• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:49
CEST 04:49
KST 11:49
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202532Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder8EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced41BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Classic: "It's a thick wall to break through to become world champ" Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Serral wins EWC 2025
Tourneys
TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Which top zerg/toss will fail in qualifiers? Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ 2025 Season 2 Ladder map pool Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL
Tourneys
[ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 1 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL] Non-Korean Championship - Final weekend
Strategy
Muta micro map competition Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
The Link Between Fitness and…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 531 users

Australia to vote on Gay marrige - Page 9

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 37 Next All
Thebbeuttiffulland
Profile Joined October 2011
Brazil288 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 00:50:36
October 21 2011 00:49 GMT
#161
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?
truth is out there
Whitewing
Profile Joined October 2010
United States7483 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 00:54:56
October 21 2011 00:53 GMT
#162
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

To quote Penn Jillette: "When we have a problem, we should see if we can solve it with more freedom instead of less freedom."
Strategy"You know I fucking hate the way you play, right?" ~SC2John
TOloseGT
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
United States1145 Posts
October 21 2011 00:54 GMT
#163
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


I don't think you understand what consent means.

If we create sentient computers, and humans start becoming attached to their AIs, there will probably be a big civil battle over computer-human marriages.
Thebbeuttiffulland
Profile Joined October 2011
Brazil288 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 00:56:22
October 21 2011 00:55 GMT
#164
On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;
truth is out there
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
October 21 2011 00:57 GMT
#165
On October 21 2011 09:48 TOloseGT wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:43 cLutZ wrote:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/19/fathers-and-delinquency-in-the-american-family/

Clearly, there is something to be said for traditional families. Which is the argument with regards to benefits.


That's an interesting study, and I wish I could read it for free, but from the abstract, it implies that they did not use families of two homosexual women or two homosexual men in the studies. Only single mothers, heterosexual couples, and single mothers with one or more father figures.


The latter is true. It is probably too hard to do a homosexual couple study because all those are adoptions or planned in-vitro fertilization. This means that they are almost all persons of relatively high means, which means there are a lot more confounding variables to control for.

It could be done, but I think it would be hard to come up with statistically sound results.
Freeeeeeedom
dtvu
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia687 Posts
October 21 2011 00:59 GMT
#166
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?

From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.


Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.

I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.

As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.


You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.

I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.
Whitewing
Profile Joined October 2010
United States7483 Posts
October 21 2011 00:59 GMT
#167
On October 21 2011 09:55 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;


*rolls eyes*. If legality is your only problem with it, laws can be changed for the better. If you have another GOOD reason for it, then that's something else entirely, but if the only reason for being against something is that it's illegal then that's not exactly rational.

Here's the deal: there is no reason at all to oppose people having as much freedom as possible so long as their freedoms do not infringe on others. The right for homosexual couples to marry does not in any way shape or form infringe on the rights of others. There is no reason to ban it, it doesn't hurt you at all. There is no good argument against it: there just isn't.
Strategy"You know I fucking hate the way you play, right?" ~SC2John
TOloseGT
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
United States1145 Posts
October 21 2011 01:03 GMT
#168
On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?

From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.


Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.

I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.

As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.


You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.

I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.


I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it.

Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.
Thebbeuttiffulland
Profile Joined October 2011
Brazil288 Posts
October 21 2011 01:07 GMT
#169
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature
truth is out there
sigma_x
Profile Joined March 2008
Australia285 Posts
October 21 2011 01:08 GMT
#170
On October 21 2011 09:55 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:53 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


Definition of marriage requires consent, but if you want to take that position, sure why not? If it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the problem?

the problem is that its illegal ;( and definitions are changing ;


Essentially you are worried it will 'open the floodgates'. If it isn't already clear to you, changes in the Marriage Act are incredibly slow moving and controversial. Large debates are generated, with arguments ranging from a religious/secular bases to tax concession bases. Your particular examples cannot be grounded along those lines. Even if it were the case that your particular examples came to pass, then given the degree of debate, the passage itself would be evidence that it would have become acceptable to society by that time.
Whitewing
Profile Joined October 2010
United States7483 Posts
October 21 2011 01:09 GMT
#171
On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature


Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one.

So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around.
Strategy"You know I fucking hate the way you play, right?" ~SC2John
Thebbeuttiffulland
Profile Joined October 2011
Brazil288 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 01:12:51
October 21 2011 01:12 GMT
#172
On October 21 2011 10:09 Whitewing wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature


Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one.

