Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[Dougie]

bshoc, why do you dislike gay people so much? I'm asking this seriously. Where does your dislike come from?

love to know as well. or are you just not a nice person

 

[bshoc]

I propose a change to Market Laws which are decidedly UN-LEFTY.

Can't we have both?

We do have both I think, politics evolves all ways constantly, for example gay Marraige is about to illigalized in Mass. and probably legalized somewhere else, sometimes the changes are overt, like the far-right or far-left taking power, but its usually more subtle, Europe seems to be flowing leftwards on both economics and social issues, whilst countries like us and the USA are flowing the other way, say what you like, social and (and unfortunately) economic conservatism are on the rise here.

 

[Dougie]

Incase you havent noticed gays and their leftist pets such as yourself are the ones who are trying to "put shit" on the rest of society.

i love how you can jump to conclusions about one or more person withour knowing anything about them. You drastically put people into steriotypes. Every gay is different, just like every hetrosexual is different.

 

[bshoc]

bshoc, why do you dislike gay people so much? I'm asking this seriously. Where does your dislike come from?

I dont actually mind gays that much, its just that when gays start insulting things like marriage in some hopeless cause for recognition and attention, they will incur retaliation, I'm laughing through this way more than you think, since I'm the only one with a mainstream opinion trying to explain it to a community of overt social leftists.

 

[withoutaface]

Well for starters real Libertarians see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs"

http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html

A libertarian would also argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. This is mainly because that any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", libertarians would argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

Also I would imagine some libertarians and anarchists would object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions.

For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure have a twisted view of the ideology, a real libertarian would be arguing that all government based recognition of marriage stop and this responsibility be placed upon the relevant institutions ie. churches. Instead you sound just like another crybaby social lefty.

You do know that I actually support deinstitutionalising marriage, right? You also know that that doesn't support your position, because you're arguing gays shouldn't marry because it should be exclusive to heterosexuals, not because it shouldn't exist in the first place, yes?
Libertarians do not support your position, because libertarians are not homophobes.

 

[dagwoman]

"overt social leftists"... Jesus Christ you make it sound like a disease. Considering you've told us to crawl "back into our holes" and that you wouldn't care if we all died, you clearly do mind gay people.

 

[Dougie]

I dont actually mind gays that much, its just that when gays start insulting things like marriage in some hopeless cause for recognition and attention, they will incur retaliation, I'm laughing through this way more than you think, since I'm the only one with a mainstream opinion trying to explain it to a community of overt social leftists.

nice to know ur laughing. i just don't appriciate how you can throw all gays under one banner and call them names, etc. i don't appriciate anyone insulting things like marriage, including the gays that do. but it's a minority and most of them go about things the right way. so don't think you're the only one with a mainstream opinion, esp to me, who has never voted left in my life.

 

[bshoc]

"overt social leftists"... Jesus Christ you make it sound like a disease. Considering you've told us to crawl "back into our holes" and that you wouldn't care if we all died, you clearly do mind gay people.

I wouldn't mind gays or their business at all if they had the mind to accord the same people who value traditional institutions such as marriage, I know that gays and their supporters are a clear minority, so its not really threat I'm responding to, but rather the sheer arrogance and lack of judgement.

 

[dagwoman]

Yeah, it is arrogant to demand equal rights.

 

[Dougie]

I wouldn't mind gays or their business at all if they had the mind to accord the same people who value traditional institutions such as marriage, I know that gays and their supporters are a clear minority, so its not really threat I'm responding to, but rather the sheer arrogance and lack of judgement.

read my above...
"gays" doesn't mean they all are the same. i know plenty of gays who lean to the right. doen't attack all of them for the actions of a few

 

[bshoc]

You do know that I actually support deinstitutionalising marriage, right? You also know that that doesn't support your position, because you're arguing gays shouldn't marry because it should be exclusive to heterosexuals, not because it shouldn't exist in the first place, yes?

That doesent change the fact that by asking the government to recognise any sort of marriage, you were essentially opposing the platform of all libertarian parties.

Libertarians do not support your position, because libertarians are not homophobes.

I'm pretty sure libertarians like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan and Goldwater would disagree with you on that one.

