[Pants-of-dog]

I have no idea why you would think that. That would be totally contrary to my views on local autonomy. I believe a community should be allowed to make either choice since neither choice is inherently right or wrong IMO.

Most "local autonomy" people also oppose gay marriage. They feel the federal government has no right to enforce equality on their community, and that they should therefore be allowed to oppress people.

[Donna]

Gay marriage is a punchline, not a right.

[Pants-of-dog]

Gay marriage is a punchline, ....

...and homophobia is the joke!

[One Degree]

Most "local autonomy" people also oppose gay marriage. They feel the federal government has no right to enforce equality on their community, and that they should therefore be allowed to oppress people.

I would say they don't actually believe in local autonomy then. We need to respect the choices of other communities if we expect them to respect ours. I agree however most of these decisions should not be made by the Federal government, but that is currently how things work.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say they don't actually believe in local autonomy then. We need to respect the choices of other communities if we expect them to respect ours. I agree however most of these decisions should not be made by the Federal government, but that is currently how things work.

You also criticise those who support gay marriage and never criticise those who oppose it.

[Donna]

...and homophobia is the joke!

Homosex is a fetish that depends on homophobia to fuel its life forces.

[One Degree]

You also criticise those who support gay marriage and never criticise those who oppose it.

You need to provide actual quotes for me to know what you are referencing. Any criticism I can think of would probably be about accepting it on a national level, which is true of me on about all issues. The most controversial comment I can think I ever made was homosexuality is totally alien to be so I don't pretend to understand it.

[Clangeddin]

Double standards piss me off. Either they get marriage or nobody gets it, the latter being the best case scenario imho, but I can settle for a second best in allowing gay marriage along with straight marriage, just because it would probably be too unpopular outlawing marriage in general, best if I don't continue, I'm very "dystopian" when it comes to this subject.

[Pants-of-dog]

Homosex is a fetish that depends on homophobia to fuel its life forces.

I doubt it. Since homophobia is a reaction to homosexuality, it would make no sense to argue that homosexuality is a reaction to homophobia.

"Oh look! Fag bashers! I am inspired to have sex with people of my own gender!"

------------------

You need to provide actual quotes for me to know what you are referencing. Any criticism I can think of would probably be about accepting it on a national level, which is true of me on about all issues. The most controversial comment I can think I ever made was homosexuality is totally alien to be so I don't pretend to understand it.

Do you support equality?

[snapdragon]

I don't believe in state recognised marriage for anyone gay or straight. If two people (or three or four people why the hell not) want to have a big party (perhaps with priest and perhaps not) and then declare themselves to be married then it is up to them but I don't see why the state should be expected to care about it. We don't have contracts when we make a new friend or a "divorce" when we stop being friends with someone and that system works perfectly well.

Not all the time. Not when a spouse will need the protection of being a legal spouse.
For instance, friends of mine are finally getting married in their 50s. This is because the man has terminal cancer and wants his partner to be able claim a widow's pension and other benefits when the time comes. I'm so glad, because it's been bothering me for ages that she was going to be left pretty much destitute when he finally pops his clogs

The government should be building houses and providing full employment and giving arms to communist revolutionaries across the world so those people can be free too. It should not be concerning itself with what two consenting adults choose to call each other while they are in a relationship. It makes no difference to anyone but as usual the right want the state butting into people's private lives to a silly degree and want legislation on marriage as if it was some sort of vital government function.

It does make a difference. If the government was to do away with marriage allowances, then they'd have to replace them with something else. I have no objection to that, but I don't trust them to do it.

People generally behave like shit to each other if they can get away with it, especially right wingers.
It's not unknown for them to keep their child's partner away from their hospital death bed , just out of spite.

[redcarpet]

I doubt a heterosexual version of myself wouldn't be socially liberal. All forms of social persecution in my view are immoral, unfair, waste of tax money & effort.

I find it absurd, it's clearly a deception, for the bigots to claim the 1-man 1-woman combination is the 'traditional' form of recognised couples when it's not. Polygamy is.

Also to claim GLBTIQ people can do ANYTHING within the law without their liberty breached in the Western World, is garbage. That's not always the case. The social conservatives in the USA and our rednecks in Australia are still dragging their feet on full equalisation of laws, esp. in redneck Queensland.

EDIT:

Those interested in the 'traditional' position on marriage, sex and other matters, I suggest for one example listen/watch this interview with a Professor in Religion

[youtube]PLe5JjMY42eiJPvmsghefft1UmEj5K7tXc[/youtube]

[Know It All]

Well, I started the subject a few days ago, and had put it on the POLITICAL CIRCUS forum. I only just found it. It's good to see an array of opinions, some I agree with, and others I don't.

