Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[crazyhomo]

Fellas, fellas, fellas...
I'm taking time away from my exension history to do this, so I shall be breif.
a) The Universal Declarations of Human Rights is an international convention, and not applicable to Australian Law

i didn't realise you support slavery

 

[400miles]

Post something constructive or shutup. If you want to make a constructive reply fine, otherwise shutup. This isn't a spam forum, if you want to randomly flame people take it to non-school.

No. I posted that because I felt it was worth as much as your previous post where you said that you felt the point that homosexuals are not deprived was proven.

 

[neo o]

i didn't realise you support slavery

Did he say he supported slavery? Additionally, slavery (the Kanakas etc) was abolished when Australia federated in 1901, long before the UN declaration of human rights.

 

[AsyLum]

This thing is still going :S

Let them be.

 

[neo o]

what about when you admitted your 'its not a extra right coz they can marry the opposite sex' argument was complete bs?

You said it was, I never agreed it was.

No. I posted that because I felt it was worth as much as your previous post where you said that you felt the point that homosexuals are not deprived was proven.

Well I feel that your comment has absolutely no worth and doesn't contribute in any way shape or form to the debate.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

In the words of Justice Kirby, it is an "absurd proposition that would insist upon acceptance of sexual orientation but prohibit all of its physical and emotional manifestations."

.

 

[neo o]

In the words of Justice Kirby, it is an "absurd proposition that would insist upon acceptance of sexual orientation but prohibit all of its physical and emotional manifestations."
.

I think laws on the age of consent are ridiculous as well.

 

[crazyhomo]

Did he say he supported slavery? Additionally, slavery (the Kanakas etc) was abolished when Australia federated in 1901, long before the UN declaration of human rights.

well, he said he didn't consider the universal declaration of human rights to be of any significance, so from that i deduced he must not agree with anything in the document, and therefore supports salvery

 

[crazyhomo]

You said it was, I never agreed it was.

you've yet to deny it

 

[400miles]

Well I feel that your comment has absolutely no worth and doesn't contribute in any way shape or form to the debate.

That's funny... that's how I feel about everything you write. Hmm, I never thought I'd be in mutual agreement with you...

 

[eviltama]

Please point out some instances of said ignorance. Also, what is this "bigger picture" you speak of?

Most of your posts fall under the category of ignorance so it wouldn't be too hard to look for yourself. But there is one main very poingant arguement that keeps cropping up that doesn't just scream ignorance it could be used in the dictionary to show the meaning of the word... it goes something along the lines of 'of course homosexuals can marry! They just can't marry someone of the same sex...' Not only is it ignorant... its just plain stupid.. it defies the entire meaning of the whole thread. It's like the 'why should a minority get an EXTRA right' argument. Take them out of context and sure both are valid statements by themselves... but in this issue? Not a chance.

This 'bigger picture' i speak of refers back to your middle ground argument. Do you think that even if a middle ground is found and implemented that this will stop being an issue? The bigger picture is homosexuals being given exactly the same rights that heterosexuals have to marry the person they love and have their marriage recognised... not only in the country of its event but internationally. The bigger picture is getting people to see and accept homosexuals as people in their own right and not as a deviant sexuality. 'oh hes a queer..' 'shes a lezzo..' I don't categorise heterosexual people on a daily basis just because they are 'straight', and i don't go round doing it to homosexual, or bi-sexual or transexual people. I don't see sexuality as a reason to discriminate between different people. That is the bigger picture. A better world for all and et al.

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

mmm i know everyone should be free to do whatever they want..
but marriage is a religious thing.. intended for a man and a woman to ultimately make babies.. and religions dont really promote being gay.. although it is outdated now and everyone seems to be getting divorced..
arent they already recognised as being a couple (like in the census) anyway? its a pretty big step considering how unacceptable being gay was in previous times..
basically my view is.. marriage is between a man and a woman.. i dont have a problem with gay people being a couple but i just dont think the term marriage should be used for them.. like life partners or something but yeh thats just cuz im a stickler for tradition..
ahh now the refuting..
hmm i didnt even cover the adoption issue lol.. me and my friends were debating about this last week
i dont see why they cant adopt children.. seeing as women can just get donor sperm and have kids anyway..
some people can provide all of a childs needs and some people cant.. and its so obvious that not all heterosexual parents are perfect cuz so many kids need to be taken out of their house to be put in foster care due to abuse..
not saying that all gay people who are parents arent going to be abusive.. but yeh if they can promote the childs wellbeing then they should have the right to being a parent..

In case you still live in the middle ages, you don't have to have a priest marry you, it's more legal, if it was religious athiests wouldn't marry and if it was about having kids infertile couple couldn't marry.

 

[poloktim]

I think having laws on the age of consent are ridiculous as well.

I don't quite understand this. Explain further please. If you don't want to here, please PM me.

Thanks.

 

[neo o]

If your referring to my grammer, i don't quite understand it either 0_o

I was trying to shed a different light on the quote by pointing out that laws regarding age of consent are obvious barriers to "physical expression", and according to Kirby should be removed.

Also Kirby was accused of using rent-boys, but thats something different entirely, and was proven to be false anyway..

but amusing none the less

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

I think the laws are in place because ppl under those ages in most cases do not have the capibility to make a responsible decision and ppl over that age may manipulate them.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Also Kirby was accused of using rent-boys, but thats something different entirely, and was proven to be false anyway..

but amusing none the less

Yes, it was a pathetic attempt to slander him, which is perhaps not surprising from a homophobic conservative nutcase such as Bill Heffernan.

"Heffernan's allegations were discredited and he was forced to apologise and resign his post as Parliamentary Secretary, and was censured by the Senate, the censure motion passed 31-30 with the Liberals and Nationals voting against. Heffernan retained his Senate seat, however. Kirby's response was remarkable for its moderation and his willingness to let the facts speak for themselves."

Nice guy eh?

 

[TheBirdMustFly]

nice to know we have a Christian-Conservative government, who love rich people and americans. Quite the opposite to the majority of Australians

 

[neo o]

nice to know we have a Christian-Conservative government, who love rich people and americans. Quite the opposite to the majority of Australians

You mean the 70% Christian majority?

I think elections are usually indicitive of what the general populace want eh?

 

[eviltama]

You mean the 70% Christian majority?

I think elections are usually indicitive of what the general populace want eh?

i don't think they are indicitive of anything really.. other than the amount of people too lazy to donkey vote that get fined for not voting. *shrugs* People are forced to vote for someone... doesn't mean they want to, hell it doesn't even mean that the person they vote for will get in nor that if they vote for a smaller party that their vote will go with that voters preferred major party. To be truthful i think that voting in australia really sorta sucks... but thats my opinion.

Australia may seem to have a 70% Christian/Catholic majority... but take into account how long ago the cesus was taken, how many christians/catholics do not practise and how many of those consider them selves 'not really religious but i was brought up catholic/christian' as well as how many people change religion constantly and how many may have changed since those numbers were put out....

Not to mention that Australia isn't a conservative country.. you only have to look around to see that.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You mean the 70% Christian majority?

I think elections are usually indicitive of what the general populace want eh?

The general populace does not necessarily 'want' the winner per se. In fact a lot of the time it is the lessor of two evils.