Same sex marriage vote in Australia.

[2DUM2TAP]

Yeah right

All those “socially advance countries” have big issue with low birthrates.

To deal with this they need to bring in ppl from those “shitholes” who share non of those regressive values

Once the number of those “shitholers” becomes significant whose ideology gonna prevail?

Yours (couple of decades old regressive ideology)

or theirs (1500 year old ideology that withstood tear of time)?

That’s what happens when you can’t see further than the end of your own nose

The whole world has a big issue with high birth rates.
Advanced countries are smart enough to know that they can only have as many children as they can afford to raise. We bring in people from other countries to replace a decline in the work force from the boomer age retiring. Here in Canada we also have the second largest country in the world by landmass and only a population of 34 million people.

 

[shockaholic12]

This is a sign when someone’s losing an argument: they accuse other person of supporting: pedophilia, bestiality, incest...

Again for x time marriage is between a man n a woman

Not man n girl, boy n woman, man n man...

Definition is pretty clear, you seem to have issue with it n changing the definition.

Now of course definition of woman has changed over time n today a woman is a person of 18 years or older. Same with man

However that didn’t change the essence of marriage.

By changing the definition of marriage (no longer between a man n a woman) you open the door to other potential changes

Man n animal

Man n child

Brother n sister

Again following your logic there should be no prevention for siblings to get married

Both are “consenting adults” which seems the only criteria in your definition

LOL at you thinking the government and laws exist to promote the "essence" of your beliefs on other's lives. That is level 1000 snowflake right there. Wet paper bags have thicker skin. You can have your marriage and it's essence can be whatever you want it to be. Why are you obsessed with everyone sharing your "essence" is creepy. Mind your own business.

And you're still all over the place.

"you can't change the definition of marriage because it has a long tradition" .... "Wait, actually you can change the definition of marriage, but only by age. It doesn't matter if it's not what's traditional." "Except you can't change the definition of marriage by gender ... because tradition".

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Wow this thread was frustrating to read. Grimballer is officially the worst poster here.

Lack of nuance, ass backwards, repetitive "reasoning" which is basically a rundown of every logical fallacy ever.

He might be dumber than Bloodworth.
I had to bow out after the first interaction. I don’t know how anyone had the patience to deal with him for page after page.

 

[grimballer]

LOL at you thinking the government and laws exist to promote the "essence" of your beliefs on other's lives. That is level 1000 snowflake right there. Wet paper bags have thicker skin. You can have your marriage and it's essence can be whatever you want it to be. Why are you obsessed with everyone sharing your "essence" is creepy. Mind your own business.

And you're still all over the place.

"you can't change the definition of marriage because it has a long tradition" .... "Wait, actually you can change the definition of marriage, but only by age. It doesn't matter if it's not what's traditional." "Except you can't change the definition of marriage by gender ... because tradition".

Getting desperate, are we?

Every society has its values n believes, n guess what? Even the one you live in.

Society imposes the norms ppl are supposed to live by.

To enforce those norms there’s are laws in place

Ppl who violate those laws are punished as simple as that.

Without those laws n norms ppl could do whatever they want. Even a simpleton like you is aware of that.

That’s why things like pedophilia, bestiality n incest are banned in society. They are not part of the norm n values.

But things change overtime

Homosexuality also wasn’t part of norms n values n at one point (50 years ago) it was a criminal offence

Overtime regressives n gay lobby bullied apa to remove homosexualy from disorder list n overnight homosexuality was “no longer a disorder”.

Also overtime regressive indoctrinated gullible college fools like you into thinking homosexuality is perfectly normal n is same as heterosexuality.

 

[shockaholic12]

Getting desperate, are we?

Every society has its values n believes, n guess what? Even the one you live in.

Society imposes the norms ppl are supposed to live by.

To enforce those norms there’s are laws in place

Ppl who violate those laws are punished as simple as that.

Without those laws n norms ppl could do whatever they want. Even a simpleton like you is aware of that.

That’s why things like pedophilia, bestiality n incest are banned in society. They are not part of the norm n values.

But things change overtime

Homosexuality also wasn’t part of norms n values n at one point (50 years ago) it was a criminal offence

Overtime regressives n gay lobby bullied apa to remove homosexualy from disorder list n overnight homosexuality was “no longer a disorder”.

Also overtime regressive indoctrinated gullible college fools like you into thinking homosexuality is perfectly normal n is same as heterosexuality.

Pedophilla, incest, beastiality all have victims. Are you arguing that you are a victim of a gay couple entering a legal contract? C'mon bud, grow a pair. This victim complex you have is next level.

