Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls. New! ELECTION 2016, Issues and Leaders

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby johnsmith » 14 Oct 2018, 10:45

DonDeeHippy wrote:
johnsmith wrote:I agree that is probably the ideal that kids grow up with their perfectly functioning mums and dads, but if the kids up for adoption, that option is already taken off the table. Well functioning mums and dads don't give their kids up for adoption.



On a side note, I heard a child psychologist at a parenting class once say that parents shouldn't beat themselves up when they make a mistake. They only need to get it right about 25% of the time and the stats show the kids will grow up to be well functioning socially adept human. Not sure how they test something like that but if that's true, even gay parents can get it right at least 25% of the time.

Bi parents should get it right 50% of the time :purple



same with muslims and blacks.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:15

DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand.

u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple


It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:23

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
HBS Guy wrote:
I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.


This has been shown to be not so. It is just an expression of homophobia expressed in a way that it doesn’t sound like homophobia.


I think that the jury is still out on these facts. It is well known that a mother's natural breast milk is better for a baby than formula. And I have of cases where children without fathers tend to be more aggressive.


And more than a few cases in which women can not breast feed and beat themselves up enough without your value judgment ... or where children learn aggression from their fathers.

Look, the bottom line is you don't get to make the claim that you know what is ideal for anyone. You don't get to tell sole parent families or same parent families that they are substandard ... weaker units ... compromised. Do you hear yourself?

There many ways to be a family. All any child needs is someone to support in them and their basic needs met. With that basis, you can raise a perfectly useful human being. Role models can be found all over the place.

Creating a hierarchy of which is "better" is just fucking rude.


No you’re right. I’m sorry.

But no need to be hostile to a misguided person.


Auggie, i apologise if i came across as hostile. It wasn't intended. Passion and defense of the non-traditional was my intention.

I would ask people such as yourself who are inclined to place humans on hierarchies how their assessments feel to those who place down the ladder, especially when it comes to something as pervasive, all-consuming and identity defining as paranthood.

Do you really think families, parents or children, benefit from people postulating their defecits, ascribed to them by people who have never even met them?

You clearly read widely and prosess significant amounts of information. Yet time and again, you stoop to pass judgment or at least offer value statements, on matters in which you have little to know intimate understanding.

I think in your haste to make sense of people, you often forget the people themselves.


Yes, I accept hierarchies Mothra, and I also obey hierarchies and am a willing to put myself below other people for the benefit of the hierarchy. I do as I'm told willingly.

I believe that I pass judgement on other people who fail to obey hierarchies when they should do so as I do. I also pass judgement on them when they fail to make personal sacrifices at the expense of their well being as I have done so.

I will never ask a person to make a sacrifice that I have not made myself.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:24

Obedience is the key to happiness.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby mothra » 14 Oct 2018, 12:33

Auggie wrote:Yes, I accept hierarchies Mothra, and I also obey hierarchies and am a willing to put myself below other people for the benefit of the hierarchy. I do as I'm told willingly.

I believe that I pass judgement on other people who fail to obey hierarchies when they should do so as I do. I also pass judgement on them when they fail to make personal sacrifices at the expense of their well being as I have done so.

I will never ask a person to make a sacrifice that I have not made myself.



So you're a failed elitist.

How magnanimous of you to offer to wear the sack cloth along with those you have deigned to be wanting.

I, on the other hand, strive to encourage the very best in people. I believe that even impoverished sole parents without any support can both love their children and raise kind, compassionate, thinking, contributing members of society. In fact, i have more faith that they will than those on the other end of the scale.

Furthermore, i believe many of our most inspiring people have had rough starts.

I believe in supporting people through positive affirmation, example and provision of support for areas in which they may be in need.

You seem to place all of your emphasis on ideals. I suspect you are not yet experienced enough to understand that there is absolutely no such thing. There aree just shmucks who tick boxes ... or don't.

My parenting skills are not measured by any other worthwhile thing than the ability of my children to be compassionate, considerate, thoughtful, contributing members of society who are okay in their own skins and seek to do as little harm as possible. My financial and sexual particulars have limited bearing on that.

It is clear that you place emphasis on the material over the personal. I believe experience will teach you differently.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby mothra » 14 Oct 2018, 12:33

Auggie wrote:Obedience is the key to happiness.



Strongly disagree.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby DonDeeHippy » 14 Oct 2018, 12:39

Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand.

u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple


It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.

but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 21:18
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:48

DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand.

u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple


It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.

but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple


Are you saying that homosexuality is a sex?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:56

mothra wrote:So you're a failed elitist.

How magnanimous of you to offer to wear the sack cloth along with those you have deigned to be wanting.

