Name_Taken
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2009
- Messages
- 846
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Sorry about this, but I copy really large posts into word and type them up my responses there before posting, its more stable and like so much easier.Can you stop changing the font, font colour and size? It's really annoying when quoting to have to remove it all.
No it isn’t - if you vote for gay marriage, then you will be forcing others who view such relationships for what they really are to accept them as equal and good. The door swings both ways.If you would vote against a proposal to legalise gay marriage, then it is forcing your opinion. Hence, my accusation stands.
I hardly made up these rules. If you were forcing your moral beliefs on me, it would be just that. These are not my morals in the sense that I wasn’t the one who decided what was right or wrong, these are those of God, established in scripture. If you choose to reject the scripture then thats your choice, but don't expect me to stop telling you that what you're doing is wrong, just as you are telling me (that according to your own morals) what I am advocating is wrong.Once again you cannot force your version of morality onto society. You can follow it yourself, but you cannot make it the basis of legislation. It may be an obtuse rejection of morality, but it's an obtuse rejection of your morality, not an objective one.
I am, what's your point?Um, tell that to the gay couples who want to get married?
Well then explain what it does mean to you? And grow up, your words of hate demonstrate nothing but an inability to hold a civil conversation.And fuck you, you clearly have no idea what marriage would mean to an atheist like myself. It's more than a fucking party, you arrogant and ignorant fool.
Think about that when you are walking down the isle of a Church when you get married. If you choose to get married in a Church you play subject to their rules of marriage. No-one is forcing you to get married in the “house of God” - - you choose to.Marriage means different things to different people. Your religious wankers have no claim on the title of marriage; they never had that right and they should not have it now.
If he disagreed because of the couple themselves getting married, and it didn't have anything to do with their races or the fact that they were interracial, then there isn’t anything wrong.Your point? There was a case recently when a couple sued their civil celebrant (!) for refusing to marry them because they were an interracial couple and he didn't agree with that.
We should be fighting against discrimination everywhere, unless you think that civil celebrant was well within his rights.
Haha you admit it, it’s a choice.If it leads to equality as it has for women and those of ethnic heritages, then that can only be a GOOD thing. As far as I'm concerned, religious groups can kiss the arse of those homosexuals if it means they're treated equally.
It is BEYOND RETARDED RETARDED that you discriminate against someone based on who they choose to sleep with. My god, enough is enough.
And it isn’t discrimination, everybody currently has equal rights, some people choose to go against the flow as it were and it is wrong for them to expect that simply because they choose to be different that they are somehow deserving of special rights – which they don’t even require to practise their homosexuality.
And we've already established that the "plight" of the homosexual has nothing to do with that of women or Aboriginies etc. Society had so much to gain by granting women rights, it wasn't just because women wanted them and asked for them. Society stands nothing to gain from allowing homosexual marriage, and I dare you to challenge me on that.
Yea, but if a bishop says: “Sorry guys, I’m not going to marry you because you are gay” that’s different to when he says “Sorry guys I’m not going to marry you because one of you is an unbeliever (or I don’t think this relationship will work, give it some more time to be sure etc.)”. It’s just going to be a legal orgy of “waa waa X Church didn’t marry us just because we are gay, someone make them”.Churches already have this right.
And you are asking me to accept gay couples and marriage, by allowing them to have it.Well, okay, good for them. No one's asking them to accept it/marry gay couples. Your point?
And that’s false because every time I say that homosexuality should not be tolerated, all I get is accusations of discrimination "waa homophobe".
I am not persecuting them at all... I am simply saying they should not be allowed to defile marriage in a manner which would have been unthinkable 10, 20, 30 years ago. What has changed now? Why are they now so deserving of marriage? You have yet to establish this.Don't they?
*pointed look*
And denying gays marriage is not persecution. They remain totally free to live together, to have w/e relationships between each other that they desire and to openly practise their homosexuality – where is the persecution?
Just like there used to be provisos that you had to marry someone of the same race, right?
