On October 21 2011 16:27 Shiragaku wrote: I am gay and I will be a horrible parent should I have kids. Is it because I am gay? No, because I am a shitty person. There is a major difference between a genetic trait and a trait of the individual. We fags are human after all. :D
Gay men would make terrible parents, I'm all for lesbians though.
I am being trolled hard DX
No your not
For a gay male couple to raise a child they'd require rigorous examination. A homosexual male's brain is virtually the same as a heterosexual female's. Fancy having a child raised by two straight women...
Any article, even posted on the BBC, stating that sexual preferences are decided even before birth is to be taken with a huge grain of salt. I'm pretty sure there are scientific studies stating the opposite and scientists that believe otherwise as always with studies.
Feel free to provide your sources, that article describes the work of neurologists, if I were you I'd believe the facts.
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.
Who are you to decide that children have no right to their mother and father?
The burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
This is fundamentally wrong i think. It is not up to the individual to justify his/her actions in a free society, it is up to the government to justify the limitations it enforces to the individuals. Just because something is institutional now doesnt change this dynamic. If the government cant justify the limitation with objective, non-religious reasoning then it should be abolished. Even accepting this it is VERY rare that there is an issue as clear cut as allowing gay marriage. I have literally never heard of a requirement for straight marriage that a same sex couple cant meet other than being opposite sex (which is an arbitrary delineation just like when interracial marriage wasnt allowed).
This is fundamentally wrong i think. It is not up to the individual to justify his/her actions in a free society, it is up to the government to justify the limitations it enforces to the individuals. Just because something is institutional now doesnt change this dynamic. If the government cant justify the limitation with objective, non-religious reasoning then it should be abolished. Even accepting this it is VERY rare that there is an issue as clear cut as allowing gay marriage. I have literally never heard of a requirement for straight marriage that a same sex couple cant meet other than being opposite sex (which is an arbitrary delineation just like when interracial marriage wasnt allowed).
Exactly right, the ones imposing limitations are the ones who should be stating why they should be in place. The reason you have never heard of a requirement for marriage that a same sex couple can not meet is because there are none. Almost every argument against gay marriage is based on someones religious convictions, no matter how hard they try to hide the fact behind something else.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
Nope hes right. Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
The issue has been addressed already and your accusations against the mods is unwarranted. If you in any way set yourself up to be a martyr, TL staff will make you one : ], this has long been their stance. Personally I agree that giving him a warning might have been more appropriate (if this is his only incident, but I don't know his post history which I am sure played a role in the decision), but like I said it is sort of TL 'policy' that if you want to martyr yourself, they will oblige.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
The issue has been addressed already and your accusations against the mods is unwarranted. If you in any way set yourself up to be a martyr, TL staff will make you one : ], this has long been their stance. Personally I agree that giving him a warning might have been more appropriate, but like I said it is sort of TL 'policy' that if you want to martyr yourself, they will oblige.
That doesn't look like a martyr to me. Martyr is more like.... BAN ME IF YOU WANT IMA SAY IT ANYWAY.....(insert rant) He was just trying to walk lightly while expressing his opinion.
Like I said, from that one post I don't really think a ban is warranted. But again, as I also stated, I don't know his post history - he could have been warned before or done this sort of thing one too many times; and the reasons cited for his ban were post history and martyring so..... Anyways.
Out of curiosity if anyone has an argument against gay marriage or has heard of one that is not religiously based I would like to hear it because I am sort of convinced that every argument stems from religion.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
Nope hes right. Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
Sounds like he would have been banned at the first opportunity he gave the mods though...
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
Nope hes right. Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
Sounds like he would have been banned at the first opportunity he gave the mods though...
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.
Who are you to decide that children have no right to their mother and father?
The burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
This is fundamentally wrong i think. It is not up to the individual to justify his/her actions in a free society, it is up to the government to justify the limitations it enforces to the individuals. Just because something is institutional now doesnt change this dynamic. If the government cant justify the limitation with objective, non-religious reasoning then it should be abolished. Even accepting this it is VERY rare that there is an issue as clear cut as allowing gay marriage. I have literally never heard of a requirement for straight marriage that a same sex couple cant meet other than being opposite sex (which is an arbitrary delineation just like when interracial marriage wasnt allowed).
I think we approach the restriction of liberties, and existing laws in general, from two different angles.
I believe that the correct approach, is to assume that all existing laws had a good secular purpose. Then, until the justifications for the law are understood, the law should not be changed. And should only be changed if the change benefits society as a whole.
Consider, for example, the restrictions on pork in muslim/jewish religion. This restriction did not come about by accident, but because in the climate in which Islam/Judaism originated, pork would quickly putrefy, leading to mass food poisoning when consumed. However, with the advent of refrigeration, this restriction is now obsolete and can be safely discarded.
Or, consider the restriction of female sexual partner choice. In the past, father/mothers would choose the spouses of their children. This is something most people consider to be archaic and morally wrong, to restrict the freedom of their daughters. However, this too had good secular reason: women select in part for the dark triad*.. In this case, however, we lifted the restrictions before we understood the reasons. The consequence? Criminals now have a fertility rate more than double that of law abiding citizens, a plague of single mothers, with the attendant social costs, and men, instead of being encouraged to earn the respect of the girls father (which would occur by demonstrating bravery, industry, goodness, intelligence), are now incentivized to be cads and thugs.
*among other reasons. FYI, the dark triad are the traits of narcissism, psychopathy, machiavellianism. People who have them are basically evil.
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
Nope hes right. Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
Sounds like he would have been banned at the first opportunity he gave the mods though...
Yes and?
The straw that broke the camels back... whats your point 0.O
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.
You won't get banned for your opinion, especially if you offer it in a civil manner.
AFAIK there's much evidence that disagrees with your belief that being gay is an unnatural thing though.
Anyway, Australians, what is the % likelihood that gay marriage is allowed? In California we felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down (at least in my geodemographic) but we lost by a bit
Looks like you were wrong there. Someone's playing thought-police again.
Nope hes right. Deekin[ was just banned by zatic.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
Sounds like he would have been banned at the first opportunity he gave the mods though...
People with the 'child deserves a mother and father argument'....
I'm not going to even argue that, although imo its a load of crap.
More importantly, i've got a friend whose family looks after kids who have been mistreated or have been dumped by their parents. Those kids can sit in foster care until theyre 18, but do you honestly think they'd be better off in the foster system (or staying with parents who dont want them or mistreat them) than they would be if they were with a gay couple who loved and looked after them to the best of their ability?
I've seen some pretty messed up kids who could really do with a better home.
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.
Who are you to decide that children have no right to their mother and father?
The burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
This is fundamentally wrong i think. It is not up to the individual to justify his/her actions in a free society, it is up to the government to justify the limitations it enforces to the individuals. Just because something is institutional now doesnt change this dynamic. If the government cant justify the limitation with objective, non-religious reasoning then it should be abolished. Even accepting this it is VERY rare that there is an issue as clear cut as allowing gay marriage. I have literally never heard of a requirement for straight marriage that a same sex couple cant meet other than being opposite sex (which is an arbitrary delineation just like when interracial marriage wasnt allowed).
I think we approach the restriction of liberties, and existing laws in general, from two different angles.
I believe that the correct approach, is to assume that all existing laws had a good secular purpose. Then, until the justifications for the law are understood, the law should not be changed. And should only be changed if the change benefits society as a whole.
Consider, for example, the restrictions on pork in muslim/jewish religion. This restriction did not come about by accident, but because in the climate in which Islam/Judaism originated, pork would quickly putrefy, leading to mass food poisoning when consumed. However, with the advent of refrigeration, this restriction is now obsolete and can be safely discarded.
