Homosexuality in Australia (14 Viewers)

[mcflystargirl]

Once you can provide rational reasons for how homosexual marriage is going to affect you as an individual, only then will I consider your nonsense about "defending the status quo". Please enlighten me on how something that has no effect on the parts has some major effect on the whole.



wtf??

It will not effect me as an individual, it will effect my children i hope to have some day and grandchildren. society needs to think of the future more.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

They can as singles
The Word Sickens is the only word to describe what i feel about this too, if you live a gay lifestyle that is your buisness and you will be judged unless you repent. But to bring a innocent child into that is disgusting and should never ever be allowed.

Why not? i was raised in a single parent family. i would think that having two fathers or mothers is better than having one.

 

[mcflystargirl]

To bring an innocent child into indoctrinated religion, promoting the surrender of reason and, belief without evidence as an acceptable way of life is sickening to me to be quite honest.

Our belief does have evidence, and is based entirely on reason, and no amount of telling a child about Jesus is going to turn them to jesus.

 

[mirakon]

So two men who love their adopted child, is somehow sickening to you? Is it sickening to love one's children? Is it sickening to care for children?

That's a ratehr ridiculous argument, no offense.

 

[Titburger]

Our belief does have evidence, and is based entirely on reason, and no amount of telling a child about Jesus is going to turn them to jesus.

 

[mcflystargirl]

Well no matter how much a parent tell's a child about Jesus that does not make them a christian, i know many christians with non christian children.

I am not going to all the evidence here (I would be writing a book) If you do not know the evidence for Christianity, you have not looked into it, i suggest you read something like the case for Christ by lee strobel, this describes what he discovered from a pretty non-bias point of view when looking into all the evidence.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

It will not effect me as an individual, it will effect my children i hope to have some day and grandchildren. society needs to think of the future more.

how would it affect your children exactly? are you scared that they'll be infected with homosexual-itis?

 

[Titburger]

Well no matter how much a parent tell's a child about Jesus that does not make them a christian, i know many christians with non christian children.

I am not going to all the evidence here (I would be writing a book) If you do not know the evidence for Christianity, you have not looked into it, i suggest you read something like the case for Christ by lee strobel, this describes what he discovered from a pretty non-bias point of view when looking into all the evidence.

I see no concrete evidence at all. I spent my entire life as a christian until last year so you can get off your high horse about me not looking into it. I maintain my stance as an agnostic because I see no rational reason to be either a theist or an atheist. And I'm not going to subscrice to Pascel's Wager because I'm not a complete idiot.

 

[NewiJapper]

I am not going to all the evidence here (I would be writing a book

You don't need too. Someone already wrote another bullshit book called the "bible". Apparently it's the bee's knees.

Let me get this straight...you want to provide a point for arguement, yet say yourself that you don't feel like giving evidence..........

Hmmm. Me thinks someone is being ignorant.

 

[Name_Taken]

Okay, despite the essays you consistently post, let's face it, this an accurate summary of your entire argument:

1. Marriage is union between man and woman, and gay marriage contradicts your definition.

2. Homosexuals can't make babies naturally, so they shouldn't get married.

3. Gay marriage will open up a loophole for polygamous relationships as both are a perversion of sex and familial relationships

Well I have raised CONSIDERABLY more than that in this debate.

And to do with 1. its not my personal definition. Whether I take the religious avenue and say its Gods, or whether I take the naturalist position, monagomous heterosexual unions, laying the foundation for families have always been the foundation for human society.

You haven't presented evidence as to why we should change it now.

All you have said is gays are equal, yes we know that, but that doesn't affact anything or lend support to your arugement.

And nor does saying well it doesn't affect you, because I have already established that it does. Societies moral stance on issues such as this is important for everyone, irrespective of social consequences, which I have already outlined to be all negative.

1. This is the exact point, we are arguing to change a narrow-minded definition. If a definition is faulty in a contemporary society they have every right to change it. One can use the example of classical kinematics, giving way for special relativity in physics. Times change, and so should social attitudes. Such medieval conservatism directed to oppress other human beings in the case of gay marriage is inappropriate in present day society.

See above.

Times change isn't an arguement. Do you think it would be acceptable for someone 150 years in the future to say, well past societies haven't let us, but beastiality should be allowed, you know times are changing and all?

Change ins't justification for itself.

2. They cant make babies naturally, so they aren't allowed to have a deeper relationship, desptie their love? Dude, love goes deeper than just reproduction, and ultimately marriage is mroe about love than mating to ensure natural growth of the species.

Please explain what changes to a coules love occur as a result of them getting married.

Its not like I love my GF a lot now, but its not like the day we get married or w/e that we're going to love each other so much more. The fact that you are married to someone is not what makes you love them. And marriages are not always conducted on the sole basis of love.

The fact that gay unions cannot create life is more than enough justification for them to be rendered not eligible for the title and benefits of civil marriage.

3. Polygamous relationships often result in domestic abuse unlike gay marriage so the comparison is rather absurd. Also, gay people may be attracted sexually, but this is entirely natural, so what's your problem with it.

I have articles which show that not only are gays more promiscuous, that their relationships are shorter, that their are more likely to cheat, and that they are more liekly to suffer from domestic abuse from their significant other.

Wanna see them, or do you take my word?

And I have already addressed why homosexual sex, and two people of the same sex (in contrast to a heterosexual couple, preferably biological parents) raising a child is not natural at all.

