Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by poloktim
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.

The line between a disease and an accepted genetic abnormality are extremely vague. One could make a case for being left handed as a disease.

Originally posted by crazyhomo
but you aren't sexually attracted to men, you are sexually attracted to women. emotionally you are attacted to men

Well then, crazyhomo, you are not so homo after all. What turns you on is what matters. You can love your mother, or love your dog, and as long as you aren't sexually attracted to them, it doesn't mean anything in terms of your sexual preference.

Originally posted by poloktim
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.

Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's wrong. The truth is that science really has no definite answer as to what causes homosexuality - all that's really known is that neither genetic factors or environmental factors are soley responsible. There could still be room for choice, although I personally feel that homosexuality isn't a choice.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Well then, crazyhomo, you are not so homo after all. What turns you on is what matters. You can love your mother, or love your dog, and as long as you aren't sexually attracted to them, it doesn't mean anything in terms of your sexual preference.

makes sense to me

 

[johnson]

i just love how many narrow minded views and outrageously discriminatory opinions there are in this thread. i'm not going to point them out because everyone is entitled to their own opinion.. but my god no wonder society is so fucked up.

 

[Loz#1]

And here you are sprouting off about how everyone is narrow-minded, with the exception of yourself of course.

Way to go *clap clap*

 

[HaBibi~]

Originally posted by poloktim
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.

well of course it would be "negative"; im not gunna provide a link that rivals my opinion!

and just ecause im providing my opinion, doesnt mean i "should be ignored". if that were the case, then pretty much everyone else on this board should be ignored too! think about wat ur saying before u say it!

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
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.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Society doesn't accept gay marriage because otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

on the contrary, the fact that we are having this discussion shows that society is not happy with this arrangement, and does acccept gay marriages, even if the law does not. although my user name may be confusing, i am not gay, so at the moment these laws do not directly affect me. but if i ever were to turn gay, it would be comforting to know that i would be able to marry the person i love

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
well of course it would be "negative"; im not gunna provide a link that rivals my opinion!

and just ecause im providing my opinion, doesnt mean i "should be ignored". if that were the case, then pretty much everyone else on this board should be ignored too! think about wat ur saying before u say it!

When providing sources, the ideal thing is to provide impartial sources. Not biased ones.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
The line between a disease and an accepted genetic abnormality are extremely vague. One could make a case for being left handed as a disease.

But one does not, again, something that was stopped in the past. Society has grown more understanding.

Originally posted by George W. Bush
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.

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)

I'm saying make it legal for everyone. Whoever uses the law isn't anyone's concern but their own and the government's. Why should you care whether or not two women marry each other, or two blokes for that matter?

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.

But it's inequality under the law. Australia does pride itself of being an egalitarian society, why should one group be denied a basic right of being married to whom they love?

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.

Though Australia does pride itself on being egalitarian. Hetrosexual women can marry the men they love, and visavis. Why can't homosexual (or even bisexual should they be in love with someone of the same gender) have that right? Maybe then Australia will be more egalitarian.

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'.

I wasn't the one who brought up the whole criminal argument, was I? You were saying not everyone is equal, then you made reference to criminals. I pointed out that criminals were a special case. Homosexuality isn't a crime (not anymore), so unless a homosexual person did commit a crime, why should they not have the right which I mentioned above (note that is was more specific than the right to "marry")?

Anyway, it's quite clear that this argument isn't going anywhere. The only difference is nobody is calling anybody any names now (which is good).

The funny thing is, after going to Catholic school for thirteen years, you think they'd preach to us how evil same sex marriages/relationships are. But they taught us more about social justice, and that's what I'm basing my whole argument on. Social justice taught in a Catholic school. How ironic.

 

[johnson]

Originally posted by Loz#1
And here you are sprouting off about how everyone is narrow-minded, with the exception of yourself of course.

Way to go *clap clap*

no, i said there were some narrow minded views here and i am tired of refuting them in real life to do it here as well. sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this law, but when people say that homosexuality is a sin and is disgusting that really affects me

jesus loz why do you always have to answer back everyone on everything they say.

 

[Loz#1]

Originally posted by johnson
jesus loz why do you always have to answer back everyone on everything they say.