I, on the other hand, strive to encourage the very best in people. I believe that even impoverished sole parents without any support can both love their children and raise kind, compassionate, thinking, contributing members of society. In fact, i have more faith that they will than those on the other end of the scale.

Furthermore, i believe many of our most inspiring people have had rough starts.

I believe in supporting people through positive affirmation, example and provision of support for areas in which they may be in need.

You seem to place all of your emphasis on ideals. I suspect you are not yet experienced enough to understand that there is absolutely no such thing. There aree just shmucks who tick boxes ... or don't.

My parenting skills are not measured by any other worthwhile thing than the ability of my children to be compassionate, considerate, thoughtful, contributing members of society who are okay in their own skins and seek to do as little harm as possible. My financial and sexual particulars have limited bearing on that.

It is clear that you place emphasis on the material over the personal. I believe experience will teach you differently.


I actually don't place any emphasis on the material. I don't even own a television or have the latest iPhone. If I emphasized material things, then wouldn't I be also buying the latest gismo and gadgets?

Regarding your parenting, I have no comment nor any desire to discuss that. That's your business and none of mine. I'm sure that you and your partner (if you have one) are great parents and your children are great. I commend you for your sacrifice and your role as a parent in society.

Maybe it's because you have children, and I don't. I don't know. When you have very little to lose you're willing to wear the 'sack cloth' as you put it. Maybe I am a failed elitist or maybe I'm just a brain-washed stooge, who knows?

And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life? Sure, helping them is needed, but I think we fail to encourage young people to make the correct decisions and choices in life.

Don't you think that if people made better decisions, then a lot of society's problems would be solved?
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 12:56

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:Obedience is the key to happiness.



Strongly disagree.


Fair enough. It may work for some people, it may not for others. Each to their own.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby DonDeeHippy » 14 Oct 2018, 12:58

Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand.

u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple


It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.

but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple


Are you saying that homosexuality is a sex?

ummm r u saying same sex is unnatural ?
so if they r the same sex it cant be 2 natural sex's :purple
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 21:18
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 13:02

DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand.

u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple


It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.

but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple


Are you saying that homosexuality is a sex?

ummm r u saying same sex is unnatural ?
so if they r the same sex it cant be 2 natural sex's :purple


Ah, I don't know, Don! It's all contradictory. I believe that homosexuality is natural.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby DonDeeHippy » 14 Oct 2018, 13:10

Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand. u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple

It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple


Are you saying that homosexuality is a sex?

ummm r u saying same sex is unnatural ?
so if they r the same sex it cant be 2 natural sex's :purple[/quote]

Ah, I don't know, Don! It's all contradictory. I believe that homosexuality is natural.[/quote]
ok then if its a natural state then why shouldn't that couple get married, do u think its right for them to be punished for not being a man and a woman ?
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 21:18
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 13:11

DonDeeHippy wrote:
Auggie wrote:
DonDeeHippy wrote:Recently, I have been swinging back and forth on the concept of same-sex marriage. Initially I was in favour of it but now I am not so sure. Please help me to understand it.

First of all, it's important to state that I don't believe that homosexuality is unnatural or is a sin, as many conservatives assert. I believe that homosexuality is completely natural and I also support the use of the government using its coercive power to defend and protect the rights of homosexuals from discrimination and vilification.

I also believe in the idea of the natural family: that is that children are best raised in the environment with a mother and a father as opposed as to two fathers or two mothers.

There is also something unique about integration between men and women. Such integration promotes harmony and civilizes both men and women into acceptance of the other. By conferring on the integration between men and women a unique status - i.e. marriage, we are also prioritizing the harmony between the two natural sexes of mankind.

By recognizing marriage of same-sex couples of equal terms to men and women, wouldn't this erode the harmony of relations between men and women? Sure, same-sex couples should have relationship legally recognised in the form of civil unions, but should such union be as important or on equal terms with a man and a woman? I'm not so sure.

Second, I'm not sure if same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. Of course, I wouldn't take away children of any existing same-sex couples, but I don't believe that future same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.

Please help me to understand. u have to think about if its unnatural or not...…
If 2 people love each other and want to tie the knot, how will that erode the harmony of another couple. :purple

It doesn't erode the harmony of other people. My point was that whether or not the state should uniquely recognize the union of the two natural sexes over other types of relationships.but u said u don't see homosexuality as being unnatural...….. if that is the case then what point r u making about the union of 2 natural sexes...….. :purple


Are you saying that homosexuality is a sex?

ummm r u saying same sex is unnatural ?
so if they r the same sex it cant be 2 natural sex's :purple


Ah, I don't know, Don! It's all contradictory. I believe that homosexuality is natural.[/quote]

ok then if its a natural state then why shouldn't that couple get married, do u think its right for them to be punished for not being a man and a woman ?[/quote]

No, I don't think it's right.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby johnsmith » 14 Oct 2018, 13:19

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:Obedience is the key to happiness.



