homosexuals (3 Viewers)

[qawe]

You are so disrespectful. If gay marriage damages the positive connotations that so does polygamy.

i'm not pro polygamy, im just illustrating what changing the definition of marriage could do

 

[Blastus]

Profanity doesn't exactly endear you to others either, and the anonymity of the internet doesn't really change that.

In regards to the question at hand:

Civil union? No problem, if they want to live together and be recognised for taxation and superannuation purposes, go right ahead.

Marriage? No, it goes against my moral convictions. To everyone that says this is about equality, what you're missing is that marriage is discriminatory by its nature and purpose. Can six year old children get married? Can a brother and sister to each other? How about a man and a dog? Why not marriage between three people, or four? Hyperbole yes but I can apply the exact same rationale. Part of the function of marriage is the raising of children. There are enough children missing a mother or father without artificially exacerbating it further than our massive divorce rates have. Society has done enough to destroy the nuclear family and marriage already.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH catholic detected

 

[SnowFox]

i'm not pro polygamy, im just illustrating what changing the definition of marriage could do

Polygamy is at odds with societies views, where as Homosexuality isnt.

 

[Aquawhite]

I think MP Penny Wong put it quite simply (paraphrasing). If this issue were regarding those of a different ethnicity, culture or gender there would be no difference of opinion; those who did oppose giving equal rights to the aforementioned groups would be branded racists and bigots.

I, personally, think the argument that marriage is an issue of equality has great merit and therefore play a large role in the argument

 

[Aquawhite]

Polygamy is at odds with societies views, where as Homosexuality isnt.

Homosexuality still has its opposition, stigmatism and phobias from those who oppose it. This is the unfortunate truth.

 

[qawe]

different recognition from government, different name, no equality, people see it as different and hence gay people as seen as different and are ostracised.

people rightly see it as different gay =/= straight

 

[SnowFox]

Homosexuality still has its opposition, stigmatism and phobias from those who oppose it. This is the unfortunate truth.

Everything has opposition.

Majority should outweigh the opinions of a few.

 

[AcidDrops]

i think they should definitely be allowed to marry but im a bit unsure about letting them adopt children.

 

[Blastus]

Nothing wrong with freedom of association

 

[Aquawhite]

Everything has opposition.

Majority should outweigh the opinions of a few.

Democratic and utilitarian (to an extent), I like it.

 

[Azure]

Nothing wrong with freedom of association

Or freedom in general for that matter.

 

[Riproot]

i'm not pro polygamy, im just illustrating what changing the definition of marriage could do

How would it effect the "positive" connotations then? (you're implying it'll make them negative)

people rightly see it as different gay =/= straight

But, not allowing it to have the same name would mean people would see it as not good enough to have the same name and hence look down on homosexuals in general, breeding discrimination against homosexuals, which is what this is all about inequality and discrimination.

i think they should definitely be allowed to marry but im a bit unsure about letting them adopt children.

Why?

 

[Blastus]

Marriage is a contract about property and handling of heredity. No more, no less.

 

[iwantfreeessays]

You are actually like one of the stupidest people ever.
If marriage isn't a government and legal thing then married couples wouldn't get the legal privileges they do. Every woman would be a single mother, etc.
Seriously, you're actually retarded. That doesn't make any sense at all.

And, what's your point. Any subsidies that mariied ppl get is given to gays. I am against government welfare, so all what i say is consistent,idiot.

 

[SnowFox]

And, what's your point. Any subsidies that mariied ppl get is given to gays. I am against government welfare, so all what i say is consistent,idiot.

lol whut.

 

[qawe]

Why?

it's pretty obvious that children need someone of the same sex as them in order to guide them growing up (puberty etc)

 

[qawe]

How would it effect the "positive" connotations then? (you're implying it'll make them negative)

i believe homosexuality is wrong, and an encouragement of it would hence not be good for society

you'll disagree, lets agree to disagree

 

[qawe]

Homosexuality still has its opposition, stigmatism and phobias from those who oppose it. This is the unfortunate truth.

are different from opposition

why is it so unfortunate for ppl to oppose something they don't believe is right?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

i believe homosexuality is wrong, and an encouragement of it would hence not be good for society

you'll disagree, lets agree to disagree

Why should you be able to dictate other people's lives, their choices and desires?

 

[Aquawhite]

i believe homosexuality is wrong, and an encouragement of it would hence not be good for society

you'll disagree, lets agree to disagree

I don't believe giving gays the right to marry will encourage homosexuality - it's not a trend that comes and goes. Giving gays the right to marry will lessen the disparity between homosexual and heterosexual rights in Australia.