Love is love

[Risto the Great]

Honestly, none of the above explains why marriage between homosexuals was not an option even in times when it was considered a normal/acceptable kind of relationship. It simply didn't happen.

So, it is considered less normal now but it appears homosexual marriage is embraced.

Talking about marriages as alliances is not really what I am talking about. Those are in the minority. But even if that was the case, why didn't 2 kings get it on and take over the world?

I believe the Spartans were banging the teen boys as part of their initiation process. I don't recall them continuing with the adults. But wouldn't put it past them. Either way, they weren't marrying each other either.

So .... in times when homosexuality was looked at more favourably, they still weren't marrying. Why not? Maybe they knew what a marriage was more than we appear to do now.

[Starling]

Honestly, none of the above explains why marriage between homosexuals was not an option even in times when it was considered a normal/acceptable kind of relationship. It simply didn't happen.

Not necessarily. It was less common but the bulk of our information is in relation to nobles and royalty rather than the common people, where additional considerations are necessary to the use of marriage.

So, it is considered less normal now but it appears homosexual marriage is embraced.

Talking about marriages as alliances is not really what I am talking about. Those are in the minority.

The talk about marriage for alliances is mostly in historical context of the original purpose of marriage and why its primary purpose is still a legal one.

But even if that was the case, why didn't 2 kings get it on and take over the world?

Because politics. Secret previously unknown heirs tend to pop up whenever there's a succession crisis.

I believe the Spartans were banging the teen boys as part of their initiation process. I don't recall them continuing with the adults. But wouldn't put it past them. Either way, they weren't marrying each other either.

Pederasty was definitely a thing in Sparta and probably most of the city-states in general, though I don't recall an age being specified regarding the relationships among soldiers. The two aren't mutually exclusive so the presence of one doesn't necessarily mean the absence of the other.

So .... in times when homosexuality was looked at more favourably, they still weren't marrying. Why not? Maybe they knew what a marriage was more than we appear to do now.

The gender roles involved in the alliances and the preference for male leaders would be the main reason same sex marriages were less common even when the relationships were accepted. In a society in which the right to rule is determined by divine lineage and marriage officiated your inheritance, adoption only really happened among family, making addressing the lack of biological children in same sex relationships a potential concern on the political scale. Easier to make your alliance with someone who can give an incontestable heir and have your romantic or sexual relationships without marrying. That way you avoid potential coups or upheaval based on your lack of legitimate heir and people won't just ignore your designated heir because they aren't your direct descendant. Those things don't really matter in present day society so it's a non-issue now. Had ancient societies been less concerned with direct line of descent from the start, we likely would've seen more same sex relationships.

[Risto the Great]

Respectufully, I think you're simply putting a case forward to justify homosexuality. In contrast, I am merely stating that the modern world has never put homosexuality in as favourable a light as ancient history may have. And I think they simply understood the futility of it and quite probably accepted that making children was generally a defining factor of marriage.

[Starling]

Not really. Plenty of people are fine with same sex relationships these days and pedophilia is generally frowned upon so for all the problems we're still dealing with progress is being made. To generalize the present day society doesn't view same sex relationships favourably would require ignoring the work people have put into ending discrimination on those grounds and the legalization of gay marriage in other countries.

Anyway, I disagree with your notion of why people oppose same sex marriage. It's like trying to justify sexism or racism. You could probably explain the mentality behind why it came to be but that doesn't make it right. The same people who decided that same sex relationships were morally wrong also vilified polygamous relationships or not getting married even if you opted out of relationships altogether. In their minds only a very specific way of life was acceptable and you were damned if you didn't follow it.

The defining factor of marriage is a contract pertaining to wealth distribution of the involved parties and inheritance by their next of kin. It doesn't really matter if the next of kin are biologically related or even raised by the involved parties, but in antiquity biological children were simply less trouble as you wouldn't have to deal with fake heirs or other stuff caused by people trying to steal your stuff form whoever you wanted to give it to. There wasn't anything morally superior about it.

Matriarchal societies were the norm before patriarchal ones became more common. While men in patriarchal societies were usually in charge, women were known to have been leaders and warriors are well. Even then, women were often involved in the administration of the estate, finances, negotiations and took over their spouse's work when they were absent. It's only later that they were treated as little more than housewives and had to fight to be treated as equals. Doesn't help that historical texts from certain periods were heavily skewed against certain groups or written by people with limited perspectives of who they were writing about.

