Doctors group says heterosexual marriage better for kids

Where was the poll conducted after hours in fitzroy gardens FFS ?

 

bahahaha! Funniest thing I've heard all day.

They are already changing. I only wish I could be there to laugh in your face when they get equal marriage rights.

Nonsense.

Actually, its more like 30%

Actually you clearly care a lot. You not only fantasize about men having sex with boys, you are clearly obsessed with homosexuals.

Dont worry, I accept your defeat. We all saw it coming.

 

And its the reason why democracy is a fail. Since when did you have to convince others to give you freedom? Wouldn't it be better to have freedom and then convince others to relinquish it?

Legal shmegal. The law is entirely dependent on what we as a society deem it to be. The government should have nothing to do with marriage. Democracy should be irrelevant to individual liberty.

 

Democracy isn't "a fail". Since when did the marriage act have anything to do with "freedom"? Marriage isn't compulsory. Marriage is a societal construct, as is all law.

The government has something to do with everything. Liberty cannot exist in a vacuum, and "rights" are inherently subjective and fluid. Your idea of "rights" only came about through the process of democracy, and will likely be different to that of peoples in a few hundred years time, as they are from people just 100 years ago, and it's Democracy that facilities this change peacefully.

 

Matter of opinion I guess. I dont feel others should have a right to control others over interests they do not share.

Indeed, hence why it should be abolished. Law is a social construct but its purpose is one that makes it necessary. Marriage laws are just straight up social engineering and preferential treatment.

I didnt say it didnt. I was pointing out the viewpoint behind your position and its flawed nature. The idea that people get to pick and choose based on their own preferences regardless of others.

What I mean is, if we value freedom, it should be at the core of law not the other way around. You dont get freedom through the law, you should get law through the pursuit of freedom. Make sense?

No it came about through the process of ideology. As for democracy, it has brought about hardly any of the rights I advocate.

I disagree in that democracy is only one form of change, and one that I feel is ineffectual and surpassed by other means.

 

Apparently what you want is anarchy then, because under any government system there is going to be disagreement about laws.

Sure, abolishing the marriage act is something I generally agree with. But marriage is not infringing on anyone's "freedom".

I fail to see how individual liberty can even exist without democracy, other than in anarchy.

Freedom is subjective, the freedom to do what? Laws both give freedom, and take it away, it's not an either or scenario.

What "rights" are they then?

Like what, armed revolution? The whims of a dictator? What?

 

No where did I say there should be no law. I said it was the psychology behind its creation that must change and the nature of law as an institution of social management that must change its goals.

It is if people get tax benefits for it.

Individual liberty can exist under a dictatorship. Its just that dictatorships are not as good as other systems, same goes for democracy.

It shouldnt be.

pursue your interests in line with others.

Depends how you define freedom.

Rights are only a superficial way to ensure general boundaries of action. So a right to life, for example. But that doesnt mean you ALWAYS have a right to life.

Something close to direct democracy.

 

No, what you said was "democracy is a fail".

No, Money != Freedom.

So what's your "better" system than democracy?

Irrelevant. Unless you want to abolish the state altogether, then freedom cannot truly exist.

That is completely ambiguous.

Obviously.

Obviously.

Direct Democracy IS DEMOCRACY, and it's still majority rule. Social democracy is a balance between majority rule and minority rights, and so is Representative Democracy.

So no, democracy is not a "fail". I can't believe anyone seriously argues that by taking away democracy you make people "more free", it's a completely retarded argument.

 

Yeah, that's not the same as 'there should be anarchy.'

...?.... If you privilege one group of people you are depriving everyone else of freedom.

Direct democracy, although there's more to it than that.

Well no, you could potentially abolish the state and still have freedom. It is possible, its just highly unlikely.

Not at all, but it would take a little explanation to be entirely understood.

Yeah so direct democracy isnt the same as the democracy you are talking about or that which we now have.

Take away representative and make it direct, yes you get more freedom imo.

 

Yes it is, but you don't actually think "democracy is a fail", so it's irrelevant.

No. Money != Freedom. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Progressive taxation is not taking away freedom. And the marriage act does not necessitate tax exemptions or subsidies either, they're a separate issue. The primary function of marriage is as a basis for family law and grants rights, medical, inheritance, guardianship, etc.

Direct democracy, is democracy.

No, you have that backwards. The ONLY way to truly have freedom is to abolish the state. Once there is a state, there is a hierarchy, there are rules, and you are no longer "free".

Go on then.

DIRECT DEMOCRACY IS DEMOCRACY. I don't know how to say it any clearer than that. If you want to correct yourself and change it to "Constitutional Monarchy is fail" or "Liberal Democracy is fail", then fine, but that's not what you said.

Please explain how minorities get more freedom under your form of "direct democracy" compared to Liberal Democracy.

 

It depends what the law is. Recognizing certain partnerships and giving them benefits is what I am opposed to. That is my only point here.

No its a FORM OF democracy.

Define freedom.

