While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive.
Obviously, I am for gay marriage. Its not an issue of religous right or wrong, its an issue of freedom or lack thereof.
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) it does look to be moving forward in both a more humanitarian and logical direction (mainly because it can't pass its own legislation).
Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.
I feel like this is a pretty big deal because it was the Labour party's (party in power) firm position that they are against gay marriage. Julia (*cringe*) has faced a lot pressure from MPs on her side of the fence at the moment and because her government is hanging on the TINIEST edge, i assume if this was true it was just to please them and maintain control.
Australian politics is fucked. To say it nicely.
2 independents who's electorates had the LOWEST labour votes in the country put labour into power. Fantastic
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.
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
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.
As long as you aren't forcing that disgust on others, I don't really care and respect that you can keep it to yourself. But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
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.
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.
As long as you aren't forcing that disgust on others, I don't really care and respect that you can keep it to yourself. But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
Yeah I kind of think same way what you said about "forcing that on others" I think that is wrong. But there is nothing worse than having someone do the same thing onto me but as like "forcing the gayness upon me" when Im out on some club or whatever, and some sleazy guy tries to hit on me or whatever. Its really really disgusting and I cant take it. But no ofcourse you shouldnt force it upon others.
It amazes me that things like this are still issues in a modern country. That we don't have it yet either is a source of national shame although we're assured that by the next election we'll have legalised it. I hope it passes and that Australians can have the rights they deserve.
That's good, it always amazes me how people care what two adults do together behind closed doors, and discriminate them based on it.
If marriage was simply a religious thing, I wouldn't really care if that particular religion would not allow it, but since in nowadays society, married couple get tax reductions and shit like that, it's just stupid.
I had to take a survey on random Australians for a legal studies project on legalising gay marriage...Results were interesting to say the least. The younger generation stated it should be allowed because everyone has the right to be happy. And if a gay couple were to marry, who would it hurt? We see gay couples hold hands and walk in public, why not allow them to be 'officially together'? The older generation (40 onwards) said that it 'just doesn't seem right' to them and therefore it should not be accepted. Then there are the religious, but I won't talk about that. I think gay marriage should be legal. The world (especially Australia) needs to look past others' differences and move the hell forward.
There should be some world law where you can say "Fuck you" when someone has something against gays. And nothing more can be done for being against gays.
Let people be with who they want to be with, jesus. If we were all like one person this world would be pointless in my opinion.
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.
100% certain the parties policy was against gay marriage at the time of election. Non-conservative or not; gay marriage is a pretty tenuous topic wherever you are.
I just find it amazing that whenever Labor is in power; shit happens - things go wrong and it's never their fault
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.
100% certain the parties policy was against gay marriage at the time of election. Non-conservative or not; gay marriage is a pretty tenuous topic wherever you are.
I just find it amazing that whenever Labor is in power; shit happens - things go wrong and it's never their fault
but at the same time id rather labor then tony abbott. who doesnt actually have any policy other than 'NO'
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 parties in Australia are very factional based. So even though in the most basic sense the Labor party has been historically more social progressive than the Liberal party, most of the time is it is the Sydney based factional right wing of the party that controls the policy direction while those in the left (most usually associated with Victoria) struggle for power in the party to push a more progressive agenda.
The most likely reason for this allowance of a conscience vote is that right now the factional right of the party is under pressure form the left to change it's stance on Asylum Seeker policy to onshore processing after the Malaysia solution was shut down by the courts and parliament. Furthermore, the pressure form the Greens about gay marriage would also play a part. As a result, to calm these tensions allowing a conscience vote on gay marriage (which at this point is pretty unlikely to pass I think if most in Labor's factional right and all of the liberal party vote against it) give the PM some breathing room.
This is just my speculation, but I hope it clears up a little.
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.
100% certain the parties policy was against gay marriage at the time of election. Non-conservative or not; gay marriage is a pretty tenuous topic wherever you are.
I just find it amazing that whenever Labor is in power; shit happens - things go wrong and it's never their fault
Labor is (was?) certainly against it, which I find funny since the Greens and the labour unions are for it. I hope that this is passed, but regardless of the outcome, there is going to be a huge backlash against the PM for flip-flopping, and if Abbot gets elected I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to get it banned again.
one of my best mates for 6 years finaly told me he was gay and i was so shocked. he is so manly loves his v8s and metal and hip hop BMX. ill vote for it but i wont tell certain ppl how i voted for it haha. whether it goes through or not u dont need a piece of paper to tell you your in love... and my mate is far to awesome for marriage
I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
It is indeed strange that a lot of countries still don't recognize gay marriage. But it seems that most young people are for same-sex marriage, so I expect (hope) that in the future more and more countries will be more tolerant
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive.
If you want my opinion, this is the opposite of progressive. Putting a human right to a vote shouldn't be considered progressive. You can argue that certain religions should be free to maintain their own definition of marriage, and while I'm not religious, I'm not against this. In the eyes of the state, however, this should be considered a basic human right. Two adults should be able to engage in a consensual relationship and have the formal support/recognition of the state.
The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level.
If you don't like gays or whatever, brother that's your business, but you don't have to actively work against their rights.
On October 21 2011 07:02 Shewklad wrote: How is this not legal in every country that isn't a third world country...
Because religious undertones in Western countries can be very powerful; i am not saying it's right, because it's disgusting. Gay marriage should be legal absolutely everywhere, but that is my opinion.
This just seems like the current party in power grasping at straws to please their MPs; if it results in a positive vote for gay marriage i guess it is a means to an end.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I actually thought Austrailia wasn't as homophobic as America, simply because they've allowed open gays in their military service for a long time now. America only recently repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
No, Jews and Christians disagree about homosexuality is a sin. Christians don't all get lumped together like that. Like any massive group of people, they disagree about everything. Not all churches hate gay people. And not all marriages are Christian anyway.
Your stance makes very little sense to me. Why not just call everything partnerships and let marriage be a strictly religious thing? You're just calling it something different, which is just frankly insulting to homosexual relationships. Homosexuals want marriages just as much as heterosexuals do.
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
Whenever someone says "I hope I won't be banned for this" then whatever they say after that is always an opinion. I reported him for martyring because that's exactly what it is and always will be when opened with those lines.
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive.
If you want my opinion, this is the opposite of progressive. Putting a human right to a vote shouldn't be considered progressive. You can argue that certain religions should be free to maintain their own definition of marriage, and while I'm not religious, I'm not against this. In the eyes of the state, however, this should be considered a basic human right. Two adults should be able to engage in a consensual relationship and have the formal support/recognition of the state.
The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level.
If you don't like gays or whatever, brother that's your business, but you don't have to actively work against their rights.
I call it progressive because its the closest australia will get to gay marriage in 3-6 years.
It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage.
My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country.
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
What do you mean? We felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down but we lost by a bit? Completely confused .
On October 21 2011 07:11 LashLash wrote: In the 2010 election, there was this user/party spreadsheet with the policy stances of different parties then:
It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage.
My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country.
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
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.
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...
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...
No there isn't. That's TL's stance, and it makes sense to me as well....
Saying "please don't ban me" is in itself matrydom really because if you do get banned you've turned yourself into one.
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.
Only issue I see is it could totally fuck tax law.
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.
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...
Martyring, if you preface a post with "I'm going to get banned for this" or "Please don't ban me for this but..." etc. then you will be banned, regardless of the content of the rest of your post.
OT: I see no problem with gay marriage and I don't see why anyone would be offended by it but then again there's a lot of things that people do/feel that don't make any sense to me. Hopefully it passes.
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...
Looking through his post history, he was a bad poster. Second, the gist of what he said is in the same vein as martyring. I guess the mods added both together.
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.
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.
The fuddy-duddies will die out and we'll be ready to take their place to bitch about the next new trend/media/whatever, as it has always been.
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.
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 07:17 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 07:11 LashLash wrote: In the 2010 election, there was this user/party spreadsheet with the policy stances of different parties then:
It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage.
My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country.
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.
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.
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 07:17 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 07:24 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 07:17 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?
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.
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 07:24 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 07:17 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.
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 07:24 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 07:24 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 07:17 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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
On October 21 2011 07:26 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
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
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
I think this comment reflects the problem in today's politics. Given the stupidity of most of the population, politicians are enticed to demagoguery and appeals to ideology. Practicality isn't required, only a strategic appeal to emotion and bias. This is the case with all public debates/discussion that politicians have, and reflects how scientifically ignorant most of the public is. This makes me recoil from Australia's political system given my exposure to scientific discourse and the empirical requirements that are made of you when making any claim, no matter how slight.
Why would they even have to vote, they should let same sex marriage be. If 2 people love each other isn't that reason enough to get married? Come on, we don't live in the bronze age anymore. We have to be more tolerant and open minded.
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?
Because the government works for the people, and the people want it.
And if you need a scientific reason, civil unions between couples lead to more stable and productive communities. There's a direct correlation between stability of family and social upheaval (crime etc.).
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 07:24 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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
On October 21 2011 07:26 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
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
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
I think this comment reflects the problem in today's politics. Given the stupidity of most of the population, politicians are enticed to demagoguery and appeals to ideology. Practicality isn't required, only a strategic appeal to emotion and bias. This is the case with all public debates/discussion that politicians have, and reflects how scientifically ignorant most of the public is. This makes me recoil from Australia's political system given my exposure to scientific discourse and the empirical requirements that are made of you when making any claim, no matter how slight.
the population is smarter than u think they are just busy thats tthe whole idea behind a representative democracy,
also australian politics tends to work mostly by mutal agreement between the major parties, much of the stuff that u hear on news is the stuff they dont agreee aabout u hardly hear about the things that there is mutual support on as it tends to just be put to a vote and passed qquickly through the house.
On October 21 2011 07:41 Heathen wrote: Why would they even have to vote, they should let same sex marriage be. If 2 people love each other isn't that reason enough to get married? Come on, we don't live in the bronze age anymore. We have to be more tolerant and open minded.
yeah so u propose to annoy both a signifcant proportion of ur party base who are already pissed at u btw as well as annoy ur grassroot donation base at a time when u have pretty much alientated most of ur traditional donors.
At the end of the day its not abhout rights and freedoms fundamentally it is how many votes will be gained by taking x position and at the moment there is more to lose than to gain.
BTW i support gay marriage im just pointing out the facts.
I don't know what the situation is in Australia, so I won't act like I do :S. But in my opinion, if there are no adverse effects of homosexual union upon Australian society, then I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed :S.
On October 21 2011 07:43 lowkontrast wrote: I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
User was temp banned for this post.
Damnit why didn't you see the first page of this thread before posting, man T_T :'(
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
Well Julia Gillard thinking that way about gay marriage isn't surprising. Labor hasn't been remotely left leaning for a long time since they're trying to appeal to the same voters the Liberal party tend to go for like well off middle classes in in the Eastern suburbs. A lot of their current policies, such as their asylum seeker policies, are just as awful as their "more" conservative counterparts to say the least.
It doesn't help a lot of the party doesn't really have a backbone when it comes to ideological convictions. Penny Wong during the election actually made me angry and sad because it was like watching a stockholm syndrome victim.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
Totally agree. If three CONSENTING adults want to get married, go nuts. Doesn't affect me in the least.
Just don't go down the slippery-slope argument of marrying an animal, a child or whatever else. Those are immediately thrown out the door on the grounds of consent.
It's only a matter of time before Australia legalizes gay marriage.. I would say a very large percentage of the people I know (under 25) would vote to legalize it. It's te older generation letting us down but they will fade away soon enough. It makes no sense to be against gay marriage, rationaly and logically, unless your homophobic. Sexuality is not chosen, and it is only natural for gays to want to be treated like everyone else in society, regardless of the foundation of it's customs.
Realistically it's just a lack of education (emotionally/ intellectualy) that hinders the developent of society.. But that's just the way the cookie crumbles
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
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:
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
The whole point in marriage is to unite two people. But I suppose one could argue that it was the union of two heterosexual people, and turn it into a slippery slope. Edit: Unite twice using one person twice and two others goes around this I suppose.
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:
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote: But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.
Maybe not in USA, but in Sweden being gay is no big deal and there are gays that are christian and want to be married in the church. We have gay priests and even bishops.
Can you explain what you meant with "Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination.".
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.
Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true.
I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
There is zero talk about churches being forced to marry anyone. If you think government shouldn't meddle with religion then how about people that believe that homosexual marriages are perfectly okay with their religion? Do you think they should have to register for "partnerships" while heterosexuals register for marriages?
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
And how is this related to being married in a church?
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 got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
On October 21 2011 07:43 lowkontrast wrote: I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
Really? In a thread where a quarter of the posts were discussing a ban for a martyr post? Okay.
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
Gay marriage is not a completely different ball game to polygamy. It is however on a different scale.
I support the legalization of gay marriage, and I support the legalization of polygamy for the same reason. People should be afforded the freedom to act in a manner they choose unless that action would infringe upon the freedoms of another person, or if they lack the capacity to choose wisely.
Gay marriage is similar to straight marriage, but is not identical. "In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive."
Like your statistical statement about polygamist relationships often being abusive, homosexual relationships also have detrimental traits when compared to heterosexual relationships. To say that polygamy should be banned because polygamists have tendencies to be violent towards spouses is a generalizing argument. Perhaps we should ban alcohol, video games, boxing, MMA, and all contact sports for the same reason? Abusing spouses is already a crime, it goes too far to ban something because it has the potential to increase crime.
