australian senator resighs over gay marriage lead to inappropriate behavior with animals remark

[Rusticus]

State marriage should be between two or more consenting adults, and religious organisations (including Churches) shouldn't deal out state marriages.

That is why the state needs to find a different word what it does: The recognition that two persons are now an "economic unit".

Marriage has a sacred dimension to it for many religious people: most Christians regard marriage as a sacrament, Taoists feel the sacredness of marriage in the presence of (long dead) ancestors, etc, etc.

You are absolutely correct in saying that churches should not hand out state marriages. It does not make sense in present-day Australian society.
It is a hang-over from the "old country", where the Church of England was a state institution, and as such administered the marriage act for the crown (or some such thing).

In most European and Asian countries anyone wishing to get a state marriage needs to present to the registry office (or their local equivalent). Religious marriage is something one may choose to do afterwards (or before, in some cases that I am aware of on Asia).

 

[Grace51]

ok then tell us what they don't get that married couples get please. Tell us what they don't get that de-facto couples get please. The way you have phrased it is that you are against human rights as civil union is different to marriage. So by claiming you are against gay marriage is denying human rights unless you can answer my questions above.

that is not what i am trying to say.

what i am trying to say is are they getting the same rights.

because they are certianly entitled to them.

 

[TheDag]

PLEASE EXPLAIN!
(seriously though .... please elaborate what you mean)

It was a bit of sarcasm. you stated the truth but people in this discussion have a history of denying that sadly.

 

[TheDag]

That would make perfect sense if these were one-sided issues. But they're not. It doesn't matter if the main argument in favour of them is the same. What makes them different is the arguments against them. And those are not the same.

So what is the argument against them then? why has no person including you been able to answer that before. the only response so far is it hurts a non existant person! sorry but that is a stupid argument and it is also easily countered in the exact same way we deal with ppl with STDs so the argument doesn't hold anyway. so please educate me. just like you i promise to listen.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So what is the argument against them then? why has no person including you been able to answer that before. the only response so far is it hurts a non existant person! sorry but that is a stupid argument

Why is it stupid? Do you really think prevention is a bad idea? Using that logic virtually every law is stupid because they deal with potential harm.

and it is also easily countered in the exact same way we deal with ppl with STDs so the argument doesn't hold anyway.

Actually it isn't.

 

[ebia]

So what is the argument against them then? why has no person including you been able to answer that before. the only response so far is it hurts a non existant person! sorry but that is a stupid argument and it is also easily countered in the exact same way we deal with ppl with STDs so the argument doesn't hold anyway. so please educate me. just like you i promise to listen.

One reason we don't allow incest is that it's much too likely to lead to abusive, unbalanced and manipulative relationships. Essentially the same reason we have taboos and rules about certain professionals having relationships with their clients.

Incest is demonstrably bad for the community in a way homosexual marriage is not.

 

[Rusticus]

It was a bit of sarcasm. you stated the truth but people in this discussion have a history of denying that sadly.

Thank you.
I have noticed that in many (most?) discussions here on this forum many people are not really interested in the truth (or finding it), or interested in learning what's behind other people's point of view.
Actually the reason why I'm still here is that it is for me a way to learn other points of view, and to understand how these points of view are/were arrived at. (And just because we understand why it is that people think in a particular way it does not mean that we agree with them.)

 

[Genersis]

I wonder if similar things were said when women and non-whites we're granted the right to vote. That it would lead to animals, buildings, children and the deceased voting...

 

[TheDag]

Why is it stupid? Do you really think prevention is a bad idea? Using that logic virtually every law is stupid because they deal with potential harm.

Are you actually going to answer the question at all?

The argument used against incest is because there is a higher chance of birth defects. The reason it is different is that there is no guarantee that a child will be born. There is no guarantee that they would get pregnant. That is why it is some hypothetical non-existant person. What you are claiming means that it would be reasonable to charge you with murder of a child who might be born in 5 years time because hey its possible!

Actually it isn't.