Define "free"

Well since I cbf explained exactly what I'd advocate, a system that allows people to only manage common interests is the only form of government necessary. Direct democracy, then, should operate on this basis, allowing for people to directly voice their opinions.

I thought it what quite obvious when I said democracy I was referring to parliamentary forms that are now most common.

Liberal democracies allow for the restriction of freedom over people whose actions have nothing to do with others. eg marriage.

 

Your a sad sap aren't ya laugh all you want it wont change anything, ooohh only in your mind.

It may happen but it doesn't mean the majority of people approve, just like the carbon tax and the like.

WHY?

I dont know anyone who supports gay rights, you must be in the mix

HHHAHAHHHAHHAH the truth has finally come out, no worries dude you have won a great title the champion of pedophiles and homosexuals i bet you must brag about that one heaps

You're a real dreamer wet that is.

 

bahaha you gonna cry?

Dont worry, people do approve of gay rights. Its only a matter of time before they are legalized.

Because marriage is entirely relative to one's personal preference. It can mean hetero partnership or gay partnership - it can mean ANY partnership.

You obviously dont know many people then.

No I brag about the fact I smacked the intellectual crap out of "dumbanddumber". Aptly named.

You'd know a lot about that, what with your fantasies about men and children and what not.

 

Whats wrong dude got your hanky out?

Maybe in the circles you hang out with.

Why should it mean gay partnerships traditinally they have not wanted or had the urge to raise children, now with all these gay activists they have become lobing and warm parents, please stop your dribble.

Yep

You sir are an intelectual migdet with a big imagination.

Your a sick puppy.

ooouuuurrooooo

 

I already told you, you cant use my jokes as a come back. Man that is sad.

Yeah its called the whole population of Australia.

What are you talking about? Where's your evidence gay people have never raised or wanted to raise children? Another 'fact' pulled form your ass eh?

Oh whats the matter? Baby gonna cry?

haha sure. Hey anything is better than being "dumbanddumber."

 

Stop sobbing champ, you might hurt yourself.

OOHHH you know all the population personally then??????????????

Where in history have gays brought up children? Who's talking out of their arse?

Like i said just dont hurt yourself.

So you are gay? are you a pedophile too?

 

Poor form

Yep. Most support gay rights.

"For as long as people have understood themselves as gay, gay people have parented their children. In the past, however, homosexual parents often shielded themselves and their children from scrutiny by publicly concealing their sexual orientation. By the end of the twentieth century, an estimated six to ten million gay and lesbian parents in the United States were raising six to fourteen million children, often in openly recognized gay families. "
http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Re-So/Same-Sex-Parenting.html

You.

...?...

No, I am not going to have sex with you.

 

I thought it was good.

Most of the people you know right.

For as long as people have understood themselves gay, WTF does that mean, they hadn't yet come out of the closest to frequent parks after dark and gay clubs with threesomes in the dunny.

Yeah great parents indeed, at least they brought their kids up before going ferile.

Are you sure about that one.

Yeah just dont hurt yourself dude.

You'ld be in hospital if you tried.

 

You missed my point entirely.

If you look at it that way. I've already stated my perceived different use of the terms.

Could you define the word because the context doesnt.

Sorry mate but I really cant be bothered at the moment. I do plan to make a thread about this same topic in the future however, so I'll send you a PM when I do.

It was specific to the context of our discussion. Obviously my choice of words wasnt good enough.

Well no, but since you dont realize this, I'll leave it for another thread.

Correct.

 

You would.

Most of the Australian population, yes.

...?... What are you talking about?

...?... What are you talking about?

Yep.

What are you talking about?

Wow so you're into violent sex as well as pedophile sex. Man that's wrong.

 

I'm afraid that being the intelectual midget that you are i too have also missed your point.

Seeya champ have a good whatever it is that you do.

 

hahaha epic fail.

 

Er, no, your point was that marriage limits freedom, yet you cannot provide any explanation.

What do you mean "if you look at it that way", it's a simple fact. If democracy "fails", then direct democracy also fails. You made absolutely no reference to the different types of democracy, you just flat out stated that democracy fails.

Did you read what I said? The definition of "freedom" I posted can be used as the definition of "free" as I used it. I'm not going to copy and paste another dictionary definition for you, not least of which "free" has about 20 possible meanings.

Eh. You've apparently dreamt up some political system that is infinitely superior to Liberal Democracy, but you "cant be bothered". I'm sure I can't be bothered either.

Your choice of words was apparently the completely opposite of your meaning, so yeah, it really wasn't good enough.

No, you cannot have direct democracy where laws cannot be changed by a majority vote.

Well that's just a completely absurd view. You're one of the "paying taxes makes you a slave" crowd I take it.

 

No, the institutionalization of marriage

I thought you would have understood I was referring to liberal democracy. Does this make sense to you?

It didnt appear for some reason when I first read your comment. Its there now, and based on that definition I agree with what you said.

I havent "dreamt" it up. As I said, I'll explain it in the detail it requires later on and I'll let you know when I do.

Where did I say otherwise?

How so?

Tax can be slavery, but no I'm not part of the crowd you are referring to.