Personally I feel the best option is to deregulate marriages. Marriages should fall under normal contract law. This would remove all the inconsistencies in the law with regard to polygamy, gay marriage, incest, etc. Currently, living with multiple sexual partners is legal, but it's illegal to marry them. A marriage contract would also be a prenuptial agreement into itself, and therefore encourage people to educate themselves about legal protections available in relationships.
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:
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
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...
He said 'I hope I don't get banned' which is a martyr every time. There is no difference.
There is a very clear difference between saying "I hope I don't get banned" and "I will probably get banned." One of them is expressing a fear and the other is backseat moderating + martyring. He simply worded his statement poorly, what he was trying to say is "I hope people don't take too much offense with my opinion, so I will preface it by showing that I understand this is an unpopular opinion."
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote: Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
People got married long before religion claimed it as something they came up with.
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.
Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true.
I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it.
its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
And how is this related to being married in a church?
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote: Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote: But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
So murder is natural too?
What places are forcing churches to marry homosexuals?
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.
Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true.
I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
You're right that gay marriage doesn't have as many issues as heterosexual marriage and plural marriages, however, is that the case of homosexuals are better human beings, or is it because there isn't as big a pool to draw examples from?
Whenever you have people, you will have bad shit happening. That is inevitable. Whether those people are in a relationship or not, and whether those relationships are "traditional" or not, are not part of the equation. Your example that "my wife isn't as pretty" can work the same way in monogamy as well, only instead of another wife, it will be a mistress.
When you're saying polygamy, you're actually saying polygyny, the often seen one man to multiple wives. You can have a woman with multiple husbands, or two wives and two husbands etc. They don't all have to be misogynistic.
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others.
I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them.
Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way.
I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all.
When you're saying polygamy, you're actually saying polygyny, the often seen one man to multiple wives. You can have a woman with multiple husbands, or two wives and two husbands etc. They don't all have to be misogynistic.
Okay, so you have to understand that this is actually a very modern idea. People aren't used to seeing this. When you say legalizing polygamy, this is not what people are thinking of. You have to make people understand that that is what you're talking about, not the polygamy that we have seen numerous times throughout history.
That is not a trivial thing to do. Gay Marriage is much simpler to argue for, because it doesn't have that history. That is what I'm saying.
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:
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
On October 21 2011 08:17 sevencck wrote: Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE it is hypocritical to support gay marriage and have reservations about polygamy.
Listen to your own words man:
"we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together."
Now please, tell me. Why SHOULDN'T we value the desires of a man and a woman and a man to be together? If you want equal rights for gays then you must support equal rights for all sexual inclinations or you are quite obviously a hypocrite.
Are you honestly prepared to tell a polygamist or someone with object sexuality that what they're feeling shouldn't be recognized by society like everyone else's subjective "love"?
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
How courageous of you to give away other peoples' rights and other peoples' ability to celebrate. Especially when you say you are neither religious nor gay. Should people who practice Santeria not be allowed to be married? S'ok. We'll get them certificates. Should black people be given separate but of course equal status "B" partnership certificates?
Where do you draw the line? And , better yet, what gives you the "right" to draw these lines?
The whole reason that partnerships exist is to be a separate and inferior category for gay people. Non-religious people in America nevertheless don't get partnered, they get married (even when they don't go through the ceremony cf. common-law marriage.)
No one grows up dreaming to celebrate one day that they are forming a "partnership" and that the "eyes of the law" are looking on benignly. It's not the same thing, so don't pretend that it is. If it were, how about gay people being given marriage and heterosexual couples can get partnerships? Giving something up?
When you get married, you aren't telling the county clerk to get ready for some articles of incorporation. No, when you put a ring on someone's finger, you want the whole world to know how happy you are that you found someone to grow old with.
Which brings me to the more valid counter-argument against gay marriage which is, for some reason, typically avoided but always lurking, Tradition.
Marriage pre-dates America, and most modern states, so in many ways the institution doesn't fit well within our current framework of rights or liberties. If gays are allowed to marry why not polygamists? Or a person with an animal?
I think the shortest answer is that times change and that social institutions have to do largely with values. And that the "tradition" really wasn't that well-established to begin with.
'Traditional' marriage is pretty troubled by women' rights (not to mention divorce), some examples: Married women could never be raped by their husbands, Married women couldn't own property in the U.S. until the 1970s and the bible (usually regarded, incorrectly, as de facto tradition) even condones beating your wife.
We don't do these things now. And I hate to shock your sense of the "crazy and illogical" but women still get married and Jews live in Germany. And, interestingly enough, you don't mention churches which support gay marriage or how you'd fix them.
It's not like there is much logic or internal coherence to our social conventions or what things people need to be happy, other than this: they're transitory. Most people today value dignity, self-definition, privacy, and equality; unfortunately few are willing to flush these values out to their logical conclusions and see how things really stand.
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.
The difference being every time instances of those happen in a polygamist relationship, it gets reported in the news and people see it. The media doesn't bother reporting your typical monogamous husband bashing his wife because it is less sensationalist.
It is pretty disappointing to be honest.
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote: So murder is natural too?
Of course it is, but that doesn't make it right. The problem with murder though is you're hurting another person and their rights. Gay marriage isn't hurting anyone and only provides positives for the gay community while not affecting the straight community.
As for my opinion on gay marriage I have not heard one reasonable argument against it. Julia Gillard will do anything to stay in power, if public opinion is supporting gay marriage strong enough she'll surely try and pass it.
On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote: But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
So murder is natural too?
Yes. Yes Murder is as natural. People need to stop associating natural with good. The one has nothing to do with the other.
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others.
I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them.
Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
I agree, you're not being hypocritical. Because your reason for legalizing gay marriage is that you "equally value the desires of a man and a man ... to be together". Which, for me, is a pretty weak argument, because it basically states that if the majority of the population does not value the desires of people of the same gender to marry, then it should be illegal.
Also, "polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them." Yeah? So have monogamous marriages. Traditionally, married women were denied all sorts of freedoms by their husbands, and were essentially household slaves. Until recently, wives were regarded by the law as the property of the husband. Women could not divorce their husbands, commence litigation alone, etc.
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way.
I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all.
And I'm saying that's hardly a viable argument. You can't even associate pedophilia with polygamy. There's nothing to even suggest if polygamy was made legal that it would suddenly abolish the age limit required for marriage. There's been also countless cases of polygamy that work super well - my entire anthro class in uni focused on successful polygamy cases for a week.
The negative associations are probably just highlighted more so because polygamy is already seen as bad.
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way.
I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all.
And I'm saying that's hardly a viable argument. You can't even associate pedophilia with polygamy. There's nothing to even suggest if polygamy was made legal that it would suddenly abolish the age limit required for marriage. There's been also countless cases of polygamy that work super well - my entire anthro class in uni focused on successful polygamy cases for a week.
The negative associations are probably just highlighted more so because polygamy is already seen as bad.
That's because I'm not arguing with you, dude. I'm just stating the facts. Okay, maybe polygamy has made sense in certain cases. Fine.
If you want polygamy legalized, you have to overcome all these other hurdles which gay marriage doesn't have.
That is my point. That is why they aren't the same issue.
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
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:
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote: [quote]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:
On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:
On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote: [quote]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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
The reason I'd say this isn't progressive is that the Australian govt. doesn't want to face the backlash associated with taking a position on this issue, so it's going to weasel out of its duty by letting the public decide (which will likely vote nay). I'd have to call this a failure on almost every level.
Discussion has moved away from this somewhat, but I'd just like to point out that a conscience vote is a vote in parliament, not a public vote. That would be a referendum, I believe...
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
They're one set of guidelines that have worked. Whether they worked because of those guidelines or it's just one big coincidence is up for debate. There are also many other guidelines out there that do no involve blatant bigotry and fearmongering.
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
What? You want slavery and nonequality for women's rights? Death Penalty for Gays? Death Penalty by stoning?
Modern morals do not align with those primitive religious beliefs at all.
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
I am not talking about every religious idea or religion in general (which to be honest isn't such a bad idea if you look at the amount of terrible things religion has been used as an excuse for) - i am strictly referring to gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage will not send our country into a spiral of doom or cause an apocalypse - it is simply recognising equal rights for all.
You are basically saying: religion says no to gay marriage because it is a "sin" religion seems to have worked in the past therefore we should all say no to gay marriage
That just isn't enough for me; and it shouldn't be enough for anyone that is using logic (as opposed to belief and faith)
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
That's the thing, they're guidelines, and they're old. Even though many of us may not have been born into a religious family, we were still able to come up with a perfectly reasonable moral code for ourselves. Things like 'thou shalt not steal' and 'treat others as you wish to be treated' and such and such, are lessons that many of us learned when we were growing up. Following the Bible might have been a shortcut, but I think we learn more by making those mistakes ourselves (with the exception of obvious ones like 'thou shalt not kill'). And even worse, I think by not making mistakes, one does not grow as a person. You don't appreciate the wisdom of it, you just do it because you've been told to do it.
Modern society, with a growing atheist population, has proven that we don't need implicit trust in a book to generate our own set of values and morals. It's still useful for a set of guidelines and a moral compass for those that choose to follow it, but many of us don't need it. Two-thousand years later, many parts of the Bible can be handidly thrown out as outdated ideas (submit to your husband, and yada yada), because they're simply no longer relevant and over-time, even more will be.
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
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:
On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote: [quote]
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.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Suprising to hear. My understanding Australian politics is that they tend to be rather more conservative than other commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, NZ) - though not as conservative as the US. Would that be an accurate thing to say?
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
He wasn't necessarily. The "I hope I dont get banned" is martyring and is frowned on by our TL overlords.
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Usually bad post history, this was the final straw I guess.
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Read page 2 of this thread;
Go to the Automated Ban List thread in the community;
Look in the Closed threads section for the ban reason.
It was martyring + poor posting history.
On October 21 2011 08:51 VTPerfect wrote: from what i hear Australian politics seem just as entertaining as american politics, its just unfortunate that real policies result from it lol.
The funniest part is at the moment, real policies aren't even resulting from it.
Labor gets put in power through bribery and promises; attempts to enact said promises and gets shut down completely. So far they have done very little except spend a ton of money and disappoint a ton of people
On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote: [quote]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: [quote]
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation.
How does that apply in the gay marriage context.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
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 ;(
On October 21 2011 07:26 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:
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
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
I think this comment reflects the problem in today's politics. Given the stupidity of most of the population, politicians are enticed to demagoguery and appeals to ideology. Practicality isn't required, only a strategic appeal to emotion and bias. This is the case with all public debates/discussion that politicians have, and reflects how scientifically ignorant most of the public is. This makes me recoil from Australia's political system given my exposure to scientific discourse and the empirical requirements that are made of you when making any claim, no matter how slight.
See this is where I completely disagree regarding the greens. To me they are the only part that have a policy platform that is consistent. Bob Brown has a conscience which is a dangerous thing in any political arena. The problem is that Labor has shifted drastically rightwards over the last 15 years and abandoned their progressive platform. The whole asylum seeker sideshow is a case in point. Pander pander pander and hope for the best.
The reason that the greens get labelled as ideolouges is because they are consistent and have been since eternity. You will note that dispite having the power to bring down the government they have compromised and managed to work with Labor. Of course this is in their interests but they are hardly actually like children.
Can't say the same for the other parties. The first time I hear something intelligent from Rabbot I'll eat my hat. Our prime minister is in a difficult position but her responses to everything have been frantic. The carbon legislation was torturous but at least it has passed.
I will say that the economics policies of the greens are scary but they are hardly in a position to make demands on this front. The labor and liberal party are singing from the same sheet so this does not actually concern me.
The greens have a policy platform. They are consistent and are trying to bring the national discourse back to a more central ground. You can say they won't compromise but their record shows this is not true.
Edit: On topic, legalisation of gay marriage has been Green policy for a long time.
Marriage is not sex. Marriage can imply sex, but it is perfectly possible for two people to be married and to not have sex. Therefore, legal arguments with regard sexual behavior is irrelevant to the discussion, do not apply to whether or not polygamists/zoophiles/relatives/etc. can or should legally get married.
The question everyone is repeating regarding gay marriage is that they love each other just like heterosexuals, and therefore we shouldn't discriminate against them and afford them the same equal rights. Can the above groups also not experience love in the same way? Put aside for a moment whether you consider it healthy or normal or desirable, etc. The question is, can people experience love for an object/animal/relative/same gender/multiple people/etc. And the answer to that is quite obviously yes.
So now we have to make a very clear decision and distinction:
1) Either marriage is completely about love, and we cannot and should not discriminate against anyone for the emotions and love that they feel, and therefore have to allow near-universal marriage to anyone and anything. To do anything else would be nothing more than blatant hypocrisy, bigotry, and discrimination.
OR
2) We have to acknowledge that love is completely irrelevant and that the criteria for marriage needs to be some other societal dictate which will allow us to discriminate regarding which legal unions are allowed and not allowed.
You can't have it both ways. Either marriage is about love and equal rights, or it is about the status quo. Saying "I support gay marriage of course but not polygamy or X, Y, Z" is nothing more than the height of hypocrisy.
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.
[quote]
How does that apply in the gay marriage context.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
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...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot." The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters. Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting". Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK. Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban. The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
I am sorry but please don't spread misinformation. He got banned for martyring. Saying "I hope i don't get banned" or "i'll probably get banned" achieves the same purpose; while there is a difference in the phrase, it is still martyring. His opinion was not overly offensive (unless you are sensitive to the issue.)
On October 21 2011 08:21 Roe wrote: I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
The ceremony is different yes. The problem is the majority of people associate marriage as a religious institution; and because said religions have a huge issue with homosexuality, therefore it is unnatural and forbidden.