I did say in previous threads that I may not be aware of changes to the law. So with that disclaimer in mind it used to be that if you had a STD then it was a crime to have non safe sex. So for incest that is simple solution as well. Make it a crime to have unsafe sex. So a bit silly to claim I think prevention is a bad idea. However as I said there are other ways around it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The argument used against incest is because there is a higher chance of birth defects.

That is one argument which has some merit. But you dismiss it as stupid so you obviously don't agree. I actually don't see any other reason why you should ban it, but that's just my opinion.

That also raises the question of same-sex incest where procreation really isn't an option. Can't say I've given that much thought and I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any good reason why that should be banned.

The reason it is different is that there is no guarantee that a child will be born. There is no guarantee that they would get pregnant. That is why it is some hypothetical non-existant person.

All laws deal with a hypothetical, non-existant event. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws in place for when hypothetical events become reality? Or are you saying that we should allow something because a hypothetical event will not become reality in every instance?

What you are claiming means that it would be reasonable to charge you with murder of a child who might be born in 5 years time because hey its possible!

That's an ad hominem argument. I cannot charge you with a crime until you break the law so why should this example be any different?

 

[TheDag]

That is one argument which has some merit. But you dismiss it as stupid so you obviously don't agree. I actually don't see any other reason why you should ban it, but that's just my opinion.

That also raises the question of same-sex incest where procreation really isn't an option. Can't say I've given that much thought and I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any good reason why that should be banned.

All laws deal with a hypothetical, non-existant event. Are you saying we shouldn't have laws in place for when hypothetical events become reality? Or are you saying that we should allow something because a hypothetical event will not become reality in every instance?


That's an ad hominem argument. I cannot charge you with a crime until you break the law so why should this example be any different?

Once your charged it is not hypothetical. if your charged with murder or attempted murder it is bexause you have done harm not because maybe you might. the last example was to show how silly the argument is. if we ban incest marriages because some imaginary person who may never ever actually come i to existance then why can't we charge someone for murder of a person who may never come into existance

 

[ebia]

Once your charged it is not hypothetical. if your charged with murder or attempted murder it is bexause you have done harm not because maybe you might. the last example was to show how silly the argument is. if we ban incest marriages because some imaginary person who may never ever actually come i to existance then why can't we charge someone for murder of a person who may never come into existance

You seem to be failing to distinguish between the banning of something, and the charging of someone for breaking a ban.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Once your charged it is not hypothetical. if your charged with murder or attempted murder it is bexause you have done harm not because maybe you might. the last example was to show how silly the argument is. if we ban incest marriages because some imaginary person who may never ever actually come i to existance then why can't we charge someone for murder of a person who may never come into existance

You are charged with murder when you kill a person, not because you could hypothetically do it. You are charged with incest when you have sex with a close relative, not because you could hypothetically produce a child.

You are confusing possible reasons for a law existing with the actual misdemeanour you are punished for.

 

[ebia]

Analogy:

Speeding is illegal because there is a danger of accident.
You get a ticket for speeding, whether or not you have an accident as a result.

 

[TheDag]

You are charged with murder when you kill a person, not because you could hypothetically do it. You are charged with incest when you have sex with a close relative, not because you could hypothetically produce a child.

You are confusing possible reasons for a law existing with the actual misdemeanour you are punished for.

Not at all. i have always been discussing the reason people give for that law existing. in this thread we have been discussing reasons for why or why not the law should be changed re gay marriage. we are discussing reasons for law not anything else. the reason for the no incest law is based on what might happen. But hey if you want go ahead and see if you can go down to the registry office and marry your sister if youreally think the only problem is of you have sex.
remember the story on the couple lefally married but turned out to be close relatives which was unknown to them at time of marriage. did you not have any discussions where ppl were revulsed by the idea that they were happy to stay together? i certainly did. guess that was because of the study i was doing at the time. the kind of course where you would spend an hour discussing it. my point is other laws like murder are not in place to prevent something that may never happen bit to punish for actions already done. if you want to say that laws are about expected behaviour then whh are we even suggesting gay marriage should b allowed? after all the law states expected behaviour. if u r happy to support changes for gay marriage based on the two arguments that it doesn't harm anyone and you should be allowed to love whoever you want then why automatic support for incest marriages? why so difficult to find support for incest? either the arguments have merit or they don't. if they don't why do so many here support that argument. why do ppl not say thats wrong and why do you suppprt gay marriage?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Not at all. i have always been discussing the reason people give for that law existing.