So basically we have precedence for this kind of thing going back and forth over time, especially since cultures with differing perspectives on a number of things could exist simultaneously and arent necessarily direct continuations of each other depending on which ones are being discussed.

[Risto the Great]

I didn't bring up paedophilia in this context. That is simply another smaller minority that is presently judged unfavourably. I am not sure how long this will last. I note even baboons are afforded legal rights nowadays. The case of the baboon who took a picture of itself and is now entitled to royalties from the picture is confirmation enough. Perhaps the future will see man and animal wed because .... they have rights too!
The future is now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934586/Man-SEX-dolphin-1970s-claims-new-film-performing-mammal-one-seduced-him.html

Who am I to judge? Right? Love is love!

The defining factor of a marriage seems to have changed now, but it usually historically points to the formal recognition of union between a man and woman. Talking about wealth distribution is collateral in my opinion and not a defining aspect.

Nothing you have said provides even the slightest of information that confirms the more favourable historical eras for homosexuality facilitated an environment for them to marry. It didn't happen ... matriarchal/patriarchal or whatever.

[Starling]

I didn't bring up paedophilia in this context. That is simply another smaller minority that is presently judged unfavourably. I am not sure how long this will last. I note even baboons are afforded legal rights nowadays. The case of the baboon who took a picture of itself and is now entitled to royalties from the picture is confirmation enough. Perhaps the future will see man and animal wed because .... they have rights too!
The future is now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934586/Man-SEX-dolphin-1970s-claims-new-film-performing-mammal-one-seduced-him.html

Who am I to judge? Right? Love is love!

The defining factor of a marriage seems to have changed now, but it usually historically points to the formal recognition of union between a man and woman. Talking about wealth distribution is collateral in my opinion and not a defining aspect.

Nothing you have said provides even the slightest of information that confirms the more favourable historical eras for homosexuality facilitated an environment for them to marry. It didn't happen ... matriarchal/patriarchal or whatever.

I didn't say anything about pedophilia in my previous post. Did you get it mixed up with the last post about pederasty in Sparta? That was from historical cultural views on sexual relationships and noting that some only really allowed what is pedophilia rather than actual same sex relationships.

I hadn't heard of that. I do know that there are discussion on the personhood of certain species of animals as their person-hood would make keeping them in captivity illegal due to slavery laws applying to them. Crows understand the concept of currency and have been known to try to pay people for taking garden crops, as thanks for feeding them or to get them to buy something from a store. They've also organized against pest control attempts in Japan, IIRC. There are also dogs taking the train in Russia, a dolphin that figured out a way to exploit a trick for food and some chimps with a camera that tried to run a pornography trade. Dogs are proven to have a concept of fair pay and will cease to cooperate if they see another dog being rewarded more for the same work, though they've been conditioned to put up with it longer than wolves do.

As for the bestiality comment, they still wouldn't be able to legally consent and dogs aren't among the species that may qualify as legal persons. They consistently fail the mirror test, suggesting they have little to no sense of self-awareness in the sense required for sentience.

The wealth distribution is a key point. Pretty sure the pair in that tomb were married and you can't really discount the existence of married same sex couples across all ancient cultures. We have evidence of trans women and the recognition of other genders in certain cultures, as well as the wealth of genderless pronouns in certain languages such as Japanese, while everything in latin derived languages are gendered. Stuff like that is subject to variation.

The point was to explain where marriage came from and why it's largely a legal agreement on the distribution of wealth. I've explained both that and how the reasoning behind favouring male/female marriages is no longer relevant with adoption and means of having a biological child within a same sex or infertile marriage readily available and blood relation not being as important in those matters.

In any case, you'd be hard pressed to justify the deprivation of the legal benefits of marriage to people solely based on them having the same gender when others enjoy those legal benefits just fine.

[Redsun]

Does it really matter? Is it necessary to read that much into the sexuality of Ancient Macedonian kings? I did state that the assassination out of jealousy was only one of the many theories as to why Pausanias killed Filip.

Yes, it does matter. If you consider such a detail as the sexuality of Macedonian Kings trivial then why did you mention it? I didn’t respond because of what you had stated about the theory of Philips assassination. It was the way that you have, like so many others choose not to question the sexuality assumption. Instead you repeat it.

Before this thread I never questioned the sexuality of these two, I have no interest in homosexuality and there are many of us that would rather not read a word of it that is why this is never properly discussed it always just gets accepted without question.