However, it would be nice to live in a world where society has evolved beyond primitive religious beliefs
Those "primitive religious beliefs" are essentially a set of guidelines on how to form a functioning community. Given their proven track record of success, I would be careful before discarding them wholesale. I do not want Australia to become an object lesson.
I am not only talking about homosexual marriage.
What? You want slavery and nonequality for women's rights? Death Penalty for Gays? Death Penalty by stoning?
Modern morals do not align with those primitive religious beliefs at all.
He's actually correct from a political point of view. It's unfair towards certain people, but every political system aims at a strong society rather than equality or justice, even though some do it explicitly, and other implicitly. I think that if it wasn't for the boom of communications, especially the internet, things wouldn't have changed, and people would all be turned against homosexuals. Luckily, this isn't the case anymore.
It's a difficult topic, because of society likes being hypocritical on this very problem. I've been - let's say discriminated for not being gay once, and if I hadn't known an awesome gay person I'd probably be homophobic as hell :D. Plus, in my country the popular definition of gay is as follows : (spoilered for being disgusting) + Show Spoiler +
(spoilered for being disgusting) We even had that guy's ass on a billboard @ the centre of the capital city, right in front of a statue of a national hero, and somehow this was unpunished x_X. So while people can profit from showing gay guys as the most disgusting thing ever, society won't be fully tolerant.
As for the main topic - I don't really care too much about gays getting married. But modern society has a strange trend - marriage is getting outdated, while gay marriage is the shit, lol. I'm afraid that gay marriage being legalized (At least in my country) would not lead to gay people who love each other get married. Instead it would lead to people who want cheap popularity show off their sexuality in an ugly explicit way, forcing an ever bigger lack of tolerance towards homosexuals. So while I'm not against the idea itself, I think that (at least where I'm from) it's too early for legalization, and many homosexuals would agree
On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote: [quote]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: [quote]
Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation.
How does that apply in the gay marriage context.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
It's also hard to raise children with a low income, or as a single parent. An insanely large proportion of marriages in the military are fake. I don't understand why it wouldn't convey the same benefits, nor do I understand the substantial new burdens it would create.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage?
You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud?
As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child.
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 don't understand why this user was banned for his opinion.
Check the ban reason. He was banned for martyring, not his opinion.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage?
You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud?
As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child.
Removing benefits is another matter.
Removing benefits is an essential prerequisite. If you accept any of the caveats.
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
Gay people can also use invitro and a number of other ways to birth a child. I don't understand how this is even in the discussion. What does the difficulty of receiving a child have anything to do with gay marriage?
You're correct that fraud is an arguable point. Are there statistics that gay marriage, when legalized, result in an increase in marriage fraud? Do you have evidence that it is the "tradition of marriage" that inhibits fraud?
As for emotional and physical benefits of gay couples v. hetero couples, further studies need to be done. The studies that have been done up to this point show that gay couples are just like any other couples. There is no evidence pointing to a dysfunctional trend in homosexual families. On the contrary, because gay couples have greater flexibility in choosing when to have a child, they are much more likely to raise a child in a household that is ready to receive that child.
Removing benefits is another matter.
Removing benefits is an essential prerequisite. If you accept any of the caveats.
Actually not. You can also assume that providing benefits is an essential prerequisite. That works equally well with the caveats provided.
It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
So should infertile hetero-couples or couples who don't want children be banned from marriage too?
I think this issue really hit the emotion buttons of everyone. Marriage itself in this day and age is pretty much a contract that legally bind two person to share their asset and income. There are already laws that govern child support and de facto relationships, so Marriage is an issue about recognition of the gay community in the eyes of the public more than anything else.
Since so many are getting divorce, the argument of sanctity of marriage have gone out the window. Religions oppose gay marriage due to their beliefs and gay people want the same rights. The arguments on both side are really emotionally charged, however, the issue is whether giving gay people the right to marry complicates law and order of society as a whole.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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.
So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage?
Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
I agree, my position is simply that we need to eliminate the benefits before granting the rights. Otherwise the situation gets out of control, and I think Gay Marriage is way more susceptible to fraud than regular marriage. Chuck & Larry was a comedy, but it illustrates something that could happen pretty often, particularly with things like social security benefits.
Marriage fraud already happens with hetero marriages.
No one disagrees with that assertion. That is not central to the discussion.
You can marginalize every argument against gay marriage individually, and say "see its not a big deal." When you deal with them cumulatively it is much harder. That is why pro-gay marriage people never do it.
I don't really care about anything other than eliminating the incentives altogether, but the questions are never answered.
Can they raise children? Yes, but is harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear, on its face, to be. Do they convey the same benefits? No. Would it create substantial new burdens? Yes. Etc.
Actually, I can marginalize the entire discussion against gay marriage to bigotry.
Can they raise children? Yes, and it doesn't have to be harder. Is it more susceptible to fraud? It would appear nothing. There is no case. Do they convey the same benefits? No, and neither does every hetero marriage. Would it create substantial new burdens? If you make it so, just like every other hetero marriage.
I could go on. You've done nothing but list your own personal bias.
Not at all. Gay people have to adopt. Fraud is an arguable point, but generally the tradition of marriage is what I think prevents it from being a massive problem as it is. Exactly, but what is the trend? Exactly, thats why you eliminate the benefits first.
So should infertile hetero-couples or couples who don't want children be banned from marriage too?
Its not about marriage, its about marriage benefits. Without the assumption that a family that will raise children who will become good citizens is the result the entire reason for them is eliminated. Gay marriage is a leap in that direction, which necessitates changing the legal system in order to accommodate it.
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman).
Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not?
Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared.
Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others.
I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them.
Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
I agree, you're not being hypocritical. Because your reason for legalizing gay marriage is that you "equally value the desires of a man and a man ... to be together". Which, for me, is a pretty weak argument, because it basically states that if the majority of the population does not value the desires of people of the same gender to marry, then it should be illegal.
Also, "polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them." Yeah? So have monogamous marriages. Traditionally, married women were denied all sorts of freedoms by their husbands, and were essentially household slaves. Until recently, wives were regarded by the law as the property of the husband. Women could not divorce their husbands, commence litigation alone, etc.
In your two posts, you've given me too much to respond to, and I'd rather keep this short. I will point out the incongruity of espousing polygamist marriage since polygamy exists regardless of our stance on its marital status, while suggesting that gay marriage might be problematic due to HIV in the homosexual community (which of course exists regardless of our stance on gay marital status). I'd also like to point out that increased HIV rates wouldn't morally invalidate our support for two gays getting married even if it was relevant.
What is at the core of this discussion is a simple fact. What is most inclusive for humanity is not necessarily what the majority of the population will support.
If you want to argue about how polygamy and homosexuality are different or the same I'm game, but since I keep saying that polygamy is irrelevant to this issue, please explain how it's relevant first.
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.
On October 21 2011 09:15 dtvu wrote: As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
Most people know from a very young age if they are gay or straight, seeing gay people kiss wont make you think you're gay if you have interest in people of the opposite sex.
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children.
The only reasonable excuse for not allowing gay marriage is because marriage is a religious matramony, and obviously christianity is against homosexuality.
However religion is a dying tradition, and gay marriage will eventually be allowed. its only a matter of time
I don't think there should be Gay Marriage ... but before you flame me as a bigot, read on...
What I think they should do is separate out the concepts of a "civil union" and "marriage".
A Civil Union should be a "legal condition" entered into by two parties and is registered & recognized by the government. The Union should be between only two people at a time, should be available for any two consenting adults REGARDLESS OF SEX. This means both Homo and Hetero can enter into a civil union.This Union entitles the participants to all the rights and obligations traditionally enjoyed by a "married couple" (ie, combined assets, separation of assets in event of separation, equal right to children, next of kin in event of emergency etc).
A "Marriage" should be relegated to the realm of the religious or the traditionalist. A Marriage should have no recognition in law and should only be a ceremony engaged in to satisfy spiritual needs, the religious community or the traditions of your culture. In order to get married, you need to satisfy the requirements of the organisation performing the ceremony. I.e If you want a christian ceremony, you need to follow christian guidelines (i.e no Gay Marriage), but if you are of the Mormon faith, then you could have multiple Wives through Marriage... but not have Multiple Civil Union Partners.
If this was adopted by a government, it would be one step further towards separation of Church and State. You Can have a Legally recognized Union, a church recognized Marriage, or Both... but they are two separate things each with their own entry and exit conditions.
There could be many advantages to this system. For example any couple (Gay or Straight) would achieve legal equality under a civil union, since in order to be legally recognized EVERYONE must have a Civil Union Registration in place. However the religious groups would be satisfied that the "sanctity of marriage" was being upheld as only those living in "church approved" circumstances would be allowed to get "married".
If a Church approved couple got "Married" but wanted it to be legal, then they must ALSO sign a Civil Union contract and have it registered.
If a Gay couple wanted to not only have a Civil Union but ALSO become "Married", then they need to find an organisation willing to perform the ceremony (which may or may not be problematic.) But I'm not sure why a Gay couple would want to be "Joined under god" since the concept of a Christian Homosexual is kinda hypocritical in any case.
On October 21 2011 09:28 Champi wrote: The only reasonable excuse for not allowing gay marriage is because marriage is a religious matramony, and obviously christianity is against homosexuality.
I guess my parent's marriage don't count then, bummer.
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
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.
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.
I don't think he said anything against marriage to inanimate objects or children/animals.
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
scietific studies proves that two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children? are you kidding me?how its possible to make study like that...im afraid that with studies like this its soon will be bad to be heterosexual if you want happy kid...omg
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.
Firstly, I said absolutely nothing against love between people and animals or people and inanimate objects, I said that in no way shape or form does that result logically follow from gay marriage, so your entire post is nonsensical and shows poor reading skills.
Secondly, there's a big difference here: marriage between two consenting adults who are rationally capable of entering into such an agreement and marriage between one adult and an animal or object which can't consent is a pretty big distinction.
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?
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
scietific studies proves that two gay parents are significantly more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children? are you kidding me?how its possible to make study like that...im afraid that with studies like this its soon will be bad to be heterosexual if you want happy kid...omg
Like, omg, I don't research this topic myself, so, like, I don't understand what we're talking about, so, like, omg, I'll just use logical fallacies to make myself superior, omg.
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.
I don't think he said anything against marriage to inanimate objects or children/animals.
Pretty sure he didn't.
jdseemoreglass tried to be clever and it didn't work.
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children, and that children raised by such couples are not worse off.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
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.
As far as I can see, there aren't many aspects of society that will be affected gay marriages. What will happen is that the public will see more gay weddings, gay people openly kissing/hugging/holding hands on the street. While there's nothing wrong with this, the one group of people that will greatly be affected are our children. 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?
100% of legitimate scientific studies on the issue all agree that no, this won't and doesn't happen. The same studies also show that statistically, two gay parents are more likely to raise happy and well adjusted children, and that children raised by such couples are not worse off.
So, no, I don't see the problem.
As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
re: polygamy argument -- i think you are understanding, if not with the best articulation, one of the problems with the gay marriage issue and why a lot of people in the LGBT community don't really care for the direction of it. what's trying to be sold is the freedom at the expense of other freedoms--the attempt is to force a largely heteronormative lifestyle on a public that has existed as an opposing force to that normativity. we should be focusing on establishing fair domestic partnerships, not enforcing conjugality or marriage licenses as a determinant for benefits, as freedom to marry is being given at the expense of the freedom to construct your household. http://beyondmarriage.org/ is on the right track!
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.
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
What do you mean? We felt pretty good about Prop 8 getting turned down but we lost by a bit? Completely confused .
Prop 8 in California was the proposition to keep Gay Marriage banned in California, and the opposing argument would vote no to this prop. There was huge support NOT in favor of prop 8, which was quite radical at the time (this was before New York allowed gay marriage), but afaik we lost by 46-54 or somewhere thereabouts.
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?
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."
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.
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 ;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.
The reason we don't see many threads about Australian politics is because at the moment we don't have a functional government. Wasting time and breath discussing anything political when it comes to Australia
On October 21 2011 08:12 DoubleReed wrote: There is zero talk about churches being forced to marry anyone. If you think government shouldn't meddle with religion then how about people that believe that homosexual marriages are perfectly okay with their religion? Do you think they should have to register for "partnerships" while heterosexuals register for marriages?
It's up to each church to set the rules regarding marriage. The swedish state church voted yes for gay marriage some years ago, but I think they would have voted no if there was another option for gay marriage that was considered by the government as equal to the old-fashioned marriage. That's the direction we should be heading instead imo. Religion is highly individual and needs to be seperate from the state. Being highly religious myself, I still realize that a whole nation united by God doesn't work in practice, since not everybody is willing to accept God. And since freedom of choice is the greatest virtue, the state needs to be 100% unbiased by religion. It's not a question of what's natural or what's right, it's a question of freedom. As they say, as long as two ppl do something in consent, and they are not hurting anyone else, then they should have every right to do whatever they want. I think the governments all over the world have a responsibility to offer alternatives that are seen as equal to church marriage. No religious person would object to that unless they were misinformed.
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?
Yeah, I wasn't getting involved in your discussion, I can see you clearly stated you supported gay marriage, can't agree with the 'think of the children' bit but seems like your hearts in the right place.
I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote: As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type.
Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002).
It's up to you to look into it and consider whether those studies measure up in your opinion, but the findings are very consistent and clear: "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." (from the APA review linked above)
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: 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".
I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.
EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
If there are no differences, then why should there be any difference in the terms? The downside is that it separates gay couples from heterosexual couples. This separation has fairly significant effects on the mental health of, already often ostracized, gays and lesbians.
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: 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".
I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.
EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.
I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: 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".
I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.
EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.
I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.
You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me.
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: 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".
I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.
EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.
I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.
I think it'd be based more on geography. If you live in Sydney or Melbourne or other bigger cities, I think you'd find more liberal and accepting people if compared to living in a smaller rural community. Isolated communities tend to be fairly conservative, iunno they're always points of contention. Being from Sydney iunno it feels like there's a lot of socially progressive people turning 18 that don't mind it, most people have met gay people and aren't indoctrinated to hate them unconditionally at least in my experiences.
Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.
Is Australia very religious? The reason the USA has such a hard time with gay marriage is the fact that religious people tend to be opposed. I never knew of Australia as a very religious country...
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.
Read my links above. Why do you think this about children's rights? Should single parents not be allowed to keep their children?
supporting a religious tradition, whos responsible for the the entire phobia discrimination in the first place. well thought out. instead of supporting marriage, shouldn't we as an advancing civilization be trying to kill the concept?
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.
Way to ignore all of the scientific evidence already presented in this thread, stop being ignorant, stop being bigoted, and go educate yourself.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
Marriage has social value. Being able to say that you are married is valuable, even if it's no functionally different from a civil union in a legal perspective. Using a different term is segregation, which is inherently unjust.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
Marriage has social value. Being able to say that you are married is valuable, even if it's no functionally different from a civil union in a legal perspective. Using a different term is segregation, which is inherently unjust.
I don't think using a different term is really unjust. Many gay people already refer to their significant other as their "Life Partner" or "Significant Other" rather than my "Wife/Husband". If there is already a whole other vocabulary in place to deal with the social dynamics of a same sex relationship, taking it to a formal level is simply giving them the recognition they desire. As long as the legalities equate similarly to mixed sex "permanent' relationships. then the differences in terminology shouldn't matter.
For the sake of convenience though, a gay couple could still say "we are married and this is my Husband/Wife" if they wanted too even though the actual function performed was a civil union. People would know what they meant even if they never set foot in a church to be "Union-ed"
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.
It's unfortunate that people like this are still around. When you pair conservatism with a low iq the outcome is a passionate, unwarranted, irrational and idiotic argument that cannot be supported by anything other than emotion.
It's also unfortunate that the quantity of these kinds of people in the world is so enormous, significantly slowing the progress of our development.
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
Your generalization doesn't hold. People are part of society and they are becoming more accepting for a variety of reason, not the least of which is knowledge about the issue. What are other sexual orientations that "most" are against that are parallels to this issue?
edit: Is it polygamy? I'm personally not against it if everyone is consensual. However, this issue is not the same as gay marriage. The legal implications of polygamy are far more complex and require a large restructuring of our current system. For instance, custody is a complex issue with 2 people and even more so with 3. If we were to consider full legal rights for polygamy, then there needs to be a serious look at the system. It's not the same at all to the issue of legal rights for gay couples, which require no change to the system.
On October 21 2011 10:56 Mohdoo wrote: Is Australia very religious? The reason the USA has such a hard time with gay marriage is the fact that religious people tend to be opposed. I never knew of Australia as a very religious country...
The demographics of irreligion has been shifting in Australia, and I would consider it much less religious than the US. We had an atheist Deputy Prime Minister as far back as 1930 and an atheist Prime Minister in the late 1960s. But the majority of people are Christian, and thus a strong political influence.
"In a 2008 global Gallup poll, nearly 70% of Australians stated religion as having no importance, much higher than their American counterparts, and on par with similarly secular countries such as Japan, the Netherlands, Finland, and France. Only a few Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) and post-Soviet states (Estonia) are markedly less religious."
"In July 2011 a survey of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan measured the support for a number of positions on marriage. * 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage * 78% classify marriage as a ‘necessary’ institution, with only 22% opposing"
On October 21 2011 10:55 Babs1337 wrote: Definitely against gay marriage, it really is a slippery slope this equality for everyone BS. If they really want equality they should stop giving grants to people 1/8th aboriginal and cease affirmative action.
The part about grants to aboriginals is not related to whether or not gay marriage should be allowed. It's a different question.
What really irks me is the notion of gay unions raising children, do they have no respect for the rights of children? Every child should have the right to have a Mother and a Father.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your speculations? Without evidence, people who value evidence will discard everything you're saying (as your claim is a bare assertion fallacy when you don't adduce some evidence).
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
This is the type of opinion that is formed by looking at the masses when it comes to any topic. The reality is that most people dont really HAVE an informed opinion, they are just going with the flow of what makes their loved ones happy. That said, this post is completely useless since it doesnt address any issues, just the people supporting the issues which are irrelevant. When it comes down to it, there is no objective non-religious reason to not allow gay marriage in a free society, or at least I have not heard one.
If somebody can tell me what requirement straight couples are required to meet in order to get married other than being opposite sexes that a gay couple cant meet then id love to hear it.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
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.
No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other
I think this is a sensible null hypothesis until evidence/reason is provided by homosexual marriage antagonists that gives us reason to believe that it's flawed.
Religious denominations should have no say in this matter.
If the government changes the definition of marriage to include same sex couples then this has absolutely no impact on the church. All it means is the overarching definition of what is acceptable as marriage by the government has changed (for example I imagine you can't marry a dead person, so until they make legislation saying it's allowed, no one can do it).
The government then allows churches to perform marriages as long as they tick the right boxes within the governments definition.
So if church x refuses to marry two men - that's fine, because the law doesn't saw you have to marry them. If you won't do it they are free to find someone who will.
If church y refuses to marry a women and man because both are not from the same religious background, that is fine as well. The church is allowed to have their own internal rules as long as they are compatible with the governments (eg polygamy is illegal under government law which supersedes church rules)
If the government passed legislation today that allowed homosexual couples to marry do you know what would change in the churches - not a whole lot. They simply wouldn't do it (and are well within their rights to not to).
Why they have any say in this, or why it hasn't already been signed is beyond me.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise?
Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong?
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
On October 21 2011 12:29 Mcrat wrote: Religious denominations should have no say in this matter.
If the government changes the definition of marriage to include same sex couples then this has absolutely no impact on the church. All it means is the overarching definition of what is acceptable as marriage by the government has changed (for example I imagine you can't marry a dead person, so until they make legislation saying it's allowed, no one can do it).
The government then allows churches to perform marriages as long as they tick the right boxes within the governments definition.
So if church x refuses to marry two men - that's fine, because the law doesn't saw you have to marry them. If you won't do it they are free to find someone who will.
If church y refuses to marry a women and man because both are not from the same religious background, that is fine as well. The church is allowed to have their own internal rules as long as they are compatible with the governments (eg polygamy is illegal under government law which supersedes church rules)
If the government passed legislation today that allowed homosexual couples to marry do you know what would change in the churches - not a whole lot. They simply wouldn't do it (and are well within their rights to not to).
Why they have any say in this, or why it hasn't already been signed is beyond me.
This is a fair enough point. I'd argue that marriage hasn't been completely separated from the church yet, though. The overwhelming majority of people are still married in churches by ministers, often ministers who have never even met the couple before.
I don't think it's actually correct to say that churches would be totally unaffected; if 90% of the ministers in the country started to refuse to marry people who did not follow the Christian ideology, there would be an uproar and they would be hit hard for discrimination.
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
What I've learned from reading your posts is that you don't know how to read what others write properly. Maybe you should take a step back and actually think before you run your mouth.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
You have the right to hold an opinion, you do not have the right to spout your opinion and not be told what others think of it. I respect that you have an opinion and that you are entitled to hold an opinion. That does not, however, mean that I have to respect the opinion that you hold.
If it's a stupid opinion, I'll call it stupid. Having the right to hold an opinion is not the same as having the right to not be ridiculed for having a dumb opinion. If you have a good reason and share that reason with others and can adequately and logically (as well as rationally) explain why you hold that opinion, then that's one thing. If your reasoning is religious, that's something else entirely, and I have to tell you that your religious reasons are worth nothing to those who do not share your religion (and on this topic, not worth much to many who do share your religion).
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion.
What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter.
In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise?
Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong?
I get to say they're wrong because it's my opinion. I never said I disagree with implementing gay marriage did I? I think gay couples SHOULD have the same government defined opportunities as heterosexual couples because the government has no right to give unequal advantages to one group of people over another. There are lots of things that are completely permissible for the public but are considered wrong in the church. I don't understand why this isn't one of these things to be honest. I guess I should have clarified my actual opinion on implementing a gay marriage law.
On October 21 2011 12:38 Probulous wrote:
People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion.
What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter.
In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry.
I think I responded to your points above as well. I understand that the logic isn't there because determining what's right and wrong for a Christian is a matter of faith and not something that can be determined by society. I completely understand that it would be wrong for me to impose my beliefs on gay couples who want to have the same rights as straight couples. As long as this in no way becomes a matter of discrimination towards the church.
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
What???? What are you talking about? Bigoted against what? Christians? I have nothing against Christians unless they try to impose their religion on others. And that's not bigoted, because that isn't just Christians that i believe that about.
What other sexual orientations? Transgender? Is this part of the topic?
Modern day traditionalist? What the hell does that even mean?
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
Frankly, i feel like you're allowed to feel whatever you want to for or against homosexuality. If you feel like it's against your religion, then fantastic. No gays will make it into your heaven. If you don't feel that way, then also great, they will make it into yours.
Let God decide who's making it in, and who isn't.
There's no need to further persecute people on earth based upon things that you believe, if you can find anyone who believes something different.
I hope that it's all legalized, and it's seen as an important step for the future when it's legal everywhere.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, because we are talking about a law about whether or not other people can get gay married. Which means you are imposing your beliefs on others. If their religion says gay marriage is okay, then why do you get to say otherwise?
Many Christians believe that gay marriage is okay. Why do you get to say that they're wrong?
I get to say they're wrong because it's my opinion. I never said I disagree with implementing gay marriage did I? I think gay couples SHOULD have the same government defined opportunities as heterosexual couples because the government has no right to give unequal advantages to one group of people over another. There are lots of things that are completely permissible for the public but are considered wrong in the church. I don't understand why this isn't one of these things to be honest. I guess I should have clarified my actual opinion on implementing a gay marriage law.
I apologize previously for my harshness, I've been under a lot of stress. (couple of posts up)
I still stand by the general gist of my statement however. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, but that doesn't make their opinion immune to judgment by others. Everyone can, and SHOULD, evaluate the ideas and opinions of others. This is how we decide what ideas are good and which are bad. If we take the stance that all opinions are equally valid, we wind up with terrible and nonsensical results from bad decisions.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
People are pationate about this issue because it is about identity and freedom. So no you should not be bashed for having an identity and expressing your freedom of having an opinion.
What people will do is try and understand why you have that opinion. Most non-religious people believe that if you can't logically explain something, you are being unreasonable (it is actually the definition but never the less). To a person with faith, the argument makes no sense because logic doesn't enter into the matter.
In short people shouldn't bash you but if they do it is because they do not understand you. There is also a responsibility on you to understand others. The main point being that by your choice of religion you are denying strangers the right to marry.
While reasonable, a lot of this is completely untrue. It's a fallacy that faith and reason cannot coexist. Logic absolutely does enter into the matter, even within religion itself. What faith does is give you a tremendously important point of data on which to base your reasoning, which other people do not share.
And he's not denying people the right to marry by his choice of religion, that's silly. Christianity is denying people the right to consider themselves married under God if they do not conform to Christianity's idea of what that should look like. That's the whole, real argument.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation?
It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Allowing for gays to marry would not be the first time that the definition of marriage has changed. It has already happened many, many, many times in history. Every time, religious radicals fight it. Every time, it ends up happening any way.
I honestly can't believe that the people against gay marriage fight against it. Its a lost battle. Its so obviously just looking at things that the trend is for homosexual marriage to become a reality. All you guys are doing is throwing a big fit.
A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Amen. It's one of my biggest debate pet peeves when people seem to think that by acknowledging their opinion as an opinion, their arguments become immune to criticism. Yes, I understand it's your OPINION. I'm saying that your OPINION is backwards, harmful, and idiotic.
I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
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 think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
If you look at the automated ban list, you'll see that his ban wasn't because of his opinion. It was because he martyred himself which is against forum rules ("I'm going to get banned for this..."), and he had a bad posting history.
On October 21 2011 09:31 vetinari wrote: As for the last: citation please. From what I recall, the only study to deal with that was self reporting early and mid childhood outcomes.
What I want to see, is if two gay parents are more/less likely to raise productive and law abiding adult citizens, than the traditional nuclear family (controlling for income). Frankly, I don't give a shit if children are happier or not from ages 5-12, if from 18 onwards they are lazy, narcissistic pricks.
Analyses indicated that adolescents were functioning well and that their adjustment was not associated with family type. Adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported less delinquent behavior and substance use, suggesting that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than does family type.
Despite considerable variation in the quality of their samples, research design, measurement methods, and data analysis techniques, the findings to date have been remarkably consistent. Empirical studies comparing children raised by sexual minority parents with those raised by otherwise comparable heterosexual parents have not found reliable disparities in mental health or social adjustment (Patterson, 1992, 2000; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; see also Wainright et al., 2004). Differences have not been found in parenting ability between lesbian mothers and heterosexual mothers (Golombok et al., 2003; Parks, 1998; Perrin, 2002). Studies examining gay fathers are fewer in number (e.g., Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989, 1992; Miller, 1979) but do not show that gay men are any less fit or able as parents than heterosexual men (for reviews, see Patterson, 2004; Perrin & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 2002).
