|
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.
I don't agree.
It isn't worth talking to peps over the internet about it, but there is no study that proves you right and thus your argument is only your opinion; Not facts.
I am not at easy with the thought of single sex parenting, mostly because I think the parents will be perhaps abit overzealos about their rights making the children less inclined to learn about the world themselves... but this is a problem for most parents and especially fundamentalists and religious people so I can't really object to any parenting.
|
On October 21 2011 13:50 GTR wrote:
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'm turning 21 soon, better to have no voice mate.  Been lazy myself.
|
On October 21 2011 13:51 Honga wrote:
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.
That's the thing though, you already can. That's why I feel the whole thing is a little overblown. What the current argument is about is whether you and your mate can decide to get married and call it marriage. All the co-dependence legislation is already in place and has been for a while. Gay couples are treated the same under the law, practically, they're just called something else.
EDIT: As an addenum to that, to my knowledge the co-dependence legislation is currently automatic. If I and one other dude co-habitate for a certain period of time, the government starts to define us as being in a de-facto relationship even if we're straight and just rooming together out of convenience, which is pretty silly. I'd be happy for someone to tell me I'm wrong here, by the way, but that's my understanding.
In that sense I totally agree that gay marriage should be better defined, as the half-half we have at the moment really isn't the best option for anyone.
|
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.
There are women who never develop into being fertile and there are men who are sterile their whole life.
Do these people not deserve children? Naturally, they cannot have children but they are still heterosexual so where is your opinion on this?
Also, just because something is natural doesn't make it better, this was discussed in the thread.
After all, murder is natural.
|
On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
|
I read this story this morning and from what I read it was more of a decision to vote on it in the labour party and then see where it went. Unfortunately I don't think anything will happy with all the conservatives politicians out there 
|
On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
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.
..... There?
You say you're fine with a woman having an operation (which is unnatural) but not gays.
Do you think IVF treatment should be outlawed too?
|
On October 21 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? 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. ..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
|
seems like im force to accept gay marriage strange isnt it ? rofl ^^
|
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
|
On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
|
On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:Show nested quote +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. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
He was most likely banned for martyring himself, and creating a new account just to comment that....
|
On October 21 2011 14:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? 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. ..... There? So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
He was making a point. Substitute same sex couples with sterile couples...... and what do you get?
|
On October 21 2011 14:01 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 14:00 Tektos wrote:On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? 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. ..... There? So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
Are you serious?
You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS:
"Because they are incapable of having children together naturally"
So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child?
On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:Show nested quote +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. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time.
|
On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:Show nested quote +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. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Didn't get banned for his opinion, he got banned for martyring.
The site has rules :p
|
i dont see why it shouldnt be legal but i also dont see why anybody would care? cant they just get civil unions which are pretty much the same thing?
|
On October 21 2011 14:05 Legatus Lanius wrote:
i dont see why it shouldnt be legal but i also dont see why anybody would care? cant they just get civil unions which are pretty much the same thing?
Legally they are the same, socially they are completely different.
|
On October 21 2011 14:02 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 13:58 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:On October 21 2011 13:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 21 2011 13:48 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: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 Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all? If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke. Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
You're only reinforcing his point.
(lol)
|
On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub wrote:Show nested quote +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. pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion. I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
I think he was banned for saying 'I hope I don't get banned' that part I'm fine with but overall I do think it was harsh.
Anyway on topic god fucking dammit it's about goddamn time.
|
Can a mod fix spelling in thread title?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
