• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

What do you think of homosexuality in Australia?

  • Yes, i strongly support it.

    Votes: 674 48.5%
  • I somewhat support it.

    Votes: 201 14.5%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 182 13.1%
  • I do not support it.

    Votes: 334 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,391

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
supercalamari said:
Whoa. Being raised by two women or two men is SURELY WORSE then being raised by drug addicts (as my mother was) or fundamentalists (as my father was), or single parents or no parents at all. OBVIOUSLY.
You are all idiots who don't listen. That is not a reason to allow gay people to have kids, it is a reason to not allow those people to have kids.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
katie tully said:
I think they fuck up their argument when they refer to it as a social institution and not a religious institution. If it's a social institution, then based on current social trends towards homosexual acceptance, it should have been legalised 10 years ago.
No, the law has nothing to do with society!

God, State, Dictionary! God, State, Dictionary!
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Its not as if I have anything to do with what is imposed. If you mean that what is imposed is what is popular, I'm not going to change my opinion because of that.
But you do. As long as people sit here and berate the whole 'but it' has been written' argument, things will never be changed. That is the whole point of this argument. We're not stupid, we know what's written. What is being debated is whether it should be changed.

You can't consider what is written when you are trying to change what is written. You have to disregard it. It in itself cannot be the counter argument. You need to propose valid reasons as to why it shouldn't be changed.

Edit: Pretty sure that last sentence made no sense.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
PwarYuex said:
No, the law has nothing to do with society!

God, State, Dictionary! God, State, Dictionary!
If you marry your boyfriend, I'm marrying my cat.

It's only natural that I should want to be there with you it's only natural that you should feel the same way too, do do do.
 
Last edited:

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
I mean by its very nature, by its definition etc. If I tell you sources I you will tell me that its Appeal to Authority. Its like I'm damned if I do, I am damned if I dont.
But FFS, that's what we're debating. BY ITS VERY NATURE, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION, SHOULD IT BE CHANGED TO ACCOMODATE CHANGING SOCIAL SHIFTS TOWARDS HOMOSEXUAL ACCEPTANCE AND TOLERANCE. USING THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN SOMEWHERE BY SOME FUCKHEAD HOW MANY YEARS AGO IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST IT.

I don't know how much clearer we can make this to you. OTHER than the fact it is written in some archaic law/bible/text/shit, are there any valid arguments against homosexual marriage?
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
Bro I was making fun of the persona you assumed.
Yeah I know. But I wanted you to join in. :(

Suppose it does harm people in that they feel marriage has been devalued. This opens up a real floodgates issue. If we accept mere offense as being a harm sufficient to justify legislation to prohibit something; the absurd result is that almost anything can be declared offensive without any objective standard to judge what is offensive.

I suppose proponents would argue that sufficient harm to a sufficient group of people would be caused? (Or whatever the respective legal terms would be.)

Personally, I find religion repugnant. I think it devalues education, logic and rational thought. If enough people in society begin to think like me, should we therefore outlaw all religion?
No, well see we certainly disagree here. I really don't see how you can separate religion from other social behaviours and mechanisms. In the west, religion's very obvious and I suppose we could walk behind most religious people and say when they're acting in the sphere of religion, and when they're not. Other places in the world, though, really show that what we would call religion can just be a constant behavioural framework, whether it's conscious or not.

At the very least, I'd be very disappointed if one were so hypocritical that, instead of persuading people by the very rationality and freedoms in which they preach, they simply outlawed it like some sort of fascist dictator. I honestly believe that if you think like that, you're already part of a much worse religion than many.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
zimmerman8k said:
Yo cuz, I wasn't actually advocating banning religion.

I was applying the logic used by those who oppose gay marriage to a different issue to highlight the absurdity of said logic.
olol icwutudidther.

Firstly, I've heard people actually say that religion should be banned.

Secondly, I'm not sure if it's a good analogy for the argument: Is homosexual marriage really banned in the same sense that religion would be in that previous scenario? Hetero-/homosexual marriage here is an issue of legalisation; what you're talking about with religion would be criminalisation.

I think that's correct, at least - ie the issues of (il)legalisation vs (de)criminalisation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Okay I think you have taken what I have said out of context. I was referring to the discrimination argument. It wasn't an argument against same sax marriage in itself.
So what's your argument against same sex marriage in itself?
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
"And everyone should agree with them because they say so..."

This is point is just plain stupid. Everyone should disagree because you say so

"I believe that marriage is a human right where marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. I also believe that freedom of opinion is also a human right."

I Believe Gay marriage is a human right where Gay marriage is defined as a union between two people. Criticizing someones opinion is a "freedom of opinion" a human right.
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
"Okay I think you have taken what I have said out of context. I was referring to the discrimination argument. It wasn't an argument against same sax marriage in itself."

It is discrimination, that act purposely defines marriage between a Man and Women to exclude the possibility of Man-Man/Girl-Girl marriages


"I'm not saying it would be harmful but just because something is not harmful doesn't automatically make it the opposite of harmful"

In my opinion if its not harmful why stop it? If its not beneficial, nor harmful, then why outlaw something that's just there?

Also, imo, Gay marriages are good for gay people. Same as heterosexual marriages.

Tbh i think(ahh fuck it, its pretty obvious) the real reason for you're disagreeing with Gay marriage is more Religion based rather then definition Technicality based. If that makes sense.
 
Last edited:

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Victimless crimes are still crimes.
P.S. just in case you are seeing this the wrong way, i am NOT inferring that homosexuality is a crime
What. the fuck. are you on about. If homosexuality is not a crime, then how is homosexual marriage a crime. With or without victims, by definition of a crime, how is it a crime.
 

Freakin600

New Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
28
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
iamsickofyear12 said:
Because there is not enough of them to do anything about it.

But that doesn't mean you should do it! That's just like saying [yeah sorry, again with the metaphors..] but that's just like saying you know what, all albino's are unnatural so they can't do [insert some thing here]
There aren't that amny albino's so hell let's just control them and do whatever we like to them!



I didn't just say "because we can." Don't ignore the rest of what I said and then use some fucking ridiculous example like that. WE ARE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE REASONABLE STANDARD OF PARENTING ON GAY COUPLES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ENFORCE ON NORMAL PARENTS BUT CAN'T, SO WE SHOULD.

are you kidding me? exact quote: Because we can. Because we don't have to let them have kids whenever they feel like it like we do straight couples. We can more easily enforce a reasonable standard of parenting on them.

and how is it easier to enforce reasonable standards of parenting on gay couples as on straight couples? Would it not be better to teach society as a whole to treat their kids well etc etc rather than just doing a crappy job of controlling the straight parents and completely banning gay couples from it?


and it wasn't a ridiculous example, it was following the same concept that you're applying to same sex couples, therefore if my example was ridiculous, you're reasoning is ridiculous
 

Freakin600

New Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
28
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
nikolas said:
Trust me the issue is laziness, not inability :p Will fix though

lol, i can't seem to quote properly, but that's not laziness - just my inability! =P
 

nikolas

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
541
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Freakin600 said:
lol, i can't seem to quote properly, but that's not laziness - just my inability! =P
You need a [/quote] at the end of the quote.:)
 

Freakin600

New Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
28
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
nikolas said:
You need a
at the end of the quote.:)[/quote]

ohh rightio! thanks!

but go figure, the first time it seems to work for me is the time i'm saying it never works! =P
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top