Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Generator
...

If you want that view to be respected then stop telling those with a religious stance to 'stfu'.

the arguement isn't about their religious stance. It has no bearing on the 'discussion' at hand. So hence i think they should stfu abt what their religion may or may not say its irrelevant.

 

[Generator]

Ah, yes it does. The question of whether marriage is a civil or religous institution is still being debated by many, despite its civil nature.
I'm not referring to the homosexuality is a sin idea, because I too cannot understand it.

But, whether the above two points are viewed as being separate points of interest by some members is in question.

 

[poloktim]

eviltama: stop telling the religious people to stfu and go stfu.

 

[tWiStEdD]

i'm afraid a ban on gay marriages, for now, is as appropriate as it is well in line with the morals and values of society.

almost all the people i know accept gays and lesbians... as long as they do their thing behind closed doors. people accept it for the sake of political correctness, but when it comes down to it, people cant stand the fact that there's two guys or two girls goin at it as a hetrosexual couple do the same thing right next to them. people feel uncomfortable about gays and lesbians still.

take that playschool fiasco for example. the amount of complaints they got for telling a story that referred to a girl's "two mothers". according to parents, this is not appropriate. thus, i think reforms to the marriage act 1961 (Cth) are at least a decade off, if not more....

sorry to any civil libertarians and homosexuals who may be angered or offended, but that's the society you're in. i'm sure you all realised this when you made your decisions... ergo you really cant complain when things dont go the way you THINK they should. you need to remember that while its right in your mind, it is not necessarily right in the minds of the general community.

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by Generator
...

If you want that view to be respected then stop telling those with a religious stance to 'stfu'.

you can take her seriously with that av

*chuckles*

*f4p**f4p**f4p**f4p**f4p**f4p**f4p*

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by poloktim
eviltama: stop telling the religious people to stfu and go stfu.

haha die timmit and keep ur bombs to urself

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by tWiStEdD
i'm afraid a ban on gay marriages, for now, is as appropriate as it is well in line with the morals and values of society.
------
No i'm sorry its not appropriate. Its not even morally right or even socially acceptable. I can't tell a muslim to go back to his home country (even jokingly) without being taken to task for it, yet you're saying we should be telling homosexuals to get back in the closet because some people aren't ready to accept their status as human beings yet?

-----
almost all the people i know accept gays and lesbians... as long as they do their thing behind closed doors. people accept it for the sake of political correctness, but when it comes down to it, people cant stand the fact that there's two guys or two girls goin at it as a hetrosexual couple do the same thing right next to them. people feel uncomfortable about gays and lesbians still.
-----
PC (political correctness) can go to hell and back before i'd give it a second thought. And when it comes down to it people can't stand anything that is out of the ordinary or that they fear, doesn't mean a damn thing other than there are alot of people who need to grow up. Seeing a heterosexual couple on the streets kissing and going at it makes me sick. Its replusive and gross, i can't see why they cannot keep it behind closed doors. Just because its seen as the 'norm' doesnt mean that we all need to view up ur skirt or shirt while ur bf tries to grope ur tits.
As for people being uncomfortable, thats fair enough... only time and experience cna change that.

-------
take that playschool fiasco for example. the amount of complaints they got for telling a story that referred to a girl's "two mothers". according to parents, this is not appropriate. thus, i think reforms to the marriage act 1961 (Cth) are at least a decade off, if not more....
----
The playschool fiasco was blown out of proportion. It was made to look as if everyone was appauled and disgusted by it. But that isn't true and it doesn't mean that its not appropriate. Kids learn about homosexuality in primary school... whats the difference?
The reforms.. will take a while perhaps yes thats understandable.. but to ban it until then? How fair is that for a start and it will make it that much more harder to get the changes through. And they will come, in time. No one (generalisation here) thinks we have to rush through the laws here, we just don't want y'all to rush thru a law that bans it without taking note of all the consequences. We are not america and i think taking our time reviewing this topic and appraising the public would be advisable. In time the public might give a resounding yes to gay marriages... but right now its as if the ban is the only option.. and its not.

