Same sex marriages (2 Viewers)

[BLIT2014]

So are you saying that you are against same sex marriage as they can't procreate? Does that mean that you believe that marriages without children are not considered valid as well?

Not even gonna comment on the bolded

Not to also mention the fact that Australia will need a lot of younger workers in the foreseeable future as are ageing population is becoming a reverse pyramid...

 

[nerdasdasd]

for same sex marriage coz i'm not a religious lunatic or obsessed with oppressing fellow citizens

but I don't think that churches or religious institutions should be forced to host these weddings or perform them



because aus is still a bit shit at separation of church and state



'>but muh latin!!!!2121!'
hahahaha you're a weird unit m8

marriage exists for whatever the majority decides it should exist for simple as that
so yes right now marriage exists just for man and woman but it can and will change



ahahaha wtf is "the good life"????? you're such a silly cunt

please try again and tell me exactly why gay marriage is bad for society
bonus points for not mentioning 'da slippery slope of degeneracy@!!'

If we had 20 million same sex couples in Australia, we need 10 million mothers in order for them to have kids (IVF).

That is the issue here.

If 100% of the population was into same sex marriages, we wouldn't have a population at all.

 

[classicjimbo]

everyone i've ever met against gay marriage was either:

- religious
- going through tough times in their life and felt the need to behave like edgy 16 year olds
- male and raped by a man
- bullied by someone homosex

hands up for all the guys in this thread who don't fit any of these categories!!!

 

[iBibah]

for same sex marriage coz i'm not a religious lunatic or obsessed with oppressing fellow citizens

*antagonises opposition

because aus is still a bit shit at separation of church and state

*gives completely inaccurate statement*

'>but muh latin!!!!2121!'
hahahaha you're a weird unit m8

*belittles and insults opponent*

marriage exists for whatever the majority decides it should exist for simple as that
so yes right now marriage exists just for man and woman but it can and will change

whether it can or will change is irrelevant, its whether it should.

#stayrelevantcuz

 

[snowflakeptical]

Hold on why only extend it to same-sex couples? what about thruples (or triads), what about me and my brother mentioned in the post above?

What principle are you appealing to so as ONLY to extend it to same-sex couples?

That happened in the past, history books will go into the details. Societies learn from mistakes of the past, especially regarding health impacts

 

[astroman]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/29uo38/serious_redditors_against_gay_marriage_what_is/

 

[iBibah]

everyone i've ever met against gay marriage was either:

- religious
- going through tough times in their life and felt the need to behave like edgy 16 year olds
- male and raped by a man
- bullied by someone homosex

hands up for all the guys in this thread who don't fit any of these categories!!!

Show me one thing I have said to suggest I'm any of these?

I wouldn't expect much more from a lot of people for it.

- Disregard arguments against them
- Insult opposition

 

[futuremidwife]

Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).

How about infertile couples though? We still let them marry.

 

[iBibah]

So are you saying that you are against same sex marriage as they can't procreate? Does that mean that you believe that marriages without children are not considered valid as well?

They're still valid because they're not producing fatherless children (refer to earlier post), or children without either one of the parents.

 

[iBibah]

How about infertile couples though? We still let them marry.

Like I said, even though not all couple have/can have kids, as long as a man is in a marital relationship and remains faithful, he will not produce fatherless children (and by that I mean child who grow up without their father).

Under ideal marriage most children have both parents.

.

 

[snowflakeptical]

If we had 20 million same sex couples in Australia, we need 10 million mothers in order for them to have kids (IVF).

That is the issue here.

If 100% of the population was into same sex marriages, we wouldn't have a population at all.

sounds like you're only acknowledging male and male couples

 

[nerdasdasd]

sounds like you're only acknowledging male and male couples

I am acknowledging both. Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.

 

[snowflakeptical]

I am acknowledging both. Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.

yet there are millions of orphans and children given into foster care due to unstable parents.
I don't get it, so single parents (if one parent is not present) are more ideal than a couple?

 

[classicjimbo]

If we had 20 million same sex couples in Australia, we need 10 million mothers in order for them to have kids (IVF).