Is it necessary to read that much into the sexuality of Ancient Macedonian kings?

Looking back and reading what you had said in post #31 “It is more likely he was bixsexual yes, as was Filip”. I think it necessary, don’t you? You have disregarded the both of them as bisexual simply as if flipping a pancake. Its like "pass the parcel game" you are just passing something around that will cycle back, no one ever questions it they just pass it on.

[Redsun]

Just because the present day term wasn't around yet doesn't mean that there wasn't a word for it or that other sexualities didn't exist until people could put it into words. Homosexuality is found among other species, who don't express themselves in words. Homosexuality didn't just pop into existence this century just because everyone else is becoming more aware of it and people have better means to put their sexuality and gender into words.

Did you even read what I had posted?

People had homosexual relationships and affairs

people have been engaging in homosexual activities long before the Christian concept of marriage

The modern homosexual (what you consider gay) only has sex with people of their own gender, there has been no one that I am aware of ever that has declared or announced their desire to have sex with only the same gender centuries ago - a devout practitioner of “consensual” same sex.

In order to combat homosexual discrimination, there has been enforced presentations in the media (gay couples added to family television shows). The government didn’t oppose discrimination against homosexuals before, they do now and that’s great but recently the changes implemented to promote homosexuality, the expectation of change at a national level, homosexual teachers and talk hosts people of influence, introduction of gay activists on tv news shows permitted to push their agenda, the sudden change in people’s behaviour (people that are gay are feeling free to behave gay which is good yet) due to the immediate implementation and not allowing things to take its natural course there has been a superficial creation of lifestyle and culture based on an identity which is purely defined by its desire to have sex with the same gender.

The false standard of tolerance created as an ideal, that everyone must tolerate and not express how they feel around a homosexual but a homosexual can express themselves creates a double standard. Superficial false ideal advertised that consumer conformist gobble up mindlessly, creating a false way of life.

This is a example of inequality, a talk show is on television with around 5 hosts 1 hosts starts blabbing on about homosexual rights we can notice one of the other hosts through their body language and hand gestures gives us the impression that they oppose the other persons view. But they must remain quite, they are afraid that by expressing the way they feel equally as the gay activist had, they will put their job in jeopardy. Do you believe that homosexuals living in a fear for centuries justifies why heterosexuals should fear expressing themselves encase of loss of job, freedom of speech has been trampled upon. That is not equality.

Your views on marriage are outdated. Religion didn't invent marriage. At its core it's always been a form of alliance or partnership between individuals. Sometimes alliances between more than 2 people were permitted, sometimes they were not. Sometimes the married individuals had a say, sometimes the marriage was arranged between their parents. Sexual relationships existed outside of marriage because marriage was a legal contract and often treated as separate from matters of love until younger generations rebelled against older generations to be able to choose their spouses, marrying out of love.

I could say your view on marriage is conceptual.

Given that people can marry regardless of religion or lack thereof, that marital status has a major legal impact on how you and your partner are treated in various matters and that the modern conception of marriage is to do it out of love, it simply isn't justifiable to deny that to same sex couples, especially based on a conception of marriage dating from but one of many time periods and cultures.

The notion of civility is relative and cavemen likely had better bathing habits than later civilizations in certain periods. Soap and toothbrushes have been around for quite a while and people could do a decent job cleaning themselves in lakes before that. We also have plenty of evidence that astronomy dates very far back. Despite technological progression and cultural differences, certain aspects of society haven't changed as much as people seem to think.

Not necessarily. We have no records of the location of an ancient kingdom Egypt had good relations with, simply because it was it was taken for granted everyone already knew. Likewise an old Roman concrete recipe didn't specify the water had to be salt water so it took a while for people to get it right. You also have misunderstandings due to antiquated phrasing such not understanding that feet was a euphemism for genitals and people simply having better things to do than to go on about the sex life of people or such accounts being removed from historical discussion due to homophobic people. Not a lot of people know that Lincoln and king James had male lovers, for example.

Isn’t that contradictory to what you had said about Lord Byron, wouldn’t he have made every attempt in taking advantage of such accounts?

In any case what we do have is that Alexander and Hephaestion were described as two men of one soul, compared to a pair widely considered to be romantically involved and a euphemistic reference to them likely having sex. Given the above, in terms of ancient history that's basically a neon sign spelling out that they had a same sex relationship.

