Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[dora_18]

10 Reasons Why Gays Shouldn't Marry

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

 

[ur_inner_child]

10 Reasons Why Gays Shouldn't Marry

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Quite the entertaining post

 

[Jeza]

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Thats Bullshit man! I grew up wit just my mum and just got a nomination for onstage! YEWWWWWWWWWWWW DRAMA ROCKS! *jumps of cliff ecstatically

 

[withoutaface]

Thats Bullshit man! I grew up wit just my mum and just got a nomination for onstage! YEWWWWWWWWWWWW DRAMA ROCKS! *jumps of cliff ecstatically

Wow, way to pick the satire.

 

[bshoc]

Good thing satire is only used as an argumentative tool when there is no real argument to be constructed.

 

[goldendawn]

Good thing satire is only used as an argumentative tool when there is no real argument to be constructed.

I'm sure George Orwell would agree with you.

 

[bshoc]

I'm sure George Orwell would agree with you.

Yeah becuase 1984 really feels vindicating nowadays, with the world nicely devided into 3 competing superpowers, the USSR still around and me living under the constant oppression of a tyranical government. I could pick apart those 10 stupid gay points in a minute ..

 

[dora_18]

Yeah becuase 1984 really feels vindicating nowadays, with the world nicely devided into 3 competing superpowers, the USSR still around and me living under the constant oppression of a tyranical government. I could pick apart those 10 stupid gay points in a minute ..

lol, you're an idiot. But go for it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea... personally I'm quite sick of 1984 references, especially by socialist types. I think both 1984 and Animal Farm make quite specific points about revolutions and corruption at the highest level.

 

[bshoc]

The point is though marriage will always be between between a man and woman, it was that way during roman times, christian times and will mostly be that way after we're all dead. The whole purpose of marriage was (and still is) the production of children, not love or economics or anything else, and for the most part still is today. Thus if your relationship cannot produce children, stay the f*ck out of the marriage, it none of your business.

 

[RobbyWilliams05]

The point is though marriage will always be between between a man and woman, it was that way during roman times, christian times and will mostly be that way after we're all dead. The whole purpose of marriage was (and still is) the production of children, not love or economics or anything else, and for the most part still is today. Thus if your relationship cannot produce children, stay the f*ck out of the marriage, it none of your business.

:rofl:

 

[dieburndie]

The point is though marriage will always be between between a man and woman, it was that way during roman times, christian times and will mostly be that way after we're all dead. The whole purpose of marriage was (and still is) the production of children, not love or economics or anything else, and for the most part still is today. Thus if your relationship cannot produce children, stay the f*ck out of the marriage, it none of your business.

Everyone already knows what you think. What you said isn't new or interesting. Anyway, Why would people stay out of marriage if it allowed them certain economic advantages, regardless of fertility? I think society has changed a little, and the meaning of marriage has with it. In my opinion, a couple can determine whatever their marriage means to them, within the legal guidelines of marriage. Why is that anyone elses concern? Why should people like you tell them to stay out of marriage?

 

[Xayma]

The point is though marriage will always be between between a man and woman, it was that way during roman times, christian times and will mostly be that way after we're all dead. The whole purpose of marriage was (and still is) the production of children, not love or economics or anything else, and for the most part still is today. Thus if your relationship cannot produce children, stay the f*ck out of the marriage, it none of your business.

Since when was marriage always between a man and a woman? Polyandry and polygny aren't all that rare.

 

[dieburndie]

Way to make my post boring Generator. You're boring all the time at life.

 

[The Logical One]

Way to make my post boring Generator. You're boring all the time at life.

Generator is the law here, he only removes posts if they'll degenerate the topic into cheap flames and unintilligent one line arguments on the other members credibility. eg(You're black what would you know?) Lol, guess which line gets deleted!

 

[dieburndie]

And what are you? Law assistant state the obvious guy jr.? Go away, I'm observant enough to note what Generator does and does not do.

 

[Surly Duff]

I'm in favour of Homosexual Divorce because I believe homosexuals should have equal rights to be as miserable as the rest of us. By extension I am therefore in favour of homosexual marriage.

 

[kami]

The point is though marriage will always be between between a man and woman, it was that way during roman times, christian times and will mostly be that way after we're all dead.

I disagree. Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman, nor was it that way in roman times either. There have been many cases in history of cultures having a marriage between two men or two women. So if you wish to employ a historical argument, then you have no grounds. And here are just some examples if you want to actually take a look..

