Homosexuality in Australia (12 Viewers)

[ChockoRepublic]

i fucking hate homous.

 

[iNegro]

Ok, here, as I promised



Realistically its not something I would campaign for, but if there was a referendum, I would vote "yes".



WTF @ statistics thing, and I am very tolerant



This isn't relevant, my arguements against gay marriage and gay adoption are secular, or at least the ones I have proposed in this thread.

Against homosexualuality itself I have appealed to scripture sure, but most of the time, it was in response to others argueing that scripture actually condones homosexuality or is unclear.



Omgosh seriously, I have addressed this so many times before.



I didn't choose to be Christian because my parents indoctrinated me (neither of them are religious at all) or because all my friends are (most of them are not).

I chose it because after giving it a fair chance, I actaully read the Bible, did some research of my own and then talked to some scripture teachers about the issues that I still didn't understand, many of which have also been posed in this very forum (e.g. why don't Christians follow parts of the OT, why did God kill people etc etc).

What I dislike about many athiests, is that they have never really given Christianity "a go" before denouncing it. Going to a Christian school, or being dragged to Chruch by your parents doesn't count, either.



No, read above.

T

I think it is more respectful to those I am arguing against as to be honest about my attitudes towards gay adoption.

Its not that those who advocate it are like evil or twisted, but that doesn't make the proposition they are argueing for any less repulsive.



Civil marriage is secular -> nothing to do with Churches.
Hence all my arguements I have presented against it have also been secular.

The right for Chruches to refuse to marry (as in the ceremony) couples they do not approve of (both gay couples universally, and many straight couples deemed unsatisfactory) is a different issue than gay marriage (tho is related).



Soo, basically just because something is old and has been around for a very long time (which if anything shows its "correctness") automatically makes it irrelevant?

Anyway, my arguements against gay marriage and adoption are freaking secular!

Stop trying to simply dismiss them and avoid actual conflict in this arguement.



This is not an arguement as to why gay marriage or adoption should be allowed...



Um... under natural law, homosexuals would never be placed in a position where they would ever have the option of having children to care for, whether by adoption or some sick Frankenstein-esk medical procedure.

Any deviation from this norm, will inevitably lead to unnatural consequences, which could range from the insignificant to the extreme.

If you are arguing for 2 fathers, you are saying that the mother is irrelevant in a childs upbrining. Likewise, supporting lesbian adoption is argueing that the father is irrelevant.

There is massive documentation regarding the issues that arise in single parent families. We know the negative effects children experience when they don't have a father figure, or a mother. Now a child raised by two women, still lacks a father figure. Why should we expect to believe that all the problems associated with not having a father suddenly be allieviated through the addition of another women (and vice versa for gay male parents etc.).

Homosexual activists argue that it is the lack of love, which leads to these consequences. This is both insulting to single parents (as it implys that they do not love their children) and factually corrupt, as it is not congruent with what they are trying to advocate in the first place.

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.

The problem they keep running into is, that like marriage, the family is not something defined by the state, rather recognised by it.

Attacking the issue of gay adoption itself. Most savy homosexual advocates realise that children are the key to civil marriage and as such, in order to gain support for their goal of gay marriage, they must demonstrate to society that gay couples can offer society something in regards to raising children.

This is simply dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don't really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth -- that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father, they would once again lose support.

Those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible-that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible-ignoring what is best for children.

Homosexual parenting is not natural because nature has not afforded same-sex couples the ability to procreate children to rear. While this in itself does not make homosexual parenting wrong, it does make it unnatural, and a look at practical considerations reveals that it is not the optimal parenting model. Mothers and fathers bring unique contributions to a child's development. To install a same-sex parenting model into the system is to knowingly deprive a child of something that is necessary for optimal, healthy development. To ignore nature and common sense in this regard is simply inexcusable and irresponsible. But this is what is being done when we become more concerned about pacifying the demands of homosexual couples to exercise their natural desire to rear children (even though they are without a means to produce those children) than we are to protect the welfare of our nation's children.

Families should be governed by the needs of the child, not the desires of the adults. Concieve or GTFO.

Now in the case of heterosexual couple adoption, this is acceptable, simply because even tho it may not be the couples child, the child is being raised in an environment which otherwise (discounting unavoidable persoanility differences between biological and adoptive parents etc) is a largely perfect simulation of what would otherwise be the optimum scinareo (for a child to be raised by their own parents).

***

Don't get the wrong message, but you didn't really present much of a case with this post. I have been providing secular arguements against gay marriage and adoption, such as those above, yet you still dismiss these because I am religious and you claim my religious bias somehow undermines the validity of my arguements.

Once again, you have the burden of proof, I don't have to prove anything to win this arguement, rather disprove, or even raise significant doubts over your arguements for changing the status quo.

***

On another note, has anyone replied to my bisexual arguement from before?

... Oh I didn't think so.

I'm not dead, I'll reply later.

 

[Scorch]

I'm not dead, I'll reply later.

I wouldn't even bother. He's spouting disgusting, unscientific bigotry and little else.

 

[Durga]

I wouldn't even bother. He's spouting disgusting, unscientific bigotry and little else.

I think he left this thread. Thank God!

Although he does seem to be jumping momentarily into other threads.

Scorch, are you going to watch Richard Dawkins in Sydney/Melbourne?

 

[Name_Taken]

I think he left this thread. Thank God!

Lol

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

Just by looking at how males/females are designed it is pretty obvious that guys/guys, girls/girls were not meant to go together..... that and AIDS....


also studies show them to be more promiscuous, and unable to have a lasting, faithful relationship...... leads me to believe faggotry is more a of a sexual fetish.

why not just let pedos marry kids? a similarly tiny minority of the population.

This is what i cant understand about gays. they want us all to think theyre just the same as them, and that a family with two dads or whatever is just as normal as any other... but then to get "awareness" they do the kind of shit that went on yesterday in sydney, with 5000 of them posing naked outside the opera house, or the mardi gras, etc..... which seems to me to be totally counterproductive... that is NOT the way to go about it.

 

[supercalamari]

Go away troll.

 

[Titburger]

Just by looking at how males/females are designed it is pretty obvious that guys/guys, girls/girls were not meant to go together..... that and AIDS....


also studies show them to be more promiscuous, and unable to have a lasting, faithful relationship...... leads me to believe faggotry is more a of a sexual fetish.

why not just let pedos marry kids? a similarly tiny minority of the population.

This is what i cant understand about gays. they want us all to think theyre just the same as them, and that a family with two dads or whatever is just as normal as any other... but then to get "awareness" they do the kind of shit that went on yesterday in sydney, with 5000 of them posing naked outside the opera house, or the mardi gras, etc..... which seems to me to be totally counterproductive... that is NOT the way to go about it.

Fucking just no. If you are a troll then good for you but if not then you are truly pathetic

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Just by looking at how males/females are designed it is pretty obvious that guys/guys, girls/girls were not meant to go together..... that and AIDS....

then explain homosexuality.

also studies show them to be more promiscuous, and unable to have a lasting, faithful relationship...... leads me to believe faggotry is more a of a sexual fetish.

source or what you're saying is bull shit.

why not just let pedos marry kids? a similarly tiny minority of the population.

are you relating homosexuals to pedos now. please enlighten us.

This is what i cant understand about gays. they want us all to think theyre just the same as them, and that a family with two dads or whatever is just as normal as any other... but then to get "awareness" they do the kind of shit that went on yesterday in sydney, with 5000 of them posing naked outside the opera house, or the mardi gras, etc..... which seems to me to be totally counterproductive... that is NOT the way to go about it.

i'm pretty sure there were hetero's stripping off at the opera house as well.

mate, think before you post. dont just spew all over your keyboard then hope for the best. i do hope for your sake, that one day, you are bestowed with the same charity and treatment as you would to those unlucky enough to be a heterosexual.

 

[Scorch]

I think he left this thread. Thank God!

Although he does seem to be jumping momentarily into other threads.

Scorch, are you going to watch Richard Dawkins in Sydney/Melbourne?

I would if I had people to go with. When/where is it? We could get a BoS contingent together! We'll invite Name_Taken!

And unfortunately he seems to be back.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Fucking just no. If you are a troll then good for you but if not then you are truly pathetic

Go away troll.

whooooo! go sodomy squad!!!

 

[Name_Taken]

I would if I had people to go with. When/where is it? We could get a BoS contingent together! We'll invite Name_Taken!

I'm busy, and I ceebs going down to Melbourne (I think its there) anyway.

Also it's prob sold out.

And unfortunately he seems to be back.

Gee, cut me deep :*(

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Gee, cut me deep :*(

don't mind him hun, i'm happy you're back!

 

[Scorch]

I'm busy, and I ceebs going down to Melbourne (I think its there) anyway.

Also it's prob sold out.

Well it's in Sydney. I'm more worried you'll spontaneously combust at the mention of scientific fact, really.

 

[supercalamari]

Owch

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

well it's in sydney. i'm more worried you'll spontaneously combust at the mention of scientific fact, really.

lol!!!

EDIT: scorch, you are my god.

 

[Name_Taken]

Well it's in Sydney. I'm more worried you'll spontaneously combust at the mention of scientific fact, really.

Ah k, v. considerate of you ;P

 

[Name_Taken]

don't mind him hun, i'm happy you're back!

<3

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

<3

so how do you wanna celebrate? you haven't said yes to my heart shaped bed with mirrors on the ceiling yet.

 

[Maro0uHaa]

yhh samee opiniionn ........iono i dont support it ..but i dont reallly care nd that XD