Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles

And anyway, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? Similar argument, like you said. So that's a pretty invalid point.

You could start another thread on that, itd go for as many pages.

I think rorix summed up a response to these random responses rather nicely.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by asha_ramirez
Maybe you should not bother at all? Considering your replys are void of information anyway.

It's not a personal attack, but if you have been proved wrong, why continue to post irrelivent crap?

My replies are always backed up while yours are based on emotion. Look at your own replies before commenting on mine please.

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by Rorix
This isn't a hard point to understand.

Men can marry women.
Women can marry men.
Men can't marry men.
Women can't marry women.

However, some men want to marry men, some women want to marry women, and they have been campeigning for the right to do so.

What these homosexuals want is for additional rights to be granted to everybody for the use by a certain minority.

Now, perhaps you posters can explain how trying to get additional rights for the population, for the use by a minority, isn't granting extra rights.

Because, it seems to me, that when you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS, you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS.

But you guys seem to think that as long as you GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY, then you're not actually GIVING. Well, pray tell, what is it then?

Well i think its not exactly fair to call it 'extra' rights if they didnt exist in the first place.

Its like saying, animals are being given extra rights by being treated humanely.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by 400miles
Whoa, whoa, whoa neo, hold the phone. I think you're getting mixed up, son. By your argument, allowing gays to marry would be giving them an extra right as they'd have the right not only to marry of the opposite sex but of the same sex as well.
Now feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but if this law was passed then EVERYONE would have the right to marry of the opposite or same sex, whether they choose to or not is another matter.
So, therefore, EVERYONE would receive this right..
Therefore it is NOT a minority group gaining the right.

And I don't agree that marriage of gays makes it easier for them to argue for adoption. That's like saying allowing homosexuals to date at all is making it easier for them to get married. Not true.
And anyway, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? Similar argument, like you said. So that's a pretty invalid point.

Thank you. I've been saying that all along. He seems to either ignore me, or something.
Broadening the law to allow the marriage of anyone opposite-sex and same-sex is beneficial to all groups. You're (neo_o) saying that homosexuals have the right to marry people of the opposite sex. Something they would not choose to do. This is nothing but childish pedantics. You're saying that heterosexuals would never choose to marry someone of the same sex. Why? Because it's something that they would not choose to do. Can we see the problem here? I can't. Change marriage laws to allow people to marry a person from a gender of their choice and people will marry whomever they want at their own discression.

Originally posted by neo_o
8) We are arguing about additional rights being given to minority groups, not rights given to the majority. Also, heterosexual marriage does not give heterosexuals an extra right, since homosexuals have the same right, they just choose not to use it.

Can you imagine why they choose not to use it? Really? Can you?

But if you're not going to argue that matter, since it's an important factor in this argument, you might as well not argue. Period.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by AsyLum
Well i think its not exactly fair to call it 'extra' rights if they didnt exist in the first place.

Its like saying, animals are being given extra rights by being treated humanely.

Not the best example, as there's a general expectation (though I'm not sure it would be called a right) that animals should be treated humanely.

If you want to use an animal example, perhaps something like dogs campeigning for "animals have the right to leave their owners". This is a right they don't currently have, but even if we give it to all animals, and only dogs care, dogs are still GAINING ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.


Right now, gays cannot marry. If gays can marry, clearly they would have gained an additional right.

Whether or not everyone else gained a right is irrelevant. The point is, GAYS WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY DID BEFORE. ERGO, THEY GAINED RIGHTS. polotiktim, please explain how they are not actually gaining rights.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Agreed, but it's basically so open ended that it leaves it up to the states discretion what to specify.

Basically this entire debate rests upon



What is the definition of a family? That is what the Howard Government is trying to redefine, and it seems perfectly above board according to this.

"natural" is also an interesting word, but you can think of that what you will.

wait a second, what happen to your whole 'additional rights' argument? oh that's right, it was complete shit

and no, it is not up to states to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights more specific. that kinda defeats the whole purpose of having them in the first place. and your point about the family, where does it say that once you marry you must start a natural family? it says you have the right to start a family, don't mean you have to, just like you have the right to get married, don't mean you have to

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Rorix
Whether or not everyone else gained a right is irrelevant. The point is, GAYS WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY DID BEFORE. ERGO, THEY GAINED RIGHTS. polotiktim, please explain how they are not actually gaining rights.

currently, gays are allowed to marry overseas and have their marriage recognised in australia. now, this is no longer the case. ergo, they have lost rights. and that's not even going into the point about how this is against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
It was amended last year in NSW

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/06/1051987705006.html?oneclick=true

my mistake. i'm just wondering whether the qld part was still correct though, since that wasn't specifically mentioned in the article

 

[johnson]

people are always going to have mixed emotions about gay marriage, both sides of the argument have fair enough points.

but i'd like to point out that homosexuals aren't criminals or sick in the head, so please stop likening them to people who fuck their sisters or pedophiles and other criminals

 

[Enlightened_One]

Yeah, besides the more gay men, the more gils to go around for the rest of us. So quit complaining!