It's interesting that only today that a straight couple in the UK just lost a case to have a civil partnership. In my opinion this is extremely hypocritical on behalf of the state. Now it would appear that gay couples actuall have MORE rights than straight ones.

Whilst I disagree with gay marriage for the reasons I have quoted, these are reasons that don't make my blood boil, but what does make my blood boil is gay couples (married or otherwise) who are permitted to adopt children. SURELY this is bloody wrong. I don't care if they are a loving couple with bags of money, the point is that the children are being brought up in an unhealthy environment are will be subject to bullying at school. Some people may argue that there are many straight couples who shouldn't be able to have children. This I would agree with, but has nothing to do with my point.

[h3s]

I don't believe in state recognised marriage for anyone gay or straight. If two people (or three or four people why the hell not) want to have a big party (perhaps with priest and perhaps not) and then declare themselves to be married then it is up to them but I don't see why the state should be expected to care about it. We don't have contracts when we make a new friend or a "divorce" when we stop being friends with someone and that system works perfectly well.

The government should be building houses and providing full employment and giving arms to communist revolutionaries across the world so those people can be free too. It should not be concerning itself with what two consenting adults choose to call each other while they are in a relationship. It makes no difference to anyone but as usual the right want the state butting into people's private lives to a silly degree and want legislation on marriage as if it was some sort of vital government function.

And shoot all the people that they deem to be fascist, for communism is so natural and embraced by people that every single attempt at it had to be militarized to some extent.

I think that Marriage should stay between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, and if people want to participate in it, there should be no economical advantages associated with it. The government should only promote life reassuring principles - relationships between two people of the same sex, as well as adoption of kids by two people of the same sex is not one of them, and moreover - degenerate

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@Know It All, again, do you know anything at all about Graham Chapman?

[Pants-of-dog]

Well, I started the subject a few days ago, and had put it on the POLITICAL CIRCUS forum. I only just found it. It's good to see an array of opinions, some I agree with, and others I don't.

I find the arguments more interesting than the opinions, myself.

It's interesting that only today that a straight couple in the UK just lost a case to have a civil partnership. In my opinion this is extremely hypocritical on behalf of the state. Now it would appear that gay couples actuall have MORE rights than straight ones.

Please provide a link to a news article from a respected newspaper that supports this claim. Thank you.

Whilst I disagree with gay marriage for the reasons I have quoted, these are reasons that don't make my blood boil, but what does make my blood boil is gay couples (married or otherwise) who are permitted to adopt children. SURELY this is bloody wrong. I don't care if they are a loving couple with bags of money, the point is that the children are being brought up in an unhealthy environment are will be subject to bullying at school. Some people may argue that there are many straight couples who shouldn't be able to have children. This I would agree with, but has nothing to do with my point.

Please provide a link to a study that shows that homosexual parents are somehow more harmful to the child than hetersexual parents. Thank you.

-----------------

And shoot all the people that they deem to be fascist, for communism is so natural and embraced by people that every single attempt at it had to be militarized to some extent.

Allende was a socialist who was democratically elected.

I think that Marriage should stay between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is an oxymoron, and if people want to participate in it, there should be no economical advantages associated with it. The government should only promote life reassuring principles - relationships between two people of the same sex, as well as adoption of kids by two people of the same sex is not one of them, and moreover - degenerate

No one cares if you feel that it is degenerate. We do not base government policy on your feelings.

------------------

@Know It All, again, do you know anything at all about Graham Chapman?

I did not know until you mentioned it. Hilarious!

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It's interesting that only today that a straight couple in the UK just lost a case to have a civil partnership. In my opinion this is extremely hypocritical on behalf of the state. Now it would appear that gay couples actuall have MORE rights than straight ones.

Please provide a link to a news article from a respected newspaper that supports this claim. Thank you.

The case is in the news, eg https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ourt-rules

It's because same sex couples at first had civil partnerships but weren't allowed marriages, then were allowed the latter without the former being stopped. The government has said it would wait and see the demand for new civil partnerships before deciding what to do (it could say 'no new partnerships for anyone'). The court said "you're going to have to change something soon". The difference between the 2, in legal terms, is extremely small (a marriage is, I think, slightly better for the backdating of some form of survivor's pension rights; and civil partnerships may not be recognised abroad), and the idea of not wanting it called a 'marriage' seems to be about their feelings of what 'marriage' invokes.

[snapdragon]

interesting. I thought it was because they wanted to be difficult.

[skinster]

ITT rightwingers triggered by how others live, part 2499.

[Decky]

I don't understand right wing politicians. If they hate gays so much why are they always caught in public toilets with gigolos?

[mikema63]

How could you resist a nice juicy penis? It's an additiction clearly, like smoking it should be prohibited.