Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Um, because firstly it is the couples choice as to when they have a child, not the governments and some married couples actually cannot concieve, through no fault of their own.

but that's the fucking purpose of marraige isnt it? to procreate? i mean, does ANYONE actually ask if the couple is going to produce children before they marry? is that a prerequisite?!

if you're so deadset on not allowing homosexuals to marry because they cannot procreate, then i suggest so changes in the current legislation:

- all married couples MUST produce children
- all couples unable to procreate must be divorced
- anyone intending on marrying must undergo medical tests to prove that their reproductive systems are at optimum level.
- any persons found "illegally" marrying will be subject to punishment as prescribed by the church.
- don't like it? deal with it. your fault you were born that way.

Even in the case where a couple could concieve but chooses not too, it is different from gay unions, simply becuase the hetero couple has the ability to.

this is fucking stupid. stopping someone from marrying simply because the couple cannot bear children. wtf is IVF for then?

 

[nikolas]

And giving them any of the freebees which they don't deserve (not trying to be slack, but like they actually don't merit recieving them).

If the benefits of marriage are for the sake of the children. Then should'nt these benefits be removed until the couple has a child?

Um, because firstly it is the couples choice as to when they have a child, not the governments and some married couples actually cannot concieve, through no fault of their own.

We'll if we 'd have our way Homosexuals would have the choice to adopt.

Even in the case where a couple could concieve but chooses not too, it is different from gay unions, simply becuase the hetero couple has the ability to.

If you have a hammer, and it's hanging on the wall of a toolshed, and not being used to "hammer" something, it is still a hammer

But what then is the use of the hammer? Why give Undeserved Freebies to this hammer?

The government doesn't know whether each individual coupel will actually have children, but what it does know is that heterosexual couples do have children, and homosexual couples can't.

As i mentioned above if the benefits of marriage are meant to help the children then the logical step is to simply give these benefits upon birth of the child.

Civil marriage, is the government one. Private marriage is the Church.

No major disagreements here, but people can have private marriages for reasons other than church, but, you probably meant that anyway.

 

[Name_Taken]

If the benefits of marriage are for the sake of the children. Then should'nt these benefits be removed until the couple has a child?

This has merit to it, but I would still disagree.

Ideally, I think it is fair to agree, that all children should be born within wedlock, and have both their (biological) mother and father care for them.

This is what offering the benefits are encouraging, even if the couple doesn't yet have a child, it is still promoting a stable marriage environment, which is essential, if a child should be subsequntly brought into the picture.

Also realistically, I think most couples would actually have to start saving prior to actually having a child, hence the benefits should be given regardless.

Furthermore, even if a couple doesn't have a child, the government is still endorsing the institution of marriage across the board.

We'll if we 'd have our way Homosexuals would have the choice to adopt.

Children need more than love. By saying the two mothers is as good as two fathers or which is as good as a mother and father, you are giving the message that either mothers are redundant in a childs upbringing (case of gay men adoption) or that fathers are redundant (in the case of lesbian adoption).

I'm sure you would disagree with this, and agree that both mothers and fathers are eqaully important in a childs life and it is ridiculous to sugges that one or the other, or both as is being suggested here are irrelevant and unecessary.

But what then is the use of the hammer? Why give Undeserved Benefits to this hammer?

By virtue of the fact that it is a hammer in the first place and not something else.

By giving benefits to all marriages, even those who don't create children, the government is endorsing the institution of marriage and supporting those who are married. The family is the foundation of society, but marriage is the foundation of the family.

And in the case of a couple being biologically unable to create children, it is most likely that the couple would be unaware of this when they got married anyway.

The more meaninful marriages there are, the more children there will be, and the more stable their growing environment will be, generally speaking, obviously on a case-by-case basis there would be exceptions.

As i mentioned above if the benefits of marriage are meant to help the children then the logical step is to simply give these benefits upon birth of the child.

Raising a child for most people is a very expensive sacrifce. The more support offered to families, even prior to the childs birth, only serves to add to the stability of the relationship between the two partners.

Regardless, most benefits are given to actual families, with children anyway and not just to married couples.

Married couples who do not have children, either through their own choice, or because they are unable to are the exception to the rule. The government doesn't know which individual heterosexual couples will have children when they reigster for marriage (and in most cases neither do the couples themselves), but what the government does know is that heterosexual marriages do produce children, while gay unions do not.

***

So basically summing up, just because some people cannot or choose not to use the marriage relationship for the purpose that culture privileged it does not mean that heterosexual couples should not be privileged. This is the exception, but society is protecting the relationship that brings about the rule.