I'm not back answering, I'm simply pointing out.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
on the contrary, the fact that we are having this discussion shows that society is not happy with this arrangement, and does acccept gay marriages, even if the law does not. although my user name may be confusing, i am not gay, so at the moment these laws do not directly affect me. but if i ever were to turn gay, it would be comforting to know that i would be able to marry the person i love

Yes, society doesn't reject gay marriage either. It's quite divided on the issue, I'd guess. But whoeveriwasarguingwith was trying to portray the law as being slow to react to society's 'shifted views', when society hasn't actually shifted.

When providing sources, the ideal thing is to provide impartial sources. Not biased ones.

The problem is, almost every source this day is biased, as it's almost impossible to find funding for scientific research, unless that's funding from a party with a vested interest that expects a certain result.

I'm saying make it legal for everyone. Whoever uses the law isn't anyone's concern but their own and the government's. Why should you care whether or not two women marry each other, or two blokes for that matter?

Again, this is just a response to those who try and portray homosexuals as descriminated against, as descrimination is quite a loaded word today, compared to a more accurate depection using a word like 'deprived'. Oh and, "why should you care?", is a really horrible way to argue for something. Why should you care if the entire population of Africa is destroyed? It doesn't affect you, except for some emotional trauma you may feel.

But it's inequality under the law. Australia does pride itself of being an egalitarian society, why should one group be denied a basic right of being married to whom they love?

It's NOT inequality. The law doesn't say "Australian citizens have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of all other factors" and until it does, gays are not being descriminated against and there's no inequality.

I wasn't the one who brought up the whole criminal argument, was I? You were saying not everyone is equal, then you made reference to criminals. I pointed out that criminals were a special case. Homosexuality isn't a crime (not anymore), so unless a homosexual person did commit a crime, why should they not have the right which I mentioned above (note that is was more specific than the right to "marry")?

The above is all true. Homosexuals should have the right to marry, in my opinion, if and only if a majority of Australian citizens support gay marriage.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Again, this is just a response to those who try and portray homosexuals as descriminated against, as descrimination is quite a loaded word today, compared to a more accurate depection using a word like 'deprived'. Oh and, "why should you care?", is a really horrible way to argue for something. Why should you care if the entire population of Africa is destroyed? It doesn't affect you, except for some emotional trauma you may feel.

I wasn't saying they were discriminated against there. I was saying make it legal for everyone, regardless of gender.

Not allowing same sex marriage is something that, regardless of whether you do or do not perceive it as discrimination, will make people feel detached from the government, from the rest of society. The more it's "forbidden" the more the people affected by this will be "in your face." I know already they'll be in John Howard's face a lot, but then everyone is in his face.

The question was an actual question directed to you, and to those who disagree with same sex marriages. I'm interested to see why you don't support it.

The above is all true. Homosexuals should have the right to marry, in my opinion, if and only if a majority of Australian citizens support gay marriage.

You're saying the rights of a minority is solely dependant on the people. This didn't work too well in the past, it won't work now.

Also, how do you propose Australian citizens put their vote out? You can't use phone polls as a source. Supporters from both parties, should they have the patience (and money should the numbers be 190* numbers), can manipulate phone polls by calling the number of their choice dozens of times. Do you suggest we have a referendum on the issue?

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by poloktim
Do you suggest we have a referendum on the issue?

No he wants the majority of the citizens, now those under 18 and hence cant vote are still Australian citizens arent they

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by HaBibi~
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?

All of that is reliant upon what you believe is negative or a bad result. Those are validly 'negative' things, but how is homosexuality a bad thing? HIV/AIDS can be passed through blood transfusions, stepping on an infected needle, sharing needles or even saving someones life (who have said illness). I don't think saving that persons life is a negative thing, and i don't think stepping on an infected needle is anyones fault and hence a negative/wrong/bad result is caused not through your own fault but through someone elses...

Homosexuals, bisexuals and homosexual marriage doesnt affect you.. unless you of course happen to be a homo/bi-sexual or be wanting to marry into such a relationship. So it doesnt have a bad result, it isnt a negative thing.. its a positive thing. 2 peopl in a relationship is a POSITIVE event, 2 people getting married is POSITIVE and 2 people sharing their lives are POSITIVE.. regardless of sexuality or race or anything else.