It's up to you to look into it and consider whether those studies measure up in your opinion, but the findings are very consistent and clear: "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents." (from the APA review linked above)
I've read through the one on lesbian mothers. There are some serious flaws: namely, they are measuring 15 year old kids' proclivity to smoke, drink, etc, and using those to measure whether the kids are well adjusted. Small sample size, and there is no random sampling, so the whole thing is prone to selection bias. The authors are also not exactly neutral in this either.
Finally and unlike the comparisons between single mothers and two parent (hetero) families, this still does not answer whether homosexual parents produce well-adjusted adults, in terms of income, criminality,mental health, physical health not just in adolescence, but well into adulthood and middle age.
On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it.
As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet.
The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe.
What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
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 think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
I think that a majority of people who share your thought pattern really need to go out and meet some gay people, especially those in relationships and how difficult it is for them to do normal, every day things such as apply for houses, government assistance, bank loans or mortgages. You seem to be disconnected in the way that you don't realise that this is an issue for gay people every single day, in every facet of their lives. If you had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) and you desperately wanted to commit to them, in a way that is both honorable to your family and yourself, as well as legally recognised in all aspects of society, but you couldn't, well, just because, you would be protesting too. It's called empathy.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
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 think this guy really was treading on eggshells trying not to piss anyone off because he knew his opinion could be offensive but you still banned him, kind of mean, especially since he said he was fine with gay marriage. He probably should have said I hope I dont offend anyone rather than I hope I dont get banned, it's a lot better if you show that you care about others rather than yourself.
He got banned for martyring himself and for having a lousy posting history. You're not allowed to post something possibly offensive and say "I'll probably get banned" or "I hope I don't get banned". Doing that gets you banned.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
Wow good investigative work Holmes... except for the fact that the next post I said that I have no problem with gay people getting the same rights as straight couples and calling it whatever they want. You know you should probably read actual posts before replying to them and all. Cause now you just sound like a dick who reads whatever they want out of a post to me. If you decided that in your religion that I will go to the forbidden forest and will have to retrieve the mastersword before dueling the beast of the wild and punished for eternity, I would let you believe whatever you want, because it's your opinion.
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.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates. NOTE: of course, i'm not saying you are pro racism or against gay marriage (duh), but i just wanted to appeal to the fact that it is an important issue that affects a lot of people.
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.
The guy was banned because he was martyring, not because of his opinion (shared by a few in this thread, who did not get banned). Why are you against adoption/impregnation?
On October 21 2011 12:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: What I've learned from this thread:
Most people who support gay marriage are outright hypocrites and still bigoted despite their arguments against bigotry. Most bigotry is a result of social conditioning, and because society is becoming accepting of gays, people are becoming accepting of gay marriage. It has nothing to do with logic or reason or morality or consistency, it's simply societies slowly becoming accustomed to homosexuality. Society has not become accustomed to many other sexual orientations through the media or education, and so people have no problem discriminating against those groups and and trying to distance them from homosexuality.
I guess that confirms what many of us already knew: That those who consider themselves most progressive and tolerant and enlightened are often nothing more than modern day traditionalists according to modern tastes, and that repetition of an idea will continue to be more powerful than the rationality behind it.
I think this post has a lot of truth in it, it's certainly how I feel about a lot of people that seem to all of a sudden support gay marriage and it pisses me off. Gay marriage imo should be accepted but the issue should not be used as a tool to gain power or popularity, or as a way to show that you're still in touch with what's cool in society.
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.
On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it.
As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet.
The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe.
What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot.
"Different but equal" never settles though. No one will *ever* settle for it being 2 different things. "Separate but equal" has a long history of never actually being equal, and there are quite a few people who, according to their religious beliefs, think that marriage is about love and not about sex. These people will fight till the end for it to be called *marriage*. It won't end up as separate but equal. It never, ever, ever has. I dunno, it just seems extremely unrealistic to hope that Christians will keep the word as they know it.
If the word "Marriage" has already changed so many times in history, why are you so fixated on this specific definition? Marriage used to be mean ownership of a woman. That changed. The current definition of marriage is one which people hundreds of years ago would go absolutely crazy over. The idea of a man not owning his woman he is married to would be repulsive to some of those people, similar to how some people view gay marriage. Don't you feel like you're getting too caught up in the current day and not seeing how things have developed?
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.
People don't seem to understand that martyring yourself is a free ban, even if the rest of your post is not.
Anyway, I'm a bit more interested in the political ramifications of this measure than the actual legislation itself. Not that I don't support gay marriage, but rather I'm a dumb American who really only cares about issues in other countries insofar as they spark entertaining political controversy.
On October 21 2011 07:08 DoubleReed wrote: I actually thought Austrailia wasn't as homophobic as America, simply because they've allowed open gays in their military service for a long time now. America only recently repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
No, Jews and Christians disagree about homosexuality is a sin. Christians don't all get lumped together like that. Like any massive group of people, they disagree about everything. Not all churches hate gay people. And not all marriages are Christian anyway.
Your stance makes very little sense to me. Why not just call everything partnerships and let marriage be a strictly religious thing? You're just calling it something different, which is just frankly insulting to homosexual relationships. Homosexuals want marriages just as much as heterosexuals do.
On this note: I feel the government should have the means of differentiating between a same sex and a heterosex couple for the purposes of tax breaks and benefits. Obviously next-of-kin laws should apply to gay couples, but I see no philosophical reason why a country with population concerns might want to offer tax breaks to heterosex couples as a way of fostering more economically favorable demographics.
I do agree in that I believe "marriage" should be a religious institution and the "union" should be a legal institution. I don't see how that institution should automatically be indivisible based on different types of unions.
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.
For the thousandth time he DID NOT GET BANNED FOR STATING HIS OPINION. Read the thread before posting.
That account was created on 2010-12-20 19:22:35 and had 1685 posts.
Reason: You history here + martyring = bye.
A gay couple can provide absolutely everything for a child that a straight couple can, they don't need a mother and father, they need a loving family, whatever that may consist of.
On October 21 2011 13:08 sealpuncher wrote: Wow good investigative work Holmes... except for the fact that the next post I said that I have no problem with gay people getting the same rights as straight couples and calling it whatever they want. You know you should probably read actual posts before replying to them and all. Cause now you just sound like a dick who reads whatever they want out of a post to me. If you decided that in your religion that I will go to the forbidden forest and will have to retrieve the mastersword before dueling the beast of the wild and punished for eternity, I would let you believe whatever you want, because it's your opinion.
Nope, even if you support gay marriage rights, your belief that gay marriage is wrong is still wrong. Just like any person with any sense would say that that hypothetical religion about a forbidden forest and a master sword is wrong. Now, should we prosecute people purely for opinions? No, that's silly. But we can still criticize them and recognize them as what they are.
Even though you support gay rights on the legal level, your beliefs still contribute to the homophobic atmosphere of society that lead people to live their lives closeted, or go through mental anxiety trying to become straight, or commit suicide due to the anti-gay bullying of their peers who have been taught by their parents that gay kids are an abomination.
It's great that you recognize separation of church and state. But that doesn't mean that your church isn't indirectly doing harm to gay people, all because of the opinions of the people in it.
So, no, labeling something as an opinion does absolutely nothing to shield it from criticism.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation?
It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
It's quite amusing how gay men and women want the right to partake in a ceremony steeped in religious tradition, given most religions are against homosexuality.
Agree with the above post. The main issues facing those in a homosexual relationship is society not accepting gay sexual practices, a deep affinity between those of the same sex.
Considering my first point, why has it become an obsession for homoesexuals to want their relationships to be labelled as marriage specifically?
Poor form on that ban, the comments were not out of line, everyone is entitled to an opinion, this place is far too heavily moderated, another prime example of political correctness gone mad...
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
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.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
It's quite amusing how gay men and women want the right to partake in a ceremony steeped in religious tradition, given most religions are against homosexuality.
Agree with the above post. The main issues facing those in a homosexual relationship is society not accepting gay sexual practices, a deep affinity between those of the same sex.
Considering my first point, why has it become an obsession for homoesexuals to want their relationships to be labelled as marriage specifically?
Poor form on that ban, the comments were not out of line, everyone is entitled to an opinion, this place is far too heavily moderated, another prime example of political correctness gone mad...
That just seems to be an arbitrary line (marriage =man and woman) which has been changed a lot over time. It's not about the religion tradition. It's about getting the legal rights, and getting acceptance. The argument boils down to "Why should they be treated differently when there is no reason to"? The differences are quite small and are just an evolution of "marriage."
he 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.
The proof has already been presented, through studies looking at the health and behaviours of gays and lesbians in our society, the effects of discrimination, as well as the results of children of homosexual parents. Your move.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
This has got absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racism is disciminating people on the basis of the colour of their skin. Saying that you're not fond of homosexuality or think it is against your religion is an opinion. In addition, not all gay people are born gay, it's a choice they make so you can't compare it to a person's skin having a certain colour.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
On October 21 2011 12:54 Mohdoo wrote: A question for those of you who would vote against allowing gay marriage: Do you think that gay marriage will always be illegal? Do you think that you and others who think like you will continue to be numerous enough to prevent it down the line? History certainly says otherwise.
Absolutely, it's a total losing battle, and it's one I'm more or less happy to lose... provided something else comes of it.
As an example, I receive regular emails from the ACL, which is the major Australian Christian politial lobbyist group, and I disagree with pretty much everything they do. I don't even know why I haven't unsubscribed yet.
The reason I disagree is that they're trying to maintain Australian society as a Christian society, when it's very clearly not, when what they should be doing is fighting to retain the rights of Christians to make distinctions based on their own beliefs, while not forcing those distinctions on others who do not believe.
What I'm harping on about regarding institutionalising a civil versus a christian definition of marriage comes into that. Once Christians give up the word, we'll never get it back. There's a window here in which we can transition into a society in which the two ideas can coexist side-by-side, and I will vote to delay blanket changes until I see that come about. We only get the one shot.
"Different but equal" never settles though. No one will *ever* settle for it being 2 different things. "Separate but equal" has a long history of never actually being equal, and there are quite a few people who, according to their religious beliefs, think that marriage is about love and not about sex. These people will fight till the end for it to be called *marriage*. It won't end up as separate but equal. It never, ever, ever has. I dunno, it just seems extremely unrealistic to hope that Christians will keep the word as they know it.
If the word "Marriage" has already changed so many times in history, why are you so fixated on this specific definition? Marriage used to be mean ownership of a woman. That changed. The current definition of marriage is one which people hundreds of years ago would go absolutely crazy over. The idea of a man not owning his woman he is married to would be repulsive to some of those people, similar to how some people view gay marriage. Don't you feel like you're getting too caught up in the current day and not seeing how things have developed?
It never meant ownership of a woman, not in Christian terms. In some pre or post reformation societies, maybe it did, I'm not well enough versed in history to say, but I know what Christianity says and it isn't that.
I don't really want to get caught up in the side-argument, because verses like Paul's "wives, submit to your husbands; husbands, love your wives" are contentious even in religious circles, but any level of justification in Christian texts for men owning women in the legal sense is highly subjective, while the justification for gay marriage being something Christianity doesn't support is pretty unassailable if you treat the bible as an authoritative document.
The current definition of marriage is, you're absolutely right, not the christian one. I don't even want the current definition of marriage, I want our own back. But I think this is perhaps the last big thing to change before we lose it altogether.
Maybe it's not, I can certainly see people putting forward the same separation of church and state marriage argument in 50 years time when "marriage" has changed again, but why would I not fight the battle I have in front of me if I feel I can?
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation?
It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing.
Because the phrase "can't you be happy with..." probably shouldn't appear in any argument over civil rights.
For a more detailed answer, yes, arguing over words per se is silly. But "marriage" has a historical connotation that is much more valuable than "civil union," and as such, it would make a lot of people happy to be called "married" rather than "civilly united." Now, the only reason to oppose such a change is if you for some reason don't want those ho-mo-sexshells taintin' yer man-woman marriage.
Insisting that homosexual unions are just some inconvenience that you need to placate with a second-class legal document and "shouldn't they be happy with that?" symbolizes a much larger problem than the mere difference between the words "civil union" and "marriage."
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
And you brought that up with evidence (assuming you actually provide sources and you're not just making that up). See? Now you just have to do it with same-sex parents and there's the argument. The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. That is statistical fact.
At most we've seen that same-sex parents are often better just because they only have children when they actually plan to, unlike heterosexual couples.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates.
Saying marriage is trivial is just my opinion. All I was trying to say is that if you really love someone then you can be happy without it. Just some people prefer to get married to make that statement or because it's what makes their happiness complete. Anyway this thread isn't about just marriage in general, it's about gay marriage so sorry for the derail.
I read this thread voluntarily and being an Australian it's very relevant to me (a lot more than many of the other people posting in this thread) because I am one of the people who has an influence on the decision. I wasn't complaining about this thread being shoved in my face (which is easily misunderstood, sorry I wasn't very clear there, like I said I made the choice to read it), I was saying that people go out of their way to make it so this issue is unavoidable. I already have had an opinion for many months but these people (not here) insist on badgering me about it. I'm not going to change my mind unless the badgering becomes so incredibly irritating that I feel forced to vote against my actual opinion just to prove their preaching is not helpful to the cause.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
Sources please
Also has no implication on how a homosexual couple does raising a child.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
Saying marriage is trivial is just my opinion. All I was trying to say is that if you really love someone then you can be happy without it. Just some people prefer to get married to make that statement or because it's what makes their happiness complete. Anyway this thread isn't about just marriage in general, it's about gay marriage so sorry for the derail.