 

[Lentern]

NT this is why Dylan Moran makes fun of us.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

This has merit to it, but I would still disagree.

Ideally, I think it is fair to agree, that all children should be born within wedlock, and have both their (biological) mother and father care for them.

This is what offering the benefits are encouraging, even if the couple doesn't yet have a child, it is still promoting a stable marriage environment, which is essential, if a child should be subsequntly brought into the picture.

Also realistically, I think most couples would actually have to start saving prior to actually having a child, hence the benefits should be given regardless.

Furthermore, even if a couple doesn't have a child, the government is still endorsing the institution of marriage across the board.



Children need more than love. By saying the two mothers is as good as two fathers or which is as good as a mother and father, you are giving the message that either mothers are redundant in a childs upbringing (case of gay men adoption) or that fathers are redundant (in the case of lesbian adoption).

I'm sure you would disagree with this, and agree that both mothers and fathers are eqaully important in a childs life and it is ridiculous to sugges that one or the other, or both as is being suggested here are irrelevant and unecessary.



By virtue of the fact that it is a hammer in the first place and not something else.

By giving benefits to all marriages, even those who don't create children, the government is endorsing the institution of marriage and supporting those who are married. The family is the foundation of society, but marriage is the foundation of the family.

And in the case of a couple being biologically unable to create children, it is most likely that the couple would be unaware of this when they got married anyway.

The more meaninful marriages there are, the more children there will be, and the more stable their growing environment will be, generally speaking, obviously on a case-by-case basis there would be exceptions.



Raising a child for most people is a very expensive sacrifce. The more support offered to families, even prior to the childs birth, only serves to add to the stability of the relationship between the two partners.

Regardless, most benefits are given to actual families, with children anyway and not just to married couples.

Married couples who do not have children, either through their own choice, or because they are unable to are the exception to the rule. The government doesn't know which individual heterosexual couples will have children when they reigster for marriage (and in most cases neither do the couples themselves), but what the government does know is that heterosexual marriages do produce children, while gay unions do not.

***

So basically summing up, just because some people cannot or choose not to use the marriage relationship for the purpose that culture privileged it does not mean that heterosexual couples should not be privileged. This is the exception, but society is protecting the relationship that brings about the rule.

who needs benefits when youve got god?

 

[Name_Taken]

who needs benefits when youve got god?

Civil marriage is secular >.>

 

[Name_Taken]

who needs benefits when youve got god?

Civil marriage is secular >.>

 

[NewiJapper]

I have to ask Name_Taken what do you have against Homosexuals adopting?

You never see on the news "HUSBAND AND HUSBAND NEGLECT CHILD. CHILD STARVES TO DEATH. CHILD KILLED IN DOMESTIC ABUSE. CHILD KILLS SAME SEX PARENTS"

N.B The above was completely objective because I honestly haven't seen these ever on the news nor the internet.

 

[Durga]

Um... exactly.

People abstian their entire life, I don't see how it is impossible at all, unless you are a slave to your carnal desires.

Of course it is impossible to create a murderless society, or one in which no-body has sex outside of marriage, but if we work on changing the whole culture to admire virtues such as abstinence and self control, while condeming promiscuisity and aggression (in the case of murder), I can't see how we won't be making the world a better place.

You fail to see my point.

1. You can never convert an entire society into the Christian belief that sex is sacred, because it's not. The fact that you are a Christian makes your viewpoint blaringly subjective.

2. Why should an entire society have to be under the spell that sex is sacred and only allowed to have sex once in a while when they want a baby, because a few idiot teens can't use birth control? Once again, I state that we need proper birth control methods taught to teens in order to minimise unplanned pregnancy.

As if people can't find a more positive and healthy outlet for stress other than sex?

I never said birth control didn't offer that. Thats one of its problems. It prevents pregnancy, but its breeding an illusion. One which doesn't value self control, human life and love.

It is nothing more than a cop-out which is already leading to massive social problems in our society.

Why should they? Sex is readily available, and it actually does value love. Ever heard of relationships being saved because of increased sex lives? While yes, complete self control is admirable, it's not needed at all! Watch this: I'm now going to declare that no one can fatty, greasy or sugary foods. The only way to stop this obesity/diabetes problem, is for everybody to abstain completely from these foods. And because everybody doesn't, we live in a society that doesn't value self control! It's authoritarian mindlessness at it's best! Just because a bunch of illiterate Palestinian nomads from 2000 years ago were a little taboo about enjoying sex, we don't have to be.

