way. Deliberately misunderstood more like.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.

Yes, you do. You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.

If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.

[Nearly Sane]

Though I am more than happy that we now have gay marriage I completely get where you're coming from & don't see you as being discriminating in any way. Deliberately misunderstood more like.

so if he usn't being discriminatory why does he want to treat Trentvoyaget differently? And why are you suggesting Trent is lying in his objection to being treated differently?

[SteveH]

Yes, you do. You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.

If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.

It's your ridiculous false analogies that are becoming tedious.

[Aruntraveller]

I don't support apartheid for anyone - that's your word, not mine. What's wrong with marriage for heteros and civil partnerships for homos, with marriage and civil partnerships being regarded as equal? Disability is a completely irrelevant point.

So what if we swap it around. Gays get married. Heterosexuals get civil partnerships. Same rights ok? So whats the difference?
Except somewhere there must be a difference otherwise you would not be advocating the distinction.

[wigginhall]

It's the idea of complementarity that baffles me.   I suppose the argument is that some slots and tabs are 'designed' to fit, but some others are not, these being to do with gay sex, even though straight people use similar methods, e.g. anal sex, oral sex.  If it's not a design argument, then I can't see the point.   After all, people have sex in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways, why should this produce apartheid in marriage? 

[Robbie]

to Genital Hairy Peaseblossom.
...You support tge idea of treating people differently and saying it's equal. Which is what apartheid meant in theory.

If you support it for homosexuals, what not disabled? Or colours? Your avoidance of actually making a case other tgan plugs and sockets is becoming tedious.

Your badgering isn't going to change his mind.

So what if we swap it around. Gays get married. Heterosexuals get civil partnerships. Same rights ok? So whats the difference?
Except somewhere there must be a difference otherwise you would not be advocating the distinction.

There must be a difference otherwise gay people wouldn't care and would have stayed with CP.  Which is why I am in favour of gay marriage - because it's important to them, if not to me; I can't pretend to understand it completely.  I said as much in a previous post to Humph.

I have more problems getting my head around why heterosexual couples - and I mean cohabitating couples, not two friends or relatives who've lived together for years - would want a civil partnership.

[SteveH]

Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.

[Shaker]

Leaving aside flounces, no one has ever given an answer to me as to why my partnership shouldnt be considered equal to any of my straight counterparts.

Because you're not the Norm.

Clearly I don't know your other half's name, obviously.

[Shaker]

Continue this ridiculous argument among yourselves - I'm off, and you are welcome to call it a flounce if it makes you feel better.

Doesn't exactly bespeak of somebody with a well-thought-out, closely reasoned case capable of standing up to questioning and critique, does it?

[Nearly Sane]

Why is asking him to justify his position as Trentvoyager has done 'badgering'? Why did you suggest Trentvoyager was deliberately misrepresenting peopke with his objection?