So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around.

so why theres discussion or voting or whatever at all?and were people too dumb thousands of years to see it?
truth is out there
The KY
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom6252 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 01:20:26
October 21 2011 01:14 GMT
#173
On October 21 2011 09:49 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:38 Tektos wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:24 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 08:56 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:33 Klyberess wrote:
WTF, what century is this?

really fucked up century if you ask me sometimes i wish i lived in 19th century or somethink , next thing you know people will marry computers dogs cats etc ;(


This argument is nearly the biggest piece of shit in the history of logical arguments.

Let me break this down for you:

Firstly, in no way shape or form is marrying another human of the same gender a step towards marrying inanimate objects or non-humans. That doesn't make even one iota of sense.

Secondly, even if it were a step in that direction (WHICH IT ISN'T), it doesn't mean it will get that far, and there's no reason to think it will. It's called a slippery slope argument, and it's invalid. In other words, it's a shitty argument.

Thirdly, this argument is nothing more than a scare tactic to try to get people to think "oh shit, this really bad thing might happen if we allow this, better stop it." No, that's not acceptable, and no, it's not a good argument.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.

Why are you discriminating against people who love animals or objects? Just because society has indoctrinated you to be a bigot doesn't mean the government should discriminate against people who love such things. Is homosexual love superior to non-human love? Shouldn't such people be afforded the same rights we afford to hetero- and homo-sexuals?

I don't understand how you can support discriminating against these people just because they feel something different than what you are used to.

You want to be a bigot? That's your business, but I hope you're ready to be lambasted for it.



- Animals and objects can't consent. How can they get married if one of the partners in the marriage never agrees to it?

- Gay couples can

do you really think that if human marries computer ,computer is victim because computer didint agree to it?Computer doesnt care hes married to human or not so why not let it happen?


Some guy wants to stick his thing in his disk tray - fuck it man whatever floats your boat.

Doesn't change the fact that your comparison is a totally false one. It doesn't take a fucking genius to see why the campaign for gay marriage is different than if someone was to campaign for the right to marry their computer.

If you can't see that difference, like...think harder, man.

On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature


What? So you're saying there is never an discussion where one side is wrong and the other is right? Isn't that the nature of most disagreements?

So when there was a discussion about whether slavery was right, you would have said 'hey, if the slavers are wrong why is there even a discussion?'. Plus, that argument works both ways. If pro gay marriage people are wrong why is there a discussion at all? Seriously you're blowing my mind here.

As for 'against nature', never have I heard any argument as to why that makes it wrong.

Today I rode to work on a bicycle. Totally unnatural method of transportation.
Jakkerr
Profile Joined December 2010
Netherlands2549 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-10-21 01:23:15
October 21 2011 01:21 GMT
#174
Gay marriage isn't allowed yet in Australia? :o
Kinda shocks me to hear that in such a 'developed' country it isn't allowed yet.
Hopefully the vote will pass.

@ all the good christians whining about this, you know it isn't a choice right.
I'm not gay myself, but I've allways learned that if u are, u are born that way.
What do you want them to do then? Hide under a rock?

Live and let live rlly
dtvu
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia687 Posts
October 21 2011 01:24 GMT
#175
On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?

From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.


Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.

I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.

As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.


You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.

I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.


I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it.

Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.


I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech.
mrafaeldie12
Profile Joined July 2011
Brazil537 Posts
October 21 2011 01:25 GMT
#176
I think gay marriage should be legal in the entire universe.

People that say it isnt natural clearly need to do better research because its fairly common amidst the animalia reign.
"..it all comes thumbling down thumbling down thumblin down"
The KY
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United Kingdom6252 Posts
October 21 2011 01:27 GMT
#177
On October 21 2011 10:24 dtvu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?

From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.


Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.

I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.

As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.


You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.

I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.


I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it.

Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.


I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech.


Well...technically TL has no obligation to uphold your right to free speech, they can ban anyone they want to at any time.

Not saying you should get banned, just pointing that out.
Charlatan
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Australia27 Posts
October 21 2011 01:30 GMT
#178
As the OP said, I think the country is much too homophobic for this to actually pass. (And it's quite refreshing to see something besides an overzealous "patriot" talking about Australia. The minute I criticise anything about this country around my friends, I'm told I should find somewhere I think is better.)

I don't know why people are arguing that it's unnatural. That's a flimsy suggestion, and seems like a cheap substitute for "God wouldn't allow it".
No clues.
sigma_x
Profile Joined March 2008
Australia285 Posts
October 21 2011 01:31 GMT
#179
On October 21 2011 10:12 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 10:09 Whitewing wrote:
On October 21 2011 10:07 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
If people who are against gay marriage are wrong why theres a discussion at all?i just think its against nature


Considering that homosexual behavior is quite common amongst animals, I think the evidence strongly disagrees with you on that one.