I read this thread voluntarily and being an Australian it's very relevant to me (a lot more than many of the other people posting in this thread) because I am one of the people who has an influence on the decision. I wasn't complaining about this thread being shoved in my face (which is easily misunderstood, sorry I wasn't very clear there, like I said I made the choice to read it), I was saying that people go out of their way to make it so this issue is unavoidable. I already have had an opinion for many months but these people (not here) insist on badgering me about it. I'm not going to change my mind unless the badgering becomes so incredibly irritating that I feel forced to vote against my actual opinion just to prove their preaching is not helpful to the cause.
Fair enough . I think people are really involved in this debate because it's very important to them as it has reaching impact.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
Because I would rather they be adopted by a loving (straight) couple, who have a proven track record of success. There is a shortage of babies, so priority of adoption should go to those who are most likely to succeed. If we end up with a surplus of babies given up for adoption, then yes, I do support homosexual adoption in those (limited) circumstances.
As you can imagine, I absolutely oppose adoption by single women/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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
So considering that this is an already shit situation, and that having no parents leads to even worse statistics, why wouldn't you want a loving (gay) couple to adopt a child?
Depends, having two feminine daddies won't work, there needs to be feminine and masculine roles fulfilled by each parent, I suggest necessary assessments need to take place in order for gay couples to qualify as parents, gay marriage should be legally called partnership, which would have the same rights as marriage as our Swedish correspondent mentions.
On October 21 2011 12:45 DoubleReed wrote: What???? What are you talking about? Bigoted against what? Christians? I have nothing against Christians unless they try to impose their religion on others. And that's not bigoted, because that isn't just Christians that i believe that about.
What other sexual orientations? Transgender? Is this part of the topic?
Modern day traditionalist? What the hell does that even mean?
-_-'
That's not an orientation, it's an identity representation.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
Actually, single mothers can't raise children. The children of single mothers are far more likely to be criminal, have lower income, higher drug use, alcoholism, mental issues, obesity, etc, than the children of the traditional nuclear family, after controlling for earned and unearned income. We are not talking about 1% differences either. In some categories, its in orders of magnitude.
I have no idea how single fathers do, because there has been a presumption of maternal custody of children for the last 100 years.
While there are exceptions, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. Single parents are shit parents.
This is fucking nonsense in my opinion. I refuse to beleive that the 'controlling for income' has been done effectively. I'd love to see a source on that.
It has far more to do with socio-economic background, opportunities and supports (or lack thereof) available to the people which in turn contribute to them being more likely to become single mothers and more likely to be shit single mothers. Not the actual fact that they are single and female.
On October 21 2011 10:39 Belisarius wrote: I've never quite understood the issue here. To my knowledge, there are no practical legal differences between a married heterosexual couple and a gay couple. The gay couple becomes a de facto partnership and are treated under the law as though they were married.
If I'm wrong, by all means correct me, but it it seems like this whole thing is an argument over the definition of a word. There's little legal discrimination left, even in Australia. If there is, I agree it should probably be removed... but what's wrong with a gay union being called something other than marriage?
Very good point here.
If we redefine what it is that gay people want, then the argument makes more sense. Essentially, AFAIK gay people want to have the same LEGAL recognition as others with regard to entering into a "life partnership". So Why not give them that right ? It doesn't have to be called "Marriage" it could be called "Ooble Wooble" (or "Civil Union") for all I care, as long as a same sex couple can end up with the same LEGAL rights as a mixed sex couple with regard to their relationship.
Let the churchies keep "Marriage" and relegate that to a purely religious ceremony with no recognition under law, or at least give it the same recognition as "Ooble Wooble"
After all, the current situation is that after your "ceremony", you still need to sign some documentation and have it lodged with the Dept of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Marriage to have any sort of Govt recognition.
This is actually something that a lot of Christians want. One of CS Lewis's many good points was a call for a difference between civil marriage and marriage in the church, not just for gays but for heterosexual couples as well. There are a lot of things that the church disagrees with in the secular definition of marriage - for example, how easy it has become to get a divorce - and there are a lot of things the secular world disagrees with in the church system, like their stance on gay marriage.
It would make a lot of sense to separate the two, and have a union under law that everyone could enter into, and a marriage under God that people committed to if they chose, with more stringent bindings and requirements in line with religious ideals.
A vast portion of the confusion and anger in these kinds of debates stems from the fact that the two sides are arguing about two different things, and not realising that. Of course for the Christians, it would be nice if theirs was the version called "marriage," since it really was a religiously-defined word in the first place, but that's a completely secondary concern.
Your arguments are very sound, if not inspirational. I wonder what the gay community think of your idea. I think there's a a need to separate Religion and State, so let Christians have their patent on the word marriage, as their definition for the rite between two Christians. This way everyone get what they want without interfering with State.
But that's also part of the debate. Why should heterosexuals have a monopoly on the word "marriage"? Shouldn't they, as equal human beings, be allowed to use the same word in an extremely similar (almost identical) situation?
It basically boils down to a notion of separate but equal for a lot of activists in the gay community. If you don't call it marriage, you're basically saying that it's slightly lower on the totem pole of society.
Why are moving onto social class though. We humans seem to like to classify everything - I guess this is why we have terms like middle-class, lower-class, blue-collar, white-collar. I thought the fight was for gay couple to be officially recognize by the law. If the law accepts you, why are you still upset over a word. Can't you be happy with Nuptial, Betrothment, Wedded, Wedlock etc. In terms of the law, they would all mean the same thing.
Because the phrase "can't you be happy with..." probably shouldn't appear in any argument over civil rights.
For a more detailed answer, yes, arguing over words per se is silly. But "marriage" has a historical connotation that is much more valuable than "civil union," and as such, it would make a lot of people happy to be called "married" rather than "civilly united." Now, the only reason to oppose such a change is if you for some reason don't want those ho-mo-sexshells taintin' yer man-woman marriage.
Insisting that homosexual unions are just some inconvenience that you need to placate with a second-class legal document and "shouldn't they be happy with that?" symbolizes a much larger problem than the mere difference between the words "civil union" and "marriage."
What do you mean a second-class legal document? The government could give both gay couple and heterosexual couple the SAME Legal Document, say we use the word Nuptial for everyone. The only difference then would be that Christian just supply the couple with a marriage certificate themselves and the gay community can have their own congratulatory certificate. This would solve the dispute, otherwise it is like a child's argument saying the other's car is not a car because it only has two door, whereas his/her one's a car cuz it's got four doors. Isn't it a bit childish?
On October 21 2011 10:30 Charlatan wrote: 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".
I'd have to disagree, I've rarely come across anyone who has anything against it and despite some of the boganesque attitudes held by many, homosexuality seems to be very widely accepted from what I've seen.
EDIT: Of course I don't know everyone, just saying this from the interactions I've had with people.
I probably shouldn't speak for the whole country based on my own interactions, but homophobia has been a consistent attitude amongst acquaintances and strangers. I'd be happy to eat my words, should this legislation pass.
You most live somewhere pretty stuck in old beliefs then, It's the opposite situation for me.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
On October 21 2011 12:59 Mr.Brightside wrote: I personally am for gay marriage, marriage I think is kind of trivial and you can be happy without it but there's no reason why anyone should not be allowed to have it if signing that piece of paper is what makes them happy. However, I absolutely despise all of the people that constantly shove the gay marriage should be acceptable rant in my face on every social site I go to. I understand that protesting about things you believe in can get things done in odd cases but don't go on about your preachy bullshit and smother me with it, I'm aware that it's an issue and I care about it but what you're doing is just making me angry and if I didn't care enough then I would vote against whatever it is that you are wanting. Does anyone else feel this way?
Marriage is not trivial to the people involved, but i understand your point. However, if you're not willing to read these rants, then don't click on the link. There's going to be a debate because it's important to a lot of people. It's your anger versus the potential mental health and anguish of thousands of people. The fact that some gays and lesbians still get segregated, bullied, and commit suicide means that people are not knowledgeable enough. To expand on someone else's comparison, it's like saying "i don't want to hear about all this racist discrimination stuff all the time. It makes me angry." It's just a little annoying which you can easily avoid by staying out of these debates. NOTE: of course, i'm not saying you are pro racism or against gay marriage (duh), but i just wanted to appeal to the fact that it is an important issue that affects a lot of people.
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.
The guy was banned because he was martyring, not because of his opinion (shared by a few in this thread, who did not get banned). Why are you against adoption/impregnation?
Good points about the ban, I get it now and I also should have backed up my opinion earlier.
On October 21 2011 12:25 sealpuncher wrote: Honest question from an 18 year old: am I allowed to disagree with gay marriage on the basis of religious belief or is it only the majority who are not allowed to be bashed for their OPINION?
I personally believe that gay marriage is wrong. I don't, however, think it's any worse than any of the sins other Christians commit. I don't judge gay people at all because they are worth the same as anyone else including other Christians. Is it wrong for me to have my own opinion?
Yes, when you're opinion is completely wrong, based on fairy tales, myths and fables, and you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
Christians do not value gay people on the same level as your average Christian, don't act like they do.
Because you're obviously valuing Christians on the same level as your average non-Christian in your post...
If it is a matter of social policy, human rights and natural, deserved equality, why would anyone value Christian doctrine when determining what is fair and right?
Oh, right, politicians and people who are afraid of anyone who is different. That's why this debate is happening. Don't turn this around on me.
you voice it in an obnoxious and patronising manner, it makes it even worse.
The irony in you writing this line is something to behold. He was just voicing his opinion, you don't have to shove your down his throat. Opinions are individual and everyone ahs a right to them. Sure you may disagree but that doesn't gove you the right to straight out insult people.
You have a valid point but the way you express just devalues what you say.
So you have a Christian telling any gay person reading this thread that he thinks that they are immoral and wrong and are not allowed the basic social distinction and celebration of their love, but he backs it up by saying 'but it's only my OPINION!'.
It's exactly the same thing as being racist, but by backing it up by saying 'No, no, it's okay, it's only my opinion, don't worry!'
You are treating people who do not respect others with a higher level of respect. It's wrong.
This has got absolutely nothing to do with racism. Racism is disciminating people on the basis of the colour of their skin. Saying that you're not fond of homosexuality or think it is against your religion is an opinion. In addition, not all gay people are born gay, it's a choice they make so you can't compare it to a person's skin having a certain colour.
It is not an opinion. It is a bigotted, skewed version of the world where you think that being heterosexual is the one, true way.
I really think you need to do some reading on homosexuality and sexuality in general. You do not choose what you are sexually attracted to, it is simple brain chemistry. Have you ever tried to become sexually attracted to grandmothers? What about making the choice to be sexually attracted to animals?
They aren't fucking choices. There are even hundreds of studies about paedophilia being a trait that you are born with.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
Depends, having two feminine daddies won't work, there needs to be feminine and masculine roles fulfilled by each parent, I suggest necessary assessments need to take place in order for gay couples to qualify as parents, gay marriage should be legally called partnership, which would have the same rights as marriage as our Swedish correspondent mentions.
Ok, but the evidence is against that hypothesis. For instance consider these and the links i provided before in this thread:
There's no evidence that having two daddies, for instance, does not lead to proper development. The regular male/female roles are sometimes changed to other people (e.g. uncles), if necessary.
Because I would rather they be adopted by a loving (straight) couple, who have a proven track record of success. There is a shortage of babies, so priority of adoption should go to those who are most likely to succeed. If we end up with a surplus of babies given up for adoption, then yes, I do support homosexual adoption in those (limited) circumstances.
Straight couples also have a large proportion of failures as well. Though not proved for as long as straight couples, gay couples have not been found to be any worse. In fact, current developmental psychology attributes closeness and quality of care with successful (i.e. well adjusted) parenting, NOT the sexual orientation of the parents.
am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
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.
Sodom and Gomorra is a part of many Christian's mentality and a part of our culture, just like many Christian values have shaped our value system today. Also I never stated that all parents are great, I've outlined my opinions on why same-sex adoption and impregnation are wrong in one of my earlier 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.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
Nicely put. Although I'm all for gay people marrying, this is another issue not so easily tackle.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
Well said mate.
Except that a gay couple could most likely raise a child better than if that child were to be raised as an orphan. It's not as if there's a shortage of orphans in our world in any society...
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
A: Seriously, breastfeeding as a serious argument?
B: Masculine women and feminine men can make perfectly fine fathers and mothers. This is pure sexism. You put too much stock in gender roles, especially in the modern era.
C: What does that have to do with anything? We are talking about adoption. Heterosexual couples can also adopt, you know.
D: So, the child is different??? Again, a gender role argument that is sexism in its purest form.
E: I have no idea how you went from "can't have children naturally" to "they shouldn't be allowed to." Like this is a blatant logical jump. Do you think women who are barren should not be allowed to adopt because nature clearly thinks they shouldn't be able to?
I'm 19 but I've been lazy to fill in the AEC federal election form thing (since the federal election was like two weeks before my 18th). Will I be forced to vote on this?
I don't even see why this is an issue. The government aims to separate religion and state, therefore their view on marriage should be purely a union for support, both financial and emotional.
Given this, why is it different for two blokes or two women to get married?
Hypothetical: If I was pretty good mates with a guy, living together for a while, and sharing resources, raising a kid in the same house, regardless of sexual activity, I would expect us to be able to declare ourselves as co-dependent for financial status of a married couple.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
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.
Why?
It's a simple question. Do you think single mothers and single fathers can't raise children? Why do you think that having two dads or two moms would have any kind of issue? It's a blatantly sexist argument that has no basis in reality. There is no indication that same-sex parents would be any worse than hetero-parents.
Reality matters. You don't just get to say "But but but you need a mother and father! That's the way it's supposed to be!" without any evidence.