There is nothing in the Bible that condemns interracial marriage as far as I am aware (I know you can't marry an unbeliever, though thats seperate).
However there are plenty of verses against homosexuality – yet it is practised openly within our society. Marriage however is clearly the domain of a man and women (not just in a religious context), and always has been, yet for some reason now, this has to change. Why is marriage no longer the domain of opposite sex couples? Explain this, you have the burden of proof.
Those laws affect you if you, say, drive a car. You can't be fined for speeding if you don't drive a car.
Ergo, you can't be affected by gay marriage if you aren't gay.
Yes, but you are affected if you see matrimony as something holy and religiously integral to your beliefs, defined by God as strictly between a man and women.
Well then it looks to me like there are more Catholics (let alone religious people altogether) than there are gays, so... why are we changing the law again?Ah, so here we get into it! It's not generic religious marriage you care about, it's CATHOLIC marriage! And presumably all of Australia must then bow to the 26% of the population that are Roman Catholics!
You disgust me.
Anyway I would have thought you could have put 2 and 2 together. Both myself and Iron have mentioned marriage as a sacrament, I would have thought that would give the game away.
You amuse me.
Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.- that the only "valid" arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, which is invalid as this is a secular country and laws promoting equality/removing discrimination trump the protection of religious sensibilities
- arguments that detail gay marriage "destroying society" are ludicrous
Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.
- arguments that detail gay marriage as "destroying the institution of marriage" are ludicrous, as religion has no claim over what marriage means for people not of their faith, nor does it have any claim over the word
Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.
Give up, now.- something something
- there are no sane arguments against gay marriage
You’ve incorreectly expressed this opinion as a fact before, however it’s not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.
- profit?
Yea lets sell our souls for cash, real honourable.
Am I to take it then, that there is no actual argument for gay marriage, other than, "well the Church says no, so we should just do it anyway to demonstrate to those religious pricks that we don’t listen to them". Is that it?
You already admitted it was a choice before. Everything you do in life is a choice. The fact that I am sitting here educating you in basic morality is a choice, and you are choosing to listen. I don’t blame “genes” or other pseudo science to remove myself from personal responsibility and nor should homosexuals.For the last time:
BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.
How many times do we have to say this before it penetrates your very thick skull?
No, because the definition of marriage is between one man and one women, interracial marriage was never in breach of this definition; and you haven’t demonstrated any reasons whatsoever as to why it would benefit society by changing said defintion to include same sex couples.Just like being the same colour used to be the proviso?
Well I don’t go around raping people who look like sluts or bashing people who look gay, I take responsibility for my actions. Let’s not deny however that your actions and choices affect how other see you and in part determine their actions towards you.Oh so they should hide what they are. Your argument essentially is: "WOMEN WHO DRESS LIKE SLUTS DESERVE TO BE RAPED/GAY MEN WHO ACT GAY DESERVE TO BE BASHED"
However on a side note please, don’t be so pathetic, if I dress up as a missionary and try and spread the gospel during a Mardi Gras parade, I’m going to get bashed aren’t I? Gays are just as guilty of discrimination and violence as heterosexuals. They are hardly victims here when they are guilty of the same crimes, so stop treating them as such.
No, they want the same marriage rights as anyone else. Clearly this is a foreign concept for you.
But they can marry. Marriage by definition is between a man and a women and any Australian over the age of 18 can marry. They’re just not content with the current definition of marriage and want it changed to better accommodate their “alternative” lifestyle choices.
They just can't do what heterosexuals do, and get married and adopt. Because that would be bad. Uh huh.
That would be bad, very bad. Gay adoption is a different issue, but also must be opposed.
I have never denied the fact that some gay couples would not be great parents, and that some heterosexual couples are crap parents.
None of these articles actually demonstrate that lesbian parents are better for the child in terms of parenting and so that claim is void. The one person who claimed so was merely expressing an opinion, nothing more stop treating it as a fact when it is not.
The natural, most optimum situation is where a child is raised by a mother and a father (preferably their biological parents as well). There are numerous reasons for this which I will explain if you need me to.