Strongly disagree.



so do I. I doubt the slave who obeyed his master for fear of being fed to the dogs was happy about it.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby johnsmith » 14 Oct 2018, 13:23

Auggie wrote:And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life?


better for you? or better for them?

who decides whats better? Morrison? Abbott? Shorten? The local priest? the local drug dealer?
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby DonDeeHippy » 14 Oct 2018, 13:26

ok another thing about same sex marriages is that if a couple are not married and one dies.... the surviving person has no rights over their dead partner..
If say a couple have been together 30 years and their families have disowned them... that can be a very awful thing.... im sure aussie would be able to put it in much better words than I am. :purple
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Pitbull terrier
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 21:18
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 13:27

johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life?


better for you? or better for them?

who decides whats better? Morrison? Abbott? Shorten? The local priest? the local drug dealer?


Here are three decisions which all people should make:

1) finish high school;

2) get a job;

3) don't have a kid before you get married.

Can we agree that these are three things that we should teach all teenagers??
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 13:33

johnsmith wrote:
mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:Obedience is the key to happiness.



Strongly disagree.



so do I. I doubt the slave who obeyed his master for fear of being fed to the dogs was happy about it.


It's a two-way street, JS. The master has obligations too. The system doesn't work when one or either of these hierarchies don't fulfill their obligations.

A slave-master relationship is not an example of this.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby johnsmith » 14 Oct 2018, 13:56

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life?


better for you? or better for them?

who decides whats better? Morrison? Abbott? Shorten? The local priest? the local drug dealer?


Here are three decisions which all people should make:

1) finish high school;

2) get a job;

3) don't have a kid before you get married.

Can we agree that these are three things that we should teach all teenagers??


no.

1.Finish high school while preferable, may not suit everyone. If your child is academically challenged but good with his hands, and is offered his dream apprenticeship at the age of 16, would you tell them to give up their apprenticeship and go to school?

2. yes, they should work to live, not live to work

3. rubbish. This isn't the middle ages. Many people have kids out of wedlock, and still manage to raise productive well balanced members of society
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby johnsmith » 14 Oct 2018, 13:59

Auggie wrote:The master has obligations too


you're drinking the cool aid. 'Masters' almost always shirk their responsibilities, to the detriment of the slaves, and are rewarded for it. Just look at our political class for one example
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Rhinocerus
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 22:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby mothra » 14 Oct 2018, 15:13

Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:So you're a failed elitist.

How magnanimous of you to offer to wear the sack cloth along with those you have deigned to be wanting.

I, on the other hand, strive to encourage the very best in people. I believe that even impoverished sole parents without any support can both love their children and raise kind, compassionate, thinking, contributing members of society. In fact, i have more faith that they will than those on the other end of the scale.

Furthermore, i believe many of our most inspiring people have had rough starts.

I believe in supporting people through positive affirmation, example and provision of support for areas in which they may be in need.

You seem to place all of your emphasis on ideals. I suspect you are not yet experienced enough to understand that there is absolutely no such thing. There aree just shmucks who tick boxes ... or don't.

My parenting skills are not measured by any other worthwhile thing than the ability of my children to be compassionate, considerate, thoughtful, contributing members of society who are okay in their own skins and seek to do as little harm as possible. My financial and sexual particulars have limited bearing on that.

It is clear that you place emphasis on the material over the personal. I believe experience will teach you differently.


I actually don't place any emphasis on the material. I don't even own a television or have the latest iPhone. If I emphasized material things, then wouldn't I be also buying the latest gismo and gadgets?

Regarding your parenting, I have no comment nor any desire to discuss that. That's your business and none of mine. I'm sure that you and your partner (if you have one) are great parents and your children are great. I commend you for your sacrifice and your role as a parent in society.

Maybe it's because you have children, and I don't. I don't know. When you have very little to lose you're willing to wear the 'sack cloth' as you put it. Maybe I am a failed elitist or maybe I'm just a brain-washed stooge, who knows?

And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life? Sure, helping them is needed, but I think we fail to encourage young people to make the correct decisions and choices in life.

Don't you think that if people made better decisions, then a lot of society's problems would be solved?



When you say you place no emphasis on the material, can you see how your statement that people should have a certain amount of money to have children appears hypocritical also claim to have no judgement on me yet all you have done is ascribe value judgements according to ideas of what is the most successful.