Also to clarify the definition of bisexuality, it's sexual attraction to two genders, which when accounting for non-binary gender identities can be applied beyond simply male and female. While some cultures did distinguish more than two genders, such distinctions are unlikely to be present in surviving historical records and don't mean much in terms of Alexander and Hephaestion, who were both male. Also sexual attraction and romantic attraction, while often overlapping, aren't the same thing so you can have desire to have a romantic relationship without the sexual attraction and vice-versa.

The definition of bisexuality that you have given excludes Alexander and Heaspations relationship. Regardless if their relationship was romantic, sexual or both there is nothing that explains if they were really attracted to both genders or if they only had an attraction for one another and woman. Assume what you like, you cannot say for certain and neither of us know the rules of their relationship if they allowed one another to have other men. As you had said “two men of one soul”, they were not attracted to each other because of their gender, they believed they had a bond that surpassed the body.

You completely missed the point of that example. You're no more affected by a neighbour's marriage if it's with a man or a woman. The big issue is while a heterosexual person can marry their partner and gain legal benefits, same sex couples can't and have no access to those legal benefits, despite marital status having a major impact on your life. You can literally be barred from arranging your partner's funeral should they die before you and not be married and same sex couples in countries that don't allow them to marry have no choice in living that risk, while heterosexual couples have a choice in the matter.

That pyramid example is false equivalence. The pyramids are a public monument rather than the personal property of a specific person/family. Do you have the right to decide what colour someone else paints the house they own?

How was the pyramid example false equivalence, think about it. It’s older than Christianity so you cannot use religion to twist this example about and as you had said a public monument something common to everyone such as “marriage”. No one has a right to decide what you and your partner do in your relationship and no one has the right to decide whether the pyramid should be painted or not.

By that logic all heterosexual citizens should've been excluded from the vote due to it only affecting whether or not same sex couples had the same marital rights everyone else already has. Given how democracies work, excluding part of the population that's eligible to vote from voting on something is anti-democratic no matter how little certain demographics are affected. Had they not deliberately changed the law's phrasing to explicitly exclude same sex couples they could've done it through a court ruling to allow a same sex couple to marry as I recall it happening in the US.

[Redsun]

Encyclopedia Britannica 1968.

Marriage, as used in the article, is a legally and socially sanctioned union between one or more husbands and one or more wives that accords status to their offspring and is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs and attitudes that prescribe the rights and the duties of the partners. The universality of marriage within different societies and cultures is attributed to the many basic social and personal functions it performs, such as procreation and provision for sexual gratification and regulation, care of children and their education and socialization, regulation of lines of descent, division of labour between the sexes, economic production and consumption and provision for satisfaction of personal needs for affection, status and companionship.
The kinds of institutions and customs that a society develop to fulfill these function depends on a number of characteristics, as size and complexity of the society, level of economic development, form of kinship system and the nature of economic, political and religious institutions, For example, the status of woman affects the power that husbands have over wives; religious beliefs are related to attitude about divorce and remarriage; the age of marriage and the economic role of wives is partly determined by the economic system; the social class boundaries define limits of eligibility for mate selection.


You have failed to notice something very important; human rights are inalienable to every individual. There is nothing in Article 16 concerning “couples”, only “Men” and “woman”. It’s not applied to couples but the individual. You have the right to marry, what are you complaining about?

[Redsun]

Please acknowledge that by pushing your agenda you are nothing more than a criminal who wants to violate human rights.

The only "morally acceptable" and "legal" way SSC can get married is by supporting what you consider an outdated view upon marriage. This outdated encyclopaedia shows us a standard of what marriage was perceived to be nearer to the time that the human rights declaration had been written. This would have been the same attitude so therefore you my friend as a progressive lesbian must support a conservative view on marriage that I had highlighted so that you and your lesbian partner may get married.

I think its great, the child gets to experience what it’s like to have parents of both sex.

The SSC get to continue their relationship. It would be more socially acceptable then SSC that breed hate against the opposite gender which promotes inequality, which is unhealthy for society.

The child will then have three parents so therefore it will receive 50 percent more love than two parents could provide. Whats wrong with that.

Try to be a little more open minded, see everyone is a winner this way. I think this outdated view is more socially adaptable and acceptable then SSC with adopted children.