-----
sorry to any civil libertarians and homosexuals who may be angered or offended, but that's the society you're in. i'm sure you all realised this when you made your decisions... ergo you really cant complain when things dont go the way you THINK they should. you need to remember that while its right in your mind, it is not necessarily right in the minds of the general community.
-----
Just because this is the society we are in, doesn't mean that we can't endeavour to change it and make it better and more equitable for all our peers, regardless of sexual preference. Pardon me.. but i don't know any homosexual who chose to be homosexual. I'm sure if there was a choice involved they'd much rather be heterosexual and be able to marry the person they love... and be able to spend time with that person without being taunted and made feel uncomfortable.
What is right in the minds of the general community they may see as right, but there is nothing to say it is right. Slavery for instance... racism, cannibalism, bush-ism (he assumes everyone thinks as he does... or doesn't as you wish to see it). The communal mind may not be right, doesnt mean that we should all judge our own opinions against it, much less our own lives. It's like all those peer pressure things you do in school... just say no! you're friends aren't always right.

 

[lengstar]

personally i have no respect for the general community

 

[Loz#1]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
i'm afraid a ban on gay marriages, for now, is as appropriate as it is well in line with the morals and values of society.

almost all the people i know accept gays and lesbians... as long as they do their thing behind closed doors. people accept it for the sake of political correctness, but when it comes down to it, people cant stand the fact that there's two guys or two girls goin at it as a hetrosexual couple do the same thing right next to them. people feel uncomfortable about gays and lesbians still.

take that playschool fiasco for example. the amount of complaints they got for telling a story that referred to a girl's "two mothers". according to parents, this is not appropriate. thus, i think reforms to the marriage act 1961 (Cth) are at least a decade off, if not more....

sorry to any civil libertarians and homosexuals who may be angered or offended, but that's the society you're in. i'm sure you all realised this when you made your decisions... ergo you really cant complain when things dont go the way you THINK they should. you need to remember that while its right in your mind, it is not necessarily right in the minds of the general community.

I'm sorry what year are we in? Society has come along way since the days where homsexuality was deemed wrong and you're saying it's not right in the minds of the general community? If the general community didn't like it, there would be no celebration of homosexuality (i.e the annual mardi gras).

Whilst I agree with lengstar and have lack of respect for the general community, it's alot better and understanding nowadays.

 

[Enlightened_One]

Well Loz1, a lot of people still hate the Mardi Gras and what is stands for.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Its not like every heterosexual takes part in the Mardi Gras, let alone watch or care about it. Personally I think it happens because it happens to be the 'politically correct' thing to do. Christ! What rubbish! I say you instigate a plebiside on the issue, and see what results you get.

At any rate, you failed to comment on the fact that parents do not want their children exposed to it (it being the institutionalisation of homosexualality). To think that our community will accept gays and lesbians marrying any time soon is to believe that the sun might explode in two seconds time, or that I might own the internet in less...

It is not a current issue, because there is not enough support for it. Its reality. Sorry! If it was generally agreed upon then the law would change, unfortunately it is not generally agreed upon.

Ergo, to say that its only right is just as valid as saying its only right that we eradicate world hunger/poverty right now. Could happen, could happen... but there's poltics involved, and politics does not always involve or incorporate morals.

 

[Loz#1]

Originally posted by Enlightened_One
Well Loz1, a lot of people still hate the Mardi Gras and what is stands for.

But alot of people are for it. Hell, I'm straight and I love it! But then again, anything with loud music and glamour kicks arse.

I fail to see how it is not "generally" accepted. If it were not generally accepted, gay people wouldn't have the nerve to walk down the street in broad daylight.

I didn't say everyone was for it, I didn't say everyone was against it. But to say that everyone is against it is a bit narrow-minded and like I said, what year are we in?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Its not like every heterosexual takes part in the Mardi Gras, let alone watch or care about it. Personally I think it happens because it happens to be the 'politically correct' thing to do. Christ! What rubbish! I say you instigate a plebiside on the issue, and see what results you get.

At any rate, you failed to comment on the fact that parents do not want their children exposed to it (it being the institutionalisation of homosexualality). To think that our community will accept gays and lesbians marrying any time soon is to believe that the sun might explode in two seconds time, or that I might own the internet in less...

It is not a current issue, because there is not enough support for it. Its reality. Sorry! If it was generally agreed upon then the law would change, unfortunately it is not generally agreed upon.