 

[townie]

I wouldn't mind gays or their business at all if they had the mind to accord the same people who value traditional institutions such as marriage, I know that gays and their supporters are a clear minority, so its not really threat I'm responding to, but rather the sheer arrogance and lack of judgement.

the people who value "traditional" marriage, are in the minority, i assure u, if declining birthrates, rising divorce rates, rising instances of second marriages, mixed-race marriages, countries that already support same-sex marriage, rape in marriage as a crime, quickie vegas marriages, people marrying for visas etc. are anything to go by

u claim to have this view on marriage as "traditional" and having sanctity but all u have is a view of marriage that excludes gay people, full stop, stop veiling ur arguments in bullshit like that, at least the religious nutters have the decency to base their arguments on the bible

 

[bshoc]

Yeah, it is arrogant to demand equal rights.

There is nothing a straight woman can do that you cant, like I've said many times "gay marriage" is an oxymoron because it means two people of the same gender in an institution between man and woman, like trying to fit a tringle into a circle. Gays dont have anymore right to marry than a man does to use a woman's lavatory.

 

[Dougie]

There is nothing a straight woman can do that you cant, like I've said many times "gay marriage" is an oxymoron because it means two people of the same gender in an institution between man and woman, like trying to fit a tringle into a circle. Gays dont have anymore right to marry than a man does to use a woman's lavatory.

only under legal definition that our govenment has made, not the original meaning of a marriage

 

[Tamazoid]

the people who value "traditional" marriage, are in the minority, i assure u, if declining birthrates, rising divorce rates, rising instances of second marriages, mixed-race marriages, countries that already support same-sex marriage, rape in marriage as a crime, quickie vegas marriages, people marrying for visas etc. are anything to go by

u claim to have this view on marriage as "traditional" and having sanctity but all u have is a view of marriage that excludes gay people, full stop, stop veiling ur arguments in bullshit like that, at least the religious nutters have the decency to base their arguments on the bible

Since when was mixed race marriage an argument for gay marriage you imbecile?

The fact that these insignificant corrosives isn't a justification to further trash the institution; it simply accentuates the need to uphold the status of marriage as the basis of a strong, stable society. It is the vital building block, not just a mere buzzword or gesture as the lunatic fringe like yourself view it as.

 

[townie]

It's a moot point in the end, really, the fact is, Same-sex unions are being allowed in a growing number of countries/states, and Australia wont somehow be immune from this, the time will come when i can say "I do" i'm not saying it will be soon, but it will happen, when the last of the baby boomers are gone, and the 18-24 year olds of today are the 50-70 year olds, when we are the politicians and the lawyers and the judges, and the civil servants, the ones who will seem consevative to the youth, it will happen, and there aint anything anybody can do about it, the first step has taken the longest time, but the rest of the steps will follow

and bshoc, when that day comes, i'll raise a toast to you, because without idiots like you, we wouldnt have people fighting the fight, that we will eventually win

 

[spell check]

marriage as the basis of a strong, stable society. It is the vital building block, not just a mere buzzword or gesture as the lunatic fringe like yourself view it as.

basis of a strong, stable society is respect for other people, including homosexuals. the anti gay-marriage arguments that have been presented here are totally without merit and based purely on homophobia.

 

[ihavenothing]

Since when was mixed race marriage an argument for gay marriage you imbecile?

The fact that these insignificant corrosives isn't a justification to further trash the institution; it simply accentuates the need to uphold the status of marriage as the basis of a strong, stable society. It is the vital building block, not just a mere buzzword or gesture as the lunatic fringe like yourself view it as.

Omg, Gippsland, are you a National Party supporter for that swine Peter McGauran? Sounds exactly like one of his speeches. I know that area well and you sound exactly like a typical Gippslander.

 

[bshoc]

It's a moot point in the end, really, the fact is, Same-sex unions are being allowed in a growing number of countries/states, and Australia wont somehow be immune from this, the time will come when i can say "I do" i'm not saying it will be soon, but it will happen, when the last of the baby boomers are gone, and the 18-24 year olds of today are the 50-70 year olds, when we are the politicians and the lawyers and the judges, and the civil servants, the ones who will seem consevative to the youth, it will happen, and there aint anything anybody can do about it, the first step has taken the longest time, but the rest of the steps will follow

and bshoc, when that day comes, i'll raise a toast to you, because without idiots like you, we wouldnt have people fighting the fight, that we will eventually win

No-one can say what will happen so long down the road, it does still stand that our generation is the most conservative in a long while, 30 or 40 years in fact, and the only thing thats oustripping legal gay marriage in western states, is illigal gay marriage, after our lifetimes, who knows, or more importantly, who cares.

 

[dagwoman]

I care. I would like to hope many people care about the future of society and the world beyond our lifetimes. To not is just arrogant.