|
On October 21 2011 13:13 dtvu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:48 reneg wrote:On October 21 2011 12:45 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 12:16 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 10:58 ShatterStorm wrote:On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote:
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage. It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals. A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern. Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State. But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation? It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society. Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing.
Because the phrase "can't you be happy with..." probably shouldn't appear in any argument over civil rights.
For a more detailed answer, yes, arguing over words per se is silly. But "marriage" has a historical connotation that is much more valuable than "civil union," and as such, it would make a lot of people happy to be called "married" rather than "civilly united." Now, the only reason to oppose such a change is if you for some reason don't want those ho-mo-sexshells taintin' yer man-woman marriage.
Insisting that homosexual unions are just some inconvenience that you need to placate with a second-class legal document and "shouldn't they be happy with that?" symbolizes a much larger problem than the mere difference between the words "civil union" and "marriage."
|
This could be nature's answer to overpopulation. 
|
On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
And you brought that up with evidence (assuming you actually provide sources and you're not just making that up). See? Now you just have to do it with same-sex parents and there's the argument. The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. That is statistical fact.
At most we've seen that same-sex parents are often better just because they only have children when they actually plan to, unlike heterosexual couples.
|
On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote:
I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates.
Saying marriage is trivial is just my opinion. All I was trying to say is that if you really love someone then you can be happy without it. Just some people prefer to get married to make that statement or because it's what makes their happiness complete. Anyway this thread isn't about just marriage in general, it's about gay marriage so sorry for the derail.
I read this thread voluntarily and being an Australian it's very relevant to me (a lot more than many of the other people posting in this thread) because I am one of the people who has an influence on the decision. I wasn't complaining about this thread being shoved in my face (which is easily misunderstood, sorry I wasn't very clear there, like I said I made the choice to read it), I was saying that people go out of their way to make it so this issue is unavoidable. I already have had an opinion for many months but these people (not here) insist on badgering me about it. I'm not going to change my mind unless the badgering becomes so incredibly irritating that I feel forced to vote against my actual opinion just to prove their preaching is not helpful to the cause.
|
On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
Sources please
Also has no implication on how a homosexual couple does raising a child.
|
Well, I hope everyone votes their conscience and gay marriage is not sustained. I believe it's wrong, but people are free to choose.
|
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:01 matjlav wrote:On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote:
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me. By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults? There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays. By definition of hundreds of years of experience and existence. By definition of legislation in this country: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote:
I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
|
On October 21 2011 13:25 Mr.Brightside wrote:
Saying marriage is trivial is just my opinion. All I was trying to say is that if you really love someone then you can be happy without it. Just some people prefer to get married to make that statement or because it's what makes their happiness complete. Anyway this thread isn't about just marriage in general, it's about gay marriage so sorry for the derail.
I read this thread voluntarily and being an Australian it's very relevant to me (a lot more than many of the other people posting in this thread) because I am one of the people who has an influence on the decision. I wasn't complaining about this thread being shoved in my face (which is easily misunderstood, sorry I wasn't very clear there, like I said I made the choice to read it), I was saying that people go out of their way to make it so this issue is unavoidable. I already have had an opinion for many months but these people (not here) insist on badgering me about it. I'm not going to change my mind unless the badgering becomes so incredibly irritating that I feel forced to vote against my actual opinion just to prove their preaching is not helpful to the cause.
Fair enough . I think people are really involved in this debate because it's very important to them as it has reaching impact.
|
On October 21 2011 13:25 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents. So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
Because I would rather they be adopted by a loving (straight) couple, who have a proven track record of success. There is a shortage of babies, so priority of adoption should go to those who are most likely to succeed. If we end up with a surplus of babies given up for adoption, then yes, I do support homosexual adoption in those (limited) circumstances.
As you can imagine, I absolutely oppose adoption by single women/men.
|
On October 21 2011 13:25 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents. So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
Depends, having two feminine daddies won't work, there needs to be feminine and masculine roles fulfilled by each parent, I suggest necessary assessments need to take place in order for gay couples to qualify as parents, gay marriage should be legally called partnership, which would have the same rights as marriage as our Swedish correspondent mentions.
|
On October 21 2011 12:45 DoubleReed wrote:
What???? What are you talking about? Bigoted against what? Christians? I have nothing against Christians unless they try to impose their religion on others. And that's not bigoted, because that isn't just Christians that i believe that about.
What other sexual orientations? Transgender? Is this part of the topic?
Modern day traditionalist? What the hell does that even mean?
-_-'
That's not an orientation, it's an identity representation.
|
On October 21 2011 13:22 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence. Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude. I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years. While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
This is fucking nonsense in my opinion. I refuse to beleive that the 'controlling for income' has been done effectively. I'd love to see a source on that.