Why? They're not better. Are you saying every single parent should shack up with someone because it's the "preferable, natural institution" through which you think a child should be raised?
None of the articles demonstrate that they are better. Lol it’s not just what I think either, do you deny that the natural family institution is between one man and one women, caring for their own children? If that isn’t the only “natural” way it’s done and has been done throughout all history (aside from some extreme left wing states), please tell me what in fact is?
But they don’t, stop manipulating the facts.The studies indicate that overall - overall, not just anecdotally - lesbian parents are BETTER that heterosexual parents. So, really, for the good of the child, all children should be raised by lesbian parents. Right?
And how would you propose you could even objectively measure that lesbian parents were better than those of heterosexual parents?
There are many reasons why heteroseuxal parents are always preferable, and I'll share them with you if you're interested.
Hint; when a mummy and daddy love each other...And where is this right to a mother and a father stated? Where does it come from? Why is it the "preferred" or "best" method? (Hint: it isn't.)
You’re doing an honours degree at uni, please tell me you actually understand that children are born when a man and women have sex? The family has always been the most natural means of raising children, and always has been in humans. You can’t deny it, or have same sex parents always been the way its done?
Oh so you only care when they have sex. Because it's immoral to you. And because it affects you so much what someone does in their bedroom.
Seriously dude, no-one likes a nosy parker.
Not my morals, God morals, timeless and absolute.
I don’t care if gay people have sex and have relationships with each other thats their business, when they bring it into the public forum however, and tell me to accept their choices and ask for marriage “rights” then it becomes everyone’s problem.
The issue has been brought to me, I havn't asked for it.
And what's wrong with that? Hey, polygamous marriages are in the Bible. They're traditional. You should have no problem with it!
There are a lot of things in the Bible which are immoral. Homosexuality is in the Bible, yet here we are. Simply because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it is ok. The Bibles (and Gods) definition of marriage is very straightforward (no pun intended lol); one man, one women.
And I disgust you? Honestly, to think people wonder why fundamentalist Muslim extremists despise of the West so much...It doesn't. Let them get married!
Hate crime laws and the like are stupid, they deal with intent and not the punishment for the crime itself. Intent is not a crime, it is the committing of the various illegal act which is. Simply because someone commits a crime for a different purpose does and should not affect their sentencing (should there be one).Exploiting or using for intended purpose? But oh, you don't think that gays should be able to fight for rights. They should be CONTENT with what the overly-generous society has given them, right? Put up or shut up?
Yeah, I know already. /sarcasmGAYS DID 9/11
This country is not governed by anarchy you have no right to take away all of its moral foundations simply because you want more freedom and have no sense of propriety or self control.THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A THEOCRACY. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEOCRATIC VALUES UPON IT.
But this is a democracy, so expect that I will always be putting my opinions forward, whether they are religiously inspired or not. It just so happens that you can as well.
It IS invalid because your religion affects YOU. YOU. It shouldn't have to affect anyone else who doesn't choose to believe in it.
What about this is so hard to understand?
Yes it does, but the defilement of marriage affects me, and is an important part of my faith (and that of others). What is it so hard to understand that because marriage means nothing to you, doesn’t mean that some of us would like to see its purity and wholesomeness untarnished in such a henious manner?
Tell that to Christ, see what He says.Wrong to YOU. Not the country! Not everybody! Fucking hell, ARE YOU SO ARROGANT AND EGOTISTIC THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE?!
Yea, a person’s liberty to be gay is not being infringed through the protection of marriage.Personal responsibility and personal liberty.
Their union can still be recognised by the state by a civil union, they have equal rights.
However you are infringing on the liberty of religious people who have the right to look down on homosexuality as a sin and abhor and oppose it’s proliferation and encouragement in society.
Yeah but you are creating difference. You are CREATING difference by not allowing them to marry people they love, while heterosexuals can marry those they love.
Clearly more than it does to you.
Way to avoid another question and hide behind yet another personal attack Kwayera.
Last edited: