Is The Leftosphere Politic Of Gender Equality More Insane Than The Gender Insanity of LGBTQQIAAPP ??

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You wrote ....

@Grafix  -  My only argument from which this whole conversation started is this: "Heterosexual-only marriage laws are discriminatory by definition". I have not argued anything else, and all further comments merely supported this argument with various examples.
You just agreed that my examples which applied to everyone are discriminatory, yet here you go again with the same claim in the same comment: that the heterosexual-only marriage laws are not discriminatory, because they apply to everyone. You have agreed that if A, then not necessarily B, and here you again say that since A, it follows that B. All of your comments are full of things like this.
Heterosexual-only marriage laws discriminate against men by not allowing them to marry men, and against women by not allowing them to marry women. They do not, strictly speaking, discriminate against people based on their sexuality - only on their gender.
They do discriminate against couples based on their practical sexuality, but that is a less direct discrimination, because, strictly speaking, people forming a homosexual couple do not have to be homosexual. This is an instance of implicit discrimination, but I will leave that argument to @Happy_Killbot ;who has already made their case on this.

May, if you cannot be bothered reading my replies which have soundly pulled apart and rebutted everything in your above comment which is just repetition of your same previous comments, then I will deal with your posts in the same way.  You just harp and carp on the same thing, without debating the rebuttals put up against your carping.  So if that continues, I won't read your replies, as you clearly don't read mine.  If I don't read them, then I will not respond to them, unlike you, for to respond without reading someone's post is not only stoopid, it is dishonest.   

I have completely destroyed your argument, which is based on some weird and warped belief that all discriminatory law is bad and therefore that somehow proves that the marrige law was discriminatory.  It doesn't and it wasn't as i have shown and discriminatory law is quite common and is not bad at all, provided it protects what it is designed to protect without being of any detriment to those to whom it does not apply.  I have said that too, but you don't seem to even know that.  I am not going to keep on re-prosecuting your same, same, same, argument which you refuse to review.  It is pointless.  So unless you start reading replies and respond to their content, point for point, I'll start treating your comments like I treat Dee's.  Completely ignore her and don't read her comments, because they are alway off-topic.  It's your call.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

How can you have destroyed my argument when you have not even understood it? I have never said or implied that "all discriminatory law is bad", and I have made it clear on numerous occasions that my only claim was that heterosexual-only marriage laws are discriminatory, not that they are "bad". I even said that exact thing again in the comment you just quoted. I refrained from making absolutely any quality judgements anywhere in this discussion.

Your debating strategy is basically reading some trigger words and going into an emotional rage, much like the people your kin likes calling "social justice warriors" do - and then, when your opponent does not give in to it and just calmly and rationally keeps making the same argument and ignoring all your attempts to move the discussion into the emotional realm, you just pretend that the whole thing has not happened and you somehow "destroyed" something.

All debates you have on this site end up becoming the infamous Cathy Newman vs Jordan Peterson debate, with you being Cathy.
"Oh, so you are saying that blablabla..."
"No, I am saying that lalala."
"Aha, so you are saying that hahaha!"
"No, I am saying that lalala."
"I see, so you are saying that blablabla then."

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Why not put your money where your mouth is then?

The empirical evidence shows that more Republicans support child marriage than Democrats, and more Democrats support minimum marriage ages than Republicans. You can deny it  and lie to me and yourself all you like but it won't change the reality. You are once again, wrong on all accounts.

If you don't support child marriage, you are not a conservative, plain and simple, because child marriage is a position held by conservatives.

Grafix

@MayCaesar -  You haven't explicitly stated that discriminatory law is bad, but it is the angle you keep driving.   Same with the angle you keep driving over and over and over like a squawk doll stuck on replay, without rebutting anyone's arguments, claiming that a heterosexual marriage law is discriminatory.  It ain't.  Because the definition of heterosexual includes both genders, so therefore it includes E V E R Y O N E , unlike homosexual which is discriminatory because it is a proclivity which excludes everyone 'cept those who are males with a weird fettish.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Well,  anyone can make a hollow claims.  How about some evidence, Einstein.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

There is no "angle", and I explicitly said that I do not care much whether homosexual marriages are legalised or not. You should learn to respond to people's actual arguments and not to the twisted versions of them you conjure up in your mind, if you want to be taken seriously by seasoned debaters.

