MedVision ad

Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
Originally posted by saichung
Editorial: Where is the line? – Gay marriages

By Sai-Chung Chiang (March 11, 2004)
your entire point seems to be 'where do we draw the line' and then you give the example of other changes we could make to marriage. who knows? maybe in the future 'the exclusion of all others' may be changed. i doubt that will happen for quite awhile, and so what if it does? it will most likely happen within a society that finds this acceptable. your example of changing the 'voluntary' part of marriage is just simply ridiculous. you are grasping at straws and you know it, so i'm not going to even bother

and please explain to me again how the example of whites and blacks being able to marry is not relevant. i'm sure your exact same argument of opening a whole new can of worms was used at the time interacial marriage was legalised. yet now you consider it to be perfectly normal and 'not relevant' in the context of this debate...
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
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.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Howard is defending human rights by exercising the State's right to protect the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society :)
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Originally posted by lengstar
i suggest you read Brave New World then. you may well and truely have the best genetics, but you could also be oxygen starved in the uterus as a foetus rendering you brain dead. that means the brain gets no oxygen so it is underdeveloped or doesn't develop at all. its not just about genetics, its also about whether the mother had a healthy diet during pregnancy or smoked pot or breastfeed or not.
You mean, environmental factors? You know, the thing that i was arguing influenced how people turn out as well :rolleyes:
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Originally posted by jasee
They should have the right to get married. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a f***tard.
great argument.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
you'd think from neo's responses that i didn't post in this thread or something...
 

poloktim

\(^o^)/
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
I find it somewhat frightening that in a country such as Australia people are told what they want, or at least it's forced upon them by the government.

I would expect this type of behaviour (such as the Commonwealth government is displaying), to be displayed in a country with a largely fundamentalist government. Not from a country which is democratic and secular in nature.

Should homosexuals choose to get married, then, as long as they are both consenting adults (or minors over sixteen with parental consent as well), why shouldn't they? Why should the government forbid them? They wish to protect the institute of a family? Doesn't seem very egalitarian to me, it seems more biased to religion than secular and egalitarian.

As for neo_o's definition of how a homosexual man or woman becomes homosexual, just drop it mate. Unless you've done extensive research and have qualifications in the area your opinions on the topic are uneducated and until proven otherwise, I think we'll just listen to the experts, who seem to spout the opposite of what you do.

Also for the "additional rights" that neo_o posted. I already responded to that. The law won't be extended to allow just homosexuals to marry same-sex partners, but bisexuals and even heterosexuals can marry partners of the same sex. Sounds stupid for heterosexuals, doesn't it? So does "homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." neo_o please stop spouting bullshit. You're only making yourself look like a bigger fucktard with each post you make using such stupid logic.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Surely by now we have all realised that personal insults are not meant to exist within these discussions?
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Originally posted by poloktim
I find it somewhat frightening that in a country such as Australia people are told what they want, or at least it's forced upon them by the government.
Not true. Anyone that disagrees with you is being told what they want by the government?

As for neo_o's definition of how a homosexual man or woman becomes homosexual, just drop it mate. Unless you've done extensive research and have qualifications in the area your opinions on the topic are uneducated and until proven otherwise, I think we'll just listen to the experts, who seem to spout the opposite of what you do.
I challenge you to find one respect expert who denies that environment plays a part in homosexuality. Why, I think an HSC Biology student would disagree with you here.

Also for the "additional rights" that neo_o posted. I already responded to that. The law won't be extended to allow just homosexuals to marry same-sex partners, but bisexuals and even heterosexuals can marry partners of the same sex.
Wait so, your argument can be summarised as following: Giving homosexuals the right to marry isn't actually giving them anything, because heterosexuals will be allowed to marry too!
You'll have to point out where I went wrong there, because otherwise I might have to use a rather dirty word - logical fallacy.
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Originally posted by poloktim
I find it somewhat frightening that in a country such as Australia people are told what they want, or at least it's forced upon them by the government.