Governments have concerns over over-population they don’t care what is morally acceptable, they will accept homosexual reforms in an attempt to cut down numbers because SSC don't breed. They could of agreed to allow triplee marriages this would have had a similar effect on their nations. They didn't take into account adoption, so numbers will not go down as much as they had intended. Europeans SSC will adopt non European children, creating a false world.

Its OK, homosexuality is not a psychological disease; it’s a sociological disease so therefor treatable/curable. There hasn’t been enough study into it because the very thought of it is consider discrimination. There has never been a conclusion with the psychological inquests, it is now time for people to be reasonable and question the sociological aspect of it all and the affects it has on society. Is it sociologically healthy?

[Risto the Great]

I didn't say anything about pedophilia in my previous post. Did you get it mixed up with the last post about pederasty in Sparta?

Your post previous to mine mentioned it in the first paragraph.

[Pelagonija]

I have a friend who works in one of Australia's top uni, the student union is run be gays/Lezos.. they have a party on campus annually, this involves multiple women with glad wrap lining up to fist fark one Sheila..guys giving head to each other openly, everyone on drugs and acting like lunatics.. this is Australia's "best and brightest"

I'm not saying these people should be persecuted, they are sick and beyond help. But taking this to the next level by promoting it.. eg gay propaganda on tv, radio, news articles, adoption and the schooling system is absolutely mind boggling.. this will only cause more social ills and destruction by confusing the crap out of kids from the get go.. kids should be given a chance to have a normal upbringing void of sexual agendas and commercialisation.

This process has nothing to do with equality or love. The only real love we are capable of is that for our children.. And as the west is willing to destroy them.

It is proven that mentally ill people are more likely to engage in deviate behaviour, this moral decline will lead to the downfall of liberal societies like ours..What is natural will always prevail, that is a million year fact.

And I say people who support this promotion in any form are simply not capable of any love. What kind of normal loving parent would want to expose their children to this?

[Phoenix]

This thread is real twilight zone shit...even the most medieval members of the Australian conservative movement look progressive by comparison...lol

[Redsun]

I have a friend who works in one of Australia's top uni, the student union is run be gays/Lezos.. they have a party on campus annually, this involves multiple women with glad wrap lining up to fist fark one Sheila..guys giving head to each other openly, everyone on drugs and acting like lunatics.. this is Australia's "best and brightest"

I'm not saying these people should be persecuted, they are sick and beyond help. But taking this to the next level by promoting it.. eg gay propaganda on tv, radio, news articles, adoption and the schooling system is absolutely mind boggling.. this will only cause more social ills and destruction by confusing the crap out of kids from the get go.. kids should be given a chance to have a normal upbringing void of sexual agendas and commercialisation.

This process has nothing to do with equality or love. The only real love we are capable of is that for our children.. And as the west is willing to destroy them.

It is proven that mentally ill people are more likely to engage in deviate behaviour, this moral decline will lead to the downfall of liberal societies like ours..What is natural will always prevail, that is a million year fact.

And I say people who support this promotion in any form are simply not capable of any love. What kind of normal loving parent would want to expose their children to this?

Considering what you had said in your first two paragraphs, your post was the moral decline in this thread. Think about it. Some of our guest visitors here are young Macedonians, must they be exposed to such detail?

Every generation creates an alternative environment for the next generation, within each environment the generation rebels. After such a moral decline, won’t the next generation rise up and demand to know why they live with such conditions, why there is no structure? There is also the possibility that the progressives may create the perfect environment in which a form of a traditional extremist political movement will develop transcending the borders of all nations and changing the face of the world forever. We cannot predict the future, so why make such assumptions.

[Starling]

Did you even read what I had posted?

Did you proofread them?

You also said:

The modern homosexual (what you consider gay) only has sex with people of their own gender, there has been no one that I am aware of ever that has declared or announced their desire to have sex with only the same gender centuries ago - a devout practitioner of “consensual” same sex.

Only now we hear of people that will only have sex with their own gender.

You also treated homosexuality in the present and antiquity as separate things, with the general implication being that just because people didn't use the same terminology we do now or express sexuality in the same manner that homosexuality as we know it now is a new phenomenon simply because of societal differences. Differences in sexual expression, terminology or lack thereof have no bearing on the existence of homosexuality.