Once again, abstaining completely until marrying your life partner (who you love, and who if abstianed as well won't be infected with an STI anyway) is the most effective method of reducing the rate of STI infections (AIDS and the rest).

Once again, the most effective way to stop murder, is for people to never murder people. It also reduces the amount of grieving families. And once again, it's highly impractical, and your view of a Utopian theocracy is not going to happen.

Mate, I'm proving its actually possible.

Cool story. Now lets stop you bothering everyone else who isn't. Allow them the choice to exercise their liberty. Yes, read that again. Liberty.

 

[nikolas]

This has merit to it, but I would still disagree.

Ideally, I think it is fair to agree, that all children should be born within wedlock, and have both their (biological) mother and father care for them.

This is what offering the benefits are encouraging, even if the couple doesn't yet have a child, it is still promoting a stable marriage environment, which is essential, if a child should be subsequntly brought into the picture.

1. That's not really fair to unmarried couples, i acutally know a couple who are unmarried but raising a daughter just like any other married couple. Surely they deserve these benefits?

2. Even if it is the case that the benefits should be given to married couples, then the government should only give these benefits to married couples with children.

Also realistically, I think most couples would actually have to start saving prior to actually having a child, hence the benefits should be given regardless.

Good point, but in planned births at least, one of the considerations a couple goes through is if they have the financial means to support the child, i don't think if they would if they can't at least save something up for the child.

But, practically speaking the government could just increase the benefits at first to make up for this time or let the benefits start at conception. In fact, there are probably a few ways this could be covered.

And unplanned births wouldn't be saving up for a child anyway.

Furthermore, even if a couple doesn't have a child, the government is still endorsing the institution of marriage across the board.

But not for homosexuals, a shame because marriage would help a community which is something like 4 x likely to engage in sexually risky behavior.

Children need more than love. By saying the two mothers is as good as two fathers or which is as good as a mother and father, you are giving the message that either mothers are redundant in a childs upbringing (case of gay men adoption) or that fathers are redundant (in the case of lesbian adoption).

That's are large leap you're making here. I imagine a child growing up would have most of his friends mainly with parents that are opposite sex couples, i can't imagine them growing up with this attitude in a mainly heterosexual environment.

I'm sure you would disagree with this, and agree that both mothers and fathers are eqaully important in a childs life and it is ridiculous to sugges that one or the other, or both as is being suggested here are irrelevant and unecessary.

Well here you're just speculating.

Gender of two parents unimportant.

By virtue of the fact that it is a hammer in the first place and not something else.

I don't think the hammer deserves benefits just for being a hammer but for the nailing it does

By giving benefits to all marriages, even those who don't create children, the government is endorsing the institution of marriage and supporting those who are married. The family is the foundation of society, but marriage is the foundation of the family.

Why should the government selectively support the creation of famililes of hetero couples, but not homo couples which can function more or less in the same way.

And in the case of a couple being biologically unable to create children, it is most likely that the couple would be unaware of this when they got married anyway.

Well they should adopt/artificially conceive and then receive these benefits.

The government doesn't know which individual heterosexual couples will have children when they reigster for marriage (and in most cases neither do the couples themselves), but what the government does know is that heterosexual marriages do produce children, while gay unions do not.

Untrue if homo couples were able to adopt/artificially conceive.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I have to ask Name_Taken what do you have against Homosexuals adopting?

You never see on the news "HUSBAND AND HUSBAND NEGLECT CHILD. CHILD STARVES TO DEATH. CHILD KILLED IN DOMESTIC ABUSE. CHILD KILLS SAME SEX PARENTS"

N.B The above was completely objective because I honestly haven't seen these ever on the news nor the internet.

lol it repulses him remember? obviously, gays have cooties.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I have to ask Name_Taken what do you have against Homosexuals adopting?

You never see on the news "HUSBAND AND HUSBAND NEGLECT CHILD. CHILD STARVES TO DEATH. CHILD KILLED IN DOMESTIC ABUSE. CHILD KILLS SAME SEX PARENTS"

N.B The above was completely objective because I honestly haven't seen these ever on the news nor the internet.

As far as I know, traditional Christians like Name_Taken believe that a child needs to be raised by their biological mother and father to be a properly balanced person. Having both a male and female parent is essential because each contribute something to the child's life that the other can't; both roles are unique and cannot be assumed by someone of a different gender.