I would expect this type of behaviour (such as the Commonwealth government is displaying), to be displayed in a country with a largely fundamentalist government. Not from a country which is democratic and secular in nature.

Should homosexuals choose to get married, then, as long as they are both consenting adults (or minors over sixteen with parental consent as well), why shouldn't they? Why should the government forbid them? They wish to protect the institute of a family? Doesn't seem very egalitarian to me, it seems more biased to religion than secular and egalitarian.

As for neo_o's definition of how a homosexual man or woman becomes homosexual, just drop it mate. Unless you've done extensive research and have qualifications in the area your opinions on the topic are uneducated and until proven otherwise, I think we'll just listen to the experts, who seem to spout the opposite of what you do.

Also for the "additional rights" that neo_o posted. I already responded to that. The law won't be extended to allow just homosexuals to marry same-sex partners, but bisexuals and even heterosexuals can marry partners of the same sex. Sounds stupid for heterosexuals, doesn't it? So does "homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." neo_o please stop spouting bullshit. You're only making yourself look like a bigger fucktard with each post you make using such stupid logic.
Judging from recent events, you'll be banned so there's no point in responding. However, just for everyone else...

Announcing that Labor would not oppose the legislation's new definition of marriage, the party's spokeswoman on legal matters, Nicola Roxon, said: "We are not going to get hot under the collar about a piece of legislation which is just confirming the existing law."
3)

Not from a country which is democratic and secular in nature.
Australia isn't secular. Australia is 70% Christian.

Polls also indicate the majority of people do not support gay marriage, so in a perfect world, gay marriage actually wouldn't be allowed.

4) I am not your "mate". I presume you are referring to evil_tama as the expert? It's both logical and also one of the fundamentals of genetics that both environmental factors and genetic factors influence an organism's development. Here's a link from the bio forum :

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34982

That goes into the effect that presence/lack of light has upon plants. It should be obvious, even to you, that environmental factors play a role in development. Oh, additionally please give me links for the so called experts that say that genetics purely govern an individuals behaviour. Thanks.

5) Do you agree that allowing homosexual marriage is an additional right? GOOD. Do you agree that homosexuals are a minority group? GOOD. Then, from that logic, we are giving an additional right to a minority group. Also, I wonder how many straight people in Denmark marry people of the same sex? You call my argument "bullshit", heh.
 

poloktim

\(^o^)/
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Rorix
I challenge you to find one respect expert who denies that environment plays a part in homosexuality. Why, I think an HSC Biology student would disagree with you here.
I was referring to one having the choice. I'm well aware that the environment in which a person grows up is a factor. I'm not aware that a person has a conscious choice to make in their lives, possibly because, according to most psychologists, including Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, homosexuality is not a choice.

Wait so, your argument can be summarised as following: Giving homosexuals the right to marry isn't actually giving them anything, because heterosexuals will be allowed to marry too!
You'll have to point out where I went wrong there, because otherwise I might have to use a rather dirty word - logical fallacy.
I never said giving anyone specific the right to marry. I said allowing people to marry someone of the same-sex. This may benefit only one group, but marriage as it is now only benefits one group too. Broaden the law to be inclusive.

Originally posted by neo_o
Judging from recent events, you'll be banned so there's no point in responding. However, just for everyone else...
I said you're making yourself look like a bigger fucktard. I think I said that because you said that "allowing homosexuals to marry gives them an extra right." How many homosexuals do you see marrying people of the opposite sex? I'm aware there are exceptions, but most of these exceptions are for fraudulant reasons (such as immigration). Look at both sides of the scale before you make bullshit comments.

Australia isn't secular. Australia is 70% Christian.
With secular government.

Polls also indicate the majority of people do not support gay marriage, so in a perfect world, gay marriage actually wouldn't be allowed.
Polls are bullshit. The most fair way to obtain people's opinions would be an election. That way one person can't vote multiple times (for whichever side they chose).

4) I am not your "mate".
Then why put up with my arguments, or eviltama's, or anyone's for that matter. Why not just use the ignore feature. It's there for a reason.

