Homosexuality in Australia (4 Viewers)

[Cookie182]

God can not be an athiest, an athiest is a person that denies the existance of God. I think it is safe to assume that God is well aware of his own existence, and his position in this world, this believing in himself been God, thus not been an atheist

My assessment of your intelligence so far, precludes me from entering further discussions. Please review what you said, please.

 

[Cookie182]

I don't really care about homosexuals that much, they don't enter my reality all too often. If I see a gay couple in public, I don't gawk, or get excited, I just keep walking, and it’s...meh

But I'm super supportive of full recognition of rights, therefore a change in the marriage act and of course complete gay marriage, just to spite conservatives and for my first love of liberalism.

We're meant to have a separation of Church and State, yet these matters get decided by politicians who allow their own religious beliefs to "influence" their decision, as opposed to pure reason, which is despicable.

Will we ever have an atheist PM and even better, US president?

 

[Iron]

Bob Hawke

-
Bush Snr
Clinton
Obama
(at least)

 

[katie tully]

Obama isn't an atheist you clown.

And Hawke may have been, but he was before his time. He reigned during the 1980s "HIV IS CAUSED BY HOMOSEXUAL SNEEZES" era, so anything progressive would have been swayed considerably by the social context.

 

[Iron]

ur a clown

 

[katie tully]

no u r

 

[Iron]

yoo

 

[katie tully]

Enough!

And interesting point at whoever brought it up, but Iron, you said this;

It's more like "hey homosexuals, you arent a male and a female and therefore you obviously cannot create children together which is the major justification for joining man and woman in a legal union for the good of themselves and the child - so have this smaller civil union because marriage is too big for you"

Plenty of heterosexual people are baron or have reproductive issues, and yet they're allowed to get married. Does this contravene the idea that "children is the major justification for joining man and woman?"

And if you suggest that these couples can still conceive through IVF, or adopt, or have a surrogate, then it stands to say that homosexuals can as well...

 

[yoddle]

<3

I knoez. A highly closeted friend of mine in Labor told me about the Tassies. You're good people when you're not keeping it in the family.

What do you mean? We're good people all the time.

*My first cousin comes up for air, "what you typin'?"*

 

[mellarr]

I say the solution is to create a new legal term for BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples and let the church choose which are "marriages".

We need to at least recognise homosexual AND heterosexual couples in an equal light for their to be able to slowly break down discrimination against the homosexuals. The solution cannot be to continue treating homosexual unions as "civil unions" while letting heterosexual unions be called "marriages".

Religion should be separated from state, legislation should be governed by statistics and facts as opposed to religion of whatever kind

 

[Sprangler]

I say the solution is to create a new legal term for BOTH heterosexual and homosexual couples and let the church choose which are "marriages".

We need to at least recognise homosexual AND heterosexual couples in an equal light for their to be able to slowly break down discrimination against the homosexuals. The solution cannot be to continue treating homosexual unions as "civil unions" while letting heterosexual unions be called "marriages".

Religion should be separated from state, legislation should be governed by statistics and facts as opposed to religion of whatever kind

We should not change the term or create new ones. There is absolutely no reason at all that the christian church should own any aspect of marriage.

 

[emmik]

meh who cares... Doesnt effect me and iam not particularly up in arms over the ethics of it so if it makes them happy to say they are married, let em... Civil unions are probably a nice compromise legally... But when it comes down to it i dont think the sacredness of marriage or whatever the churchies are going on about is going to be ruined by letting homosexuals marry... I mean it used to be a method of promoting and protecting the making of legitimate children, but nowadays no1 cares if your parents were married or not at your birth and mariage is more a form of showing your love

homos can love aswell, let em have their marriages

+1

 

[Iron]

Enough!

And interesting point at whoever brought it up, but Iron, you said this;



Plenty of heterosexual people are baron or have reproductive issues, and yet they're allowed to get married. Does this contravene the idea that "children is the major justification for joining man and woman?"

And if you suggest that these couples can still conceive through IVF, or adopt, or have a surrogate, then it stands to say that homosexuals can as well...

Let's not overstate the case of infertility, but if a heterosexual couple is so unfortunate, or even if they intend to use contraceptives for some time, it's still a union naturally open to life in a way that is significantly greater than the case of the homosexuals.

But I certainly dont suggest all the options you refer to, as there are still significant ethical issues involved in this area... Like, I would reject the proposition that a woman/couple have a 'right' to a baby and view it as some simple material addition to their life, boost to their status etc, which should be pursued without an eye on the moral cost

 

[katie tully]

Let's not overstate the case of infertility, but if a heterosexual couple is so unfortunate, or even if they intend to use contraceptives for some time, it's still a union naturally open to life in a way that is significantly greater than the case of the homosexuals.

But I certainly dont suggest all the options you refer to, as there are still significant ethical issues involved in this area... Like, I would reject the proposition that a woman/couple have a 'right' to a baby and view it as some simple material addition to their life, boost to their status etc, which should be pursued without an eye on the moral cost

What?

No it's not. If a heterosexual couple are incapable of having a baby through natural conception, without the aid of reproductive technologies, they stay childless.

 

[Iron]

yer but thyeyre a boi n gurl

 

[katie tully]

Yeah but so?

 

[Iron]

So you lose!





heeeeer weeeeeer
VICTORY
weeeer haaaaaaaaa

 

[mcflystargirl]

What?

No it's not. If a heterosexual couple are incapable of having a baby through natural conception, without the aid of reproductive technologies, they stay childless.

what is your point, God Created marriage for a man and wife, not a man and a man and a girl and a girl.

 

[Lentern]

what is your point, God Created marriage for a man and wife, not a man and a man and a girl and a girl.

Lol god created marriage.

 

[BBJames]

this is why the religious dolts are really fucked up, they say marriage is a union by god and what not, but then why dont Christ followers scream over the top when a Muslim gets 'married' or a hindu gets 'married'. shouldn't the term be exclusively for Jesus followers?

That way your fucked up hypocrisy might not look so already fucked up.