The word "homosexual", by the way, if you do not know, refers to monogender relationships, not to "male-only relationships". A relationship between two females is homosexual, just as much as a relationships between two males is. Hence a homosexual marriage law includes everyone, just like a heterosexual marriage law does. Heterosexual marriage allows everyone to marry the opposite sex, while homosexual marriage allows everyone to marry the same sex.
Homosexual-only marriage law would be discriminatory, just like heterosexual-only marriage law is. Pansexual marriage law would not be.

Grafix

Well, No.  Even if we refer to lesbians correctly as homosexuals, it  D O E S    N O T     I N C L U D E     E V E R Y O N E  at all.  I can't believe the drivel you people write.  It only includes a minority in the population which have a strange fettish.  Please, May.  What shower do you think we all fell from the sky in and when?  Yesterday?

The law does not preclude homosexuals for the reason it does not address any proclivity.  That is precisely why you are wrong.  The intent  of the law is the meaning of the law and is always how the law MUST BE interpreted, according to the law of interpreting the law.  The interpretation of the definition of marraige in the Marriage Act has only EVER been that the right to marry is open to EVERY individual.  It does not say that homosexuals cannot marry and never did and never has.  This is why you are soooooooo wrong.  Your interpretation is your own, but it is not the legal interpretation at all.  So you are just plain wrong..  

If the law wanted to ban homosexuals from marrying a member of the opposite sex, then it wouldn't have said "one man and one woman".  It would've said "one heterosexual man and one heterosexual woman", but it doesn't, never did and never has.  The law intereprets it according to the intent when it was written.  That is why the proclivity alone was banned, (not the person), as grounds for issuing a Marriage Licence.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Who does it not include among the people who heterosexual marriage laws include? Give an example of a person who is included by heterosexual marriage laws, but not included by homosexual marriage laws.

I have never said or implied that under heterosexual-only marriage laws homosexuals cannot marry. If you believe otherwise, feel free to provide a quote.

I am patiently waiting for you to make a single accurate claim in this thread. So far it has not been happening.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Just read my post above.  Refresh your page.  I have already answered that.
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

You have not. I will ask again: give an example of a person who is included by heterosexual marriage laws, but not included by homosexual marriage laws.

Grafix

Heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals.  Heterosexuals.  Get it?  That is why you are wrong, because the Marriage Act is not a heterosexual law.  It includes homosexuals. That is why it is not discriminatroy.   Get it?
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

Homosexual marriage law does not include heterosexuals? How come? Give me an example of a heterosexual person that cannot marry under the homosexual marriage law.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - Now you are switching the meaning of your question?  This is what you asked ....  

Give an example of a person who is included by heterosexual marriage laws, but not included by homosexual marriage laws.

The answer to that question is "Heterosexual".  What is wrong with you?

 (I can't believe I am having this conversation.  God please give me patience.)

MayCaesar

@Grafix

A heterosexual person can marry a person of the same sex under homosexual marriage laws, hence you are incorrect.
Similarly, a homosexual person can marry a person of a different sex under heterosexual marriage laws, which has been your argument so far.

I will repeat the request for the third time: give an example of a person who is included by heterosexual marriage laws, but not included by homosexual marriage laws.

I am not going to relent until you either give a satisfactory answer or concede the point; I have been easy on you long enough.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - It is logical to assume that this discussion is about the longstanding Marriage Act which stood the test of time for centuries.  On that basis I am also assuming that your question proposes an analogy - that it would be no different and change nothing if the Marriage Act had instead of saying as it used to, i.e., "between one man and one woman", instead said, "between one homosexual man and one homosexual woman".  That is the only way a "Homosexual" Marriage Act could possibly be worded to begin to identify it as a "Homosexual" law.  If the word "homosexual" did not qualify the law, then logically, it would cease to be a "homosexual" law.

