Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[Titburger]

Hence why their relationships, religion aside are not eqaul to that of marriage and should not be referred to as the same or even entitled to the same rights and preferencial treatment offered to heterosexual unions.

My friendships don't affect anyone else but me and my friends (they're still based on love, trust and committment), but the reason they only affect us is why they are not regulated by the government.

I really don't see how you can you can logically draw that conclusion from his post.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Hence why their relationships, religion aside are not eqaul to that of marriage and should not be referred to as the same or even entitled to the same rights and preferencial treatment offered to heterosexual unions.

in short, discrimination discrimination discrimination. jeez alex, just say it already.

 

[Name_Taken]

in short, discrimination discrimination discrimination. jeez alex, just say it already.

How can you call it descrimination when the two are so blatently different in this key defining area?

Not all behaviours are equal, not all provide benefits to the state. Those which do are protected and reawarded for it. Those which don't are usually left alone to meet their own ends.

Explain the inequality, in refernce to what the state is getting out of same sex "marriage".

Explain why, if heterosexual couples offer something, which is essential for the state to not only progress, but to bloody exist in the first place, that they do they not merit preferential treatment, not only above gay unions, but friednships and every other private relationship.

Article 16, point 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads:

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Only heterosexual unions are able to actually form a family. You can say, well gays can adopt. This is true, but the child did not originate as a result of a homosexual union. Gay unions are in regards to children totally parasitic on heterosexual couples in this regard.

None of you have addressed this issue >.>

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

so allowing heterosexuals to marry and denying homo's that privilege does NOT sound like discrimination to you?


AND, are you saying that a child would be better stuck in an orphanage than with 2 homosexual loving parents??

 

[Titburger]

How can you call it descrimination when the two are so blatently different in this key defining area?

Not all behaviours are equal, not all provide benefits to the state. Those which do are protected and reawarded for it. Those which don't are usually left alone to meet their own ends.

Explain the inequality, in refernce to what the state is getting out of same sex "marriage".

Explain why, if heterosexual couples offer something, which is essential for the state to not only progress, but to bloody exist in the first place, that they do they not merit preferential treatment, not only above gay unions, but friednships and every other private relationship.

Article 16, point 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights reads:

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Only heterosexual unions are able to actually form a family. You can say, well gays can adopt. This is true, but the child did not originate as a result of a homosexual union. Gay unions are in regards to children totally parasitic on heterosexual couples in this regard.

None of you have addressed this issue >.>

You make it seem as though marriage is some sort of burden on society. That society wont be able to sustain too many marriages. This quite frankly, is bullshit

 

[Name_Taken]

so allowing heterosexuals to marry and denying homo's that privilege does NOT sound like discrimination to you?


AND, are you saying that a child would be better stuck in an orphanage than with 2 homosexual loving parents??

No it doesn't sound like descrimination at all. Marriage is not based on love and has never been so. You can argue marriage is not about kids, it is about buisness, but even so with this ultra-conservative take on marriage, you can't deny that even these marriages, are capable and do produce children.

And your emotion pleas should not be mistaken for actual substansive matter.

If I were to answer that question, now, if was orphaned, I would not accept being adopted by a gay couple, nor if I were in charge of an orphanage, would I willingly let gay couples adopt.

You make it seem as though marriage is some sort of burden on society. That society wont be able to sustain too many marriages. This quite frankly, is bullshit

No... marriage is a natural institution which is recognised by society as being the foundation of the family, which as the UN Declaration states, is the building block of society.

Marriage is not a burden on society at all. Without it society wouldn't exist.

 

[Titburger]

Marriage is not a burden on society at all. Without it society wouldn't exist.

So you can can say that same-sex marriage will not be a burden on society at all. It will have no effect, you said so yourself

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

No it doesn't sound like descrimination at all. Marriage is not based on love and has never been so. You can argue marriage is not about kids, it is about buisness, but even so with this ultra-conservative take on marriage, you can't deny that even these marriages, are capable and do produce children.

But love is the reason why people get married in the first place!

 

[Name_Taken]

So you can can say that same-sex marriage will not be a burden on society at all. It will have no effect, you said so yourself

Eurgh I'm not sure if I have explained this in the right way.

