Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Ubik]

no homos shouldnt have the right for marriage or adoption thats not the way the world works if the world started out with 2 gay guys then none of us would have been alive now would we?

If the world started out with 2 gay guys they could have just gaydopted some kids!

 

[katie tully]

no homos shouldnt have the right for marriage or adoption thats not the way the world works if the world started out with 2 gay guys then none of us would have been alive now would we?

You do realise you're not getting into medicine, yeah?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

You do realise you're not getting into medicine, yeah?

damn, he'll have to settle for earning 38k as a medsci grad instead

 

[katie tully]

damn, he'll have to settle for earning 38k as a medsci grad instead

not if he doesn't do a PhD first

 

[kami]

no homos shouldnt have the right for marriage or adoption thats not the way the world works if the world started out with 2 gay guys then none of us would have been alive now would we?

And where oh where did all the other hair colours come from? Adam and Eve could only have had like two different colours between them ... Or are you saying all non-blondes are evil??? Are you a Nazi?!

SHUN THE NAZI

SHUN!

 

[Hagaren]

I'm accepting of same sex relationships however,

Gay couples should not be allowed to be 'married' a similar offer (with a different name) should be on hand though allowing a similar status to a married couple.

I'm more against than for gay couples adopting...sure a supporting family should be all a kid technically needs, but i don't think it's the right environment for young children to be raised in not just because of internal influences but more due to external opinions, well that and biologically its impossible for two people of the same sex to have a child...maybe that's a message of sorts.

 

[DTFM]

Homosexuality is only really a temporary threat. Now that it is accepted for homosexuals to come out of the closet they no longer marry and pass on their homosexual genes to future generations. Homosexuality will be almost gone in a few hundred years. I suppose you could consider improving the rights of gays to be a kind of genocide.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Homosexuality is only really a temporary threat. Now that it is accepted for homosexuals to come out of the closet they no longer marry and pass on their homosexual genes to future generations. Homosexuality will be almost gone in a few hundred years. I suppose you could consider improving the rights of gays to be a kind of genocide.

What are you going on about?

 

[KFunk]

What are you going on about?

I was thinking just that, but then I made sense of the bogus genetic and social assumptions that were being made, i.e. (1) that homosexuality is primarily genetic, (2) homosexuals are the only reservoir of homosexual genes (which is very unlikely if homosexuality is a polygenetic phenomenon or if it relies on gene-environment interactions) and (3) that homosexuals will no longer reproduce if they can have accepted, public, same-sex relationships.

In response:

(1) Twin studies seem to indicate that homosexuality is determined by both genes and environment.

(2) It follows from (1) that there will be people in the population who possess the 'homosexuality genotype' but do not express the phenotype as a result of their environmental circumstances. Furthermore, if homosexuality is polygenetic then much of the population will likely carry these genes to varying degrees (perhaps making them less likely, or unable, to express the phenotype if they only possess some of the relevant genes).

(3) The closed, monogomous male-female relationship is not the only available reproductive option, especially with fertility medicine on the scene.

 

[DTFM]

I was thinking just that, but then I made sense of the bogus genetic and social assumptions that were being made, i.e. (1) that homosexuality is primarily genetic, (2) homosexuals are the only reservoir of homosexual genes (which is very unlikely if homosexuality is a polygenetic phenomenon or if it relies on gene-environment interactions) and (3) that homosexuals will no longer reproduce if they can have accepted, public, same-sex relationships.

In response:

(1) Twin studies seem to indicate that homosexuality is determined by both genes and environment.

(2) It follows from (1) that there will be people in the population who possess the 'homosexuality genotype' but do not express the phenotype as a result of their environmental circumstances. Furthermore, if homosexuality is polygenetic then much of the population will likely carry these genes to varying degrees (perhaps making them less likely, or unable, to express the phenotype if they only possess some of the relevant genes).

(3) The closed, monogomous male-female relationship is not the only available reproductive option, especially with fertility medicine on the scene.

Oh.

 

[Naminé]

I'm accepting of same sex relationships however,

Gay couples should not be allowed to be 'married' a similar offer (with a different name) should be on hand though allowing a similar status to a married couple.

I'm more against than for gay couples adopting...sure a supporting family should be all a kid technically needs, but i don't think it's the right environment for young children to be raised in not just because of internal influences but more due to external opinions, well that and biologically its impossible for two people of the same sex to have a child...maybe that's a message of sorts.

I have an idea! Garriage! Quick, I'm getting my dictionary and writing that in.

If essentially they're getting the same deal in 'garriage' [to title it for easy referral; garriage is such a stupid name], then why not just include it as marriage? For propriety's sake? =/

biologically its impossible for two people of the same sex to have a child...maybe that's a message of sorts.

Many infertile but heterosexual couples adopt. Even fertile couples adopt; I'll take a well-known example, the Jolie-Pitts. Does that mean they should also be denied adoption?

 

[melanieeeee.]

not that im homophobic or anything because im not. and i mean no disrespect from this question. but:

what makes homosexual activity any more right that incest. like i mean all the arguments that is in support of homosexuals can also be applied for incest (or at least the arguments ive heard).

sorry if ive offended anyone. just curious.

 

[Silver Persian]

not that im homophobic or anything because im not. and i mean no disrespect from this question. but:

what makes homosexual activity any more right that incest. like i mean all the arguments that is in support of homosexuals can also be applied for incest (or at least the arguments ive heard).

sorry if ive offended anyone. just curious.

While I believe incest is a little yucky, if two adult siblings want to bang I don't really care.

And I heard somewhere that genetic deficiencies from incest aren't a problem unless incest happens over a number of generations.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Not gay myself

BUT

Love is love

 

[melanieeeee.]

Not gay myself

BUT

Love is love

so you support family intimacies.

 

[ASNSWR127]

so you support family intimacies.

perhaps...

Not encourage for obvious medical reasons. However if no child were to come from it and it was purely consensual (i.e no rape of younger sister by bro etc) then yes

However in such a case I think deep psychological harm could come form such an 'acquaintance' so maybe not such a good idea from a practical point of view.

From a "moral" point of view then yeah I would not raise any objections PROVIDED all the conditions above were met and both parties were assured of no further harm down the track.

Interesting question though

However I believe the question on this particular topic was 'homosexual relations'... incest seems a little far removed from that. But yes I understand the point about the "love is love" bit.

 

[katie tully]

so you support family intimacies.

Yeah, it's been said. Either way, you're a fucking idiot for comparing the two.
But.
If two consenting adults whom are closely related want to have sex, who cares. If two guys want to have sex, who cares.

Why is this an issue for you? Dude, I can think of 5 gay guys who would be having mad butt sex every weekend, and whenever they do it, there is no fucking ripple in the spacetime continuum.

 

[katie tully]

Not encourage for obvious medical reasons. However if no child were to come from it and it was purely consensual (i.e no rape of younger sister by bro etc) then yes

Why? Are you saying kids with birth defects are lesser people than those without? Are you suggesting that all people with a predisposition to passing on genetic defects should not have children?

 

[Numbers]

Why? Are you saying kids with birth defects are lesser people than those without? Are you suggesting that all people with a predisposition to passing on genetic defects should not have children?

As much as this sounds bad, yes, I do believe people who are genetically defected are lesser people than those who are not AND should not have kids.

 

[katie tully]

As much as this sounds bad, yes, I do believe people who are genetically defected are lesser people than those who are not AND should not have kids.

Explain. Why. Are they lesser.


Like, I know kids with Down Syndrome who have more going for them than fucking dole bludgers who sit on their arse all day and have 8 kids who will repeat the cycle.