Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

[HaBibi~]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
So, the government doesn't can't say murder is wrong? The government can't say that stealing is wrong? The government can't say having sex with little kids is wrong?

I think you mean the government just doesn't have any right to disagree with you.

we can say all these are wrong...so y cant we say homosexual marriage, and even homosexuality/bisexuality is too?

if any negative or "bad" result is developed from anything, it evidently is the rong thing to do.

murder: result is a life being taken away.

stealing: someones sometimes most prized possesions are taken away from them, without their consent; therefore heartbreak is the result.

sex with little kids: even if the sex is "pleasant" and doesn't involve any violence, this behaviour will still effect and remain with the child; it may also believe that this behaviour is right and moral.

HIV/AIDS is a result of homosexual activities.

so how can't it be wrong?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by eviltama
You're in denial is what you are.. either that or you in the closet.

you've obviously completely missed my point. it wasn't meant as a literal example

 

[olay]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
if any negative or "bad" result is developed from anything, it evidently is the rong thing to do.

HIV/AIDS is a result of homosexual activities.

so how can't it be wrong?

HIV and AIDS affects everyone - and it is mainly spread through sexual contact. so going by what you're saying, sex is wrong. and what is imposing a law that prevents a homosexual couple from marrying going to do??

to deny any faction from marriage is pure discrimination. it's pointless and unjust.

 

[poloktim]

What's sad is not people's opinions, not the fact that John Howard has decided to play dictator with people's most personal thoughts, but the fact that you're arguing pointlessly over it. Honestly, you're not getting anywhere George W. Bush and eviltama. All you're doing is typing the same thing over and over again.

It is causing controversy, I'll agree there, but that isn't an excuse for anyone to start calling people names because their opinions are different to your own.

I tend to find arguments where I'm called something less convincing than arguments which properly explain the writer's opinions and reasons.

Also, when arguments with statistics are made, sources often play the convincing factor. For example "n% of pppl dnt liek gays getin wedded omgwtfbbqrofl" is far less convincing than "(link to source) states that n% of people disagree with homosexual marriage."

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
are you straight if you can only love men, but will only fuck chicks?

If you are sexually attracted to men, you are gay. Or bisexual.

 

[George W. Bush]

Its a union between two people who love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together. Grow old, have kids and live happily ever after.To death do us part, thru sickness and in health for the rest of our lives. Does it sound familiar?

No, it's a legal status which embodies the above. That's why a civil union isn't marriage. You seem to disagree - perhaps you'd like to explain why law plays no part in marriage.

Of course not, the legal system "should" be free of bias and discrimination.

Except the legal system can and does descriminate against criminals.

No i dont want to give a minority group an extra right, i want to give people who are homosexuals the same rights that have been denied from them, based on discrimination against the fact that they are homosexuals.

Gay people aren't being denied any rights. EACH AND EVERY GAY PERSON is allowed the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as each straight citizen - to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of race, socioeconomic status etc. Please explain how introducing another right which will is only relevant for a minority group isn't giving a minority group an extra right.

long winded meaningless stuff about love

Marriage isn't love.

and it has been shown statisticallty that homosexual couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples. And the divorce/split rate is lower in homosexuals than in heterosexuals.

Use statistics consistantly. Earlier, you said that it's impossible to know how many people are gay because many will not admit to it. Now, you're talking about the break up rates of homosexual and heterosexual couples. Be consistant.

So lesbians don't count as homosexuals?

FUCKING HELL, YOU'RE SO DUMB. LISTEN TO ME SAY THIS AGAIN.

I fully acknowledge that lesbian people are homosexual, and often refer to homosexual people in a general manner. However, at times, I type referring to gay men in order to make things simplier. You feel some sort of need to point score by trying to make it look like I'm ignoring lesbians.

there are straight men who are turned on by men, yet are still straight. (most probably because they don't tell anyone)

If they don't tell anyone about it, how do you know about it? Moron.

its not an irrelevant point. Oral sex is illegal in China, it doesnt mean that the society the legal system works for (is supposed to work for) agrees with the law. That was my point.

