@ said:
No not at all pal. I know you're type though, all bluster but intellectually bankrupt.
Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
No not at all pal. I know you're type though, all bluster but intellectually bankrupt.
Considering we have shows like "The Bachelor", "The Bachelorette", "Married at First Sight", etc, etc…
@ said:
No you're not. You think you are but you're really not. But you keep believing in yourself.
Come on lads, be nice.
Debate is healthy, let's keep it respectful.
Debate is healthy, let's keep it respectful.
@ said:
_Analogy - a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.\
\
Straw Man - an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument._
Memorise these for future reference, it will save you the embarrassment of going through this conversation again.
@ said:
_Straw Man_ An attempt to defeat a proposition through the replacement of it with a similar yet different proposition.
You use them, try and understand what it means. The topic was the right of homosexuals to marriage equality. You've started talking about the segregation of bathroom facilities for privacy or comfort reasons. If a facility just provided toilet facilities for one sex you might have a point but they don't. You're advancing an alternative that appears similar but is not.
Now try again now you've been schooled.
@ said:
Fine by me.
@ said:
Yep, Seven Year Itch and Married at First Sight doesn't cheapen marriage one iota… :unamused:
@ said:
Your definition of strawman is plain wrong, yet you think you 'schooled' me :laughing: . A straw man only applies if you misrepresent the facts or mislead with the argument. I did nether, i simply provided an analogy to show that some laws are actaully designed to exclude people, which was the comment i was actually referring to.
And my response was that no, not all laws are technically equal, and that some are devised specifically for some segments to the exclusion of others. Men and women are both provided bathrooms, but under the law a man cannot use a woman's and vice versa. Just like different types of relationships are recognised under law, yet while no one is excluded from entering a relationship, some are set aside for different types of relationships.
Its really not that complicated .
I prefer Star Man..he's up there in the sky..he'd like to come and meet us but you know he's blow our minds…
I've given my word I'm done with the arguments. You've tried to bully your way through and I've explained my position. Maybe keep your side of the bargain,
@ said:
To your first point. The question is then, are women banned from using toilets. Is not part of most council building codes that suitable bathroom arrangements for both sexes exist.
To your second point no. A gay de-facto couple does not have the same rights to each others assets that a straight couple do.
@ said:
Sure I was highlighting one of the fears that some anti gay people offer. That various churches and faiths would be forced to marry these couples. This ignores the point that many non religious people marry outside these institution, and have done so since I can remember.
My second marriage was a civil affair, and I also feel very married as does my wife :slight_smile:
@ said:
No women are not banned from using toilets, just like gay people are not banned from entering legally recognised relationships.
So to this analogy, the government provides them with the same opportunity as it provides straight couples. It just distinguishes the type of relationship.
@ said:
Im not a lawyer, however a large % of my clientele is homosexual, and none of them have ever encountered issues pertaining to asset rights.
This is directly from the Federal Department of Social Services:
_Same-sex de facto couples and their families have the same entitlements as opposite-sex de facto couples and their families.\
\
The Government's same-sex law reform package passed through Parliament in November 2008.\
\
The reform removed discrimination against same-sex de facto couples and their families in areas such as taxation, superannuation, social security and family assistance, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net and the Medicare Safety Net, aged care, veterans' entitlements, immigration, citizenship and child support and family law._
I don't believe what you have said above is correct, however i will stand corrected if you can point out the legislation that does discriminate against homosexuals.
@ said:
As I understand the current situation, Barry buys a house. Two years later he meets Dave they fall in love. For the next 18 years they live together and jointly pay the mortgage. Then things go sour and they decide to break up. Dave has no claim on the house
In a regular married couple, both partners have a stake in the house and that gets settled through mediation or the divorce courts.
And on a more obscure point. A gay couple who marry overseas and then return to Australia can not get a divorce in Australia lol
old_man_tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
That would be an awkward flight back to the divorce court.
- Status
Members online
- dthummler
- tiger_one
- Pablo
- F.O.S 0
- Garrry
- watersider
- ancient_magpie
- innsaneink
- lathami
- BlackWhiteGold
- Its me… hi
- cochise
- Telltails
- Wiz
- Lestronge
- GarethEllis94
- jrtiger
- snopez
- TIGERS
- old_man_tiger
- 69-05-41
- Jux
- Illek
- rugbygoated
- Junior Dig
- gallagher
- TigerBurnsy
- Properossi
- Alive and Kicking
- Coast_Tiger
- upthetigers
- Flippedy
- InBenjiWeTrust
- mpsummers