So does almost every ancient culture on the planet before Christianity came around.

so why theres discussion or voting or whatever at all?and were people too dumb thousands of years to see it?


Your argument makes no sense. If you are trying to say that the factually correct position is never debated, then you are plainly wrong.

If you are trying to say that no debate as to homosexual marriage would arise if it were (as he asserts) common, then I would say that issues which affect minority groups should not be ignored so easily.

If you are trying to say that marriage should have included homosexual partnerships in pre or non-Christian institutions, then I would suggest to you that you have changed the goalposts so to speak. His assertion of the long-standing existence of homosexual behaviour was in response to your assertion that it was against nature. It was not raised to suggest any point to do with marriage. Nonetheless, in response, I would say that marriage bears a far different meaning (in terms of carrying the family name for example) in modern society than it did in those times.
dtvu
Profile Joined March 2010
Australia687 Posts
October 21 2011 01:34 GMT
#180
On October 21 2011 10:27 The KY wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 21 2011 10:24 dtvu wrote:
On October 21 2011 10:03 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:59 dtvu wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:22 TOloseGT wrote:
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote:Children often imitate our behaviours, so the question is that are we comfortable with our children seeing this as the norm and imitating it. Will the child believe he/she is gay because his/her parents are gay?

From my point of view, I don't know why gay people would want to enter into Marriage in the first place. If they want a wedding ceremony, they could simply hold a private one and there are de facto laws to safe guard long term relationships. Marriage in this day and age is simply a piece of paper that can be ripped up. However, if gay people want to have their right to marriage, than my view is to just let them, why bother stopping it when they are already fixed in their mind set. Maybe with them legally bound, we will see a reduce HIV spread in their community due less infidelity.


Ah yes, the infamous "think of the children" remark. I point you to heterosexual parents that indoctrinate their children into cults, I also point you to gay parents that raised intelligent heterosexual children.

I don't know about Australia's marriage system, but in the U.S., state recognized marriage gives couples rights that civil unions don't provide. In this case, marriage isn't just a piece of paper.

As for your comment about HIV, LMFAO at you.


You are not getting what I'm saying, I have no problem with gay marriage, I'm merely raising issues that's out there. This is not just a subset of children, this is every child. It is like a revolution to an extent since the way society will change will be very dynamic and we need to have the infrastructure in place to go with the change in Marriage law.

I know that HIV is common with the hetero population as well and that heterosexually are prob even less faithful. Just an off-hand comment, applies to everyone with HIV.


I don't understand why you assume there will be a revolution. There is a gradual trend in acceptance of homosexuality. What's wrong with a gradual acceptance of homosexual marriage? We will definitely see more Prop 8s and NY's gay marriage amendment, and if it take one state per year to legalize gay marriage across the nation, so be it.

Your offhand comment was wrong and distasteful.


I think you need to lighten up, I don't particularly care all that much since this is a forum - free speech.


Well...technically TL has no obligation to uphold your right to free speech, they can ban anyone they want to at any time.

Not saying you should get banned, just pointing that out.


Well it's not like I flaming or trolling, I merely presented my views with a comment. How can we have a proper discussion of people are instantly saying someone's views are wrong. There are no black and white, only grey areas. This is why there's discussion. Key note that I have no problem with gay marriages. It's funny how even if you are on their side, you have to say what they want you to say. This is reverse oppression isn't it?
Prev 1 7 8 9 10 11 37 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 11m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 135
RuFF_SC2 125
Livibee 95
CosmosSc2 89
SC2Nice 16
trigger 1
StarCraft: Brood War
BeSt 7031
ggaemo 217
NaDa 95
Icarus 7
Dota 2
monkeys_forever731
NeuroSwarm107
LuMiX2
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox952
Mew2King37
Other Games
tarik_tv17610
gofns13248
summit1g5327
JimRising 387
ViBE215
C9.Mang0195
Nathanias36
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick906
BasetradeTV116
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta96
• sitaska49
• practicex 28
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki55
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt313
Upcoming Events
Korean StarCraft League
11m
CranKy Ducklings4
CranKy Ducklings
7h 11m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
9h 11m
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
WardiTV European League
13h 11m
ShoWTimE vs Harstem
Shameless vs MaxPax
HeRoMaRinE vs SKillous
ByuN vs TBD
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 11h
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
1d 13h
Wardi Open
2 days
OSC
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
HCC Europe
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CAC 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.