Murder is wrong because it takes something that doesnt belong to it, theft also, same with most crimes. Homosexuals don't force you to be a homosexual, they don't force you to marry them and they prolly want nothing better than to be left the fuck alone and let go about their own way with the same rights as everyone else.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by lengstar
that is a really annoying av evil tama

i'm glad u like it.

 

[eviltama]

----Originally posted by George W. Bush 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.
----
Law makes a marriage official in its eyes, the marriage itself is made by the participating parties obviously. WIthout them there is no need for law or anything else is there? I personally see no reasons other than negative ones for law to be involved in an event that should be free for all to participate in. (Negative = divorce, death, seperation etc). I'm not saying it has no place, because obviously it does, it makes all parties accountable for their actions, but law doesnt make a marriage. People do.

----
Except the legal system can and does descriminate against criminals.
----
No argument there. But it is meant to be 'free of bias' and everyone should hve an equal chance at justice etc etc.

----
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.
----
WRONG. Straight people have the rights to marry and adopt children. Homosexual people don't. They can 'marry' in their eyes but its not recognised by the court in case of divorce, death or any other event that may occur. Homosexuals cannot adopt, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of race hell they could be the richest fkers this side of the planet and because they were homosexual they wouldnt be able to adopt, nor marry.. in Australia. And these rights are available to all heterosexual people, isn't it bein discriminatory to disallow homosexuals these rights? Black people can marry and adopt, white people, asians, indians etc but if ur an indian homosexual you can't, if you're an asian homosexual you can't. This isn't an extra right.. this is giving them a right which we are bought up with from birth believing that we have but once we identify ourselves as something other than heterosexual, those rights become voided. Regardless if they are seen as a minority group or not, 'i'm homosexual' shouldn't be the statement that makes those rights void. Rights are rights and should be available to all, because that is their purpose.

---
Marriage isn't love.
---
Love is love, marriage is a statement of love before family and friends and the rest of the world.

----
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.
----
statistics can only measure what is out in the open. Also they aren't that reliable. I talk about rates and you can research if you're that interested and want precise numbers. I don't need to crunch numbers to acknowledge something that is and has always been common knowledge.

---
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.
---
*shrugs* It does tend to look that way. I'm assuming you're male so you talk from that point of view, i'm just pointing out there is another gender.


----
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.
---
Nothing wrong with my definition. Think of it as criteria, if you say yes to more than one of the criteria then you're most probably a homosexual. Fucking something.. dead, alive or animal doesnt mean you are a <insert description here> it means you participated in such an act. 'I fucked a dead body' <-- Necrophilic act, doesnt mean it'll be a repeated action, doesnt mean they think of themselves as a necrophiliac doesnt mean anything other than the act itself.

You entered into a homosexual act, it doesnt mean you are a homosexual. I played a kids game.. doesnt mean i'm a kid. I eat chinese, doesnt mean i'm chinese.

 

[eviltama]

the amount of idiocy in this thread is giving me a headache.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama
the amount of idiocy in this thread is giving me a headache.

then stop posting and you'll be fine.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama
I eat chinese, doesnt mean i'm chinese.

No but it means you're a lesbian if your a chick and just ate out some Chinese girl. FFS, stop trying to argue over these retarded points, when you're obviously wrong.

"You are what you eat" etc

 

[George W. Bush]

Do you suggest we have a referendum on the issue?

That was what I was implying. There's an election this year as well!

Originally posted by eviltama
Law makes a marriage official in its eyes, the marriage itself is made by the participating parties obviously.

No shit? You need people to have marriage? What will you reveal for your next trick?

WRONG. Straight people have the rights to marry and adopt children. Homosexual people don't. They can 'marry'

qed. Thank you. I don't see how, when you agree with the point, you can still argue.

in their eyes but its not recognised by the court in case of divorce, death or any other event that may occur.

Oh wait, you mean this 'unlawful marriage' concept. Y'know, that's funny, because the PARAGRAPH ABOVE you said:

I'm not saying it has no place, because obviously it does,

In which case, addressing your above quote: HOMOSEXUALS CAN MARRY, IDIOT. If I were gay, I could hook up with some chick and get married if I wanted to. There's no rule that says "a homosexual man cannot marry a woman". I don't know what the adoption criteria are, but I'm assuming it's something along the lines of a strong relationship between a man and a woman, in which case, gay people can also adopt.