I'm trying to lead you towards forgetting all of that. None of that matters. Or at least it shouldn't. And you, by pimping it as the ultimate in parenting success are in effect insulting millions of people who are mostly just loving thir kids.

I personally would value teaching unconditional compassion over the provision of a private education ... but that's just me. All you have described as successful leaves me cold.

So here's what i don't do. Tell other people they belong at assigned points on a hierarchy because they do or do not tick certain boxes.

I just care about whether they love and nurture their kids.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby mothra » 14 Oct 2018, 15:15

Auggie wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
Auggie wrote:And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life?


better for you? or better for them?

who decides whats better? Morrison? Abbott? Shorten? The local priest? the local drug dealer?


Here are three decisions which all people should make:

1) finish high school;

2) get a job;

3) don't have a kid before you get married.

Can we agree that these are three things that we should teach all teenagers??


1) Not an option for many. Not a preferred course for many.

2) Not an option for many. Not overly relevant in the grand scheme of things. Preferred but not essential.

3} Most people don;t marry anymore. Very few of my friends have married.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby Auggie » 14 Oct 2018, 16:26

mothra wrote:
Auggie wrote:
mothra wrote:So you're a failed elitist.

How magnanimous of you to offer to wear the sack cloth along with those you have deigned to be wanting.

I, on the other hand, strive to encourage the very best in people. I believe that even impoverished sole parents without any support can both love their children and raise kind, compassionate, thinking, contributing members of society. In fact, i have more faith that they will than those on the other end of the scale.

Furthermore, i believe many of our most inspiring people have had rough starts.

I believe in supporting people through positive affirmation, example and provision of support for areas in which they may be in need.

You seem to place all of your emphasis on ideals. I suspect you are not yet experienced enough to understand that there is absolutely no such thing. There aree just shmucks who tick boxes ... or don't.

My parenting skills are not measured by any other worthwhile thing than the ability of my children to be compassionate, considerate, thoughtful, contributing members of society who are okay in their own skins and seek to do as little harm as possible. My financial and sexual particulars have limited bearing on that.

It is clear that you place emphasis on the material over the personal. I believe experience will teach you differently.


I actually don't place any emphasis on the material. I don't even own a television or have the latest iPhone. If I emphasized material things, then wouldn't I be also buying the latest gismo and gadgets?

Regarding your parenting, I have no comment nor any desire to discuss that. That's your business and none of mine. I'm sure that you and your partner (if you have one) are great parents and your children are great. I commend you for your sacrifice and your role as a parent in society.

Maybe it's because you have children, and I don't. I don't know. When you have very little to lose you're willing to wear the 'sack cloth' as you put it. Maybe I am a failed elitist or maybe I'm just a brain-washed stooge, who knows?

And shouldn't we also be encouraging people to make better choices in life? Sure, helping them is needed, but I think we fail to encourage young people to make the correct decisions and choices in life.

Don't you think that if people made better decisions, then a lot of society's problems would be solved?



When you say you place no emphasis on the material, can you see how your statement that people should have a certain amount of money to have children appears hypocritical also claim to have no judgement on me yet all you have done is ascribe value judgements according to ideas of what is the most successful.

I'm trying to lead you towards forgetting all of that. None of that matters. Or at least it shouldn't. And you, by pimping it as the ultimate in parenting success are in effect insulting millions of people who are mostly just loving thir kids.

I personally would value teaching unconditional compassion over the provision of a private education ... but that's just me. All you have described as successful leaves me cold.

So here's what i don't do. Tell other people they belong at assigned points on a hierarchy because they do or do not tick certain boxes.

I just care about whether they love and nurture their kids.


Look you make some good points.

I think that the best policy is to live and let live. Too often some of us like to intellectualize things and this often leads to taking out the humanity.

People before politics; people before profits, as JS has said.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the Federal Government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. - Ronald Reagan.
Auggie
Pain in the Butt
 
Posts: 1818
Joined: 02 Oct 2017, 18:05
spamone: Animal

Re: Same-sex marriage: please help me understand

Postby mothra » 14 Oct 2018, 17:10

Auggie wrote:. Too often some of us like to intellectualize things and this often leads to taking out the humanity.

People before politics; people before profits, as JS has said.


Proper intellectualising of a subject could not possibly overlook the humanity.

It simply would be something else ... like analysis or appropriation of details. The mechanisms of stereo-typing, prejudice mis-information and propaganda.

Intellectualising would, of course, see through all of that immediately.
User avatar
mothra
Duck
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 18:47
spamone: Animal

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aussie, HBS Guy and 0 guests

cron