Given we are talking about equivalents here, such a law would necessarily  EXCLUDE heterosexuals, just as would a Marriage Act which said, "between one heterosexual man and one heteroxexual woman" exclude homosexuals, but for some odd reason, you reckon this is not so.  Consequently I have no clue what the bloody hell you are talking about, May if this is not what you mean.  You also claimed in an earlier post that you have never said that homosexuals could not marry under the old "heterosexual" marriage law, meaning the law which says nothing about homosexuals or heterosexuals, although you like to call it that.  If you have never claimed that, then why the f*ck have you claimed it was discriminatory then? Maybe you felt they can't marry pixies was discriminatory?  God give me strength.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

This does not address my point in any way. I have never said that either of these laws applies only to heterosexual people or only to homosexual people.

Homosexual marriage law allows all people to marry people of the same gender regardless of their sexuality.
Heterosexual marriage law allows all people to marry people of the opposite gender regardless of their sexuality.

Both allow all people to marry someone; both apply to all people. You are welcome to explain what is wrong with my logic, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

Both laws are discriminatory, as I already explained, because each individual law prohibits people of gender A from marrying people of gender B. The only way to formulate a non-discriminatory law is to declare that anyone can marry anyone.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - What?  Are you for real?  I am glad you're not a lawmaker.  The Courts would be in chaos trying to interpret the laws you write. They would be in LA LA LAND.

You are actually CLAIMING then that whether it be a "homosexual" law or whether it be a "heterorsexual" law that they would mean the same thing, anyway.  Really?  I don't think so.  But I'll play along.  Given that you are claiming they would both mean the same thing regarding legal rights then please tell me ....

WHY THE F*CK DO WE HAVE THE TERMINOLOGY  AT ALL TO  DIFFERENTIATE  BETWEN THE TWO?  WHY IDENTIFY EITHER OF THEM?  WHY INCLUDE EITHER  ONE OF THE TERMS AT ALL?  Completely nuts.

As the old marriage law included no exclusive terms, it delivered equal rights for everyone.  You are now pretending a law which does stipulate these exclusive terms would also deliver equal rights to everyone and be non-exclusive.  It wouldn't, however, for good reason. The law would interpret these terms as expressing exclusivity, because it already does and therefore each one would exclude the other.  It is for this very reason that the word "heterosexual" did not appear in the.wording of the Marriage Act and why it was interpreted as non-exclusive, therefore non-discriminatory.

Again, I ask you, given you have changed horses mid-stream by now pretending you never claimed that homosexuals could not marry under the old Marriage Laws, then on that basis you would have to concede it was not discriminatory, yet you clearly claimed it was.  I think you need to seek help, May.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

It seems to me that we have a case of yet another terminological confusion on your part. Here is how the actual terminology works:

• Heterosexual person - a person sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
• Homosexual person - a person sexually attracted to the same sex.
• Heterosexual marriage - marriage between two people of the opposite sex.
• Homosexual marriage - marriage between two people of the same sex.

Notice that heterosexual marriage does not require partners being heterosexual, and homosexual marriage does not require partners being homosexual. Two heterosexual males or two heterosexual females may have a homosexual marriage, and a homosexual male and a homosexual female may have a heterosexual marriage.

A homosexual marriage law would not mandate that the two marrying individuals are homosexual, it would only mandate that they are of the same sex - much like a heterosexual marriage law does not mandate that the two marrying individuals are heterosexual, it only mandates that they are of the opposite sex.

The Marriage Act is a heterosexual-only marriage act. It is discriminatory, because I cannot marry men, but I can marry women.
A homosexual-only marriage act would be discriminatory, because it would not allow me to marry women and would only allow me to marry men.
A pansexual marriage act would not be discriminatory, because it would allow me or anyone else marry anyone.
Any of these three acts would allow everyone to marry someone.

The lesson is over. The exam is next Thursday, kids.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - What you are refusing to accept is that the old law expressed no exclusivity  You are refusing to accept it merely placed a marriage ban on a proclivity, but not on any person.  This is how the law interpreted it.  I've already written ALL of this ten times in this thread.  You're tiresome May, because you just had to have your own little conversation.  Go read the WHOLE thread and stop wasting my time.

Grafix

It is nonsense.  It is just saying that if either temrinology were included then it would mean exactly the same as the old Marriage Act.

S O    I F    T H A T      W E R E      T H E        C A S E        T H EN         W T F     D I D       G A Y S       K I C K       U P  S U C H     A       M E L E E       O V E R?