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by Enlightened_One
Yeah, besides the more gay men, the more gils to go around for the rest of us. So quit complaining!

oh come on now, they're not going to be so desperate as to go for you

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Rorix
This isn't a hard point to understand.

Men can marry women.
Women can marry men.
Men can't marry men.
Women can't marry women.

However, some men want to marry men, some women want to marry women, and they have been campeigning for the right to do so.

What these homosexuals want is for additional rights to be granted to everybody for the use by a certain minority.

Now, perhaps you posters can explain how trying to get additional rights for the population, for the use by a minority, isn't granting extra rights.

Well I'd love to. I'd like to explain why the minority part is irrelevant. It's not whether or not it's a lot of people that the right is affecting... it's whether or not without it there would be injustice. Hmm, an example... here's on that's been used already. The Aboriginals were given the right to vote and be considered 'people' in '67 which they hadn't ever had for nearly 200 years. Now they're a minority group (today they make up 2% of the Australian population) but they were given this right because without it would be an injustice for them.

Also, the same argument you're using (minus the minority) could be used in opposition. Say we did have gay marriages... that would mean that all people (heteros too) would be allowed the right to marry same sex. Why should they have an 'extra' right to marry someone of the opposite sex?

And tell me what's wrong with giving someone an extra right? Surely it is the 'rights' in life that make life fair?

Because, it seems to me, that when you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS, you GIVE EXTRA RIGHTS.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise the plan was to give as limited rights as possible.

But you guys seem to think that as long as you GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY, then you're not actually GIVING. Well, pray tell, what is it then?

Well I don't understand that... I'm all for "GIVING" the extra right... to "EVERYBODY"... I just don't understand what's wrong with it. It's not like we're only going to give the right to one group of people.. no no no... that would be as bad as giving marriage to heterosexuals only.
What's wrong with giving people rights?

You know what I really want to know is... Who is hurt by homosexual union? Who is negatively affected that we have to outlaw it? I think when you can prove that people are hurt by it then I might consider that banning it is the right choice.

Oh by the way Neo, good work in coming back at me! Classy way of ignoring it. "We could start another thread on it".... wacko we could start another thread on every argument posted in this thread but then we'd never end up actually debating would we... why don't you just post it here son and address the issue/.

Originally posted by Rorix
Not the best example, as there's a general expectation (though I'm not sure it would be called a right) that animals should be treated humanely.

If you want to use an animal example, perhaps something like dogs campeigning for "animals have the right to leave their owners". This is a right they don't currently have, but even if we give it to all animals, and only dogs care, dogs are still GAINING ADDITIONAL RIGHTS.

Right now, gays cannot marry. If gays can marry, clearly they would have gained an additional right.

Whether or not everyone else gained a right is irrelevant. The point is, GAYS WOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY DID BEFORE. ERGO, THEY GAINED RIGHTS. polotiktim, please explain how they are not actually gaining rights.

Okay, let's say your pathetic argument about 'extra' rights is correct. What is wrong with the dog having extra rights? What is wrong with gays having more rights than they did before? Of course they'd bloody have more rights than they did before you fool that's the whole point... THey're undermined and underprivilaged.... they don't get to marry who they're in love iwth like heteros so therefore they dont have as many rights as heteros and therefore they deserve the right to marry who they like... and therefore OF COURSE THEY'D HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN THEY HAD BEFORE... THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT...

 

[Rorix]

Now, I would label you an idiot and pathetic, as you do, but I'm not really into ad hominem attacks. However, I don't think you really understand what the argument is.


You see, those in favour of gay marriage, like yourself, try to portray gays as being deprived, as if a right has been unjustly stolen off them. However, the more logical of us note that you can't take something which someone has never had, and that this is an emotional argument rather than a logical argument.

 

[asha_ramirez]

I think these 'additional rights' should be granted - yes that is only my opinion.
I think that it is discrimination to not allow same-sex marriages - not saying that this was ever a 'right' legally, but because Howard has brought this to the spotlight obviously it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Calling them 'extra rights' is something that I don't really believe... I think that in the quest for equality, same-sex marriages should be legally allowed; but because it is a topically issue, and the majority of Australians (I am generalizing) concur with the 'White Picket Fence' ideal of marriage being between a man and a woman, the right for same-sex marriages to be made legal will not come easily. Wow ehh I'm rambling.

 

[tWiStEdD]

All I see here is a whole bunch of cr-- and not enough fact.

Idealists, that's the name for basically the whole lot of you! Do you really think anyone has gotten anywhere by trying to do the best for a certain group that is humanly possible, while doing good for every other group?!!? It does not work.

Politics (which is what you are all inadvertedly talking about) is NOT about ideals, but about reality. THINK REALISTICALLY. I am more than willing to accept your views, if you can back them up with logical reasoning.