They can as singles
The Word Sickens is the only word to describe what i feel about this too, if you live a gay lifestyle that is your buisness and you will be judged unless you repent. But to bring a innocent child into that is disgusting and should never ever be allowed.

Amen sister!

A child deserves a mother and a father. To suggest that two women can raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple is to be argueing that fathers are not required in a childs development, and vice versa for gay male "parents".

Why not? i was raised in a single parent family. i would think that having two fathers or mothers is better than having one.

Mate, I'm not saying you're a drop kick or anything

But like over 9000 studies have shown that single parent "families" are not the best way to go about raising a child, nor is by gay parents.

So two men who love their adopted child, is somehow sickening to you? Is it sickening to love one's children? Is it sickening to care for children?

That's a ratehr ridiculous argument, no offense.

Lol its not their child.

Its sickening to deliberately put a child in a position (which it has not control over) where it is automatically denied its right to a mother or father, and then be raised in the context of a unnatural situation where it will be taught a very warped perspective of sexual morality.

 

[Name_Taken]

You don't need too. Someone already wrote another bullshit book called the "bible". Apparently it's the bee's knees.

Let me get this straight...you want to provide a point for arguement, yet say yourself that you don't feel like giving evidence..........

Hmmm. Me thinks someone is being ignorant.

As opposed to you who seems totally unable as to even being able to make an arguement in the first place.

Though I don't blame you, it is probably difficult sicnce you're not standing for anything.

 

[NewiJapper]

I don't intend to make arguements because I know you would use your religious powers of waffling to crush them to insignificant pieces of rubble.

I can honestly say that I stand for everything you are against. So basically you can say I stand for equality for all human beings alike. Gay, straight or bisexual. Long live a world where everyone is treated like equals!

 

[Name_Taken]

I see no concrete evidence at all. I spent my entire life as a christian until last year so you can get off your high horse about me not looking into it. I maintain my stance as an agnostic because I see no rational reason to be either a theist or an atheist. And I'm not going to subscrice to Pascel's Wager because I'm not a complete idiot.

Evidence as to whether or not God exists belongs in a differnet thread altogether.

I have presented loads of secular evidence which describes the various health risks associated with homosexuality and the popularity of immoral conduct among gay people (promiscuisity, domestic abuse etc).

And I don't need to prove two guys or two girls can't have a child, do I?

 

[Name_Taken]

I don't intend to make arguements because I know you would use your religious powers of waffling to crush them to insignificant pieces of rubble.

I can honestly say that I stand for everything you are against. So basically you can say I stand for equality for all human beings alike. Gay, straight or bisexual. Long live a world where everyone is treated like equals!

If you don't intent to make any arguements, why are you posting in this thread, aside to waste other peoples bandwidth?

If you stand for everything I am against that makes you a pretty sick and twisted person.

For the kabillionth time, gays are equals to heterosexuals.

Gay unions are not given the same status and benefits heterosexual marriages (note registered marriages, not just any 2 striaght people living togehter) are because they are fundamnetally differnet, don't qaulify for marriage (as does nothing else but 1 man and 1 women), and don't offer the state anything as to merit them recieving said benefits.

And then the million or so religious arguements.

 

[Titburger]

I have articles which show that not only are gays more promiscuous, that their relationships are shorter, that their are more likely to cheat, and that they are more liekly to suffer from domestic abuse from their significant other.

Someone still hasn't learnt the difference between correlation and cause.

 

[nikolas]

I'd like to see an argument from the religious side why Homosexuality is immoral.

Lot of them so far have so far been reliant on the naturalistic fallacy or simply been religious in nature.

 

[mcflystargirl]

You don't need too. Someone already wrote another bullshit book called the "bible". Apparently it's the bee's knees.

Let me get this straight...you want to provide a point for arguement, yet say yourself that you don't feel like giving evidence..........

Hmmm. Me thinks someone is being ignorant.

incorrect, the book i recommended present's the evidence in a way that is extremely articulate, it is not bias, in fact it encourages you to make up your own mind and took months of research.

 

[mcflystargirl]

I see no concrete evidence at all. I spent my entire life as a christian until last year so you can get off your high horse about me not looking into it. I maintain my stance as an agnostic because I see no rational reason to be either a theist or an atheist. And I'm not going to subscrice to Pascel's Wager because I'm not a complete idiot.

the thing is there is heaps of solid evidence

 

[nikolas]

incorrect, the book i recommended present's the evidence in a way that is extremely articulate, it is not bias, in fact it encourages you to make up your own mind and took months of research.

Just like fox news.

the thing is there is heaps of solid evidence

Perhaps we should take this to the does god exist thread?

 

[Name_Taken]

I'd like to see an argument from the religious side why Homosexuality is immoral.

Lot of them so far have so far been reliant on the naturalistic fallacy or simply been religious in nature.

I don't think anyone has cited the reason why it is immoral as being because it is unnautral.

Most thiests interpret morality as being something intrisinctly linked with the teachings of their scripture. This is why the overwhelming majority of Christians (conservative or not) recognise homosexual sex as being unacceptalbe.

I can ask the same question back at you, what in your mind justifies it as morally acceptable behaviour?

the thing is there is heaps of solid evidence

Indeed there is.

Just like fox news.

Funny how every media source with a conservative stance is inherintly bias, but those with a liberal stance are not.

Fox isn't any better or worse than any other media source. Mainstream media is bias like by default.