In order to combat homosexual discrimination, there has been enforced presentations in the media (gay couples added to family television shows). The government didn’t oppose discrimination against homosexuals before, they do now and that’s great but recently the changes implemented to promote homosexuality, the expectation of change at a national level, homosexual teachers and talk hosts people of influence, introduction of gay activists on tv news shows permitted to push their agenda, the sudden change in people’s behaviour (people that are gay are feeling free to behave gay which is good yet) due to the immediate implementation and not allowing things to take its natural course there has been a superficial creation of lifestyle and culture based on an identity which is purely defined by its desire to have sex with the same gender.

Heaven forbid non-straight couples be allowed to exist in media or in public spaces like everyone else. Most kids find all those heterosexual relationships shoehorned into shows and movies to be boring and a waste of time. Most of them are terribly written and are only in a relationship because of some arbitrary rule that major female characters largely exist to be love interests to a male protagonist. The government doesn't have much say in those things. People are simply following a demand for better representation.

Your notion of an artificial gay culture is entirely untrue. People are just more aware of their existence and while many still risk assault just for existing, the increased acceptance has made it safer for them to express themselves and be known. They had communities long before people took notice of them and those communities are just as genuine as anyone else's.

The false standard of tolerance created as an ideal, that everyone must tolerate and not express how they feel around a homosexual but a homosexual can express themselves creates a double standard. Superficial false ideal advertised that consumer conformist gobble up mindlessly, creating a false way of life.

You mean like the false standard of intolerance towards the mere mention of gay people existing? There are repercussions to discrimination. By this reasoning people should be allowed to spout racial slurs and demand the reinstatement of slavery.

This is a example of inequality, a talk show is on television with around 5 hosts 1 hosts starts blabbing on about homosexual rights we can notice one of the other hosts through their body language and hand gestures gives us the impression that they oppose the other persons view. But they must remain quite, they are afraid that by expressing the way they feel equally as the gay activist had, they will put their job in jeopardy. Do you believe that homosexuals living in a fear for centuries justifies why heterosexuals should fear expressing themselves encase of loss of job, freedom of speech has been trampled upon. That is not equality.

Would you be saying the same thing if they were talking about the antisemitism or general racism going on in the US right now? And how can you be sure you're reading the body language correctly? Misinterpretations happen a lot with stuff like that.

I could say your view on marriage is conceptual.

No more conceptual than yours. If you want to get pedantic about it marriage is a human social construct subject to variations from one culture to another. Laws in general can be described as conceptual and yet they still matter. Marriage does and has always served a legal function.

Isn’t that contradictory to what you had said about Lord Byron, wouldn’t he have made every attempt in taking advantage of such accounts?

He was too busy fantasizing about young boys and posing for that one portrait. You're assuming someone like him gave a damn about actual history despite clinging to a romanticized narrative of ancient Greece. As a pedophile, consensual relationships between adults wouldn't matter to him much.

The definition of bisexuality that you have given excludes Alexander and Heaspations relationship. Regardless if their relationship was romantic, sexual or both there is nothing that explains if they were really attracted to both genders or if they only had an attraction for one another and woman. Assume what you like, you cannot say for certain and neither of us know the rules of their relationship if they allowed one another to have other men. As you had said “two men of one soul”, they were not attracted to each other because of their gender, they believed they had a bond that surpassed the body.

You're just nitpicking. One could say no one was heterosexual because it can't be accurately verified that they actually cared about their relationships, and yet we take them at face value. I've already established that there's plenty of evidence that they had a romantic and sexual relationship, so that just leaves whether or not you believe Aexander married Roxana out of love, as it's specifically him that's considered bisexual. If you require that they be attracted to each other and a woman at the same time, then you're confusing bisexuality with polyamory. They're not mutually exclusive but they're separate things.

Two people of one soul is basically how they described romantic relationships. One of the common ways in which same sex relationships that couldn't be fully omitted were hidden was to pass them off as close friends instead of lovers, much like what you're doing here.

How was the pyramid example false equivalence, think about it. It’s older than Christianity so you cannot use religion to twist this example about and as you had said a public monument something common to everyone such as “marriage”. No one has a right to decide what you and your partner do in your relationship and no one has the right to decide whether the pyramid should be painted or not.

Your argument here doesn't even make sense and fails in multiple ways:

1. The paint is the metaphor for marriage, not the building. The building represents the couple, which is why the analogy only works with personal property.

2. Religion predates the pyramid and Christianity.

3. In your version, Christianity would exist at the point where the pyramids are being painted, defeating your stated reasoning behind using the pyramids in your analogy.