Ergo, to say that its only right is just as valid as saying its only right that we eradicate world hunger/poverty right now. Could happen, could happen... but there's poltics involved, and politics does not always involve or incorporate morals.

the mardi gras constantly gets crowds of over 100,000 and some of the highest tv ratings for the year. if, like you said, people are only politically correct if they are doing it behind closed doors, then why do so many watch it?

and what makes you think that parents don't want their children exposed to the idea of homosexuality? the episode of playschool that caused an 'outcry' was actually shown two times on the abc before it made it into the papers. the first time no complaints were made, while the second time two complaints were made

and how can you say that it is not an issue? if this weren't an issue, then why are we discussing it? obviously, there are a significant amount of people who don't like the law, and want it changed

and nice that you made a comparison that has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. world hunger and povery has nothing to do with morals. it has to do with logistics. it's not like you can pass a law that says 'no more hunger' and it suddenly becomes so. but it is possible to pass a law stating 'gays can marry' because, unlike hunger, marriage is a concept

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Its not like every heterosexual takes part in the Mardi Gras, let alone watch or care about it. Personally I think it happens because it happens to be the 'politically correct' thing to do. Christ! What rubbish! I say you instigate a plebiside on the issue, and see what results you get.
-----
alot of the people who back the mardi gras, participate in it and go to see it... are heterosexuals. And do you know what... its not like every homosexual agrees with the mardi gras, i know some who hate it and think its a waste of time, yet some of my heterosexual friends think its the best and love all the festivities. So as for it being politically correct.. does this mean we should have a hetero version? or maybe one for disabled people.. we have one for the elderly and for the anzacs i'm sure it'd be pc to have one for everyone. I'd be interested in a politicans parade day... *gets rotten tomatoes out*

-----
At any rate, you failed to comment on the fact that parents do not want their children exposed to it (it being the institutionalisation of homosexualality). To think that our community will accept gays and lesbians marrying any time soon is to believe that the sun might explode in two seconds time, or that I might own the internet in less...
------
Parents i'm sure would rather wait till their kids are a bit older and more able to understand, but its in the education system... its taught by the teachers starting from Kindy and up. I don't see the P & C having a shit about it, they've endorsed it! Its society and we all exist in the same society so live and let live, people will accept homosexuals right to marry and accept their right to adopt children. One day, maybe not today or next year.. but it will happen.

------
It is not a current issue, because there is not enough support for it. Its reality. Sorry! If it was generally agreed upon then the law would change, unfortunately it is not generally agreed upon.
------
Not enough support for it? what rock do u live under? If there wasn't enough support for it then we wouldnt be having a thread on the issue would we? Canada wouldn't be allowing gay marriages and there wouldnt be gay marriages allowed in several states of the USA. There is support for it, International support as well as local support its just we here in australia are a tad behind the USA and Canada in our laws as well as our campaining. The reality is, people want it, people are more accepting of our (homosexuals) right to it and eventually we will be given the right to marry. That is reality, we've come along way from when it was illegal. But no its not generally agreed on, we can all see that. At the moment its still in debate and will stay as such until a time when the general populace makes up its mind. But right now, this is where we stand.

------
Ergo, to say that its only right is just as valid as saying its only right that we eradicate world hunger/poverty right now. Could happen, could happen... but there's poltics involved, and politics does not always involve or incorporate morals.
-----
True, politics doesn't always involve or incorporate morals... but the people that play politics do and the people it affects do also. Political promises are broken all the time, which gives politics a bad name and an even worse reputation. Why follow politics when it doesn't follow us? (which like the law is what its meant to do)

 

[katie_tully]

Maybe you should have read what I said more clearly, as I didn't specify all gays as being the overly annoying flaboyant turd at the back of the class.
Secondly, I also said I wasn't religous, and as I'm not, I too do not see the point in getting married in a church. What I am saying is that since the bible was created it has clearly stated homosexuality is abornormal, which is why I can't see how gays would want to get married in a religious ceremony. Why worship some "god" who doesn't accept you? That's a plea for help dont you think? If you need faith insomething, why go for a religion that doesnt accept you.
Secondly. MARRIAGE itself has always been a union between MAN and WOMAN. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a special thing between two DIFFERENT sexes. I'm miffed as to why they feel they need to get married. As far as I'm concerned NO, you do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to marriage. It has been and should remain a union between man and woman. Call me pig headed, ignorant, discrimatory or whatever else you can pull out of your arse, it just shouldn't happen.