WHY DID THEY CHANGE THE LAW IF WHAT YOU CLAIM IS ALL THE SAME MEANING ANYWAY?  Clearly if we can include either demographic because it all means the same thing, - ACCORDING TO YOU - then gays had kicked up a storm in a tea cup over nothing - according to you - yet you claimed the old law was discriminatory.   You are talking goggldegook.   God spare me.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

What does this even mean? It has placed a ban on every person to marry any person of the same sex. The phrase "ban on a proclivity" makes zero sense. I even googled this phrase to make sure that I am not missing anything; no such thing is found anywhere. Care to provide a reference to the material where you found such a thing?

The law allows my female friend to do some things that I cannot, and it allows me to do some things she cannot. It is a textbook definition of discrimination.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

I did not say that "it is all the same meaning". I said that heterosexual-only marriage laws and homosexual-only marriage laws are both discriminatory, and both apply to everyone.

Perhaps you are not fluent in English and using a translator that has some issues? I do not think I have ever conversed with anyone who would misrepresent my claims so often.

And yes, I think that this whole political discussion around same-sex marriages is mostly over nothing. Has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of terminology that is being discussed.

Grafix

A law which is exclusive to a demographic simply  DOES NOT apply to everyone.   P E R I OD .

Grafix

@MayCaesar - English is my first language and I majored in it.  Don't start that caper.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - It is more than obvious you are the one having the difficulty here with interpretation.  I am giving you the correct interpretation and you are bastardizing it with crazy statements which are absolute oxymorons and contradicitons in terms, such as ....

I said that heterosexual-only marriage laws and homosexual-only marriage laws are both discriminatory, and both apply to everyone.

A law which specifies an exclusive demographic automatically has exclusions.  A law which is discriminatory automatically has exclusions  .... but not according to you.  Your interpretations are WHACKO.

MayCaesar

@Grafix ;

None of the laws I mentioned are exclusive to any demographic. Both homosexual-only marriage and heterosexual-only marriage laws apply both to all men and all women, and unless you believe that there are more genders than these two, this exhausts the whole population.

Well, I guess they do exclude the underage population, so I will give you that.

I have not talked about any interpretations, just basic definitions. You claim to have majored in English? Well, I cannot prove you wrong, but I think your words speak for themselves.

Grafix

There's your problem.  Neither homosexuality nor heteroxexuality are GENDERS.  i have also explained this in this thread to others EXHAUSTIVELY.   The Marriage Act IS DEFEINED BY GENDER not by proclivities.  THAT'S THE POINT.

Grafix

I've had enough of this poppycock.  I have to go.  See you around.

MayCaesar

@Grafix ;

I have never claimed that homosexuality or heterosexuality were genders. My argument is based completely on what limitations the law puts on genders and does not involve people's sexuality.

I can only remember one conversation in my entire life in which I had more difficulty getting through to a person. That guy could not understand that "A equals B" implies that "B equals A", so the bar is not set very high.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - I don't think you have a clue what you are saying, to be quite honest. 

The fact remains that to introduce either  exclusive descriptor into any definition automatically excludes one or the other by  definition.  It is the obviousl reason why neither descriptor was ever used in Marriage Law, for the very reason that Marriage Law was always intended to be all-.inclusive. Gay Marriage Law is not all-inclusive, it is exclusive, the reason it is wrong-headed law.  It violates the legal definition of marriage, as would writing it using the descriptor of "heterosexual" also be exclusive law and the reason that descriptor does not appear in the wording of the Act, either, although you are attempting to pretend it does.

It is why your arguments are wrong-headed law, because exclusive proclivities were not and never have been intendd to be the definition of Marriage, let alone the foundation of Marriage Law .  Marriage is defined by gender and not by proclivities.  What part of that don't you understand?  Therefore the law must reflect that definition.   Now, thanks to gays, a proclivity is being used to define marriage, which completely violates the inclusive intent  of this law, a law which is designed to protect an institution which must remain inclusive and not exclusive.   Once an exclusive term is applied to any part of the legislation , that immediately presents a legal exclusion, and immediately renders the marriage law no longer inclusive.   It is a contradiction of the definition of the legal institution of marriage itself, which the legislation is written to protect.  It is an oxymoron. 