Female-female marriages in Africa

Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.1 Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.2

Male-Male marriage in Africa:

Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents. The man addressed the boy-wife's parents as his in-laws, and performed services for them as befitted a son-in-law. Unlike women-women marriages, man-boy marriages end when the boy comes of age. The former boy-wife can now take his own boy wives, and his former husband can marry another boy-wife.3

Female-female marriage in China:

Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong": Within the Golden Orchid women's societies, if two women "have intentions" towards each other, one of them would prepare peanut candy, dates and other goods as a formal gift to show her intent. If the other woman accepts the gift, she is now bound by honor to her suitor. If she refuses the gift, it indicates a rejection of the proposal. A contract-signing ceremony follows the acceptance and is usually attended by a group of friends who celebrate by drinking through the night. After the contract is completed, the two women "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living". If one party breaks the oath, the group of women will hold her accountable and subject her to "a hundred humiliations", "for such is their custom". 6

Male-male marriage in China:

In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized. Ming dynasty literati Shen Defu writes in "Miscellaneous musings from the Humble Broom Book Room" (Bizhouzhai Yutan):

The Fujianese take male-on-male passion very seriously. Men from all strata of society form partnerships within their own social classes. The older man is the "sworn older brother", and the younger man is the "sworn younger brother". When the "older brother" goes to the home of his "younger brother", the parents of the "younger brother" treat him like a son-in-law. From henceforth, any living costs or heterosexual marriage expenses of the "younger brother" will be paid by the "older brother". Those who love each other ... also sleep together as spouses.7

Similar to the Zande model in Central Africa, Fujian boy-marriages involved a man paying bridewealth to a teenage boy's parents, and the union typically ended when the boy came of age, though there were exceptions. Sometimes same-sex couples adopted and raised children.8

Male-male marriage in Classical Europe:

In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same.

Male-male marriage in North America:

In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

The whole purpose of marriage was (and still is) the production of children, not love or economics or anything else, and for the most part still is today. Thus if your relationship cannot produce children, stay the f*ck out of the marriage, it none of your business.

I disagree. Marriage was originally a way of securing an alliance (financial, political or whatever) between two groups. If it were just about children then all people would be doing is copulating rather than getting married. However this is the present, not the past, and we often do factor in that thing called love these days.

 

[bshoc]

You actually consider your agenda website a source? Asia and Africa didn't even have "marriage" in proper sense (in the way we understand it, western). And if the best actual example you can come up with is Nero .. people would usually use Nero to destroy arguments, not support them, primarily becuase Nero was a complete nutter, Augustus made the Roman Empire's stance on homosexuality very clear, the only reason nobody enforced it against Nero was becuase he was emperor.

 

[goldendawn]

You actually consider your agenda website a source? Asia and Africa didn't even have "marriage" in proper sense (in the way we understand it, western).

You're creating a circular argument. Western marriage has been defined as the reproductive union between a man and a woman. But this is unsatisfactory. Many Western marriages do not produce children. Western marriage is therefore better understood as a ritualised union meant to enact notions of 'natural law'.

Western 'natural law', which has its roots in Christianity and antiquity, states that a persons biological sex must necessarily correspond to sexual role and also to cultural gender. This is not a universally shared notion - and cultural gender and sexual role are, in anthropology and sociology, distinct categories from biological sex.

Asia and Africa certanly did have marriage. Much of the pre-modern world simply didn't share Western notions of 'natural law', and in many places, sexuality was much less inhibited. In pre-modern China, for example, whilst Confucian law placed emphasis on the continuation of the family line, as long as a man had children he was free to take as many male lovers as he pleased. In the Sepic region of Papua New Guinea, it is believed that all children are born female. Male children must be made - and this is achieved in various ways, including exclusive homosexuality from puberty to adulthood (the individual may also continue to have homosexual relationships for the rest of his life). Also, among the Gheg speaking Albanians of Northern Albania, an individual who is biologically female may assume a male cultural gender. Among native North Americans, 'the two-spirit people' are men who assume a female cultural gender and marry warriors of the tribe.

It's difficult for alot of us in the West to fathom, because we are taught from a young age what are 'appropriate' behaviours for the respective sexes. To many, any variations of these roles are met with anxiety, disgust, fear or condemnation.