 

[Blackalicious]

Morally gays have the right to wed. And by not providing them with a legal right to do this, you are depriving them of this right. If two people want to form a legal relationship then they should be allowed to, same sex or not. Gays and lesbians have the right to be treated as equal members in society that is what recognition of their right to marriage would provide them with.
Twistedd, it is idealists that progress society Ghandi, Lincoln, Whitlam were all idealists and the social change that they implemented was massive.

 

[asha_ramirez]

Originally posted by Blackalicious
Morally gays have the right to wed. And by not providing them with a legal right to do this, you are depriving them of this right. If two people want to form a legal relationship then they should be allowed to, same sex or not. Gays and lesbians have the right to be treated as equal members in society that is what recognition of their right to marriage would provide them with.
Twistedd, it is idealists that progress society Ghandi, Lincoln, Whitlam were all idealists and the social change that they implemented was massive.

I completely agree hunny

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by Rorix
Now, I would label you an idiot and pathetic, as you do, but I'm not really into ad hominem attacks. However, I don't think you really understand what the argument is.


You see, those in favour of gay marriage, like yourself, try to portray gays as being deprived, as if a right has been unjustly stolen off them. However, the more logical of us note that you can't take something which someone has never had, and that this is an emotional argument rather than a logical argument.

Never said that YOU were an idiot or pathetic....
I never even said idiot.
I called you a fool.
Get it right.

And I understand the argument perfectly, what you explained is nothign new.

"However, the more logical of us note that you can't take something which someone has never had, and that this is an emotional argument rather than a logical argument."

Firstly quit with the 'emotional/logical' crap because that's not true, I've given factual anecdotes and examples and very logical conclusions and just because I feel it's wrong doesn't mean my argument is purely emotional so don't undermine it.

Secondly... as for "the more logical of us note that you can't take something which someone has never had" I never said that you could... I, firstly, don't agree it's an extra right... I don't think there's any such thing, I was simply going along with your argument. Secondly the point we're making is that even if it is an extra right there's no PROBLEM with giving people extra rights even in the case of a minority (see Aboriginal example).

"try to portray gays as being deprived".... okay, so heteros can marry the person they love but gays can't... tell me how we are not depriving them of the right to marriage?

and, seeing as so much of your argument is based around this (and neo's...wherever that guy has disappeared to), why is giving people 'extra rights' (should they exist) a bad thing? surely rights are there to make life fair?

AND... tell me who gay union negatively affects... because unless you do that there is no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Now I said all this before but you didn't answer it. You simply said "You don't understand the argument" and then re-iterated the same point you had before (which I had refuted). So it seems to me as though it's you who's at a loss of understanding.
Please answer all questions I have directed at you.

And Neo feel free to join in. I miss your fountain of crap that kept on running and running.... like those fountains that just recycle the water over and over.

 

[Rorix]

Originally posted by Blackalicious
Morally gays have the right to wed.

Oh, really? Which moral code are you using? What makes this moral code superior to other moral codes?

Firstly quit with the 'emotional/logical' crap because that's not true, I've given factual anecdotes and examples and very logical conclusions and just because I feel it's wrong doesn't mean my argument is purely emotional so don't undermine it.

The idea of a certain group being deprived is an emotional argument. We are supposed to sympathise with the poor gays who are being oppressed by the evil law. I am only referring to the deprivation argument here.

Secondly... as for "the more logical of us note that you can't take something which someone has never had" I never said that you could... I, firstly, don't agree it's an extra right... I don't think there's any such thing, I was simply going along with your argument.

Again, you deny that GIVING SOMEBODY A RIGHT isn't actually GIVING THEM A RIGHT! Please tell me, if we give gays the right to marry each other, how are we not giving them a right? It matters not that everyone can have a gay marriage, the point is that A RIGHT HAS BEEN GIVEN, which is a critical flaw of the deprivation argument.

"try to portray gays as being deprived".... okay, so heteros can marry the person they love but gays can't... tell me how we are not depriving them of the right to marriage?

here we go again. The right to marriage states "you have the right to marry anyone you chose of the opposite sex", not "you have the right to marry the person you love" (otherwise there wouldn't be a problem). Gay people aren't being deprived the right to marriage. What you want to do is redefine the concept of marriage to correct this alleged 'deprivation'.

and, seeing as so much of your argument is based around this (and neo's...wherever that guy has disappeared to), why is giving people 'extra rights' (should they exist) a bad thing? surely rights are there to make life fair?

You don't seem to understand that I'm not trying to debate gay marriage here. That's why I'm not responding to these sections of the post. I'm just pointing out the logical fallacy that has led you to somehow think if we GIVE TO EVERYONE then we're not actually GIVING.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
And Neo feel free to join in. I miss your fountain of crap that kept on running and running.... like those fountains that just recycle the water over and over.

If you want to make personal attacks perhaps you should ask Laz to set up a bitching forum for you?