And I say it again, AUSTRALIA ISN'T CHINA. What goes on in China is totally irrelevant, because of the difference in systems. If you were talking about another Western democracy, it would be PERHAPS relevant.

a human is human, regardless of gender.
a man is a man regardless of sexuality.
homosexuality is different in defintion from heterosexuality, but it doesnt make them any more or less male or female, or any more or less a human.

Neither of us ever said it did. YOU WERE DENYING THAT HETEROSEXUALS WERE DIFFERENT FROM HOMOSEXUALS. Now you say that they are different in definition - were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?

homo is also latin for man. Yet the word homosexual is gender neutral and refers to both male and female, hence leaning towards the greek meaning in favour of the latin. Depening on ur dictionary and state of mind most people use it to refer to both sexes and hence not only men.

Once again you miss the fucking point, because you are still convinced that I somehow think only men are homosexual. I'm going to put it in big letters for you:
I THINK LESBIANS ARE HOMOSEXUAL. Thank you. The point I was trying to make was that by definiton homosexuality is same sex.

and as for my 'gay' from birth theory.. while ur genes may tell you ur attracted to males... its you who decide who u'd rather fuck, attraction or not.

But I thought it didn't matter who you fucked? Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?



Look, according to your HORRIBLE DEFINITION of homosexuality where you must live with your life partner, have regular sex with them and act homosexual in the eyes of society, there are no sexual disorders in the world.

Pedophila? Not if they're not living with the kids they fuck.
Necophilia? Uh-uh.
Beastality? Nope.

According to you, just because I fuck kids doesn't make me a pedo, just because I fuck dead people doesn't make me a necro, just because I fuck animals doesn't mean i practice beastality.

Just like how fucking men doesn't make me a homosexual.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
we can say all these are wrong...so y cant we say homosexual marriage, and even homosexuality/bisexuality is too?

We can. I never said we cannot. The question is, does society view it as wrong.

 

[HaBibi~]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and as for my 'gay' from birth theory.. while ur genes may tell you ur attracted to males... its you who decide who u'd rather fuck, attraction or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


umm, well it is not possible to be "born gay"...it is proven that homosexual behaviour is developed from two main factors:

1. values/ morals and 'family beliefs'
2. experiences

it's tru that ur family can 'transfer' characteristics to an offspring...however, not through the genes. it's passed on through morals and teachings that the family believes - so if a parent believes that homosexuality/ bisexuality is not morally wrong, then the likelyhood is that the child will believe that too, and therefore accept it as a lifestyle

experiences also play a major role in the sexuality of an individual.
an individual has a certian level of "love" they need to experience before they are "satisfied". if a child has grown up with no satisfaction of love, this will result in that child searching for love elsewhere. this lack of love may not just be the result all forms of abuse or neglect, but even divorce, having a single parent, lack of a comfortable home environment of a parent and even the parents not spending time with the child.

for example, a child's parent (mother) has been sick ever since that child was young. the mum is in a state where she is mentally 'there' however, she cant go out with her child and spend time with her. the child stole her friends' bookmark and changed a classmates spelling word on his list so he could get a lower grade, just for the sake of it. the child does not like to socialise with other children of her grade, however only those which are in the grade under her. she often thinks what it will be like to have her excellent teacher as a mother, but all this time, she or anyone else has not realised that her behaviour may be a result of this needing to feel loved/ gain attention.

a child will be affected by this lacking in their life, and therefore will act upon it. they may not even be actions which are not recognised as actions to be loved, for example: stealing at a young age, damaging property, lack of concentration in class, not wanting to socialise with other children, bullying, along with an actual hunger for love. im not saying that no child that has a 'normal' family environment has not acted in these certian ways, however, let me continue ...
these actions are seen by most of the public eye as 'normal child-like behaviour', however the problem is when the child continues on with these types of behaviours later on in life, into either more serious versions of these actions or different ones.

>looking for alternative forms of love.

>homosexuality.

 

[HaBibi~]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
We can. I never said we cannot. The question is, does society view it as wrong.

i was jst using them examples that u mentioned as a basis for ma argument, i wasnt lyk commenting on anything u said =)

 

[poloktim]

I don't see how adding the right for same sex couples to get married is adding another right just for homosexual couples.