 

[lengstar]

actually i agree with that logic

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by katie_tully
Secondly, I also said I wasn't religous, and as I'm not, I too do not see the point in getting married in a church. What I am saying is that since the bible was created it has clearly stated homosexuality is abornormal, which is why I can't see how gays would want to get married in a religious ceremony. Why worship some "god" who doesn't accept you? That's a plea for help dont you think? If you need faith insomething, why go for a religion that doesnt accept you.
------
Who worships god now a days anyway? An isn't god supposed to accept all? I thought that was one of the foundations of catholicism.. christianity etc. Alot of religious homosexuals do turn away from their faith because of the discrimination.. not in the bible, but amongst the peers that are supposed to believe that 'all are equal in gods eyes' or something to that affect. And not many people really get to choose their religion as such, their parents choose it in most cases, and yes they can and do change if they so feel like it... but i think its funny i have a friend in america where the religious abnormality thing is being pushed something severely... and he is a minister/Rev. I think if there was something really substantial to that area of the argument i don't think he'd still be a minister/Rev, much less believe in what he's been preaching.
Differs religion to religion tho, so *shrugs* i'm sure we're all old enuff to understand what we are and are not supposed to believe.

-------
Secondly. MARRIAGE itself has always been a union between MAN and WOMAN. It's not a hard concept to grasp. It's a special thing between two DIFFERENT sexes. I'm miffed as to why they feel they need to get married. As far as I'm concerned NO, you do not have the same rights as a heterosexual couple when it comes to marriage. It has been and should remain a union between man and woman. Call me pig headed, ignorant, discrimatory or whatever else you can pull out of your arse, it just shouldn't happen.
------
So 2 people of the same sex can't have a "special thing"? "I'm miffed as to why they feel they need to get married" <-- really its a simple enough concept to grasp. 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together... sorta the same thing that happens between 2 heterosexuals.. the only difference is they don't have the need for shotgun marriages due to pregnancy...

As far as ur concerned you can hold your opinions as close to your heart as you want. There is nothing that makes heterosexual people different from homosexuals physically or emotionally or mentally.So it is beyond me as to why there should be 2 sets of different rights. But of course, you know what you are being " Call me pig headed, ignorant, discrimatory" so i don't need to tell you what you already know.

 

[katie_tully]

So 2 people of the same sex can't have a "special thing"? "I'm miffed as to why they feel they need to get married" <-- really its a simple enough concept to grasp. 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together... sorta the same thing that happens between 2 heterosexuals.. the only difference is they don't have the need for shotgun marriages due to pregnancy...

As far as ur concerned you can hold your opinions as close to your heart as you want. There is nothing that makes heterosexual people different from homosexuals physically or emotionally or mentally.So it is beyond me as to why there should be 2 sets of different rights. But of course, you know what you are being " Call me pig headed, ignorant, discrimatory" so i don't need to tell you what you already know.

You're failing to see the point here. I'm sitting on the fence with this, the point however is;
Marriage is a union between man and woman. Always has been. It's about tradition and morals, thats not saying homosexuality is morally wrong, but the fact is "MAN AND WOMAN".
Secondly, the number of people who are religious is alarmingly large, homosexuality is against everything they stand for. Why should we change the rules to suit a small majority of people when this has been the way for the last few thousand years?

 

[lengstar]

people thought the earth was flat and it was the centre of the universe \=|

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama

Who worships god now a days anyway? An isn't god supposed to accept all?

1) 70% of Australia's popultion are Christians. Additionally a decent percentage are also muslim and other religions that also prohibit homosexuality.

2) No he isn't supposed to accept all. He doesn't accept murderers, traitors, adulterers, homosexuals and other people who 'sin'.

Originally posted by eviltama

So 2 people of the same sex can't have a "special thing"

Sure you can, you just can't get married. Tough shit.

Originally posted by eviltama

really its a simple enough concept to grasp. 2 people love each other and want to spend their lives together... sorta the same thing that happens between 2 heterosexuals.. the only difference is they don't have the need for shotgun marriages due to pregnancy...

That's nice, and nobody is stopping them loving each other/spending their lives together. They just can't get married. And please don't attack heterosexual marriage, otherwise, if your so into attacking the institution of marriage i cant really see why you would want it in the first place.

Originally posted by eviltama

As far as ur concerned you can hold your opinions as close to your heart as you want. There is nothing that makes heterosexual people different from homosexuals physically or emotionally or mentally.

Apart from the fact that they are homosexuals?