 

[0bs3n3]

Oh yea, the Mardi Gras is coming up on Saturday, is anyone actually going?

Please don't tell me that gets government funding?

Cultural degeneration ftl.

 

[iNegro]

@NAME_TAKEN

http://community.boredofstudies.org...litics/95808/homosexuality-australia/427.html
heres a hint, it's on that page.

Please don't tell me that gets government funding?

Cultural degeneration ftl.

Probably does, It's a big festival. It's not just about homosexuality, though it mainly is, the majority of people who get involved are heterosexual like in the Sydney Festival. Just more Partaying.

 

[supercalamari]

Oh yea, the Mardi Gras is coming up on Saturday, is anyone actually going?

Yes, I am

Please don't tell me that gets government funding?

Cultural degeneration ftl.

Yes, it does.
Please explain what you mean by 'cultural degeneration'. Because it isn't.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Oh yea, the Mardi Gras is coming up on Saturday, is anyone actually going?

lol i bet name_taken and iron will be there, holding a placard saying, "GOD HATES FAGS"

 

[scuba_steve2121]

lol this whole thread just reminded me of this bit in the Simpsons YouTube - Gay Steel Mill

with homer of course representing Name_Taken might i add XD

 

[Bereie]

I guess really it all comes down to Alex No 2, and him being 'stuck' to the bible..

Really all I can say is that..

Well just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you are a homophobic person, or against homosexuals..

Just like because you are a flower, doesn't mean you are a Rose.

No. Both the OT and NT are quite clear on homosexuals. You can ignore all the anti-gay verses if you want and still call yourself a Christian, but I can call myself a fish if I want and it doesn't make it true.

 

[NewiJapper]

I don't see how christians can get so much out of the bible about homosexuals as there are ONLY 6 lines in the whole bible referencing to homosexuals.

What ever happened to "Chloe likes Olivia"?

 

[Name_Taken]

Ok, here, as I promised

Wait, you want Australia to be a theocracy?

Realistically its not something I would campaign for, but if there was a referendum, I would vote "yes".

That's getting a little ridiculous, sure 25% of the nation might be Christian on paper, probably only half that number actually practice the religion (remember? we don't believe statistics here because they are all a conspiracy) and also, not all of them are intolerant and batshit insane enough to believe that their religion is more important then all the others.

WTF @ statistics thing, and I am very tolerant

And Hey! God most likely doesn't exist, so why worry about people getting married who believe in a religion which most likely doesn't exist?

This isn't relevant, my arguements against gay marriage and gay adoption are secular, or at least the ones I have proposed in this thread.

Against homosexualuality itself I have appealed to scripture sure, but most of the time, it was in response to others argueing that scripture actually condones homosexuality or is unclear.

Who cares if they don't follow a TWO THOUSAND YEAR OLD book? There's things written in the bible saying you should kill your wife if she cheats on you, would you do that just because a book written in a primitive time says so?

Omgosh seriously, I have addressed this so many times before.

What makes your religion more real than anyone elses?

I didn't choose to be Christian because my parents indoctrinated me (neither of them are religious at all) or because all my friends are (most of them are not).

I chose it because after giving it a fair chance, I actaully read the Bible, did some research of my own and then talked to some scripture teachers about the issues that I still didn't understand, many of which have also been posed in this very forum (e.g. why don't Christians follow parts of the OT, why did God kill people etc etc).

What I dislike about many athiests, is that they have never really given Christianity "a go" before denouncing it. Going to a Christian school, or being dragged to Chruch by your parents doesn't count, either.

Christianity is just a product that's been marketed well, people believed it and stories spread, I mean, You look at Hinduism and you might think "I respect that religion, but I don't believe in it", why do you find yourself believing in Christianity? Because it's the most popular religion and therefore it must be right?

No, read above.

T

he thing about your civility in your posts is, it doesn't really exist as much as you think it does, saying things like "They can adopt (tho this sickens me)" isn't exactly polite. If you went on a date with someone who you liked and they said "Oh, you sicken me!", would you be offended?

I think it is more respectful to those I am arguing against as to be honest about my attitudes towards gay adoption.

Its not that those who advocate it are like evil or twisted, but that doesn't make the proposition they are argueing for any less repulsive.

Perversions of the Christian idea of Sex and Love, and several other religions.

"I am opposing homosexual unions as being accepted under civil marriage and fighting for the rights of Churches and other religious authorities to reject the legitimacy of homosexual unions should they so which (on this we all seem to be in agreement). "

Civil marriage is secular -> nothing to do with Churches.
Hence all my arguements I have presented against it have also been secular.