Put simply, the reason why heterosexual unions are treated as special, is that they do have a benefit on society, a positive(rather, essential) one at that.

Gay unions, like your and my friendships offer society nothing, and as such shouldn't at all be eligible for equal treatment, owing to the basic fact that they are not equal. Not only to gay couples earn more on average than heterosexual couples, the vast majority do not have kids and are never planning on adopting them. Why should they merit the same benefits which are given to heterosexual unions then?

(And please don't bring up the whole gays are people too thing, because yes we know a gay person is equal to a straight person, but we're not talking about people, rather unions between two straight people vs two gay people).

Now just because they offer soceity nothing, doesn't mean gay unions can't be allowed, its just they should always be subordinate to heterosexual marriage for the simple fact that gay marriage only benefits gays.

 

[Titburger]

Eurgh I'm not sure if I have explained this in the right way.

Put simply, the reason why heterosexual unions are treated as special, is that they do have a benefit on society, a positive(rather, essential) one at that.

Gay unions, like your and my friendships offer society nothing, and as such shouldn't at all be eligible for equal treatment, owing to the basic fact that they are not equal. Not only to gay couples earn more on average than heterosexual couples, the vast majority do not have kids and are never planning on adopting them. Why should they merit the same benefits which are given to heterosexual unions then?

(And please don't bring up the whole gays are people too thing, because yes we know a gay person is equal to a straight person, but we're not talking about people, rather unions between two straight people vs two gay people).

Now just because they offer soceity nothing, doesn't mean gay unions can't be allowed, its just they should always be subordinate to heterosexual marriage for the simple fact that gay marriage only benefits gays.

But straight people do not need a marriage license to have kids. And marriage does not always equal kids

 

[Name_Taken]

But love is the reason why people get married in the first place!

Marriage is about families, and families are about children. Same-sex marriage is inconsistent with the purpose of marriage, and that is why homosexual unions should not be given the same recognition as heterosexual unions. Love outside of the procreative context may be good, but that alone is not deserving of society's concern; children are society's concern, and children come from heterosexual, not homosexual unions.

C.S. Lewis made a point in reference to the relationship of love and marriage when he said, "The idea that 'being in love' is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing, then it should not be made."

The grounds of marriage is not love. That may be an emotionally compelling reason to get married, but that is not its purpose. There is another reason we enter the social contract of marriage: for the production of, and stabilization of the family unit--the building block of society. If marriage is fundamentally about love marriage would not be necessary, because marriage does not produce love, nor does it secure it. Just ask any who is divorced.

 

[Name_Taken]

And also something interesting regarding bisexuals:

Bisexuals present an interesting dilemma to advocates of same sex marriage. They argue that people should be allowed to marry according to their natural preferences: men who naturally prefer relationships with men should be allowed to marry a man; women who naturally prefer relationships with women should be allowed to marry a woman. But in the case of bisexuals they naturally prefer both men and women. Given the principle of their argument, how can they deny bisexuals the right to marry two people (polygamy)? If they deny them that right they do so only by contradicting their guiding principle. If they are consistent and grant them that right they risk being ostracized by the moral majority of this country who think polygamy is wrong.

Bisexuals present yet another challenge to the arguments advanced in favor of same-sex marriage. Many same-sex marriage advocates argue that gays should be able to marry someone of the same sex because their sexual desires are not chosen, and it would be unfair to deprive them of the good of marriage given that fact. Dennis Prager asks a fair question to those who make this argument: "Should a bisexual be able to marry someone of the same-sex?" If the person answers in the negative they are violating their principle that people should be able to marry according to their natural preferences. If they answer in the affirmative they reveal that their argument is a front. One cannot argue that same-sex couples should be able to marry because they have no choice in their sexual desires, and argue that those who do have a choice (bisexuals) should be able to marry someone of the same sex as well. Either the ground for same-sex marriage is the lack of sexual choice or it is not. The fact of the matter is that the "no choice" argument is typically a front for a more basic, libertarian view that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. But if that is the basis for promoting same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage advocates would do well to just say so.

 

[Titburger]

Name_Taken, do you feel threatened by same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to figure out if you are basing your views primarily in religion or also out of personal distaste

 

[iNegro]

Name! REPLY TO ME. MEEEEE.