It is like saying law enforcement legislation has now been amended to protect criminality, the analogy of which is marriage law legislation has now been amended to protect proclivities.  That is not the intent of marriage law at all, but that is what we now have, thanks to crooked lawyers, crooked lobbyists and duped gays.  It is an aberration of the law.  No proclivity can be expressed to define marriage law, otherwise it cannot remain an all-inclusive Institution.   Once you include in the definition of marrige ANY exclusion, that then opens the way for legal argument to justify the inclusion of OTHER exclusions. i.e., other proclivities to define it. In our Western culture paedophilia does not define marriage, unlike in other cultures, (child brides),  but now it can be legally argued if we do not include it, then that is a descrimination against paedophiles - one proclivity is protected, but no other. 

This is precisely why it is wrong-head law to attempt to define marriage based on proclivities.  Each proclivity by natural progression, demands exclusive legislation to protect it, which morphs into exclusive legislation protecting an all-inclusive Institution.  It is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms.   I repeat:  The very definition of each proclivity excludes other proclivities and each requires exclusive legislation.  What part of this do you not understand?   How many times must I repeat myself.  Is there something wrong with your damned brain? 
. 

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Well,  anyone can make a hollow claims.  How about some evidence, Einstein.

Oh you want evidence? Then what do you call all of this:

Child marriage proponents in the US are predominantly evangelicals in the GOP, such as former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is Republican and is a single example of a conservative and Christian.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-child-marriage-religious-freedom-end-female-liberty-a7742196.html

New Hampshire changed it's minimum age barrier thanks to tireless efforts of Rep. Cassandra Levesque, who is a democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Levesque

Breaking: Activist Mommy Getting a Divorce
https://reformationcharlotte.org/2020/03/13/breaking-activist-mommy-getting-a-divorce/


Your claims are the hollow ones you see, where is your evidence I might ask? This is why you continuously get crushed in debate.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix
May really put you in your place didn't he? Reading through this whole conversation is like a discussion between a child and an adult arguing about if the moon was made of cheese. You of course, are the child arguing the moon is cheese.

It's like you are either refusing or unable to see the rather simple point that May has been making for some time now which frankly, isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I am legitimately not sure if this is just cognitive dissonance to the max or if you are just not that smart.

Anyways, we can all argue about this all day and all night, but it doesn't matter as long as homosexuals are allowed to marry, which they can in Australia and most places in the US, so as long as those last homophobic strongholds are dissolved, I don't care that much. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever the please, I see no need for government restrictions on who I can and can not marry.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - I asked you to provide evidence that the majority of the Bills which have been passed have been sponsored by Democrats and successfully passed by Democrats, but what do you give me instead?  No evidence of that at all, only evidence of a dissenting Repubican, who hasn't supported the Bills which have succeeded.  The non-support of a Republican is hardly proof of the success of Democrats.  Logic 101?

Then you give us the same report you previously quoted from Wikipedia, which confirms the dud Bill written by Democrats to deliberately fail, which did fail, because its terms were contrary to the interests of the many.  The same Bill was then later re-written by Republicans and was successfully passed a year later which raised the minimum age of marriage.  That is proof against  Democrats, not proof of their support.

Then you give us a report on a divorce case.   Yeah right.  Do you have any notional understanding of the meaning of the word "evidence"?
.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ...

@Grafix - May really put you in your place didn't he? Reading through this whole conversation is like a discussion between a child and an adult arguing about if the moon was made of cheese. You of course, are the child arguing the moon is cheese.
It's like you are either refusing or unable to see the rather simple point that May has been making for some time now which frankly, isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I am legitimately not sure if this is just cognitive dissonance to the max or if you are just not that smart.
Anyways, we can all argue about this all day and all night, but it doesn't matter as long as homosexuals are allowed to marry, which they can in Australia and most places in the US, so as long as those last homophobic strongholds are dissolved, I don't care that much. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry whoever the please, I see no need for government restrictions on who I can and can not marry.

Resorting to your victory lap mentality, again I see.  It is not about victory laps and scoreboards, Sunshine.  It is about protecting we the people from crooked law.  The gay marriage law is an aberration of the law, which my last post elucidates and explains why.  I don't see any reply from May to that post, yet.  So I think your victory lap is premature, Sunshine.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Actually, you didn't ask for that as evidence until just now. You said:

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Well,  anyone can make a hollow claims.  How about some evidence, Einstein.