Or, consider the restriction of female sexual partner choice. In the past, father/mothers would choose the spouses of their children. This is something most people consider to be archaic and morally wrong, to restrict the freedom of their daughters. However, this too had good secular reason: women select in part for the dark triad*.. In this case, however, we lifted the restrictions before we understood the reasons. The consequence? Criminals now have a fertility rate more than double that of law abiding citizens, a plague of single mothers, with the attendant social costs, and men, instead of being encouraged to earn the respect of the girls father (which would occur by demonstrating bravery, industry, goodness, intelligence), are now incentivized to be cads and thugs.
*among other reasons. FYI, the dark triad are the traits of narcissism, psychopathy, machiavellianism. People who have them are basically evil.
If i understand you correctly you're sayaing men should make the important life choices for women because they are unable to do so themselves. If this is a logic you want to follow then that's fine but it means you'll hold to a fundamental inequality of genders, besides which you'll have to argue why men are suited to make the decisions for others. There are probably areas where men have an unadvantageous perspective while women are more objective; should they in these cases decide for men?
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.
Who are you to decide that children have no right to their mother and father?
The burden of proof isn't on conservatives to prove that the change they oppose is bad. The burden of proof is on liberals, to prove that the change they promote is for the good. That liberals have managed to switch it around, is their greatest strength, because almost all of the changes that liberalism has ever promoted have done irrepairable harm to its host society.
This is fundamentally wrong i think. It is not up to the individual to justify his/her actions in a free society, it is up to the government to justify the limitations it enforces to the individuals. Just because something is institutional now doesnt change this dynamic. If the government cant justify the limitation with objective, non-religious reasoning then it should be abolished. Even accepting this it is VERY rare that there is an issue as clear cut as allowing gay marriage. I have literally never heard of a requirement for straight marriage that a same sex couple cant meet other than being opposite sex (which is an arbitrary delineation just like when interracial marriage wasnt allowed).
I think we approach the restriction of liberties, and existing laws in general, from two different angles.
I believe that the correct approach, is to assume that all existing laws had a good secular purpose. Then, until the justifications for the law are understood, the law should not be changed. And should only be changed if the change benefits society as a whole.
Consider, for example, the restrictions on pork in muslim/jewish religion. This restriction did not come about by accident, but because in the climate in which Islam/Judaism originated, pork would quickly putrefy, leading to mass food poisoning when consumed. However, with the advent of refrigeration, this restriction is now obsolete and can be safely discarded.
Or, consider the restriction of female sexual partner choice. In the past, father/mothers would choose the spouses of their children. This is something most people consider to be archaic and morally wrong, to restrict the freedom of their daughters. However, this too had good secular reason: women select in part for the dark triad*.. In this case, however, we lifted the restrictions before we understood the reasons. The consequence? Criminals now have a fertility rate more than double that of law abiding citizens, a plague of single mothers, with the attendant social costs, and men, instead of being encouraged to earn the respect of the girls father (which would occur by demonstrating bravery, industry, goodness, intelligence), are now incentivized to be cads and thugs.
*among other reasons. FYI, the dark triad are the traits of narcissism, psychopathy, machiavellianism. People who have them are basically evil.
Greetings time traveler from the distant past. Where people used words like 'cad' and women were part of dark triads.
Anyway, I really doubt we will see Gay marriage. Especially on a conscience vote, that would split labor in the parliament, and the liberals would be united against it. Which is a terrible move.
Perhaps Gillard could take it to the next election, but she already has so many reform issues; Carbon tax, NBN, Mining tax. So I can't see gay marriage until Labor's next campaign from opposition.
i now a gay person in my secondary school. he's been outspoken in the past about his sexuality, but only when people are hating on him, and people encourage him alot. it's so good to see that he isn't (not sure how to properly put this) going on about this voting thing. honestly, i havent heard a word from him about it, whereas i'm sure there are many crying on the streets about this and most likely hating on the people against it. it's like hes completely content to just sit back and see what happens
EPT
![[image loading]](http://digmybones.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gay-marriage-pie-chart-jpg.jpg)
