|
United States5162 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference...
He said 'I hope I don't get banned' which is a martyr every time. There is no difference.
|
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered.
|
On October 21 2011 07:22 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi 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. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... Indeed, why the hell did he get banned? He simply expressed his opinion in a civil manner, even stating that he would never force his opinion onto others since it was just his personal taste... edit: got explained Anyway, it's just weird to see first world countries that haven't legalised a legal bonding between two people of any sex. Why does there even need to be a vote on this? Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. He got banned for martyring, "I'm probably going to be banned for this but..."
"I hope I don't get banned for my opinion but..."
It's all the same shit, it's such a shame to see people with 1k+ posts making this simple mistake. -_-
|
On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages?
See above.
Of course.
There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding.
|
On October 21 2011 07:14 bkrow wrote:Lol mandatory internet filter at the ISP level - Support by labor? That spreadsheet is good - highlights the big issues like carbon tax, NBN, mining tax and workplace agreements
Wow I did not realise how much I agreed with the greens, the only thing (and it is quite a big issue for them, lol) I dont agree with is their stance on nuclear energy.
Guess I'm now a green :S
|
On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa 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. 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 
sure he wont lol i better wont write anythink at all
|
On October 21 2011 07:21 arbitrageur wrote:
Another gift of religion. Maybe when all the old fuddy-duddies die out in the next 30 years, enough % of the population will be in support to allow it.
That's my take on it, too. Social conservatism is nothing more than old people being old (and sometimes pushing their value system onto their kids), and it's why social movements take so long to finally get realized. The generation that grew up with something right up in their face can't figure out why in the hell the old farts have such a big problem with it, but they won't win until they start dying off.
Xenu help us all if human beings develop immortality.
It's something even today's social liberals should be aware of. When you hit 50-70 years old, what are you going to think about things like cybernetic enhancements? Merging consciousness with AI? Having sex with artificial intelligence? And all kinds of other fancy things that are just science fiction today? I bet a lot of you will think it's weird and unnatural, and your kids will wonder wtf is wrong with you.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:26 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:42 PanoRaMa 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. 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 sure he wont lol i better wont write anythink at all
He didn't get banned for his opinion.
He got banned for martyring -> "I hope i don't get banned for this" will get you banned every single time; no matter what you say after it.
As for the greens - their policies generally focus on ideals rather than practicality and greatly encumber our ability to remain competitive in the world. There are also a lot of their policies i dislike but i feel it would derail the thread terribly :p
|
On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing.
There's nothing wrong with plural marriages. It's only perceived as bad because of a few sects (LDS etc.) You can find misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia in any marriage.
|
|
|
On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding.
Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people?
|
On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing.
Not to derail, but how the heck is that a viable argument?
|
WTF, what century is this?
|
On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal.
|
Australia505 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote:While this story is 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)
yeah i think that is somewat harsh also its worth noting that news limited papers were heavily pro labor 2007 when rudd was on the rise so i find it hard to say that as newspaper is pro one party or the other as they tend to change over time.
|
On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people?
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation.
|
On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing.
So does monogamy.
|
On October 21 2011 06:50 GeyzeR wrote:
I've heard that it's a big problem to find a nice woman in Australia, so this could be the solution.
User was warned for this post
Lol, mate. We aussies have the best of the best.
Anyway, this is pretty big. Like the OP said, australia is a pretty bigotted and homophobic country. So, yeah.
|
I might be wrong, but doesn't marriage bring tax breaks and the like as a promoting procreating type of thing?
If there are benefits related to starting family's, then I don't support it, otherwise I could care less.
On October 21 2011 07:38 zeOllie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:50 GeyzeR wrote:
I've heard that it's a big problem to find a nice woman in Australia, so this could be the solution.
User was warned for this post Lol, mate. We aussies have the best of the best. Anyway, this is pretty big. Like the OP said, australia is a pretty bigotted and homophobic country. So, yeah.
Gotta second that, perfect fox and the grapes scenario imo.
|
On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal.
So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people?
Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures.
On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation.
How does that apply in the gay marriage context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