4. Is using Christianity to define marriage not using religion to twist the example? Also multiple religions exist.

5. Discriminating against same sex couples goes against the basic Christian tenet of "do unto others as you would like others to do unto you". Don't deny rights to others if you want them to be respected for you.

6. If no one has a right to decide what you and your partner do in your relationship then why do you claim to have a right to what other people do in their relationship by denying them the right to marry?

Please acknowledge that by pushing your agenda you are nothing more than a criminal who wants to violate human rights.

I'm quite frankly beyond caring about the words of someone accusing me of being a criminal over explaining the problems in denying same sex marriage or even refusing to acknowledge the existence of same sex couples as normal people who have every right to exist. Such blatant ad hominem arguments on such an absurd scale pretty much kill your credibility.

I specifically pointed out that the Australian law didn't originally exclude same sex relationships and that allowing same sex marriage would effectively re-include what was already feasible within previous iterations of the law. Adding back something that was previously removed doesn't necessarily mean a backwards progression, the same way adding something that wasn't there doesn' necessarily mean a forward one. Context is important. Alcohol was allowed in the US before prohibition. Does that make undoing prohibition pushing for an outdated view?

Now, specifically regarding that encyclopedia entry, if you're using it to say they didn't allow same sex marriages in 1968, that's already common knowledge. The Mccarthy era had recently ended and it was the tail end of the civil rights movement, when black people were still struggling for basic human rights. Women didn't gain the right to vote in Switzerland until 1971. Human rights issues are still an ongoing problem all over the world. So then why would a lapse in such rights when people first started improving those issues be a valid argument against allowing same sex couples to have those rights now?

The SSC get to continue their relationship. It would be more socially acceptable then SSC that breed hate against the opposite gender which promotes inequality, which is unhealthy for society.

They literally just want the same marriage rights heterosexual couples already have. How the hell does that oppress anyone?

I find it strange that you oppose same sex marriage while suggesting polygamous ones as an alternative. Most people who dislike one dislike the other. The problem with that is that polygamous relationships don't magically work for everyone who tries them and you can't really force people to take on an additional partner they don't really want just to satisfy your need for at least one man and woman per relationship.

Your arguments are entirely fallacious and you even seem to be trying to insult me with an inaccurate assumption on my sexuality. And for the record, the basic definition of liberal is simply open-mindedness and willingness to change when change is needed. A stagnant society is unable to adapt to changing circumstances and will be doomed to failure. While keeping functional systems is sensible, you have to be ready to acknowledge when things need to change.

Your post previous to mine mentioned it in the first paragraph.

Which I addressed in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted:

That was from historical cultural views on sexual relationships and noting that some only really allowed what is pedophilia rather than actual same sex relationships.

I have a friend who works in one of Australia's top uni, the student union is run be gays/Lezos.. they have a party on campus annually, this involves multiple women with glad wrap lining up to fist fark one Sheila..guys giving head to each other openly, everyone on drugs and acting like lunatics.. this is Australia's "best and brightest"

I'm not saying these people should be persecuted, they are sick and beyond help. But taking this to the next level by promoting it.. eg gay propaganda on tv, radio, news articles, adoption and the schooling system is absolutely mind boggling.. this will only cause more social ills and destruction by confusing the crap out of kids from the get go.. kids should be given a chance to have a normal upbringing void of sexual agendas and commercialisation.

This process has nothing to do with equality or love. The only real love we are capable of is that for our children.. And as the west is willing to destroy them.

It is proven that mentally ill people are more likely to engage in deviate behaviour, this moral decline will lead to the downfall of liberal societies like ours..What is natural will always prevail, that is a million year fact.

And I say people who support this promotion in any form are simply not capable of any love. What kind of normal loving parent would want to expose their children to this?

Pelagonija, don't you think people deserve to actually understand how sex works and how to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies by the time they're physically capable of those things? If it was really about supposed agendas regarding such things then media wouldn't be so filled to the brim with men and women kissing each other, innuendos and other such things. People only seem to take issue when there's even the vaguest possibility that it was mentioned that same sex couples exist. Doesn't that double standard sound awfully familiar to you? And on top of that and your earlier sexism you add your predictably poor views on mental illness. Given that mental illness includes depression, PTSD, autism and ADHD, chances are you've met several people with one or more people with such conditions and didn't notice the difference. And with that last line you're just straight up trying to dehumanize anyone who doesn't fit your narrow view of acceptable means of existing within society at this point.