That was it. Now you are moving the goal post because you have been shown to be wrong. I will not tolerate this.

I do give proof that child marriage is legal in most places in the US, adequate to disprove your claim:

Grafix said:
So?  What's your point?  The law doesn't care about warped interpretations which cater to warped proclivities, claiming fake discrimination.  One day this law must be overturned or we will be legalising paedophilia, rape of children in marriage, just as the Islamic law allows and seeing polygamous marriage legalized.  Goodbye to our Western culture.  The law doesn't care about dumbness which cannot see this, either.

I do actually give an example of a bill which was sponsored by a Democrat which does prove that the DNC has members who are opposed to child marriage, and the GOP has members who openly support it. This is adequate to debunk your previous claim:

That's precisely why the Marxist Democrats fought to change the marriage age to 15.  If that had not been pushed through the legislature then these children could not marry and would be forced to stay at home.  It is also why the Marxist Agenda of "free love" descended upon our Western culture in the sixties and young people of the different sexes began sharing condominiums and apartments who were of working age.  Everything is connected and don't think it isn't.  Even so, if the marriage law stupidly enacted by Democrats, says you are an "adult" at age 15, although other laws do not say that, then it is to allow someone who is still a minor in the prison system to be of the legal marriage age.  It is a demonstration of the warped thinking of Democrat leftie loons.  Thanks for the confirmation.

Not one conservative, not one Christian agreed with the lowering of the legal marrige age.  Only dippy daft Democrats did.  It says it all - good little foot soldiers of the Marxist Agenda.  It is all connected and the aim is to destroy our culture.  Mark my words, it won't stop at 15 year olds.  They will push for child bride marriages.  The filthy cover for filthy paedophilia and you, mate and the rest of your mates are to blame.

So you are wrong. There are conservative who support Child marriage, it is empirical truth, you have to make stuff up to say otherwise. I will not answer your goalpost shifting questions, if you can find evidence to support it, go ahead and present it. Till then, it is all your Orwellian hearsay.

P.S. In case you were not aware, that declaration of divorce was the same person in the video in the OP. How can you trust this person to give you good information on marriage if they can not maintain their own?

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Resorting to your victory lap mentality, again I see.  It is not about victory laps and scoreboards, Sunshine.  It is about protecting we the people from crooked law.  The gay marriage law is an aberration of the law, which my last post elucidates and explains why.  I don't see any reply from May to that post, yet.  So I think your victory lap is premature, Sunshine.

, gay marriage is right, laws which ban it are wrong. That is why the laws were changed so that homosexuals can marry as they rightly should be allowed to. Also, the "vitory lap" is delayed not premature. Australia legalized gay marriage in 2017, and 2015 in the US. You lost years ago, now you are just being homophobic for no reason.

Terminology doesn't care about your feelings!

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Mate, no-one except yourself, is moving the goal posts with your divorce case and dissident Republican and non-event Democrat dud Bill given as supposed "evidence".  

When somone replies with "Well show me the evidence"  the obvious context is evidence of what you were claiming.  You claimed that Democrats were driving the agenda to raise the minimum age of marriage, so I asked you to show me evidence of that. If you can't follow a simple conversation, then you have serious problems.  You showed me a sock puppet.

Again you just make more hollow claims in your next post, regarding the definition of marriage law, with no understanding of legal precedent, nor of legal definition nor of the definition of marriage and nor why the law must always align its definitions with the Institution it is dsigned to protect.  Marriage law is designed to protect the Institution of Marriage and not proclivities.  Proclivities are not the definition of "marriage" therefore they are irrelevant to any definition which defines the law designed to protect marriage.  It is as simple as that.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Now there you go putting words in my mouth, why don't you read and actually try to understand other people's arguments?

I make no claims about the definition of marriage law, nor claims about legal precedent, nor definition of marriage again, nor why laws must align with definition, nor about institutions, nor definition of proclivities (which I looked up and it isn't even a legal term, or at least I can't find it).

You know why you can't actually debate anyone else's claim? Because they are too strong for you so instead you must pretend like they said something they didn't. You are such a loser!