Two really good hetrosexual mates might decide that they want to tie the knot for legal/financial reasons. Allowing same sex marriages, would be allowing them to do it. Basically George W. Bush, I'm taking what you're saying and twisting it around, much like you did to eviltama.

While it is quite true that homosexuals may be wed to the opposite sex, hetrosexuals, the people whom John Howard perceive as the Alpha people, still don't have the right to wed someone of the same sex.

You think my argument is absurd? Maybe you should read it, then your own, then it again. It'll show your "homosexual people can be wed to those of the opposite sex" argument as just a bit over the top. Don't you think?

Also your whole "treating criminals as equals" argument is a touch on the silly side. You're trying to make up a situation to corner eviltama. The scenario you've made up is at its best amusing, but not witty or clever. One always knows there'll be exceptions to equality, criminals break a law, therefore they may be exempt from equality. I haven't seen a law in force banning homosexuals for a while now, why should they be treated like criminals?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and as for my 'gay' from birth theory.. while ur genes may tell you ur attracted to males... its you who decide who u'd rather fuck, attraction or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


umm, well it is not possible to be "born gay"...it is proven that homosexual behaviour is developed from two main factors:

1. values/ morals and 'family beliefs'
2. experiences

Umm I want references.

Meanwhile:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2421.html Just some food for thought.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
It isn't descrimination. Everybody has the same right. They can marry any member of the opposite sex they want. What you want to do is give a minority group an extra right. Something being right or wrong is just your opinion, as you've said before. Society doesn't accept gay marriage because otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

An extra right, if it was introduced there would nothing to stop heterosexual people from marrying the same sex

 

[Ziff]

And people can be born with a predisposition to mental illness, they can be born with disabilities and they can be born deformed. So we should accept this and not try and repair their "natural" defects and problems...

Legislating for homosexual marriage would be saying "well science has given up for a cure, let's just make it common place and let these aboninations walk the earth without any assistance to get better!"

Pathetic.

 

[baby_b]

ok heres the deal.. i do catholic studies at skool n decided to do my assingment on gay marriages.. its asking me for moral dilemmas? whos affected? wat are the consequences for society? and i also have to refer to church teachings

what do u mean when u say church point of view doesnt matter.. it does matter... cos i have an assignemnt to do

anyone willing to answer the question?

 

[neo o]

People consider the POV of the church to be less relevant then what some people would like to hold it as for a few reasons.

- 70% of the population are Christians, while thats an obvious majority, it leaves 30% who really couldn't give a flying fuck about what the church thinks

- This isn't a debate over religious morals/beliefs. It's a debate about the law.

btw Ska, i thought you were Jewish?

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by Ziff
And people can be born with a predisposition to mental illness, they can be born with disabilities and they can be born deformed. So we should accept this and not try and repair their "natural" defects and problems...

Legislating for homosexual marriage would be saying "well science has given up for a cure, let's just make it common place and let these aboninations walk the earth without any assistance to get better!"

Pathetic.

What's pathetic is that you seem so clever, and you didn't even mention Freud.

The difference between the birth defects and homosexuality is that birth defects are indeed that. Homosexuality, according to Freud, Jung, and just about every good psychologist, is not a disease, and thus, can not be cured. In fact, they all go on to say that it would be unethical to attempt to "cure" a homosexual, as it could severly damage his/her mentality later on in life.
That teaching was adopted by just about every modern medical association.

Before you start trying to talk about science giving up cures, perhaps you should find out whether or not it's ethical to be looking for one, even when science has shown that no cure can exist because there is no problem.

 

[Ziff]

No I've just gotten to a stage where it's more amusing to stir people up than to get involved with a coherent argument

 

[HaBibi~]

Originally posted by Xayma
Umm I want references.

Meanwhile:
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article2421.html Just some food for thought.
------------------------------------------------------

well xayma, i dunno what the relationship between sheep and humans are, but hey, y not?

http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/causesc37.php = "is homosexuality genetic?"

