EPTI agree with previous sentiments in this thread about First World(as opposed to TW) society dragging it's feet on a question of law/equal rights. It's not the 1980's anymore and the Boy George image as a detrrant has been shattered by the internet. I'm most certainly not LGBT, but my own personal bias has been reflected back to me as hollow. Time to get fair.
Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BioNova
United States598 Posts
I agree with previous sentiments in this thread about First World(as opposed to TW) society dragging it's feet on a question of law/equal rights. It's not the 1980's anymore and the Boy George image as a detrrant has been shattered by the internet. I'm most certainly not LGBT, but my own personal bias has been reflected back to me as hollow. Time to get fair. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:43 NeThZOR wrote: Again, never quite stated that is the cases. But anyway. Please tell me how'd you know about the parenting of animals, would be interesting to know because not a lot of people possess such a scope general knowledge. If you really want to know, I've been an animal enthusiast all my life. One of my favorite shows as a young child was Wild Discovery. I'm not your average person who doesn't know much. I actually do posses a general knowledge about a wide variety of things from ancient/classical/medieval history(less about medieval tho), biology and animal behavior, meteorology, space, religion, and probably other areas I'm not thinking of. Though, I didn't pull those numbers out of my head. I did a quick google search to verify what I thought. | ||
|
Haikulol
Australia2 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:43 Kiante wrote: labor is the non-conservative wing. i wasn't aware they had strong policies against gay marriage. sure you aren't thinking of the liberal party bkrow? you could be right, i'm fairly uninformed when it comes to party policies tbh, but labor is usually the progressive party. The whole issue is retarded, every mp just wants to save face Julia is an athiest that lives with a long term boyfriend and is not married yet she says "i'm a traditional girl so i dont believe in gay marriage" it's rediculous. Gay people should be able to do whatever they want who honestly cares, and they have their own pretty much 'marriage' ceremonies already anyway. | ||
|
Attican
Denmark531 Posts
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. Do you really think that someone raised by gay or lesbian parents will understand less about sexuality than someone raised by heterosexual parents? To me it seems the opposite is likely true. Gay/Lesbian parents would probably make a greater effort to teach their children about sexuality to make sure they understand both homosexuality and heterosexuality. I don't understand why people say that children with gay/lesbian parents will be confused, how the hell would they know unless they actually had gay or lesbian parents? | ||
|
Tuthur
France985 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:01 Myles wrote: He martyred himself. Saying I hope I dont get banned, or please don't ban for this, or anything related to that whatsoever ALWAYS results in a ban. He clearly didn't martyr himself. Maybe he had a history of controversial posts but I don't think banning him was the right move this time. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:50 Myles wrote: If you really want to know, I've been an animal enthusiast all my life. One of my favorite shows as a young child was Wild Discovery. I'm not your average person who doesn't know much. I actually do posses a general knowledge about a wide variety of things from ancient/classical/medieval history(less about medieval tho), biology and animal behavior, meteorology, space, religion, and probably other areas I'm not thinking of. Though, I didn't pull those numbers out of my head. I did a quick google search to verify what I thought. Nice. I also share many of those exact interests with you. I hate it how the majority of the population is very ignorant and does not care much about the world around them. May I ask what age you are? | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:57 NeThZOR wrote: Nice. I also share many of those exact interests with you. I hate it how the majority of the population is very ignorant and does not care much about the world around them. May I ask what age you are? I'm 24. I really didn't mean to come off as offensive, but just think about why someone raised by gay people would think differently about sexuality. If your parents sexuality decided your own, how would there be gay people in the first place? Also, if you want to use the animal kingdom as a analog for human society(which I think is a poor idea. Human interaction is vastly different from other animals, even other social mammals) then there are examples of homosexuality out there. | ||
|
a5mod
France61 Posts
| ||
|
Underoath
