Homosexuality in Australia (13 Viewers)

[supercalamari]

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

I'm glad to be at least partially sick and twisted.

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

What in YOUR mind justifies verbal gay bashing as acceptable behaviour?

And I don't need to prove two guys or two girls can't have a child, do I?
Ok cool, let's deny infertile heterosexual couples marriage rights because they can't reproduce without intervention from fertility experts either.

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.

See my previous comments.

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.

Name_Taken, seriously. Gays getting married does not affect you. It affects us gays. You getting married does not affect us. What does affect us is the fact you feel your views on the bible should have a higher place in society then my civil rights. You want me to be a second class citizen. Fine. I know you're a good person, but I will never accept that the bible is worth more then my rights are.

 

[supercalamari]

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.

You sicken me, mcflystargirl.
Your attitude, your complete disdain for anyone different from yourself.
If my partner and I can love an abandoned child more then its biological parents can, you should butt the fuck out of it and my rights because I DO NOT see you standing up and volunteering to adopt any poor children.

 

[mcflystargirl]

You sicken me, mcflystargirl.
Your attitude, your complete disdain for anyone different from yourself.
If my partner and I can love an abandoned child more then its biological parents can, you should butt the fuck out of it and my rights because I DO NOT see you standing up and volunteering to adopt any poor children.

i would love to adopt children i want lots of children both biologically and through adoption.

How do you know it biological parents cant, most people who give them up for adoption do it out of love, they can not care for it so they give to a family who can.

I have not got a problem with homosexuals as people, i just do not think it is right environment to bring up a child

 

[dolbinau]

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

1. Because it is not a choice
AND
2. Homosexual acts between two people that are consensual and practiced safely do not affect others (or themselves) negatively. (At least to be very conservative behind closed doors where no others are aware of the acts taking place)

Be careful not to provide 'secular' counter-arguments, which are related to problems that all people of different sexual orientations can face - not homosexuality itself (e.g. unsafe sex, promiscuity etc..).

This contrasts other examples of unusual sexual behaviours such as bestiality or pedophilia, where the acts are not legally considered consensual acts.

 

[nikolas]

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

But you've stated time and time again made the arguement that that female-male marriages are the natural order of the family unit or something close to that.

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.

So it's a religious argument?

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

It doesn't harm anyone and it is a consensual act between adults.

But i'd like to point out, You outlaw immoral behavior and allow everything else, so i'd say the onus on you is to show that it is immoral.

Otherwise I can ask what makes whistling a morally acceptable behavior.

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.

Yeah it was a cheap shot at Fox, but still, The case for christ is definitely not unbiased

 

[supercalamari]

i would love to adopt children i want lots of children both biologically and through adoption.

How do you know it biological parents cant, most people who give them up for adoption do it out of love, they can not care for it so they give to a family who can.

I have not got a problem with homosexuals as people, i just do not think it is right environment to bring up a child

You obviously don't have a clue.
DOCS deals with thousands of children they have to take from abusive situations. Not just babies, but also abused and hurt children. I know plenty who are with same sex couples and thrive in that environment. Their biological parents were and are useless in these cases.

Wouldn't you rather see a child grow up in a foster home full of love then one of abuse? There is a dire shortage of foster carers and noone should tell willing same sex couples they're not right unless they don't need the same requirements straight couples have to meet, e.g child protection laws.

 

[zaxmacks]

A gay guy checked me out at the shopping centre the other day.

 

[supercalamari]

And you've never checked out a hot chic? Deal with it.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

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!

Admirable sentiments. I take my hat off to your SIR!

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You sicken me, mcflystargirl.
Your attitude, your complete disdain for anyone different from yourself.
If my partner and I can love an abandoned child more then its biological parents can, you should butt the fuck out of it and my rights because I DO NOT see you standing up and volunteering to adopt any poor children.

Oh bravo indeed.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I have not got a problem with homosexuals as people, i just do not think it is right environment to bring up a child

You sicken me lady.

What qualifications do you possess which would lead you to produce such a disgusting statement? What's that? I am afraid you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.

Well what is it? Is it your pathetic blind faith? Or grossly enlarged ego? What can 2 males can do that one male and one female can't? Breast feed? LOL

Oh how I pity those unfortunate enough to be raised by such narrow-minded, conservative nincompoops such as yourself. I sincerely hope that a day comes when you are bestowed with the same treatment and dignity as you have displayed to those unfortunate enough to be a homosexual.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

A gay guy checked me out at the shopping centre the other day.

yeah that was me.

