[Rei Murasame]

Because no one thinks that the smoking gateway is true. There are loads of people throughout the world who smoke cigarettes and have never touched cannabis at all.

[ness31]

Because no one thinks that the smoking gateway is true. There are loads of people throughout the world who smoke cigarettes and have never touched cannabis at all.

Ah but that's the beauty of the 'gateway' line of reasoning. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound kinda right.

Bernardi hasn't done anything especially offensive here. What he's saying just isn't particularly fashionable right now. Doesn't matter anyway, the bill was defeated.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, this will diverge of topic a little, but this is a thing that I just have to touch on, Ness. Why is it that straight people always express surprise that non-straight people are offended at being surreptitiously placed in the same category as horse-fuckers and other such degenerates?

People cannot seriously be surprised to find that it is considered massively offensive. And even more so since the people who make these slippery slope arguments are fully aware that it doesn't make any sense.

Why don't they just admit that they are trying to be offensive, and then we can move forward from that position with that knowledge on the table, rather than them skulking around and acting like there is no barb involved in it?

[Suska]

Why is it that straight people always express surprise that non-straight people are offended at being surreptitiously placed in the same category as horse-fuckers and other such degenerates?

This is what I love about feminist dialog - big words. I don't mean long unfamiliar words, I mean words like "straight people" obviously Bernadi was elected supreme high representative of "straight people" and is merely delivering our democratically formulated verdict.

It is not senseless, it is in poor taste, but the point is if marriage is just whatever we feel like trying, that isn't marriage. Proscriptive, descriptive... I understand you may have a problem understanding why people are upset with the way marriage customs have drifted, to be direct, it's something god gave us. What the state has to offer has none of the authority or purpose of a traditional wedding. It's a misnomer to say that gay marriage is marriage and I maintain it is a protest. But it's a protest against god over matters of genetic and social and natural sanitation - it comes merely from looking at the world through "straights are bullies" glasses. There is no such thing as a marriage (according to the tradition) with a purely sexual basis. If gays or other progressive types want a true spiritual marriage they would not consider divorce a legitimate part of it, nor would they expect bountiful pleasure to flow from it. Marriage educates a couple about the true nature of sexuality, it isn't a celebration of the orgasm.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

it's something god gave us. What the state has to offer has none of the authority or purpose of a traditional wedding

You keep making this argument in all of your posts. It is irrelevant. Marriage is an institution of the State.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Ah but that's the beauty of the 'gateway' line of reasoning. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to sound kinda right.

But it doesn't sound kinda right, and neither do any of your exhibits. I would expect anyone (especially a member of parliament) who tried to claim any of those exhibits as true, would be roundly condemned as well.

[Suska]

Marriage is an institution of the State.

I deny that and will continue to deny it. The use of marriage as a term of democratic institution is recent, exploited and an obviously failure.

[colliric]

I deny that and will continue to deny it. The use of marriage as a term of democratic institution is recent, exploited and an obviously failure.

And I agree. State Marriage by a civil celebrant has only been around for the last 250 years or so. Pretty insignificant as compaired to it's overall history as a religious ceremony. And it only came about because Protestant states began allowing it.

[Suska]

State Marriage by a civil celebrant has only been around for the last 250 years or so.

What is that exactly? I was basing my "recent" on Civil Union which according to Wiki has been around only since 1989 where it appeared in Denmark to discourage single parenting.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

I deny that and will continue to deny it.

Good for you, but the fact is marriage is a State institution. So the State has legal representation of marriage and therefore defines what marriage is.

[colliric]

What is that exactly? I was basing my "recent" on Civil Union which according to Wiki has been around only since 1989 where it appeared in Denmark to discourage single parenting.

Marriage not performed as part of a religious ceremony by a religious minister(any kind).

[colliric]

Good for you, but the fact is marriage is a State institution. So the State has legal representation of marriage and therefore defines what marriage is.

No it's not... That only covers marriages performed by a Civil Celebrant, which as I pointed out above has only been around since the 18th century. As compaired to the thousands of years in which marriage has been a religious institution, and in some places like ancient Rome/Egypt a Religious and a state institution concurrently being that there was official religions of state.

Saying it's a state institution in it's totality is a form of disgusting discrimination against religion. Even Penny Wong had the sense enough not to make that statement saying that Gay "marriage" should be limited to Civil Weddings, or State Marriage as I put it above.

It doesn't define fully what Marriage is(Dictionaries and Religion do that) it defines what is legally permissable to be performed, for the sake of governance. It defines State Marriages alone, and the goes on to legally define what is recognised as being a legalized Marriage under other types of Marriage(Religious). A marriage is still a marriage if it's recognised as being such by a religion.... It's just not considered legal by the state. A Mormon Marrige is a Marriage defines as being such by Mormonism, but the state might consider it not to be a marriage legally.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

No it's not... That only covers marriages performed by a Civil Celebrant,

Which is the only form of legally recognisable marriage in Australia. A religious only marriage in Australia is not legal in Australia. To be legal the religious celebrant must also follow the rules as defined by the State. Same rules for civil celebrants.