That is the issue here.

well bonus points for no slippery slope!
but negative points for the stupidest reason I've ever heard thus far against same sex marriage!

so much retardation in 1 sentence, okay okay lets break this down

- are you saying that the entire population of aus will suddenly decide to become homo overnight (protip it's not a choice!)
- are you aware that homo % in population is about 5% ????
- we will never have 20 million same sex couples in australia unless the population is literally over 5 billion (and that's the lowest end of estimation based on stats of homo % in population)
- same sex couple =/= all male so why do we need another 10 million mothers?????
- who the fuck said all these gay guys and girls want children and why do you keep assuming this???????
- what is adoption???
- anybody who isn't a fuccboi economist realises that a large population is bad for sustainability
- if 20 million people (lmao!!!!) want IVF then they can do whatever the fuck they want because it's not entirely funded by universal healthcare

literally what kind of example was that man, seriously just hahahah

 

[snowflakeptical]

- what is adoption???

like in most of my posts in this thread, sighs

 

[classicjimbo]

*antagonises opposition

*gives completely inaccurate statement*

*belittles and insults opponent*

whether it can or will change is irrelevant, its whether it should.

#stayrelevantcuz

ofc it should change
if suddenly we should slip into the last days of rome somehow then we can change the laws again
a dynamic society is a good society

Show me one thing I have said to suggest I'm any of these?

I wouldn't expect much more from a lot of people for it.

- Disregard arguments against them
- Insult opposition

Well are you any of them?? hahaha (from memory i think you're like muslim (sorry all the normal muzzies out there you're all g) or something right?)

 

[Rhinoz8142]

I just want ppl to be happy, if it makes 2 gender of the same sex to get married.. I dont see why not..,

 

[iBibah]

ofc it should change
if suddenly we should slip into the last days of rome somehow then we can change the laws again
a dynamic society is a good society



Well are you any of them?? hahaha (from memory i think you're like muslim or something right?)

Firstly, no im not muslim. And the fact you can't identify if I'm one of those based on my reasoning shows it has no bearing on my reasoning.

 

[AAEldar]

Precisely. The marital relationship exists for a man to seek a woman and vice versa. That's it. If you do not fulfill these requirements then move along.

It should be redefined.

Well, I think the government should abolish marriage and just deal in civil unions between couples regardless of sex. But opening marriage up as opposed to abolishing it is far, far more likely.

How can you compare those to voting? Not the same. Anyone can technically vote, but the law restricted certain people. However, not everyone can marry given what marriage intrinsically is.

It is the same. We're excluding groups of people based on the way they were born. "Anyone can technically vote, but the law restricted certain people" - What? Women couldn't vote. That's roughly 50% of the population that couldn't. "Anyone" doesn't apply in that case. Same situation. Gay people may not be 50% but they're there. But you're right, marriage *historically* is heterosexual. Just like voting was *historically* only for white males.

I didn't ask if you agree with it. I asked if it was unfair for me to be refused entry into an all-girls school? Please answer this question.

I think boys and girls should be educated in the same classroom, but I think there should be opportunities for classes involving only boys or only girls at certain times throughout the week. I don't think it's *unfair* necessarily as it is currently, but I don't think it's right. Unfair would be that girls get an opportunity that boys don't (or vice versa). What both groups miss out on however is social development and I think that is unfair.

It's not a sexual relationship with my brother, I just love him as a brother and wanna spend my life with him.

So you think polygamy and multi-person marriages should be legal, and incest (i understand it was simplified here).

So pretty much any two or more people can enter into a marital relationship.

So whats the point of marriage then? It has become redundant and useless if itserves no purpose.

Yes, I think they should be legal. (I appreciate you accepting it was simplified)

What's the point of marriage? Benefits (tax, etc). Gay couples should be able to benefit from it. If marriage was not government regulated, I wouldn't necessarily care.

 

[futuremidwife]

PROS
- Equality
- Restoring sense of identity/esteem for LGBT couples
- Increase use of birthing technologies meaning more funding for research/delivery units and shit
- I get to deliver super cute babies
- Adoption rates will increase = less children without parents meaning proper socialisation, wellbeing and shit for da kidzzz WHICH would mean healthier, proper socialised citizens for the new generation

CONS
- Some ppl will cry even though it does not affect/harm them in literally anyway LOL