 

[Name_Taken]

What in YOUR mind justifies verbal gay bashing as acceptable behaviour?

Technically its "written" or typed, but I wouldnt' call disapproval the same as bashing.

Ok cool, let's deny infertile heterosexual couples marriage rights because they can't reproduce without intervention from fertility experts either.

Any biological incapability of a couple is typically not discovered until after the marriage (especially if the couple does the right thing and abstains until after marriage, but theres the Christian in me talking). The government would be unaware of it as well, then, when issuing the marriage "license". What the government does know is that heterosexual couples have the potential to create the next generation of society, and thus bless their union together for that end, wheras no homosexual union is capable of doing so.

Name_Taken, seriously. Gays getting married does not affect you. It affects us gays. You getting married does not affect us. What does affect us is the fact you feel your views on the bible should have a higher place in society then my civil rights. You want me to be a second class citizen. Fine. I know you're a good person, but I will never accept that the bible is worth more then my rights are.

Society constantly demeaning the value of marriage and family means a lot to me, both religiously speaking and as a social issue.

Denying gays civil marriage is not an infringement on your rights, as marriage is what it is. I support your right to do things that I don't agree with, homosexuality for one.

May I ask, where do your rights even come from in the first place?

You sicken me, mcflystargirl.
Your attitude, your complete disdain for anyone different from yourself.
If my partner and I can love an abandoned child more then its biological parents can, you should butt the fuck out of it and my rights because I DO NOT see you standing up and volunteering to adopt any poor children.

HSC 2010 (good luck BTW) so you're not going to be adopting anyone anytime soon regardless of the law

Its not about whether or not you are willing to put the effort in for the childs sake, or even that because either you or your parnter would be bad parents.

It is about the child. Children have the right to a mother and father. By natural law, a homosexual couple should never have the option of adoption in the first place. To say that two mothers are a suitable alternative to traditional parents, then that is sending the message that fathers are uninportant in a childs life, and vice versa with two fathers.

Permitting gay adoption devalues not only marriage, but the whole insititution of the family itself, which is the building block of our society. Marriage (as in the monagomous heterosexual union of 1 man and 1 women) and family, predate society itself. These are natural constructs, which can't simply be dismissed by the passing of new laws.

And the fact of the matter is that presently, the vast majority of gay couples are not looking after any child, either that of one of the people involved, or adopted, so the issue of gay adoption only affects a minority of gay couples.

1. Because it is not a choice
AND
2. Homosexual acts between two people that are consensual and practiced safely do not affect others (or themselves) negatively. (At least to be very conservative behind closed doors where no others are aware of the acts taking place)

The act of having homosexual sex, which religiously speaking is the sin, is always the choice of the individual. Even if it was shown that some people have a genetic predisposition to homosexual behaviour, that doesn't give an excuse as some people have such dispositions to violence or alcohol abuse, but we (rightly so) don't tolerate these behaviours.

I don't see how 2 constitutes morality. Morality often encourages acts of selflessness, it isn't about limitless personal freedom provided it doesn't affect anyone else directly. Simply becuase something doesn't directly affect anyone else, doesn't justify it as "right".

Be careful not to provide 'secular' counter-arguments, which are related to problems that all people of different sexual orientations can face - not homosexuality itself (e.g. unsafe sex, promiscuity etc..).

I put it to you that in regards to STI's, they are almost universally contracted through immoral behaviour, sex outside of marriage, multiple partners etc.

It just so happens that homosexuals are grossly overrepresented (in our society) in every STI, especially the most harmful ones, such as AIDS/HIV.

This contrasts other examples of unusual sexual behaviours such as bestiality or pedophilia, where the acts are not legally considered consensual acts.

Well what they are considered legally is irrelevant. Homosexual marriage is not legally accepted, but we're argueing about it.

In regards to the ability for an animal to consent, I put it to you that society doesn't recognise animals as even having that right. Animals are used to test medical/science things and are given medical treatment (in the case of pets) which they didn't conset for. Consent in regards to an animal is up to its owner to provide.

Pedophillia is one where the ability for one to provide consent is once again not as simple as it first seems. While I agree that children should not be allowed to consent to sex before the age of 16, it is possible that a very mature 14 year old merits the right, while a very irresponsible 18 year old doesn't.

