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

[Shaker]

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.

There seems a curious inconsistency in invoking equality laws out of one side of your mouth while arguing against equality with the other.

[floo]

There seems a curious inconsistency in invoking equality laws out of one side of your mouth while arguing against equality with the other.

I was thinking that too.

[Rhiannon]

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?

You have an extremely limited view of sex and sexual pleasure.

As an aside, if a man is disabled and he and his wife use sex toys for her pleasure should their marriage be banned as it sits outside the ‘norm’?

[SteveH]

Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.

[Shaker]

Don't forget your ball.

[Owlswing]

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.

Yes, it is.

You are advocating denying gays equal rights of marital status.

[Owlswing]

You have an extremely limited view of sex and sexual pleasure.

As an aside, if a man is disabled and he and his wife use sex toys for her pleasure should their marriage be banned as it sits outside the ‘norm’?

Agreed!

[Robbie]

My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage;  if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships.   So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.

[Owlswing]

My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage;  if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships.   So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.

Which "some people" are you referring to and why should they have to "think themselves into gay mariage" rather than being legally entitled to a marriage like straight people.

[Owlswing]

Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.

Hoo-ray!

[SteveH]

My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage;  if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships.   So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.

Thank you for that vote of confidence!

[Owlswing]

Grout flounce over!

Rather a non-event what!

[Harrowby Hall]

Now you're being silly. I'm not posting again on this thread until someone says something new and sensible.

OK, how about this, then:

The primary purpose of marriage is to protect the ownership of property and its transmission to successive generations.

By encouraging the ready availability of sexual activity between a specific couple there is the greater likelihood that children are the product of the couple concerned. Hence family wealth is retained within the family. Religion became involved when religious leaders realised that the personal attachment between two people could be controlled by inducing guilt and shame into the relationship.

Modern marriage (due to the influence of religion) is a rather confused state with sex being subject to all kinds of moral controls.

One of the practical effects of marriage is that property can pass between spouses without control or taxation. Same sex marriage is a device which enables two men or two women who love each other the same property rights as conventional married couples. It also provides the opportunity for such couples to arrange for any children born to or conceived by one or other of the couple to become full members of a family and enjoy the rights possessed by children from conventional marriages.

And anyway, what people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is no concern of anyone else.

[floo]

My view is that some people take their time thinking theirselves into gay marriage;  if they are reasonably fair minded they will get there in the end, via civil partnerships.   So give Mr Genial time, he's gen'rally a fair bloke.

Really?

[SteveH]

OK, how about this, then:

The primary purpose of marriage is to protect the ownership of property and its transmission to successive generations.

By encouraging the ready availability of sexual activity between a specific couple there is the greater likelihood that children are the product of the couple concerned. Hence family wealth is retained within the family. Religion became involved when religious leaders realised that the personal attachment between two people could be controlled by inducing guilt and shame into the relationship.

Modern marriage (due to the influence of religion) is a rather confused state with sex being subject to all kinds of moral controls.

One of the practical effects of marriage is that property can pass between spouses without control or taxation. Same sex marriage is a device which enables two men or two women who love each other the same property rights as conventional married couples. It also provides the opportunity for such couples to arrange for any children born to or conceived by one or other of the couple to become full members of a family and enjoy the rights possessed by children from conventional marriages.

Civil partnerships do that as well.

And anyway, what people choose to do with the contents of their underwear is no concern of anyone else.

I quite agree.

[Robbie]

Really?

Seems that way to me from what I've seen.

[Shaker]

Civil partnerships do that as well.

Civil partnerships don't provide all/the same things as marriage, as you have now been told by more than one person. The differences are small, but that puts the opponent of fully equal marriage on the pointed horns not of a dilemma but of a contradiction. Either the differences are so small that it may just as well be full marriage anyway (which happily it now is) or the differences are large enough to amount to discrimination, which only a declared bigot would support.

Be that as it may, the CP institution used to uphold a two-tier system where straight people deserve marriage but CPs are good enough for gay couples who can make do with the sop they've been thrown. That's not equality; thankfully it has now been put right. If a government proposed that only same-race couples could marry whereas couples of different ethnic backgrounds could make do with something like a registered partnership or something of the kind there would be justified uproar. It would, rightly, be seen as discrimination.

Equality would be to have marriage open to anyone who wants it (which is already the case) and civil partnerships as well (which isn't, despite several legal challenges so far). That way everyone gets to choose which marital arrangement suits them. That's equality as far as I'm concerned.

[floo]

Seems that way to me from what I've seen.

 

[SteveH]

Civil partnerships don't provide all/the same things as marriage, as you have now been told by more than one person. The differences are small, but that puts the opponent of fully equal marriage on the pointed horns not of a dilemma but of a contradiction. Either the differences are so small that it may just as well be full marriage anyway (which happily it now is) or the differences are large enough to amount to discrimination, which only a declared bigot would support.

Be that as it may, the CP institution used to uphold a two-tier system where straight people deserve marriage but CPs are good enough for gay couples who can make do with the sop they've been thrown. That's not equality; thankfully it has now been put right. If a government proposed that only same-race couples could marry whereas couples of different ethnic backgrounds could make do with something like a registered partnership or something of the kind there would be justified uproar. It would, rightly, be seen as discrimination.

Equality would be to have marriage open to anyone who wants it (which is already the case) and civil partnerships as well (which isn't, despite several legal challenges so far). That way everyone gets to choose which marital arrangement suits them. That's equality as far as I'm concerned.

I understood that civil partnerships gave exactly the same legal protection as marriage, but I'm happy to be corrected, provided someone comes up with the details: I'm not just taking other posters' words for it that there is a difference.

[Robbie]

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

[jeremyp]

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

That seems like a good summary, thanks.

[Robbie]

A bit out of date because I think civil partnerships are not just confined to gay couples now, at least in some areas.  Isle-of-Man?

[Udayana]

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

But are those differences of any real significance? IIRC we have previously concluded that the only important difference is the name: that one is called "marriage" and one is called "civil-partnership".

Endless rowing over something stupid, some implied pecking order - typical human behaviour!

[Robbie]

It was the government's idea to have civil partnerships as a prelude to gay marriage. I agree the differences are minimal but they obviously matter to some people, for example Elton and David had a CP and when the law changed, got married. If I was gay it might be important to me if only as a matter of principle, I don't know. I am glad there is equality in marriage now though, even those who weren't quite sure about it are coming round.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

It was the government's idea to have civil partnerships as a prelude to gay marriage. I agree the differences are minimal but they obviously matter to some people, for example Elton and David had a CP and when the law changed, got married. If I was gay it might be important to me if only as a matter of principle, I don't know. I am glad there is equality in marriage now though, even those who weren't quite sure about it are coming round.

FTR No I am not "coming round" but we have argued this matter more times even than we have argued about abortion & I have nothing further to add.