It has far more to do with socio-economic background, opportunities and supports (or lack thereof) available to the people which in turn contribute to them being more likely to become single mothers and more likely to be shit single mothers. Not the actual fact that they are single and female.
|
On October 21 2011 13:23 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:13 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 12:48 reneg wrote:On October 21 2011 12:45 dtvu wrote:On October 21 2011 12:16 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 10:58 ShatterStorm wrote:On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote:
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here. If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship. Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble" After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition. This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage. It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals. A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern. Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State. But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation? It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society. Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing. Because the phrase "can't you be happy with..." probably shouldn't appear in any argument over civil rights. For a more detailed answer, yes, arguing over words per se is silly. But "marriage" has a historical connotation that is much more valuable than "civil union," and as such, it would make a lot of people happy to be called "married" rather than "civilly united." Now, the only reason to oppose such a change is if you for some reason don't want those ho-mo-sexshells taintin' yer man-woman marriage. Insisting that homosexual unions are just some inconvenience that you need to placate with a second-class legal document and "shouldn't they be happy with that?" symbolizes a much larger problem than the mere difference between the words "civil union" and "marriage."
What do you mean a second-class legal document? The government could give both gay couple and heterosexual couple the SAME Legal Document, say we use the word Nuptial for everyone. The only difference then would be that Christian just supply the couple with a marriage certificate themselves and the gay community can have their own congratulatory certificate. This would solve the dispute, otherwise it is like a child's argument saying the other's car is not a car because it only has two door, whereas his/her one's a car cuz it's got four doors. Isn't it a bit childish?
|
On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
Public outrage for one, LOL!
The question will be worded in such a way that both sides of the debate won't be fully satisfied anyway, the result will be no.
|
On October 21 2011 10:50 Bobble wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:47 Charlatan wrote:On October 21 2011 10:40 Phenny wrote:On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote:
As the OP said, I think the country is much too homophobic for this to actually pass. (And it's quite refreshing to see something besides an overzealous "patriot" talking about Australia. The minute I criticise anything about this country around my friends, I'm told I should find somewhere I think is better.)
I don't know why people are arguing that it's unnatural. That's a flimsy suggestion, and seems like a cheap substitute for "God wouldn't allow it". I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen. EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people. I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass. You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me.
Semi-rural North side of Brisbane. 'Nuff said?
|
On October 21 2011 13:14 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. Why? It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents. Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them.
Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because
A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
|
On October 21 2011 13:34 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:28 matjlav wrote:What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? Public outrage for one, LOL! The question will be worded in such a way that both sides of the debate won't be fully satisfied anyway, the result will be no.
Public outrage by a bigoted minority.
|
On October 21 2011 13:08 Rhine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote:
I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates. NOTE: of course, i'm not saying you are pro racism or against gay marriage (duh), but i just wanted to appeal to the fact that it is an important issue that affects a lot of people. Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:08 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. I find it quite laughable to ban this guy for stating his opinion. People are entitled to their opinion and anyone who actually believes in the bible and sodom and gomora would be against this, but I guess you could just ban all Christians who actually believe in this, seeing as their opinions aren't politically correct or valid according to you. Personally, I'm for homosexual marriage but am against ALL kinds of homosexual adoption and impregnation operations. I think children are entitled to a mother and a father, not uncle Bob and uncle Ted. The guy was banned because he was martyring, not because of his opinion (shared by a few in this thread, who did not get banned). Why are you against adoption/impregnation?
Good points about the ban, I get it now and I also should have backed up my opinion earlier.
|
On October 21 2011 13:19 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 12:52 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:49 Probulous wrote:On October 21 2011 12:39 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:34 Belisarius wrote:On October 21 2011 12:29 GettinMyFill wrote:On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote:
Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion? Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do. Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post... If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right? Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me. you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse. The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people. You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say. So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'. It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!' You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong. This has got absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racism is disciminating people on the basis of the colour of their skin. Saying that you're not fond of homosexuality or think it is against your religion is an opinion. In addition, not all gay people are born gay, it's a choice they make so you can't compare it to a person's skin having a certain colour.
It is not an opinion. It is a bigotted, skewed version of the world where you think that being heterosexual is the one, true way.
I really think you need to do some reading on homosexuality and sexuality in general. You do not choose what you are sexually attracted to, it is simple brain chemistry. Have you ever tried to become sexually attracted to grandmothers? What about making the choice to be sexually attracted to animals?
They aren't fucking choices. There are even hundreds of studies about paedophilia being a trait that you are born with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