But you've stated time and time again made the arguement that that female-male marriages are the natural order of the family unit or something close to that.

Ah k, however I see it as a valid point.

So it's a religious argument?

Its a moral arguement. Where people derive their morals from; their parents, their friends, the programs they watched on TV as a 2 year old or religion, is irrelevant.

But there are also various secular arguements against it. Eg. health risks, fact its unnatural and undermines the value of families.

It doesn't harm anyone and it is a consensual act between adults.

Uuuh, the health risks associated with it are far more severe than anything between heteroseuxals.

But i'd like to point out, You outlaw immoral behavior and allow everything else, so i'd say the onus on you is to show that it is immoral.

Otherwise I can ask what makes whistling a morally acceptable behavior.

Ah, and this is the problem with moral relativism. Without an objective standard of what in fact is moral, and what isn't we have no way of trully telling.

I say it isn't, you say it is. This gets us nowhere. We can't put it to a vote in regards to society, because that proves nothing either. If the majority of soceity approved of torturing babies for fun, that would make it legal, but would it make it right? obviously not.

You obviously don't have a clue.
DOCS deals with thousands of children they have to take from abusive situations. Not just babies, but also abused and hurt children. I know plenty who are with same sex couples and thrive in that environment. Their biological parents were and are useless in these cases.

But are encouraging same sex adoption actually an answer to this?

It isn't, its a short term patch up. Children need a mother and a father, and they need to see their parents looking out for each other, and showing affection.

A child growing up in a same-sex "family" is getting a totally warped perspective. At least a child adopted by a heterosexual couple (still not the optimum however) strongly resembles that which could have been.

The long term solution to the adoption problem, is to frankly teach people about the consequences of their actions. IMO if a couple cannot afford a child, they probably shouldn't be having sex. Encouraging more vile methods of contraception, such as abortion are not the answer either. People everywhere have to be more repsonsible.

Only a tiny fraction of kids given up for adotion actually have lost both parents.

Wouldn't you rather see a child grow up in a foster home full of love then one of abuse? There is a dire shortage of foster carers and noone should tell willing same sex couples they're not right unless they don't need the same requirements straight couples have to meet, e.g child protection laws.

I never said all heterosexual unions were good, or that they were all great environments to raise children, because some very clearly are not.

(Underlined) That is a loaded question.

I would rather not see a child put into the position where they are left without their biological parents, nor do I want to see them placed in a position where they are denied the right to both a mother and father.

I'm not denying that gay parents could meet the immediate and emotion needs of a child. But two gay people cannot bring a child into existence and so with what authority can they claim to be as good alternatives to heterosexual couples?

It could even be said in some places, gays are doing more harm than good. In Britian, where gay adoption was recently legalised, fully half of the Catholic run (not for profit) adoption homes have closed. Now before you blame the Catholics, put yourself in our shoes for a bit. Not only are we running these institutions ourself, at our cost, with no obligation whatsoever to keep them open in the first place, but the government is forcing us to act against both our better judgement and religious/moral beliefs. We genuinly want those children to be better off as well (and note, its the Catholics running these organisations, not gay activist groups). We see gay adoption however as something which is not only morally corrupt, but something which will have very serious repercussions to society itself down the track. It is in everyones interest to recognise marriage and the family as something not defined by society, but as natural insitutions which have formed the foundation of all human societies past and present. Religion aside, nobody has anything to gain from destroying the authority of this foundation.

I leave you with this:

Studies have consistently shown that children reared in single-parent homes suffer emotionally and socially in ways unparalleled to children reared in two-parent homes (See Appendix A). If we recognize the ill effects on children reared in single parent homes-lacking either a mother or a father-why do we think that two persons of the same sex are going to make the situation any better? Are we to believe that the emotional and social difficulties witnessed in children of single-parent households are going to be alleviated merely by adding another warm body to the equation? Do we think there is something magical about the presence of two adults in a home? Why not have three or four parents if it is the mere number of parents that brings about emotional health in a child? Nobody suggests this because we intuitively recognize that it is not the number of parents in a child's life that brings emotional health and social stability to that child. What does then?

Love Isn't Everything

Homosexuals argue that love is all that's necessary to bring about this sort of stability. The homosexual mantra is that "all children really need is love?" Advocates of homosexual parenting seem oblivious to the fact that their mantra indicts many single-parents as non-loving individuals. Do advocates of homosexual parenting really want to argue that children who struggle emotionally in single-parent homes are not being loved by that single parent? This would logically follow given their premises. What would they do with all the examples in which a single parent showers their child with love and attention and yet the child still suffers emotionally and/or socially?