Peru113 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11313 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:18 NeThZOR wrote: I totally agree with your views there. To me as well it doesn't make sense why people need to get married. Only thing which I can think of is because of religious reasons, but even that is not being sanctified by religious person anymore. The world has become hypocritical, and it troubles me. There really is only a minority of persons left who strictly keep by the rules of whatever religion they ma follow. All the others try to make shortcuts and do not keep to that which is set by their holy scripts. I guess it is the world in which me live in. I don't know. I think this all just stems from the stupid idea of governments making marriages. The word marriage already has a lot of religious meaning, and in my opinion religion should be seperated from government as much as possible. Note that i am not against the actual benefits marriage before the law provides. I just don't get why it has to be called marriage, you get all these problems with religious people for no reason at all. Just call all governmental marriages "partnership" or something like that, and you instantly no longer have any problem with churches. No you can let churches religiously marry whoever they want to who/whatever else they want(without any legal consequences), and if you want the benefits and legal safety you can have your partnership certified by the government, too. And thus there is no more religious stuff preventing the government from deciding which partnerships should be sanctioned and which shouldn't. Seriously, i feel like the main problem is just the word marriage. And if you only have "partnerships" for gay people, and marriages for heteros before the law, that still feels unfair. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:09 Underoath wrote: I hope it doesn't pass. Gay people have a right to be happy, and to have rights over each other or w/e but marriage has always been a man and woman. Oh well, just my honest opinion. There's nothing wrong with holding marriage as a religious construct. The problem is that is conveys rights that aren't available to couples otherwise. A heterosexual couple that has been together for 20 years and has a marriage certificate gets legal benefits that a homosexual couples that been together 20 years wouldn't have. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to removing marriage from government completely and calling everything a civil union or whatever, but no matter what, I think gay couples should have some way of obtaining equal rights to heterosexual couples. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
 | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:53 Attican wrote: Do you really think that someone raised by gay or lesbian parents will understand less about sexuality than someone raised by heterosexual parents? To me it seems the opposite is likely true. Gay/Lesbian parents would probably make a greater effort to teach their children about sexuality to make sure they understand both homosexuality and heterosexuality. I don't understand why people say that children with gay/lesbian parents will be confused, how the hell would they know unless they actually had gay or lesbian parents? The issue actually has little to do with whether the parents are gay/lesbian or a strait couple. My brother's wife is takgin her fellowship right now in Chicago in child psychology. The general consensus is there is no noticeable impact on whether you have G,L or S parents. The issue is when a child lacks a masculine or feminine role model. If the child can get that from their parents alone, albeit 2 women, 2 men or a traditional couple, there is no issue, medically or mentally.... as far as anyone has been able to tell. The more noticeable issue are when boys or girls lack a (feminine or masculine) role to which they are more sexually inclined to. As standard psychology (in extreme basic terms) shows that how children base relationships off of when they are older, is based a lot on how their target sexual partner sex relates to them at a younger age. (Yes, this is the the theory that all us men wanna be with our mothers). Just some science behind the raising of children, and that the mere fact that you have 2 men or 2 women as parents, will not harm a child. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:09 Underoath wrote: I hope it doesn't pass. Gay people have a right to be happy, and to have rights over each other or w/e but marriage has always been a man and woman. Oh well, just my honest opinion. Slavery also existed in the Western world for thousands of years - why did we even change it  . Gays have also always been oppressed by society for thousands of years - why should we change that either.KEEP IT TRADITIONAL PEOPLE. | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
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. Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. | ||
|
NeThZOR
South Africa7387 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:25 Rhine wrote: Links? Why do you think so? I have provided numerous citations in this thread that development is mostly independent of parental orientation. I think so because of personal conviction. | ||
|
Geordie
United Kingdom653 Posts
| ||
|
Carny
Croatia284 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:09 Underoath wrote: I hope it doesn't pass. Gay people have a right to be happy, and to have rights over each other or w/e but marriage has always been a man and woman. Oh well, just my honest opinion. Tell that to the Emperor of Rome who married another man. Where do people get this bullshit that marriage has always been between a man and a woman? | ||
|
Rhine
187 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote: I think so because of personal conviction. Ok, that's good, but you must admit that your convictions are not based in fact. They're opinions. The facts argue against that hypothesis. Hopefully it won't get approved because it's just not right to let homosexuals get married or even let them have children. But if it happens to succeed I wouldn't care that much since I don't live in Australia. Why is "just not right"? Why do you care? | ||
| ||
