Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 23

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.

On October 22 2011 00:59 darklight54321 wrote:



what mod banned this guy srsly? he stated an opinion, didn't try to force it on anyone, did it in a civil manner, and actually went away from his personal belief and SUPPORTED GAY MARRIAGE.

This is the kind of shit that makes me mad at TL.

On October 22 2011 00:59 darklight54321 wrote:



what mod banned this guy srsly? he stated an opinion, didn't try to force it on anyone, did it in a civil manner, and actually went away from his personal belief and SUPPORTED GAY MARRIAGE.

This is the kind of shit that makes me mad at TL.

On October 22 2011 01:11 NeThZOR wrote:
Only problem I have with gay marriage is the fact that they often adopt children, and then raise them. But the fact of the matter is that these children aren't being raised in a conventional home, and this confuses the child. If someone can explain to me what good there is in this subject matter - that is of the state of the children being raised by these couples - then I'd feel much more content with the idea. Otherwise I have no grievances with gay marriage.

On October 22 2011 01:11 NeThZOR wrote:
Only problem I have with gay marriage is the fact that they often adopt children, and then raise them. But the fact of the matter is that these children aren't being raised in a conventional home, and this confuses the child. If someone can explain to me what good there is in this subject matter - that is of the state of the children being raised by these couples - then I'd feel much more content with the idea. Otherwise I have no grievances with gay marriage.

On October 22 2011 01:09 AIRwar wrote:
Let me preface this by saying that I am entirely pro-gay, pro-rights, pro-blah blah blah.
But I've been slightly confused lately on this issue.
In most places, the controversy is due to Marriage being defined as the union of a Man and a Woman under God, and therefore religious objections to preform these unions.
Until religion recognizes homosexuality as a perfectly normal human orientation, (which is likely never to happen) there will always be conflict.
I guess my question is, Why bother? It doesn't even seem like a question of human rights to me, It's like there is a system in place for heterosexual people, but now EVERYONE wants in on it. Why do people NEED to be married? Tax cuts? That's really the only benifit... For a long time to come, there is always going to be stigma surrounding homosexuallity, and it is unfortunate, but saying that you're married isn't going to allieviate stigmatism.
Perhaps it is a step in the right direction, but I don't know...
Anyway, to sum this up, why the interest in Marriage, when in reality, it is just a religious, or state union, to put on a piece of paper. I don't recall reading anywhere that marriage is a human right.

Shrug, maybe I'm just bored of the world complaining about things.

On October 21 2011 18:38 vetinari wrote:


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 22 2011 01:16 Myles wrote:

What is a conventional home? The 13 million families with a single parent? Or the kids who are raised to be bigots or racists? Or the kids who are 'taken care of' but never have a real family unit that supports and accepts them?

So many kids are raised improperly in 'conventional' homes, but because its not a man and a women it's just assumed that they're going to come out messed up?

On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:

Who said that "conventional homes" are prominent in this world filled with violence and corruption? I never said that these setups are the consensus by which we live, but rather the ideal. And that ideal would be which is stipulated by nature: most mammals can be seen growing up cared for by both a mother and a father. That is my point. Why do I find that no matter to which thread I go, people are always trying to be offensive? Omg...

On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:
EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is.

On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote:

Australia is a bigoted, homophobic country and I'll be surprised if this doesn't receive major backlash from mainstream news websites (seeing as how anti labor news limited is)

While Australia is really quite behind in regard to its other policies (immigration, carbon, education)

On October 22 2011 01:32 Myles wrote:

Most mammals grow up with a mother and a father? Not quite. Birds actually do this far more often then mammals(90% of birds are monogamous, while only 7% of mammals are). Really, duel parent raised offspring is quite rare in the animal kingdom.

Also, I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm asking how a conventional home is really conventional. The way you expressed it though, it seems you shouldn't have said conventional homes at all, since that conveys that you mean average or normal. If you want an ideal world where only the best people raise children that's cool, but living in the real world it's obvious(imo) that we can't screen every couple that has a kid naturally, it seems to me that a lot of kids would have benefited from growing up in stable household with two gay parents.



Sure, because we all know that if you're raised by a gay person you'll turn out to be gay. Maybe that's why people take offense to your posts, because you make outrageous claims like that.

On October 22 2011 01:21 NeThZOR wrote:

Who said that "conventional homes" are prominent in this world filled with violence and corruption? I never said that these setups are the consensus by which we live, but rather the ideal. And that ideal would be which is stipulated by nature: most mammals can be seen growing up cared for by both a mother and a father. That is my point. Why do I find that no matter to which thread I go, people are always trying to be offensive? Omg...

EDIT: And yeah, they most likely will turn out messed up. Their views on sexuality that is.

On October 21 2011 08:02 FabledIntegral wrote:


Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.