Of course it could be possible that advocates of homosexual parenting are making the more modest claim that the love provided by one parent is simply insufficient-that it requires the combined love of two parents to provide the necessary love to a child. If the love of any one parent is not sufficient, again, why not have three or four parents in the child's life? After all, the more parents the more complete the love, the better the child! No one is arguing for this either.

Children Need a Mom and a Dad

While there is no question that children need love, is it true that love is all they need? It does not seem that love is in itself sufficient to explain healthy child development. It seems apparent that children need something more: they need a mother and a father. Mothers and fathers bring unique contributions to a child's development, that if missing, can impair that child's optimal development.

 

[theism]

i've noticed the majority of university student unions are pro-gay

 

[Name_Taken]

You sicken me lady.

What qualifications do you possess which would lead you to produce such a disgusting statement? What's that? I am afraid you'll have to speak up. I can't hear you.

Well what is it? Is it your pathetic blind faith? Or grossly enlarged ego? What can 2 males can do that one male and one female can't? Breast feed? LOL

Leave her alone Seck.

What makes you so confident that two gay people raising a child is as good as a heterosexual union?

You are the one argueing for the change, burden of proof lies on you, not on us to show that 2 men or 2 women =/= 1 man 1 women.

People have brought up examples of where homosexual was to various extents tolerated in ancient civilisations, is there even a single precedent to gay adoption?

...Not that it would actually add any suppot to the wet paper bag that is your case, just interested to see if any human society has ever warmed up to the idea of distorting the family unit in such a way.

Oh how I pity those unfortunate enough to be raised by such narrow-minded, conservative nincompoops such as yourself. I sincerely hope that a day comes when you are bestowed with the same treatment and dignity as you have displayed to those unfortunate enough to be a homosexual.

She has never criticzed you as a person, by virtue of the fact you are gay so stop playing the victim. In fact, if we are going to count all the personal attacks and insults given in this thread, you'll find that I have suffered the most torment, ironic, eh?

And I can say exaclty the same thing back at you, exchanging the word conservative to liberal.

 

[NewiJapper]

May I ask, where do your rights even come from in the first place?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights STATES;
Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

It doesn't say BETWEEN a man and a women but simply men and women of full age. Of full age because mature adults are able to comprehend the maturity required for marriage.

There are around 30 articles of basic human rights you can englighten yourself to. Every single person has these rights and it is an international offence to deny them. Of course non-secular do all the time though...

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Leave her alone Seck.

Oh shush. you're just happy that someone's finally in your side

Forget her and join the bandwagon. I got cake.

What makes you so confident that two gay people raising a child is as good as a heterosexual union?

Oh nothing, cept...
Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds -- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby - Meet the Parents: Research on Same-Sex Parenting
Studies of same-sex parenting
Homosexual Orientation of Parents Does Not Harm Their Children


Now its your turn to produce some websites which refute mine

People have brought up examples of where homosexual was to various extents tolerated in ancient civilisations, is there even a single precedent to gay adoption?

...Not that it would actually add any suppot to the wet paper bag that is your case, just interested to see if any human society has ever warmed up to the idea of distorting the family unit in such a way.

Just because something was not done a million years ago, it doesn't mean that we have to do the same.

 

[nikolas]

Any biological incapability of a couple is typically not discovered until after the marriage (especially if the couple does the right thing and abstains until after marriage, but theres the Christian in me talking). The government would be unaware of it as well, then, when issuing the marriage "license". What the government does know is that heterosexual couples have the potential to create the next generation of society, and thus bless their union together for that end, wheras no homosexual union is capable of doing so…

Umm, hypothetical situation, lets say the government could tell in advance if hetero-couples were infertile, would your argument mean that they should also be denied marriage?

Ah k, however I see it as a valid point.

Sorry, but I can’t see how you can hold this argument to be valid even though you admit to committing the Naturalistic Fallacy in its conclusion. Could you clarify?

Its a moral argument. Where people derive their morals from; their parents, their friends, the programs they watched on TV as a 2 year old or religion, is irrelevant.

When we’re in a debate whether homosexuality is immoral or not, it is kind of relevant.

But there are also various secular arguments against it. Eg. health risks, fact its unnatural and undermines the value of families.