[Swagman]

People cannot seriously be surprised to find that it is considered massively offensive. And even more so since the people who make these slippery slope arguments are fully aware that it doesn't make any sense.

Why don't they just admit that they are trying to be offensive, and then we can move forward from that position with that knowledge on the table, rather than them skulking around and acting like there is no barb involved in it?

Offence has nothing to do with Bernardi's point being valid.

If you are going to argue that Bernardi's point is not valid then you must also argue that the fabric of society is unchangeable. What is unacceptable to society today will never ever ever change. Which is of course ridiculous.

It is totally more offensive to me where a representative of the people cannot express a personal opinion publically without being howled down by a politically correct minority and effectively gagged by his own party that is supposed to have a platform based upon freedom of expression.

Personally I don't give a rat's about same sex marriage, marriage or civil unions. Go forth and not procreate if that so tickles your fancy. My view is that the State should stay the hell out of an individual's private affairs unless those private affairs impact on other individuals and then and only then they should make decisions based upon the whims of the majority and not pandering to PC and vocal minorities.

[Rei Murasame]

Well I find it interesting that you are all happy to let the same snivelling liberal squadron of complainers bad-talk about cousin-marriage without saying a word, but you'll step in as soon as they try to complain about Bernardi's talking point?

[colliric]

Which is the only form of legally recognisable marriage in Australia. A religious only marriage in Australia is not legal in Australia. To be legal the religious celebrant must also follow the rules as defined by the State. Same rules for civil celebrants.

Yes but you said it provided a blanket definition, which is a lie. It does not define what marriage(the word) means, it defines what is legally recognised. Even Penny Wong had the smarts to recognise that.

The definition of Marriage according to my religious faith is a sexually fruitful relationship between a man and a woman where a contract has been made with God and Church that there will be faithfulness, servitude and love for one another. That is a definition of Marriage to me and nothing the state will do can ever change that. If you try and force your definition on me, you are committing discrimination against my religious beliefs that under our laws I am free to have
And by "Sexually Fruitfull" it means having kids. Protestant or State Marriage is not considered marriage in my belief because marriage must be performed in the Church(there's exceptions such as dual ceremonies and dispensation) and Divorce doesn't exist,only annulment when the contract has been broken(ironically legal Divorce is a requirement for an annulment, but to divorce and not gain annulment before entering another relationship or taking the Eucharist, is the actual sin). I personally also believe marriage should occur between unrelated consenting adults. However I do accept others have diffrent views as it's a democracy.
.

[GandalfTheGrey]

What is unacceptable to society today will never ever ever change. Which is of course ridiculous.

what is ridiculous is the idea that two human acts - one totally acceptable to society, one totally repugnant to society - can be considered to be on the same level.

Now, for about the 5th time swag, do you actually have any argument to justify Bernardi's claim that allowing gay marriage will inevitably open the door for bestiality marriage - given the above mentioned fact regarding the distinction between the two acts?

[Swagman]

Well I find it interesting that you are all happy to let the same snivelling liberal squadron of complainers bad-talk about cousin-marriage without saying a word, but you'll step in as soon as they try to complain about Bernardi's talking point?

I assume you are replying to me? I haven't mentioned the subject of "cousin marriage" that I can recall unless you want to lob it in with incest? And who is the "snivelling liberal squadron " making the complaint?

Seriously, Swagman, how can an argument that:

[list][*][A] two consenting adults of the same gender should be able to participate in the world's lamest and most over-hyped social institution,

So you would support Father / Son, Sister / Sister, Brother / Brother or Mother / Daughter marriage assuming of course that they are "two consenting adults of the same gender"? No danger here of producing little abominations is there?

[Swagman]

what is ridiculous is the idea that two human acts - one totally acceptable to society, one totally repugnant to society - can be considered to be on the same level.

Now, for about the 5th time swag, do you actually have any argument to justify Bernardi's claim that allowing gay marriage will inevitably open the door for bestiality marriage - given the above mentioned fact regarding the distinction between the two acts?

I've already made that argument (see below)

If you are going to argue that Bernardi's point is not valid then you must also argue that the fabric of society is unchangeable. What is unacceptable to society today will never ever ever change. Which is of course ridiculous.

Are you arguing that the fabric of society is unchangeable GTG?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Are you arguing that the fabric of society is unchangeable GTG?

thats not an argument for this. I can prove to you that the "fabric of society" is changeable - by the fact that decades ago homosexuality was not acceptable in society, but today it is. The fact that society has changed is the reason why we are having this debate about gay marriage in the first place - society wants it according to any given poll on the subject, whereas there was no debate decades ago because society didn't want it. Basically legalising gay marriage represents a logical extension - legalising bestiality has no such logical extension.

So with regards to bestiality, my argument is NOT about whether or not bestiality may at some point become acceptable to society, but that you can't compare it to something that already IS acceptable to society.