The right for Chruches to refuse to marry (as in the ceremony) couples they do not approve of (both gay couples universally, and many straight couples deemed unsatisfactory) is a different issue than gay marriage (tho is related).

You're not really, you're just insulting some people in a forum, you aren't on an epic crusade, not all religious authorities reject homosexual marriages, majority do, but that is due to the fact that the majority of these religions are thousands of years old and were based on what was SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE at the time, when people were robots and didn't have courage to stray away from conventions, just because something is convention doesn't make it right.

Soo, basically just because something is old and has been around for a very long time (which if anything shows its "correctness") automatically makes it irrelevant?

Anyway, my arguements against gay marriage and adoption are freaking secular!

Stop trying to simply dismiss them and avoid actual conflict in this arguement.

It's not sickening, do you find yourself feeling like vomiting at the thought? Because the thoughts of Gays being able to adopt makes me and many other people, hopeful and impressed by how far society has come.

This is not an arguement as to why gay marriage or adoption should be allowed...

And giving an orphan two fathers, is better then denying them no parents, you seem to forget lesbian relationships, I assume denying a child a father is equally as bad? It's all just conventions, and a child can grow up just fine no matter who they are raised by, it's about personality, not ancient sexist principles.

Um... under natural law, homosexuals would never be placed in a position where they would ever have the option of having children to care for, whether by adoption or some sick Frankenstein-esk medical procedure.

Any deviation from this norm, will inevitably lead to unnatural consequences, which could range from the insignificant to the extreme.

If you are arguing for 2 fathers, you are saying that the mother is irrelevant in a childs upbrining. Likewise, supporting lesbian adoption is argueing that the father is irrelevant.

There is massive documentation regarding the issues that arise in single parent families. We know the negative effects children experience when they don't have a father figure, or a mother. Now a child raised by two women, still lacks a father figure. Why should we expect to believe that all the problems associated with not having a father suddenly be allieviated through the addition of another women (and vice versa for gay male parents etc.).

Homosexual activists argue that it is the lack of love, which leads to these consequences. This is both insulting to single parents (as it implys that they do not love their children) and factually corrupt, as it is not congruent with what they are trying to advocate in the first place.

Advocates of homosexual parenting are making the more modest claim that the love provided by one parent is simply insufficient-that it requires the combined love of two parents to provide the necessary love to a child. If the love of any one parent is not sufficient, again, why not have three or four parents in the child's life? After all, the more parents the more complete the love, the better the child! No one is arguing for this either.

The problem they keep running into is, that like marriage, the family is not something defined by the state, rather recognised by it.

Attacking the issue of gay adoption itself. Most savy homosexual advocates realise that children are the key to civil marriage and as such, in order to gain support for their goal of gay marriage, they must demonstrate to society that gay couples can offer society something in regards to raising children.

This is simply dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don't really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth -- that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father, they would once again lose support.

Those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible-that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible-ignoring what is best for children.

Homosexual parenting is not natural because nature has not afforded same-sex couples the ability to procreate children to rear. While this in itself does not make homosexual parenting wrong, it does make it unnatural, and a look at practical considerations reveals that it is not the optimal parenting model. Mothers and fathers bring unique contributions to a child's development. To install a same-sex parenting model into the system is to knowingly deprive a child of something that is necessary for optimal, healthy development. To ignore nature and common sense in this regard is simply inexcusable and irresponsible. But this is what is being done when we become more concerned about pacifying the demands of homosexual couples to exercise their natural desire to rear children (even though they are without a means to produce those children) than we are to protect the welfare of our nation's children.

Families should be governed by the needs of the child, not the desires of the adults. Concieve or GTFO.

Now in the case of heterosexual couple adoption, this is acceptable, simply because even tho it may not be the couples child, the child is being raised in an environment which otherwise (discounting unavoidable persoanility differences between biological and adoptive parents etc) is a largely perfect simulation of what would otherwise be the optimum scinareo (for a child to be raised by their own parents).

***

Don't get the wrong message, but you didn't really present much of a case with this post. I have been providing secular arguements against gay marriage and adoption, such as those above, yet you still dismiss these because I am religious and you claim my religious bias somehow undermines the validity of my arguements.

Once again, you have the burden of proof, I don't have to prove anything to win this arguement, rather disprove, or even raise significant doubts over your arguements for changing the status quo.

***

On another note, has anyone replied to my bisexual arguement from before?

... Oh I didn't think so.