That doesn't alter the fact that your analogy with murder is erroneous. Why talk about punshment for murder when you should be saying that the law forbids murder because .......? Not once have you mentioned why the law forbids murder, you have been talking only about how that law is (or could be) applied.

my point is other laws like murder are not in place to prevent something that may never happen bit to punish for actions already done.

If that were the case the law would not exist until murder is committed.

I would argue that, just as with any other law, it is there to prevent something happening by stating what the potential misdemeanour is and what punishment you may expect if you break the law.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if u r happy to support changes for gay marriage based on the two arguments that it doesn't harm anyone and you should be allowed to love whoever you want then why automatic support for incest marriages? why so difficult to find support for incest? either the arguments have merit or they don't. if they don't why do so many here support that argument. why do ppl not say thats wrong and why do you suppprt gay marriage?

Another ad hominem. You are dismissing arguments against incest to imply that support for gay marriage necessitates support for incest.

 

[mathclub]

Not at all. i have always been discussing the reason people give for that law existing. in this thread we have been discussing reasons for why or why not the law should be changed re gay marriage. we are discussing reasons for law not anything else. the reason for the no incest law is based on what might happen. But hey if you want go ahead and see if you can go down to the registry office and marry your sister if youreally think the only problem is of you have sex.
remember the story on the couple lefally married but turned out to be close relatives which was unknown to them at time of marriage. did you not have any discussions where ppl were revulsed by the idea that they were happy to stay together? i certainly did. guess that was because of the study i was doing at the time. the kind of course where you would spend an hour discussing it. my point is other laws like murder are not in place to prevent something that may never happen bit to punish for actions already done. if you want to say that laws are about expected behaviour then whh are we even suggesting gay marriage should b allowed? after all the law states expected behaviour. if u r happy to support changes for gay marriage based on the two arguments that it doesn't harm anyone and you should be allowed to love whoever you want then why automatic support for incest marriages? why so difficult to find support for incest? either the arguments have merit or they don't. if they don't why do so many here support that argument. why do ppl not say thats wrong and why do you suppprt gay marriage?

I';ve thought about it.

I don't see any reason for incest to be banned.

If consenting adults want to have sex and do whatever, and they are not harming anyone then go for it.

What tipped me was considering the fact that even though there is an increased rate of birth defects, this apparently is not enough of a reason to stop other couples having sex.

Ie if you have a woman over 40 getting pregnant the chance of downs syndrome goes way up. if you have people with similar family medical history of conditions passed on genetically the chances of the kids having many health issues go way up. If you have aids you can opt to have unprotected sex and have an aids baby if you want (as far as I know).

Therefore if we are not going to ban sex for this reason across all groups (increased birth defects) then I don't see why incest should be illegal.

Please feel free to show me why I am wrong, if you feel that I am, but I currently can't think of what 'harm' incest between consenting adults would cause, that is also legislated against in other similar cases.

What's the harm caused?

 

[TheDag]

Another ad hominem. You are dismissing arguments against incest to imply that support for gay marriage necessitates support for incest.

Well then answer my question. i have asked numerous times in numerous threads and i'm almost certain in this thread what the argument against incest is. the only response i normally get is increased risk of birth defects. mathsclub has kindly explained why thatshould not be a consideration. see his post above number 38.

 

[Spiritlight]

I think my cat has the right to be gay and adopt. I think he should be able to marry our male dog.

whats next snal gay rights?
LOL what are we becoming guys? Are we stupid or what? It has no end!