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/page3.html = how do homosexual attractions develop

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/hom/hom_04.htm = what causes homosexuality

quote from 3rd source, 4 all those who are too lazy to visit these linx themselves :

WHAT CAUSES HOMOSEXUALITY
I strongly recommend a book called "THE UNHAPPY GAYS: What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality" by Tim LaHaye (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton Illinois, 1978) to gain a good insight into the factors that lead to the development of homosexuality. In his chapter on "What Causes Homosexuality?" Tim LaHaye first describes...

The Components For Developing A Predisposition To Homosexuality
Please carefully note that the components listed below DO NOT CAUSE ONE TO BECOME A HOMOSEXUAL. Rather, they can contribute to the development of a PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALITY. A person can (and many do) have all these components and still not be a homosexual. As listed and describe by LaHaye, these components include:


A Melancholy Temperament

Inadequate Parental Relationships

Permissive Childhood Training

Insecurity About Sexual Identity

Childhood Sexual Trauma

Early Interest In Sex

Youthful Masturbator And Sexual Fantasizer

Childhood Associates And Peer Pressure

LaHaye carefully documents how studies have often found these factors present in the development of a predisposition towards homosexuality. Only the first ("A Melancholy Temperament") is truly related to genetics, but many of the others are environmental factors that can occur so early in the development of a child that one could easily believe that once a predisposition towards homosexuality has developed they feel they must have been "born that way."
But even if one has a "predisposition" towards homosexuality, they are not necessarily homosexual. As LaHaye continues to illustrate, to a "predisposition" must be added other factors. He describes this as...


The Formula For Producing A Homosexual
This formula can be illustrated in this way:


A Predisposition
Toward Homosexuality

Plus

That First
Homosexual Experience

Multiplied By

Pleasurable and Positive
Homosexual Thoughts

To Which Is Added

More Homosexual
Experiences

Multiplied By

More Pleasurable
Thoughts

equals:

A Homosexual
---------------------------

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
If you are sexually attracted to men, you are gay. Or bisexual.

but you aren't sexually attracted to men, you are sexually attracted to women. emotionally you are attacted to men

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/causesc37.php = "is homosexuality genetic?"

http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/ds/cb962/page3.html = how do homosexual attractions develop

http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_ou.../hom/hom_04.htm = what causes homosexuality

That first link, I should ask everyone to ignore. It's from a websie promoting that homosexuality is a sin, and people can be freed from it. The only difference between this site and other sites are, this site adds a positive overtone. They try to "help" homosexuals instead of condemning them. Either way, they don't follow the accepted medical (and thus, in a secular society, official) stance, and so information can be biased.

The same with the third website. It makes reference to sin and does not provide adequate sources. Being a religious website, one expects sources to be cited.

Also, the second one, while being the best of the three, had was negative.

Any proper sources are to be impartial. All these three were biased. The religious ones moreso than the booklet.

HaBibi~ is providing his own opinion, he's backing up his opinion with the opinion of others and not scientific proof. I suggest that he be ignored.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by poloktim
I don't see how adding the right for same sex couples to get married is adding another right just for homosexual couples.

To be very blunt:
The rights as they stand:
Females can marry males.
Males can marry females.

Everyone's happy, except for gays.
Now, straight men have no use for marrying men, and likewise for straight women. So what you want to do is give all people the right to gay marriage, except only a minority will ever use it.

Two really good hetrosexual mates might decide that they want to tie the knot for legal/financial reasons.

Have two really good hetrosexual mates in modern society, one male and one female, ever tied the knot for legal or financial reasons? (excluding when one party is after money, like gold diggers - we're talking about both parties here)

It'll show your "homosexual people can be wed to those of the opposite sex" argument as just a bit over the top. Don't you think?

No, I'm pointing out the flaw in this guilt trip people try to run of gays being 'descriminated' against. They are being deprived the right to marry the person they love, but that's not descrimination.

Also your whole "treating criminals as equals" argument is a touch on the silly side. You're trying to make up a situation to corner eviltama.

It's no worse than his/her 'you don't think lesbians are homosexual' thing. I made a point, that not ALL are treated equally under the law. The idea of the law being impartial isn't a broad statement.

I haven't seen a law in force banning homosexuals for a while now, why should they be treated like criminals?

Now you're being pedantic and silly. Being a criminal has nothing to do with marriage. It does have something to do with sprouting off ideals like 'equality under the law'.