Terminology doesn't care about your feelings.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

You are free to quote any part where I stated that the marriage laws are defined by "proclivities" and not genders. My argument has only involved genders.

What I said (probably, at least, 20 times already) was that the Marriage Act is discriminatory, because it allows women to marry men, but does not allow men to marry men. I do not see any reference to sexuality or proclivities in this argument. Do you?

I think you have topped the guy who could not understand that A equals B implies B equals A. That guy, at least, eventually just walked away, but you keep pressing, completely oblivious to what is going on.

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - Did I say you said anything about any of those defintions?  Nope.  I did not claim that you did.  It is the very problem that you don't..  I said you do not understand them.  If you want to pass jusgement on a law then for you to be accurate in your judgment of a law, it is absolutely NECESSARY that you DO understand the terms which involve that law.  This statement of yours below, clearly reveals that you do NOT understand these definitions.  If you did, then you could not make such a statement without lying.  Here's your statement ...

, gay marriage is right, laws which ban it are wrong. That is why the laws were changed so that homosexuals can marry as they rightly should be allowed to. 

Another hollow claim with zilch, zip, nada, nuttin' to support it, so why should I accept it as true?  I know it is not true for all the reasons I have explained.   Claiming that the word "proclivity" is not a legal term is just dippy daft irrelevant chatter.  The word "sex" is not a legal term either, nor is "homosexual", nor is "heterosexual", nor is "depravity", nor is "oxymoron", nor is "contradiction", but they are all definitions which may be used to express legal arguments.  Every word in a legal argument is not and does not even need to be a "legal term".  You don't even know what the definition of a "legal term" is by the sound of it.  It is becoming patently clear that ignorance of definitions is your problem and is why you have been so easily inculcated by the Marxist brigade to believe the shite that you do.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

You did say I said something about those definitions, it's right here: 

Grafix said:

@Happy_Killbot - Mate, no-one except yourself, is moving the goal posts with your divorce case and dissident Republican and non-event Democrat dud Bill given as supposed "evidence".  

When somone replies with "Well show me the evidence"  the obvious context is evidence of what you were claiming.  You claimed that Democrats were driving the agenda to raise the minimum age of marriage, so I asked you to show me evidence of that. If you can't follow a simple conversation, then you have serious problems.  You showed me a sock puppet.

Again you just make more hollow claims in your next post, regarding the definition of marriage law, with no understanding of legal precedent, nor of legal definition nor of the definition of marriage and nor why the law must always align its definitions with the Institution it is dsigned to protect.  Marriage law is designed to protect the Institution of Marriage and not proclivities.  Proclivities are not the definition of "marriage" therefore they are irrelevant to any definition which defines the law designed to protect marriage.  It is as simple as that.

You are now arguing against your own claims. Typical.

Grafix

@MayCaesar - You say ...

@Grafix  - I stated that the marriage laws are defined by "proclivities" and not genders. My argument has only involved genders.

You may believe that with your unclever, patently obvious wordsmithing, but the actuality is that your arguments DO  defend proclivities to define marriage, which require exclusions, yet you claim the only language which ACTUALLY doesn't require exclusions somehow does - i.e., that the Marriage Act was discriminatory, when it wasn't.  It was all-inclusive of every man and every woman.  Proclivities are  EX clusive, not INclusive.

What I said (probably, at least, 20 times already) was that the Marriage Act is discriminatory, because it allows women to marry men, but does not allow men to marry men. I do not see any reference to sexuality or proclivities in this argument. Do you?

The Marriage Act states no such thing.  It says nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, both of which are proclivities.   They are not people.  They simply identify proclivities of  people.  Marriage is not defined by ANY proclivity at all.  It is defined by gender only.  As there are only two genders, then it is  ALL-INCLUSIVE,  given it includes those two genders.  PERIOD.  Then you claim this ...

I think you have topped the guy who could not understand that A equals B implies B equals A. That guy, at least, eventually just walked away, but you keep pressing, completely oblivious to what is going on.