 

[grimballer]

Pedophilla, incest, beastiality all have victims. Are you arguing that you are a victim of a gay couple entering a legal contract? C'mon bud, grow a pair. This victim complex you have is next level.

Straw man...

Even then it’s a bad argument as who/what is a victim is once again a social construct, subjective n determined by norms n values of a society.

You’re basically saying:

“these are no good, cause it’s the law”

Cool!

So if we had this conversation 15 years ago regarding ssm n you ask me why ssm is no good n I tell you it’s the law, you’ll accept it n move on?

So again homosexuality itself was considered unacceptable by the norms of society n a disorder by professionals in the field

Overtime with bully tactics by radical left n homosexual lobby homosexuality was no longer classified as a disorder n slowly accepted by common folk. It didn’t happen overnight. It was 1st tolerated, then accepted n now considered perfectly “normal”

Same pattern could be followed in “normalizing” things like incest, pedophilia, bestiality...

 

[shockaholic12]

Straw man...

Even then it’s a bad argument as who/what is a victim is once again a social construct, subjective n determined by norms n values of a society.

You’re basically saying:

“these are no good, cause it’s the law”

Cool!

So if we had this conversation 15 years ago regarding ssm n you ask me why ssm is no good n I tell you it’s the law, you’ll accept it n move on?

So again homosexuality itself was considered unacceptable by the norms of society n a disorder by professionals in the field

Overtime with bully tactics by radical left n homosexual lobby homosexuality was no longer classified as a disorder n slowly accepted by common folk. It didn’t happen overnight. It was 1st tolerated, then accepted n now considered perfectly “normal”

Same pattern could be followed in “normalizing” things like incest, pedophilia, bestiality...

Not even close. I'm saying those are no good because there are victims. A child or animal that didn't have the mental faculties to consent to a legal contract with an adult or sex with one, or genetically mutated offspring.

There are no victims of two men or women marrying, I would have said the same 15 years ago but admitted marriage was at that time between heterosexuals because it's a legal contract and the was the legal situation. I'd argue against it but not based on cherry picking parts of its tradition but the logic that it's victimless.

I don't give a shit what people want the norm to be, unless you can argue the act crosses a threshold where it constistnely victimizes innocent citizens a vast majority of the time it doesn't need to be banned.

Homosexuality stopped being widely thought of as a disorder and dropped from the DSM 30 years ago, not fifteen.

Lol at bullying tactics. I knew you had a victim thing.

You have gone on and on about the way things used to be but haven't made an argument yet.

 

[HIMBOB]

Best argument against changing the law seems to be it could lead to other laws changing.

Best argument for is that the people want it.

And new.... same sex marriage is legal.

 

[grimballer]

Not even close. I'm saying those are no good because there are victims. A child or animal that didn't have the mental faculties to consent to a legal contract with an adult or sex with one, or genetically mutated offspring.

There are no victims of two men or women marrying, I would have said the same 15 years ago but admitted marriage was at that time between heterosexuals because it's a legal contract and the was the legal situation. I'd argue against it but not based on cherry picking parts of its tradition but the logic that it's victimless.

I don't give a shit what people want the norm to be, unless you can argue the act crosses a threshold where it constistnely victimizes innocent citizens a vast majority of the time it doesn't need to be banned.

Homosexuality stopped being widely thought of as a disorder and dropped from the DSM 30 years ago, not fifteen.

Lol at bullying tactics. I knew you had a victim thing.

You have gone on and on about the way things used to be but haven't made an argument yet.

you’re using “it’s bad cause the law” argument again.

Who/what is a victim is subjective n matter of interpretation.

Ppl can castrate n slaughter animals for consumption

I’m guessing they’re not “victims” in that case, but somebody deciding to “marry” an animal turns them into victims?

Don’t think too many animals “consent” to be slaughtered n become food, yet we still do it.

When it comes to children...

If a 13 or 14 year old accepts 40 years old marriage proposition, where’s the actual victim?

So again you’re just going by legal definition of age of consent that can vary from place to place.

If a 15 year old got married in a place where age of consent is 14 n then moves to a place where age of consent is 16, does he/she magically lose the ability to consent n becomes a victim or did the law just change?

But let’s go even further... what if 2 12 year olds want to get married? There’s no victims there, so what’s the problem?

When it comes to incest...

you said marriage is not about having children, it’s about 2 adults deciding to live together n it’s not governments business whether they want kids or not. Government doesn’t go around denying ppl marriage licences based on their health n medical conditions they might have. Also what would be the problem if two brothers of sisters want to get married? They can have kids together, so where’s the problem?