I don't think single parenting is in anyway the ideal for children for me, the ideal is having a mum and a dad. It's in no way 'sexist' as you state, I simply believe women and men are different and have different skills and perspectives on life and can pass these on to their children and enlighten them. Secondly, I believe if you're in a same-sex relationship or marriage, you're exposing your child to bullying and denying your child of having a father or a mother. An extra aunt or uncle simply isn't a substitute. I'm well aware that I could never be a substitute for my wife when we raise children because A: I cannot feed the child 'literally'.
B: I don't have the same emotional side that she has and have not grown up learning the same things that she has.
C: I cannot carry a child in my stomach, maybe if I did a 'Junior' I might be able to but otherwise not =_=.
D: It's confusing for a child seeing all the other children have a mum and a dad and themselves not having one. It's also confusing to see your either your father try to play the woman role or your mother trying to play man role. It's simply people pretending to be something they're not.
E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
I don't agree.
It isn't worth talking to peps over the internet about it, but there is no study that proves you right and thus your argument is only your opinion; Not facts.
I am not at easy with the thought of single sex parenting, mostly because I think the parents will be perhaps abit overzealos about their rights making the children less inclined to learn about the world themselves... but this is a problem for most parents and especially fundamentalists and religious people so I can't really object to any parenting.
On October 21 2011 13:50 GTR wrote: I'm 19 but I've been lazy to fill in the AEC federal election form thing (since the federal election was like two weeks before my 18th). Will I be forced to vote on this?
I'm turning 21 soon, better to have no voice mate. Been lazy myself.
On October 21 2011 13:51 Honga wrote: I don't even see why this is an issue. The government aims to separate religion and state, therefore their view on marriage should be purely a union for support, both financial and emotional.
Given this, why is it different for two blokes or two women to get married?
Hypothetical: If I was pretty good mates with a guy, living together for a while, and sharing resources, raising a kid in the same house, regardless of sexual activity, I would expect us to be able to declare ourselves as co-dependent for financial status of a married couple.
That's the thing though, you already can. That's why I feel the whole thing is a little overblown. What the current argument is about is whether you and your mate can decide to get married and call it marriage. All the co-dependence legislation is already in place and has been for a while. Gay couples are treated the same under the law, practically, they're just called something else.
EDIT: As an addenum to that, to my knowledge the co-dependence legislation is currently automatic. If I and one other dude co-habitate for a certain period of time, the government starts to define us as being in a de-facto relationship even if we're straight and just rooming together out of convenience, which is pretty silly. I'd be happy for someone to tell me I'm wrong here, by the way, but that's my understanding.
In that sense I totally agree that gay marriage should be better defined, as the half-half we have at the moment really isn't the best option for anyone.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
There are women who never develop into being fertile and there are men who are sterile their whole life.
Do these people not deserve children? Naturally, they cannot have children but they are still heterosexual so where is your opinion on this?
Also, just because something is natural doesn't make it better, this was discussed in the thread. After all, murder is natural.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
I read this story this morning and from what I read it was more of a decision to vote on it in the labour party and then see where it went. Unfortunately I don't think anything will happy with all the conservatives politicians out there
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
You say you're fine with a woman having an operation (which is unnatural) but not gays.
Do you think IVF treatment should be outlawed too?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
He was most likely banned for martyring himself, and creating a new account just to comment that....
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
He was making a point. Substitute same sex couples with sterile couples...... and what do you get?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
Are you serious?
You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS: "Because they are incapable of having children together naturally"
So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child?
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time.
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Didn't get banned for his opinion, he got banned for martyring. The site has rules :p
On October 21 2011 14:05 Legatus Lanius wrote: i dont see why it shouldnt be legal but i also dont see why anybody would care? cant they just get civil unions which are pretty much the same thing?
Legally they are the same, socially they are completely different.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
I think he was banned for saying 'I hope I don't get banned' that part I'm fine with but overall I do think it was harsh.
Anyway on topic god fucking dammit it's about goddamn time.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
You're only reinforcing his point.
(lol)
I'm far from reinforcing his point. He said he doesn't like something because it's not natural. I'm saying he should dislike EVERYTHING that isn't natural if that's the case. How in any way am I reinforcing his point
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
Are you serious?
You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS: "Because they are incapable of having children together naturally"
So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child?
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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time.
People having a defect in their body is not the same as being gay, don't you get it ? You can't just exclude multiple words from peoples sentences and then use them against them, it's no basis for discussion. Unless you're a politician or in a kindergarden. Anyway, I'm off you guys can continue hunting down people with none 'open-minded' opinions in the hope that it makes you more 'open-minded'.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
You're only reinforcing his point.
(lol)
I'm far from reinforcing his point. He said he doesn't like something because it's not natural. I'm saying he should dislike EVERYTHING that isn't natural if that's the case. How in any way am I reinforcing his point
expand the quotations and search for this line: If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words.
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
I would rather vote for our carbon tax at this point, all this Marriage stuff for gay people are diversions to deflect the heat from the introduced carbon tax which the people are not allowed to vote for. Don't even mention the border protection, our prime minister is jumping in circle cuz her Malaysian solution was slam by High Court. Political Circus at it's best, that's all it is.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
If you people don't have a leg to stand on in an argument, you just twist peoples words, it's a joke.
Why shouldn't they be allowed to, because it's not natural? I hope you're disgusted with people with glasses seeing as naturally they shouldn't be able to see that well. What is wrong with having two mothers or two fathers, if they're loving parents it should make no difference.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
barren women? eh?
I'll dignify your post with a reply, even though it's hardly worth my time. My point is that a man and man or a woman and a woman are completely incapable of having a child together by natural means.
lol how is that a logical argument whatsoever. If I'm infertile should I not be able to adopt because I can't have my own children via natural means? T_T
Where did I ever write that? You people are just putting words in my mouth because you want to make me out to be some kind of hypocrite. A woman being unable to have a child due to a defect in her body is sad and I'm all for her having an operation that would solve it or allowing her to adopt. With gay couples I'm against it and I wrote why in my earlier post. Why are you comparing gay women to women with defects in their body, does it make any sense at all?
On October 21 2011 13:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: E: Same sex couples are incapable of having children together naturally, why should they be allowed to? I think it's completely and utterly wrong.
..... There?
So I can exclude four words from the sentences of other people in this thread and we will have a good basis for a discusssion? You've got to be kidding me.
Are you serious?
You stated that the REASON YOU WERE AGAINST GAYS RAISING CHILDREN WAS: "Because they are incapable of having children together naturally"
So if a heterosexual couple can't have children naturally, do you think they have no right to raise a child?
On October 21 2011 14:02 Waffnub 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.
pathetically hilarious how this guy got banned for his respectful opinion.
I personally Don't think gay marriage is good or beneficial for any society as it seems to just create problems.
Read the thread, he was banned for saying "I hope I dont get banned". That right there gives you an ban, every time.
People having a defect in their body is not the same as being gay, don't you get it ? You can't just exclude multiple words from peoples sentences and then use them against them, it's no basis for discussion. Unless you're a politician or in a kindergarden. Anyway, I'm off you guys can continue hunting down people with none 'open-minded' opinions in the hope that it makes you more 'open-minded'.
Defects sometimes occur naturally, so you would have to concede that if you're against gays having kids but fine with infertile women having kids then you're against it for the fact that they're gay not because they can't naturally have a child together.
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
Depends on the wording of the question imo.
As do all polls. It is neither here nor there really. The question right now is whether the labor party will be taking this a policy platform. Doubt it, which is really sad for a party with its history.
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
Depends on the wording of the question imo.
As do all polls. It is neither here nor there really. The question right now is whether the labor party will be taking this a policy platform. Doubt it, which is really sad for a party with its history.
Whatever happens, hopefully Gillard stays as Prime Minister (as much as I dislike her) as Tony Abbott is a moron.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
On October 21 2011 14:21 GG_NO_RE wrote: i can't believe that this is actually an issue. it's so clearly backwards and discriminatory to bar gay people from getting married
Funny you should say that, when your listed country doesn't allow gay marriage and doesn't seem to be looking to legalize it anytime soon either.
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
On October 21 2011 13:44 LarJarsE wrote: am I the only one that didn't know that australia is supposedly a "homophobic country"? its definitely good that they are trying to be more open about it since on its shown regularly on TV here in the states. do they not have gays in australian soaps?
we do have gays on our soapies.
but whenever a serial killer comes along they seem to be the first ones to go
jokes aside.
i support gay marriage. why because it doesn't bloody effect me and it would make many couples happy i'm sure.
i mean seriously how is a gay couple getting married in Brisbane going to cause a world ending apocalypse and fire raining down in my neighborhood?
The thing is Australia is just naturally conservative. There are sections of the community that are homophobic but according the courier mail 78% of Australians are in support of gay marriage. We take a long time to do anything.
I honestly think that most political problems in this country are just beat-up stories that aren't worth the attention they get. We say we are the lucky country but we don't exactly act like it (carbon tax is going to roon us, protect our borders blah blah blah).
I would rather vote for our carbon tax at this point, all this Marriage stuff for gay people are diversions to deflect the heat from the introduced carbon tax which the people are not allowed to vote for. Don't even mention the border protection, our prime minister is jumping in circle cuz her Malaysian solution was slam by High Court. Political Circus at it's best, that's all it is.
Just thought I should point out that this issue is about people's rights. It is about the foundation of the family unit and the institution of marriage is a huge part of our functioing society. This is an issue.
We did vote on the carbon tax. It is not a tax, it is a temporary price prior to floating on the ETS. Which was both liberal and labor policy at the 2007 election. The whole deal with Asylum seekers is ridiculous as it is hardly an issue. The numbers arriving is less than 10K a year.
Against a population of 20 million that is again rapidly. There are difficulties with this issue but it gets blown way out of proportion. Worse is there is absolutely no compassion shown to those legitimately seeking asylum.
I don't recognize any tradition in marriage. You guys allow any young gold digger to marry old guys, and you allow people to divorce and marry multiple times. What fucking tradition?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
On October 21 2011 14:28 Legatus Lanius wrote: the labor party is all about giving dole money to westies can i get an amen?
Problem with our politicians. People may complain that American politicians are all lawyers, and businessmen and that scientists and engineers should be up there 'running' the country too. In Australia parliament is made up of uneducated union boss' and religious bigots.
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
Christian marriage maybe. Too bad the Church doesn't have a monopoly on marriages.
On October 21 2011 14:33 TOloseGT wrote: I don't recognize any tradition in marriage. You guys allow any young gold digger to marry old guys, and you allow people to divorce and marry multiple times. What fucking tradition?
My point was that this is an issue worth debating. I am not arguing of the merits of marriage just that it has been the basis of our society for a long time and so this discussion is worth having.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text." Why not change the text? Marriage used to be far more varied, from women being under the authority of the man of the house, to marrying newborns.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
On October 21 2011 14:28 Legatus Lanius wrote: the labor party is all about giving dole money to westies can i get an amen?
Problem with our politicians. People may complain that American politicians are all lawyers, and businessmen and that scientists and engineers should be up there 'running' the country too. In Australia parliament is made up of uneducated union boss' and religious bigots.
Don't forget the tree-huggers and big hat wearing cowboy. The anti-pokies crusader and the other two...
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote: It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text."
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text."
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
They already have the full rights entitled to any proper couple, with the exception that their piece of paper says "de facto" instead of "married".
Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
Well said Brett Holman.
But it's not so simple. You don't call caucasian people married the Marriage and then separate it from Caucasian Asian marriage because you want to distinguish the differences (and back in the day there was almost no Caucasian Asian marriage). There is value in tradition but social issues are not static. We have decided that slavery is bad, that women are equal, and that marriages between races is just as good as within your ethnic background.
What are the arguments against this going through? That the definition marriage will have to expand a little. Does that in any way lower the value of a heterosexual couple's marriage? In contrast, we continue to have discrimination for a variety of reasons. Of course, these people will continue to be discriminated against by some people. But nothing will change until we at least try to say that everyone is accepted. There's still some prejudice against women in the workplace, but we have grown accustomed to the fact that it's inappropriate to do so, and that though there are differences, they are ok, accepted, and generally not a problem in a work environment.
No, you don't distinguish between different racial marriages, because the definition of marriage has never made any distinction between anybody's race. Whereas it has always been defined as the union between man and woman.
That's not a very strong argument. People were definitely against cross-race relationships in many cultures, even if it wasn't part of the "text."
Unfortunately, I haven't seen a compelling argument yet. It's all about "naturalness" or whether or not they are good parents. Why can't we accept that gays will sign a sheet of paper that says they are married with the full rights entitled to any proper couple.
I'm not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural at all. I think that's nonsense. I'm not arguing their inability to conceive is prohibitive in any way to them being a good parent. I've not seen any evidence of that at all. In my view, none of that has anything to do with marriage. I'm also not arguing they shouldn't have the same rights or benefits as a hetero couple. It's purely the name of it that I don't agree with.
On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote: Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
Worlds greatest neanderthal
Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere.
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote: It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
Yeah US citizens take note... we have to put up with 3 fox news' =/.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
In my opinion, marginally "debasing" the definition of marriage further (the negative terminology, by the way, would be the exact thing that gays and lesbians are fighting against) is worth the effort into bringing to light relationships, love, biology and ethics and in the process, hopefully lead to a lot of people feeling a bit better someday.
I'm not arguing that homosexuality is unnatural at all. I think that's nonsense. I'm not arguing their inability to conceive is prohibitive in any way to them being a good parent. I've not seen any evidence of that at all. In my view, none of that has anything to do with marriage. I'm also not arguing they shouldn't have the same rights or benefits as a hetero couple. It's purely the name of it that I don't agree with.