 

[Durga]

in short, discrimination discrimination discrimination. jeez alex, just say it already.

He already said the inverse:

preferencial treatment offered to heterosexual unions.

Name Taken, while you incessantly repeat that heterosexual unions offer existence, (as if as soon as same sex marriage is offered, absolutely everybody is going gay, because it will be, like, 'in') you fail to realise that we are close to a population crisis. By 2020, the Earth's population will reach 9.0 billion. Relatively soon after that, the Earth's resources will become inadequate to sustain such a large population. Perhaps the eradication of birth control isn't the wisest thing to be rooting for at the moment, as even existence providing unions won't be providing much after that.

 

[Durga]

Name_Taken, do you feel threatened by same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to figure out if you are basing your views primarily in religion or also out of personal distaste

It's probably because the infallible bigoted despot that holds his leash says that same-sex marriage is bad, ergo, same-sex marriage is bad.

See the logic?

 

[Name_Taken]

Name_Taken, do you feel threatened by same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to figure out if you are basing your views primarily in religion or also out of personal distaste

In reply to this I shall answer with a quote.

Same-sex marriage is not about liberty, but the demand of homosexuals that society approve of their lifestyle. The courts and legislatures are being pressed into service for one purpose: to force society, through the institution of legal marriage, to accord the same respect and acceptance to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions now enjoy. It would force the rest of us to treat as equal those relationships we know aren't equal. To accomplish this end homosexual activists are willing to threaten the very foundation of society, rob children of moms and dads, argue that marriage is nothing in particular, and that parents are nothing in particular.

One hardly needs an appeal to religion to see the problems with same sex marriage and the arguements of those who propose it.

I am religious, and I won't deny that probably has to some extend influenced by position in regards to same sex marriage. However this does not in any way demean the value of my arguements, as for example, the fact that if someone is argueing for same-sex "marriage" and is gay, it doesn't undermine theirs.

In regards to personal distaste, I find homosexual sexual acts as utterly undignified and in many cases openly horriffic, but that, as I understand it is a view shared by many straight people.

Name! REPLY TO ME. MEEEEE.

Um, can you repaste your post please? Lol IDK where it is, we move in tangents pretty quick in this thread.

 

[Durga]

Same-sex marriage is not about liberty, but the demand of homosexuals that society approve of their lifestyle. The courts and legislatures are being pressed into service for one purpose: to force society, through the institution of legal marriage, to accord the same respect and acceptance to homosexual unions that heterosexual unions now enjoy. It would force the rest of us to treat as equal those relationships we know aren't equal. To accomplish this end homosexual activists are willing to threaten the very foundation of society, rob children of moms and dads, argue that marriage is nothing in particular, and that parents are nothing in particular.

lib·er·ty (lbr-t)
n. pl. lib·er·ties
1.
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.


It would seem, from the definition of liberty, that homosexual marriages have, just about everything to do with liberty.

 

[Titburger]

I find homosexual sexual acts as utterly undignified and in many cases openly horriffic, but that, as I understand it is a view shared by many straight people.

Explain? It's not like I'm saying that two dudes blowing each other off in the middle of the street is socially acceptable- the same applies to heterosexuals.

 

[Name_Taken]

Name Taken, while you incessantly repeat that heterosexual unions offer existence, (as if as soon as same sex marriage is offered, absolutely everybody is going gay, because it will be, like, 'in') you fail to realise that we are close to a population crisis. By 2020, the Earth's population will reach 9.0 billion. Relatively soon after that, the Earth's resources will become inadequate to sustain such a large population. Perhaps the eradication of birth control isn't the wisest thing to be rooting for at the moment, as even existence providing unions won't be providing much after that.

Dude seriously like are you actually proposing the solution to global overpopulation is to hand out contraception and even encourage homosexuality?

Really?!

What about telling people to get some bloody good old fashioned self control and keeping it in their pants?

What ever happened to common sense? If anything birth control encourages this problem, as it teaches people the wrong attitude towards both sex and marriage, as well as demeaning the value of human life.

Don't have sex until you're married. Every time you have sex, consider whether or not you are able to support the child that may result, if you can't then why don't you abstain like a responsible adult that thinks with their head, and not the contents of their pants?