ACT introduces Marriage Equality Bill

[Chard]

Frankly, I couldn't give a shit.

Yet you continue to respond...

As far as I'm concerned, marriage is between a man and a woman and the slippery slope applies.

You are aware that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy, right?

I've never seen anyone argue a decent case for allowing for all forms of marriage. They all want discrimination based purely on what their little perversion isn't.

Holy strawmandering bullshit, Batman! No one is suggesting that all possible marriage concepts be legalised, that's a bullshit slippery slope argument based on the hyperbole spewed by idiots who believe if we let gays marry then next it'll be dogs and cats and small children. All gays are asking for are the same rights and privileges as straights, no more, no less.

Also, it's amusingly ironic that you attemped to call a strawman on me, yet you can't even recogmize it when you build up a blatent strawman yourself.

[IQS.RLOW]

No, the slippery slope is a perfectly logical argument against changing the marriage act from between a man and a woman.

However your "dogs, cats and small children" is yet again another strawman.

My argument has always been what is to stop polygamists (or other forms of partnership where consent from any side is given and allowed for by law) arguing for the same rights as the gays want. They love each other too.

So, my opinion is no.
Go fuck yourself.

[IQS.RLOW]

...and because I'm off to bed now, I'll just leave this response for your next post of dribbling empty abuse.

I don't give a fuck what you think or whether you think gays should be able to get married. I think they shouldn't and you haven't presented any form of argument that has or would convince me otherwise that its a good idea to change from the status quo.

In fact, from your arguments I would gather just about anything you suggest should be binned in the basket labelled "Dumb fucking ideas from clueless fuckwits"

[mantra]

Something like 53% of married couples only take their marriage vows seriously for about 5 minutes - and then they want to get out of it. It is no longer some sacred promise to commit to each other until death separates them. It is a religious ceremony which has become a farce especially as a good proportion of married couples are neither religious or committed. Gay marriage isn't going to impact on anyone else's life, but it will bring some equality into a gay couple's life.

Australia is such a conservative country. Gay men were gaoled 30 years ago - so it will probably be another 30 years at least before they are recognised legally as real people nationally.

[IQS.RLOW]

Are you saying that because some marriages fail, that is a reason to let gays marry?

What's that got to do with the price of eggs...

Australia is a conservative country. This is a good thing because progressives are fucking useless creatures who like to experiment with society at the expense of everyone else and they usually fuck it up badly.

[mantra]

Are you saying that because some marriages fail, that is a reason to let gays marry?

What's that got to do with the price of eggs...

Australia is a conservative country. This is a good thing because progressives are fucking useless creatures who like to experiment with society at the expense of everyone else and they usually fuck it up badly.

Some marriages fail? A lot of marriages fail - so many couples who take this vow are not taking it seriously. If they were - we'd have no divorces or separations.

What does it matter to you if gays marry? It's not going to affect you in the slightest. Marriage obviously means as much to gay people as it does to heterosexuals. By denying them this - then they are not equal to heterosexuals simply because they prefer the same sex. It can be likened to 40 years ago in Australia when aborigines came under the classification of flora and fauna. They weren't even considered human.

[IQS.RLOW]

Just because marriages fail is no reason to open the institution to all and sundry.

What does it matter to you if gays can't marry? It's not going to affect you in the slightest. Marriage doesn't mean as much to gay people as it does to progressives who want to destroy it. By keeping it between a man and woman - then they are equal to heterosexuals simply because they prefer the same sex. It can't be likened to 40 years ago in Australia when aborigines came under the classification of flora and fauna because this is just a bullshit distraction you built into your response that conflates race and sexuality.

[Rorschach]

Something like 53% of married couples only take their marriage vows seriously for about 5 minutes - and then they want to get out of it.

Are you lying again mantra?
i do hope you can back up this claim with some facts.

[Rorschach]

Some marriages fail? A lot of marriages fail - so many couples who take this vow are not taking it seriously.

Are you lying again mantra?
I do hope you can back this up with some facts.

[Chard]

No, the slippery slope is a perfectly logical argument against changing the marriage act from between a man and a woman.

No, it's not, especially considering you have yet to demonstrate that the chain of events you claim would take place if gays are allowed to marry is even fucking feasible, you twit. Take out a fucking loan and get a goddamn education already, you cretin.

However your "dogs, cats and small children" is yet again another strawman.

I fucking quoted you, idiot. Here, I'll do it again, you lying dumbfuck.

I've never seen anyone argue a decent case for allowing for all forms of marriage. They all want discrimination based purely on what their little perversion isn't.

You said "all forms of marriage", which is about as broad a fucking generalization as it gets. That's why you don't use slippery slope arguments because they imply all manner of shit, especially when you're a complete idiot and combine it with a hasty generalization.

Christ, did you drop out in preschool or some shit?

My argument has always been what is to stop polygamists (or other forms of partnership where consent from any side is given and allowed for by law) arguing for the same rights as the gays want.

So you want to deny one group their rights be denied their rights in order to prevent a vague threat from another group, all this despite there not having been a serious polygamist movement in your country in decades...

Yup, you're a fucking idiot.