|
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ 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. 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.
Well said mate.
|
On October 21 2011 13:37 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:34 meatbox wrote: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.
The pro-gay marriage minority?
|
On October 21 2011 10:50 Bobble wrote:
You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me.
Homosexuality is not a new belief or lifestyle. It's just the latest and greatest civil rights movement because the left ran out of racial ones. =)
|
Australia1321 Posts
On October 21 2011 13:40 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:37 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:34 meatbox wrote: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. The pro-gay marriage minority?
Did you even read what you responded to?
Let me lay it out again for you with explanations
1) What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
2) Public outrage for one, LOL!
-> Implying people would be outraged about gays having the same rights as heterosexuals
3) Public outrage by a bigoted minority.
-> People who are outraged that gays get equal rights are bigoted.
|
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
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.
barren women? eh?
|
On October 21 2011 13:30 meatbox wrote: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. 
Ok, but the evidence is against that hypothesis. For instance consider these and the links i provided before in this thread:
Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents with Same-Sex Parents
Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families.
There's no evidence that having two daddies, for instance, does not lead to proper development. The regular male/female roles are sometimes changed to other people (e.g. uncles), if necessary.
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.
Straight couples also have a large proportion of failures as well. Though not proved for as long as straight couples, gay couples have not been found to be any worse. In fact, current developmental psychology attributes closeness and quality of care with successful (i.e. well adjusted) parenting, NOT the sexual orientation of the parents.
|
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
|
On October 21 2011 13:40 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 10:50 Bobble wrote:
You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me. Homosexuality is not a new belief or lifestyle. It's just the latest and greatest civil rights movement because the left ran out of racial ones. =)
It's not a fucking left right issue. It's about giving rights to a group of people that happen to enjoy a lifestyle that you apparently don't like.
|
On October 21 2011 13:09 GettinMyFill 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. Who are you to decide what children are entitled to? Are children entitled to abusive fathers and alcoholic mothers too? What if a gay couple could provide what your regular male female parents couldn't? Don't bring up Sodom and Gomorra, unless you love black slavery too.
Sodom and Gomorra is a part of many Christian's mentality and a part of our culture, just like many Christian values have shaped our value system today. Also I never stated that all parents are great, I've outlined my opinions on why same-sex adoption and impregnation are wrong in one of my earlier posts.
|
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ 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. 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.
Nicely put. Although I'm all for gay people marrying, this is another issue not so easily tackle.
|
On October 21 2011 13:38 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ 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. 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. Well said mate.
Except that a gay couple could most likely raise a child better than if that child were to be raised as an orphan. It's not as if there's a shortage of orphans in our world in any society...
|
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote:
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
|
On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
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. barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
|
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ 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. 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.
A: Seriously, breastfeeding as a serious argument?
B: Masculine women and feminine men can make perfectly fine fathers and mothers. This is pure sexism. You put too much stock in gender roles, especially in the modern era.
C: What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about adoption. Heterosexual couples can also adopt, you know.
D: So, the child is different??? Again, a gender role argument that is sexism in its purest form.
E: I have no idea how you went from "can't have children naturally" to "they shouldn't be allowed to." Like this is a blatant logical jump. Do you think women who are barren should not be allowed to adopt because nature clearly thinks they shouldn't be able to?
|
What is this democracy you speak of?
|
51584 Posts
I'm 19 but I've been lazy to fill in the AEC federal election form thing (since the federal election was like two weeks before my 18th). Will I be forced to vote on this?
|
I don't even see why this is an issue. The government aims to separate religion and state, therefore their view on marriage should be purely a union for support, both financial and emotional.
Given this, why is it different for two blokes or two women to get married?
Hypothetical:
If I was pretty good mates with a guy, living together for a while, and sharing resources, raising a kid in the same house, regardless of sexual activity, I would expect us to be able to declare ourselves as co-dependent for financial status of a married couple.
|
On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:43 tso wrote:On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:
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. barren women? eh? I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
|
On October 21 2011 13:42 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:40 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 13:37 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:34 meatbox wrote: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. The pro-gay marriage minority? Did you even read what you responded to? Let me lay it out again for you with explanations 1) What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? 2) Public outrage for one, LOL! -> Implying people would be outraged about gays having the same rights as heterosexuals 3) Public outrage by a bigoted minority. -> People who are outraged that gays get equal rights are bigoted.
People who are outraged that gays get equal rights make up a large majority of the Australian population.
|
On October 21 2011 13:51 meatbox wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:42 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:40 meatbox wrote:On October 21 2011 13:37 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:34 meatbox wrote: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. The pro-gay marriage minority? Did you even read what you responded to? Let me lay it out again for you with explanations 1) What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples? 2) Public outrage for one, LOL! -> Implying people would be outraged about gays having the same rights as heterosexuals 3) Public outrage by a bigoted minority. -> People who are outraged that gays get equal rights are bigoted. People who are outraged that gays get equal rights make up a large majority of the Australian population.
Put it to a vote and we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