And these rights are available to all heterosexual people, isn't it bein discriminatory to disallow homosexuals these rights? Black people can marry and adopt, white people, asians, indians etc but if ur an indian homosexual you can't, if you're an asian homosexual you can't.

Oh, can you provide me a link or some sort of document that explicitly states "Heterosexual people can adopt children. Homosexual people cannot."? Because I'm fairly sure you cannot, because that's not what the law, as far as I know it, says.

BUT GO AHEAD : PROVE ME WRONG.

Love is love, marriage is a statement of love before family and friends and the rest of the world.

But you can marry without love? QED.

statistics can only measure what is out in the open. Also they aren't that reliable. I talk about rates and you can research if you're that interested and want precise numbers. I don't need to crunch numbers to acknowledge something that is and has always been common knowledge.

If statistics aren't that reliable, HOW COME YOU ARE USING THEM? And if something is so common knowledge, how could it be common knowledge in the first place? Once assumes, because of a statisitic. WHICH YOU JUST SAID WASN'T RELIABLE.

You make all sorts of airy statements but when pressed, you find it very difficult to defend any of them.

*shrugs* It does tend to look that way. I'm assuming you're male so you talk from that point of view, i'm just pointing out there is another gender.

OH! LESBIANS ARE HOMOSEXUAL??!!?! Well, you're obviously such an expert on the field, I don't know WHAT I'M DOING debating it with you! Please please, impart more knowledge! Next you'll tell me that homosexuals have sex with each other! It's crazy up in this house!

Nothing wrong with my definition. Think of it as criteria, if you say yes to more than one of the criteria then you're most probably a homosexual. Fucking something.. dead, alive or animal doesnt mean you are a <insert description here> it means you participated in such an act. 'I fucked a dead body' <-- Necrophilic act, doesnt mean it'll be a repeated action, doesnt mean they think of themselves as a necrophiliac doesnt mean anything other than the act itself.

So, just clearing what you think up:

According to you, having sex with a kid does not mean you are a pedophile. Is that correct?

You entered into a homosexual act, it doesnt mean you are a homosexual. I played a kids game.. doesnt mean i'm a kid. I eat chinese, doesnt mean i'm chinese.

Woo, way to draw totally inappropriate analogies to try and support your point. Playing a homosexual game doesn't make you a homosexual, and eating a homo's dinner doesn't make you a homo. But that has absolutely nothing to do with being SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO THE SAME SEX, the DEFINITION OF HOMOSEXUALITY, making you a homosexual. You yourself defined homosexuality to be a sexual attraction to the same sex, now you're telling me it's not. WHY DO YOU KEEP DISAGREEING WITH YOURSELF?

 

[neo o]

WRONG. Straight people have the rights to marry and adopt children. Homosexual people don't. They can 'marry' in their eyes but its not recognised by the court in case of divorce, death or any other event that may occur. Homosexuals cannot adopt, regardless of socioeconomic status, regardless of race hell they could be the richest fkers this side of the planet and because they were homosexual they wouldnt be able to adopt, nor marry.. in Australia. And these rights are available to all heterosexual people, isn't it bein discriminatory to disallow homosexuals these rights? Black people can marry and adopt, white people, asians, indians etc but if ur an indian homosexual you can't, if you're an asian homosexual you can't. This isn't an extra right.. this is giving them a right which we are bought up with from birth believing that we have but once we identify ourselves as something other than heterosexual, those rights become voided. Regardless if they are seen as a minority group or not, 'i'm homosexual' shouldn't be the statement that makes those rights void. Rights are rights and should be available to all, because that is their purpose.

Adoption laws don't discriminate against homosexuals.

http://www.adoptions.sa.gov.au/Section3/3_3_adopt_aust_child.htm

from that site you can see that to qualify to have a child placed under your care you need to

have been in a marriage relationship for at least 3 years

Obviously it's important that children are placed in stable households and by making a stable marriage a compulsary component to be allowed to adopt - It hopefully means a stable home for the child being adopted.

Since homosexuals are not targetted directly by this (in fact all people who aren't married are targetted) you can't complain that it purely discriminates against homosexuals - because it doesn't.

Oh and if you meet all the criteria - they dont care if your gay

btw : That link only applies to South Australia, im assuming for convenience here that other states have similar regulations, but i cant be bothered to look them up.