I’m of opinion that there are no valid secular arguments against it.

In your examples you commit the naturalistic fallacy and a baseless assertion.

Uuuh, the health risks associated with it are far more severe than anything between heteroseuxals.

Smoking is unhealthy aswell, but, it is certainly not immoral. Perhaps I should have said “it does not hurt anyone else”, but clearly the healthiness of a behavior has no bearing on whether it is moral or not

Most of the health risks are due to the promiscuity of the community, a reason why we need same sex-marriage to encourage monogamy.

Ah, and this is the problem with moral relativism. Without an objective standard of what in fact is moral, and what isn't we have no way of trully telling.

I was trying to head more towards tolerance here, however, i think empathy is a good standard even if it's not objective, it's stable enough. Offcourse, that's just my opinion

 

[dolbinau]

The act of having homosexual sex, which religiously speaking is the sin, is always the choice of the individual. Even if it was shown that some people have a genetic predisposition to homosexual behaviour, that doesn't give an excuse as some people have such dispositions to violence or alcohol abuse, but we (rightly so) don't tolerate these behaviours.

The alcohol analogy isn't a good example, because if someone NEVER touches alcohol, they won't be an alcoholic.

A homosexual always has strong sexual urges towards members of their same sex, whether they have 'touched' alcohol or not.

It is silly for you to inform me that having sex is a choice, of course it is. But the church tries to convolute this claiming that homosexuality itself is a choice - even you seem to try and confuse it by claiming homosexuals can still have sex (with a female), or describe it as a 'disposition' (as if it is possible they could recover from it, or yet again still had a conscious choice in it or whatever). It just isn't that simple.

People with a 'disposition for alcoholism' don't have a strong biological sexual attraction towards alcohol, which motivates behaviour significantly.

I don't see how 2 constitutes morality. Morality often encourages acts of selflessness, it isn't about limitless personal freedom provided it doesn't affect anyone else directly. Simply becuase something doesn't directly affect anyone else, doesn't justify it as "right".

I don't know if you can say definitely that 'morality often encourages acts of selflessness', or what it is and isn't about etc.. - IMO morality is what is right and wrong, and besides versus of the bible claiming otherwise I think that if it feels good, and doesn't affect anyone else negatively, how can it be 'wrong'?

I don't think you really have been able to explain without the bible why it is 'wrong'.

In regards to the ability for an animal to consent, I put it to you that society doesn't recognise animals as even having that right. Animals are used to test medical/science things and are given medical treatment (in the case of pets) which they didn't conset for. Consent in regards to an animal is up to its owner to provide.

Pedophillia is one where the ability for one to provide consent is once again not as simple as it first seems. While I agree that children should not be allowed to consent to sex before the age of 16, it is possible that a very mature 14 year old merits the right, while a very irresponsible 18 year old doesn't.

RE: Animals, the reason why animal testing and things ARE controversial is because animals can't consent. I just mentioned this because some crazy people compare homosexuality to bestiality (if homosexuality is accepted, then bestiality must follow) , when clearly they are different because homosexual acts are consensual among two persons and bestiality is essentially 'raping' another animal.

 

[Durga]

Leave her alone Seck.

What makes you so confident that two gay people raising a child is as good as a heterosexual union?

You are the one argueing for the change, burden of proof lies on you, not on us to show that 2 men or 2 women =/= 1 man 1 women.

People have brought up examples of where homosexual was to various extents tolerated in ancient civilisations, is there even a single precedent to gay adoption?

...Not that it would actually add any suppot to the wet paper bag that is your case, just interested to see if any human society has ever warmed up to the idea of distorting the family unit in such a way.

No, Name_Taken, the onus of proof lies on YOU, as you are the one trying to change societies idea of morality to better impress your magical sky daddy. We don't and shouldn't change our way of living to impress gods that may or may not exist. Why do Christians get preference in deciding whether to keep or change laws? You say it's because the majority of Australia is Christian, yet 3/5's of Australian's want the law changed so that gay marriage is legal.

While you don't want marriage changed, as you feel it distorts your narrow minded view of a family, wasn't the vote changed to include Aboriginals? (Which, by the way, your Bible didn't even know existed, maybe because they weren't in the immediate vicinity of Palestine).

What is your point with the ancient civilization card? We, as a society, are progressing, which means we probably can't look at barbaric civilizations from thousands of years ago (such as....Palestine!).