I presume you are referring to evil_tama as the expert? It's both logical and also one of the fundamentals of genetics that both environmental factors and genetic factors influence an organism's development. Here's a link from the bio forum :

http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34982

That goes into the effect that presence/lack of light has upon plants. It should be obvious, even to you, that environmental factors play a role in development. Oh, additionally please give me links for the so called experts that say that genetics purely govern an individuals behaviour. Thanks.
I didn't argue about genetics MUST. That's not true, the identical twins experiment proved that. In a set of identical twins, if there was a so-called "gay gene" then both twins would end up being gay. The majority of the time it was one or the other.

I disagree with your choice "theory." I don't think anyone has come to a crossroads in their lives where they decided who they liked. It was either one or the other (or both for bisexual people).

Links aren't necessary, search the Internet, or read books on Sigmund Freud's or Carl Jung's study of sexuality.

5) Do you agree that allowing homosexual marriage is an additional right? GOOD. Do you agree that homosexuals are a minority group? GOOD. Then, from that logic, we are giving an additional right to a minority group. Also, I wonder how many straight people in Denmark marry people of the same sex? You call my argument "bullshit", heh.
I argue that heterosexual marriage gives heterosexual people an extra right. Heterosexual marriage is something that homosexual people would never choose to use. You argue that homosexual marriage is an extra right to homosexual people, since it allows same-sex couples to do something that heterosexuals would never choose to do. Broaden the law out and get rid of the "man and woman", replace it with "two consenting adults" and problem solved. People can marry whoever the hell they want then, as long as they're both consenting adults.

I was throwing irony at your argument, though surprisingly, for someone who claims to be so knowledgeable, you missed it.

Remember, though, don't like me, ignore me. The feature is there for you to use. ;)
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
The ignore option is quite stupid... Have you thought about using it yourself?
Please remember that this is a political forum.
 

poloktim

\(^o^)/
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Originally posted by Generator
The ignore option is quite stupid... Have you thought about using it yourself?
Please remember that this is a political forum.
Yes. I have thought about using it. I decided against it. Any names that people call me, I'll deal with, as long as it isn't cold and attacking, like GWB's was to eviltama.
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I made the point with reference to the previous two posts. I was under the impression that you were suggesting that neo_o ignore unsightly arguments, not personal attacks.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
----------
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.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
-------------
You can't be serious to use this and think it proves anything.
1) "Men and women" doesn't imply they must marry each other. And "have the right to marry and found a family" doesn't imply that the marriage has to be between a heterosexual couple, nor that a heterosexual couple is what defines a family.

Points 2 and 3 are fair enuff to a point. Tho to say that "The family is the natural and fundemental group unit of society", is sorta iffy. So since this obviously came from something much longer i'd advise you to supply either your source or perhaps some sort of link to the original piece of writing so that we can draw proper conclusions from what has been written.
 

asha_ramirez

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
216
Location
Newcastle, NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
I just want to state that I think if same-sex couples want to marry then they should have the same rights as straight couples.

I think that it is discrimination on the basis of sexual preference if this ban on same-sex marriages is legalised.

What John Howard stated on the issue is:
"There are certain institutions [marriage] that we understand to have certain meaning and why not say so?"

Personally I think that it is a step backwards for Australia if same-sex marriage is banned.
 

.:b-me:.

memories consume
Joined
Oct 20, 2003
Messages
109
Location
-sydn3y-
and even if it isnt recognised as a religious institution, it should at least be recognised as a legal one, so that the couples can at least have joint access to benefits such as super.
 

asha_ramirez

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
216
Location
Newcastle, NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Originally posted by .:b-me:.
and even if it isnt recognised as a religious institution, it should at least be recognised as a legal one, so that the couples can at least have joint access to benefits such as super.
I agree, it should be recognised, at least, on a legal level.
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Originally posted by .:b-me:.
and even if it isnt recognised as a religious institution, it should at least be recognised as a legal one, so that the couples can at least have joint access to benefits such as super.
They do have super benefits actually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top