I think you just described yourself, somehow.  Show me that the Marriage Act requires either of the proclivlities - homosexuality or heterosexuality - to obtain a Marriage Licence?  It is silent on both.  It says nothing about either.  It merely says that ONE MAN  and ONE WOMAN are required to constitute a marriage.  It does not say whether they must be lesbians, homosexuals, bi-sexual, paedophiles, or heterosexuals because it is  ... 

S    I    L    E     N     T         O   N         T    H     E          Q    U    E    S     T     I     O     N          O    F         A    N    Y          P   R   O   C   L   I   V    I    T     Y.

Yet you try to twist a pear into a pretzel and claim that it is not.    The fact is that It allows any person of any proclivity to marry.   The marriage bans however are not silent.  They ban proclivities as acceptable grounds upon which to obtain a Marriage Licence, which include paedophilia, polygamy, incest, bestiality and used to also include homosexuality.  Now but one  proclivity is protected by marriage law, but no others are.  That is the

O  N  L  Y     D  I  S  C  R  I  M  I  N  A  T  O  R  Y     L  A  W     H  E  R  E

W H Y     A R E N 'T     A L L     Y O U      L I B E R A L S      S C R E A M I N G     A B O U T     T H A T     D I S C R I M I N A T I O N?      H U H?

D   O   U   B   L   E          S  T  A  N  D  A  R  D  S          M  E  T  H  I  N  K  S
.

MayCaesar

@Grafix

You literally quoted a part where I said that my argument does not refer to any proclivity or sexuality, yet here you are again, disagreeing with me by saying that the Marriage Act does not refer to any proclivity or sexuality.

I think you seriously might just have low intelligence. This - quoting something and then criticising a statement that is exactly opposite to the quote - is a new high.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Have you met John_C_87? sometimes that guy just makes up words to defend his position and try and make points that ultimately come down to word salad.

I think your obsession with "proclivities" is on the same level, since it isn't a legal term and doesn't mean much outside of your homophobic rant.

Here is a gay couple kissing in Australia After the Australian Marriage act was amended in 2017 to allow homosexuals to marry.


This amendment formally changed the definition of marriage from:

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

to

marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Effectively allowing everyone the right to marry, not just men and women. What are we talking about if it is not this one small change? It's water under the bridge. Homosexuals can marry and that isn't going to be reversed any time soon, nor should it be.

Grafix

@MayCaesar -   You wrote ...

You literally quoted a part where I said that my argument does not refer to any proclivity or sexuality, yet here you are again, disagreeing with me by saying that the Marriage Act does not refer to any proclivity or sexuality.

AND I responded with the argument that you are using wordsmithing to try to float that deceitful disclaimer.   By that I mean you are careful not to actually state outright that you are defending proclivities to define marriage, but in REALITY you are  when you claim the Marriage Act is discriminatory  because it will not allow men to marry men and only allows women to marry men.   Men having sex with men is a proclivity and the marriage law never did protect proclivities.  The marriage bans banned them as any grounds for marriage, although the Act was silent on that.  It does not speak to homosexuality or any sexuality.  That's the point you refuse to accept, which means you are straight up and down lying in your refusal to acknowledge that..

You either accept the meaning of the previous definition or you simply deny it, which is what you are doing - denying the facts, denying the truth.  You are lying to defend your arguments.  It is dishonest argument and I call all of you out for being liars.
 

Grafix

@Happy_Killbot - You wrote ....

Have you met John_C_87? sometimes that guy just makes up words to defend his position and try and make points that ultimately come down to word salad.
I think your obsession with "proclivities" is on the same level, since it isn't a legal term and doesn't mean much outside of your homophobic rant.

So that's it?  That's your defense?  Drive a personal attack against another commenter who has never entered this discussion?  IRRELEVANT.   Then you attack me too.   IRRELEVANT.   OK .  You asked for it.   I'll stop being nice then.  From now on I shall call it  "the depravity of sodomy".  Happy now?  Go and learn for God's sake what the definition of a "legal term" is, Bozo.

It is not an "obsession".  It is describing flawed law which protects a depravity which never was, never has and still does not define the Institution of Marriage.  It never can, because sodomy is a depravity.  Marriage is not a depravity.  Maybe you gave me a lifeline here, eh?  Mabybe speaking in REAL terms will make it clearer, eh?  Is marriage a depravity?  Answer that.

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix

Happy_Killbot

@Grafix