Ok, well at least i agree with you on all those fronts. There are a lot of people who use those arguments to somehow lower same sex relationships without evidence (i have sourced many studies that say the opposite).
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
Political correctness gone out of hand mate, it's become an obsession...
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote: It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
This is incredibly depressing because it's so true . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote: Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
Worlds greatest neanderthal
Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere.
You've got to be kidding, really? Must have been a really bad year academically here lol.
I would consider voting Liberal if literally anyone else was their leader. They currently have no policy except criticising Labor's policy and the man is dangerous.
I thought Julia was against gay marriage? Maybe she's just having the vote for lols to piss off Abbott, she's already female, unmarried, childless and athiest why not add gay-friendly to the list
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote: It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
This is incredibly depressing because it's so true . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
I agree that the majority of Australians are very tolerant and open-minded, problem is that this is expressed in a laid-back attitude and who gives a shit mindset (which i love and is what people from other countries love about Australia). This means the batshit fringe run things.
On October 21 2011 14:25 hoppipolla wrote: It's pathetic how our supposedly "progressive" party in Labor is so against a law that is simply humane and supported by the vast majority of Australians. Just pass the law and be done with it, ignore the hysterical conservative dominated media and listen to the people for once.
There's a reason Labor is so conservative, if they were more progressive they'd lose the balance of power. The majority of australians are too conservative and consume too much shit media (ACA, Today Tonight, The Daily Telegraph) to have an opinion worth hearing. Listening to the people is the worst thing our government could do.
This is incredibly depressing because it's so true . But I still believe the majority of Australian's aren't this way, just the most vocal group is. But maybe I'm just being delusional so I don't become misanthropic.
It's pretty bad when Dave Hughes is on the most reliable current affairs program in the country rofl
You also forgot 60 minutes, the kings of fear-mongering and inaccurate tripe
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
On October 21 2011 14:51 KSMB wrote: Question for the Australians: were there ever restrictions on aboriginal Australians being allowed to marry white people?
It was always allowed. However, the children of a white/black pairings would be taken away, if the parent(s) wanted to live the tribal lifestyle of the natives.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
If of course there is a law that prohibits any and all discrimination between a "marriage" and a "civil union" and that all (and I mean ALL) rights and responsibilities that apply to one must by law apply to the other, I think it would be fine. Barring that, I think the usage of the term "marriage" is the simplest and most effective way to achieve equality.
Personally I don't care about this issue, carbon tax is more important
I agree that the majority of Australians are very tolerant and open-minded, problem is that this is expressed in a laid-back attitude and who gives a shit mindset (which i love and is what people from other countries love about Australia). This means the batshit fringe run things.
Would kinda disagree with this. Mention muslims and all we think of is terriosts in some backwater country. Not to mention wogs
On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote: Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
Worlds greatest neanderthal
Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere.
You've got to be kidding, really? Must have been a really bad year academically here lol.
I would consider voting Liberal if literally anyone else was their leader. They currently have no policy except criticising Labor's policy and the man is dangerous.
I thought Julia was against gay marriage? Maybe she's just having the vote for lols to piss off Abbott, she's already female, unmarried, childless and athiest why not add gay-friendly to the list
He isn't that bad, tbh. He is doing the smart thing, and letting labor self-destruct.
Labor is fucked anyway. Their traditional base, (blue collar workers) are being slowly taken over by the liberals (it helps that Abbott has the alpha male, family man persona), while their other base, the intellectual, progressive types, are going to the greens.
The next decade is going to be interesting in aussie politics.
On October 21 2011 12:55 Brett wrote: I'm all for homosexual unions which result in the couple receiving the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple, I just don't believe it should be called marriage... because it's not. Marriage, by definition, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Not everthing has to be the same. Equal but different is fine by me.
By whose definition? See, the funny thing about words is that their definitions are not set in stone by universal decree. And what would bother you so much about the word "marriage" being defined as the union between any two consenting adults?
There's no denying that the word "marriage" has years of social value that you deny to homosexual couples when you give them the cold, stuffy label of a "civil union." You could make a lot of people happier by just giving them equal acknowledgement with the same title. Why not just do it? Your rhetoric all just ends up being a cover for heterosexism because the only reason to be concerned about the definition of the word "marriage" is if you're somehow concerned about being somehow tainted by the gays.
Do you realize that this argument is just "We shouldn't make gay marriage legal because gay marriage isn't legal"? This entire debate is over whether we should change the current legal definition of marriage.
On October 21 2011 13:19 Brett wrote: I already told you "why not just do it?". Because not everything has to be the same.
Errrm, that's not a reason. If making gay unions and straight unions have the same name makes a large number people happier, you have to provide some reason not to do it for your argument against it to have any reason at all.
What are the negative consequences of legally redefining the word "marriage" to include same-sex couples?
This entire debate is not about the definition of marriage at all. It's about equality for homosexual people. I am all for such couples having the same legal rights and benefits as heterosexual couples because the law should be blind.
What you are arguing about though is a notion of perception. You are arguing that everthing should be mashed up and called the same so as not to acknowledge any difference, and reduce the possibilty of highlighting difference. You are saying that the highlighting of difference, in this case by calling the 'unions' different things, leads to dislike, hate or discrimination of homosexual couples.
My view is that such a notion is nonsense. The difference is there. Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't change anything, it just pushes it underground. It's no different to continuing racism where the law (no longer) recognises any difference between people. Idiotic people who don't understand things different to them (homosexual couples, other races, whatever), and fear what they don't understand, will continue to feel the same, regardless of what you do to hide the difference.
In this particular case, in the process of pushing for homosexual unions to be called marriage, you are diluting the traditional definition of marriage as you go. And you're doing it purely because of perception, differences in which will always exist. That's not a good enough reason for me. There is value in tradition.
So you support the segregation of gay people?
"They're gay, they can't have what we have because we're not like them but we'll give them something about the same it'll be fine"
Don't be an idiot. It's not segregation at all.
In what way is it not?
They're not being separated from society in any way shape or form. They have their own ceremony, which results in a union called something other than marriage. A union which confers the same rights and benefits as marriage. This is no different to men having a "Buck's night" and women having a "Hen's night". That's not segregation.
If of course there is a law that prohibits any and all discrimination between a "marriage" and a "civil union" and that all (and I mean ALL) rights and responsibilities that apply to one must by law apply to the other, I think it would be fine. Barring that, I think the usage of the term "marriage" is the simplest and most effective way to achieve equality.
Currently, all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage apply to any two people who are classified as in a de facto relationship.
Well, there is one difference. You get to call yourself "Mrs" if you are married.
I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
Your first sentence is a bit contradictory =P. People 'being' gay just to be controversial? Thats a thing?
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
How do you feel about mixed race children and the potential bullying they faced?
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
No problem. I don't think people are gay because they want to be controversial. It's not a choice. It's a lot of stress in the majority of cases. If you think you got bullied....
Additionally, there is no reason to believe same sex parents would be worse parents on average. In fact, quite the opposite, sexual orientation has close to no bearing on their parenting (with the exception that their kids tend to be more accepting). You can take a look a few pages back for links. People only fear gay people because they don't understand them and there's a historical/cultural stigma. This is why we should work towards a better understanding, not just of gays, but of many other groups of people.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
Your first sentence is a bit contradictory =P. People 'being' gay just to be controversial? Thats a thing?
With the first sentence, I just mean that to me it feels wrong for gay people to get married, but if they want to do it and it doesn't affect me I don't have a problem with it.
As for people being gay just to be controversial, I would imagine that happens, but if you'd like to prove that no-one ever did that before, go ahead.
Edit: also about the mixed race children thing, racism is going down in my opinion, and has been for ages. Discrimination against gays is a lot more common.
Yes in hindsight I probably should think a bit more. My bad.
Don't apologize lol. There are similarities between same-sex parents and mixed race parents. You're right, racism has been going down, and that's the point.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
I think you are asserting two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: 1) A child, growing up with same sex parents, will suffer developmental problems that a child with a mother and father would not. 2) A child should not be brought up in circumstances likely to lead to bullying.
On the first, I would have thought that this is a scientifically testable assumption. It is perhaps better to base any such argument from current psychological research rather than anecdotally. I do not know what research is done though.
On the second, I am not very convinced on this point. This logic seems to suggest that ugly or obese parents shouldn't adopt children.
my stance is that I couldn't care less. But if it gets legalized in Canada there better be a straight pride parade or I'll cry for equal treatment. thats my only issue. Equal Treatment is fine, giving people special rights because they are a minority will cross my line. Good Luck Aussi's what ever the outcome somebody will be upset.
On October 21 2011 15:52 OmniEulogy wrote: my stance is that I couldn't care less. But if it gets legalized in Canada there better be a straight pride parade or I'll cry for equal treatment. thats my only issue. Equal Treatment is fine, giving people special rights because they are a minority will cross my line. Good Luck Aussi's what ever the outcome somebody will be upset.
There is a famous quote by an American judge that goes, "It is a wise man who said that there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals". Just some food for thought.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
I think you are asserting two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: 1) A child, growing up with same sex parents, will suffer developmental problems that a child with a mother and father would not. 2) A child should not be brought up in circumstances likely to lead to bullying.
On the first, I would have thought that this is a scientifically testable assumption. It is perhaps better to base any such argument from current psychological research rather than anecdotally. I do not know what research is done though.
On the second, I am not very convinced on this point. This logic seems to suggest that ugly or obese parents shouldn't adopt children.
On the first point, like I said, I am uninformed. On the second, not to offend anybody, but it is a lot more normal to be ugly/obese than gay.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
I think you are asserting two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: 1) A child, growing up with same sex parents, will suffer developmental problems that a child with a mother and father would not. 2) A child should not be brought up in circumstances likely to lead to bullying.
On the first, I would have thought that this is a scientifically testable assumption. It is perhaps better to base any such argument from current psychological research rather than anecdotally. I do not know what research is done though.
On the second, I am not very convinced on this point. This logic seems to suggest that ugly or obese parents shouldn't adopt children.
Obese parents shouldn't adopt children. If they can't even look after themselves, how can you expect them to look after their children properly. ><
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
In response to your first point, this young gentleman says everything more eloquently than I ever could:
As for the second point, kids are bullied all the time for all sorts of different reasons: appearance, race, gender, personality, grades, etc. God, I was bullied all the time after school on the bus through all of middle school for being "too quiet" and Asian. How about, instead of saying that some parents shouldn't adopt/have kids for whatever reason due to the threat of those kids becoming a target of bullying, we instead teach our kids that, y'know, bullying is fucking wrong?
On the first point, like I said, I am uninformed. On the second, not to offend anybody, but it is a lot more normal to be ugly/obese than gay.
On the first, there's evidence suggesting parenting and child development is independent of orientation. And on the second, it is more "normal" indeed, as it is more common (damn fatty foods). But that doesn't dismiss the point. It used to be case that people of "other" races were beaten. But we've made a lot of progress in that regard.
Also to the point about the hetero parade. I had the same opinion. But talking to gays and lesbians, i found out that it's not really for me. It's for acceptance. It's to tell the other scared teens who are afraid of themselves and of others' reaction to them. They're different, and they want to state that it's ok to be different, and that it's even "normal." There's no point in a hetero parade, since it's already everywhere
I don't mind if gays get married, I accepted the fact that it would happen eventually a long time ago since there is such a large movement towards it. On the matter on gays adopting I don't have an opinion one way or the other, my dad on the other hand is heavily against it.
On October 21 2011 15:21 Regime wrote: it will not get passed in australia 99% of australians do not want anything to do with the gay men and women. they are almost shuned from society.
myself and every single person i know would vote no
Pretty sure you don't have to vote, it's your representatives in the relevant houses that do.
On October 21 2011 14:46 DropBear wrote: Ahahaha can you imagine the look on Tony Abbott's face if it gets passed!
Labor needs to push all this sort of stuff through before they inevitably lose the election, before it's too late and the world's greatest neanderthal takes over.
Worlds greatest neanderthal
Strange he was actually a rhode's scholar so he must have some intelligence hidden somewhere.
You've got to be kidding, really? Must have been a really bad year academically here lol.
I would consider voting Liberal if literally anyone else was their leader. They currently have no policy except criticising Labor's policy and the man is dangerous.
I thought Julia was against gay marriage? Maybe she's just having the vote for lols to piss off Abbott, she's already female, unmarried, childless and athiest why not add gay-friendly to the list
He isn't that bad, tbh. He is doing the smart thing, and letting labor self-destruct.
Labor is fucked anyway. Their traditional base, (blue collar workers) are being slowly taken over by the liberals (it helps that Abbott has the alpha male, family man persona), while their other base, the intellectual, progressive types, are going to the greens.
The next decade is going to be interesting in aussie politics.
Abbott is nowhere near as bad as most people make him out to be, but Turnbull would be a better leader. However it looks like that ship has sailed. Labor is in a horrible position as they try and pander to both ends of the political spectrum at once. I would associate 'progressive' with the Greens but certainly not intellectual. They are a joke of a party, their values are non-existant and god forbid the day where they have to control the Australian economy.
Regarding the main topic, I don't really care much about the progression of this bill/law as I've always believed that real social change happens in the collective psyche of the citizens, and in Australia this issue was decided a very long time before this thread was made and before this 'vote' was announced. Frankly I'm more concerned with the Carbon Tax and it's implications.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
All the scientific evidence that exists shows that being gay is not a choice or a decision, it's simply who they are. Occasionally some schmuck decides to be bi-curious for a short while, but that never lasts, and they don't exactly choose to get married during this period.
Also, a number of links and sources have been provided in this thread already showing that homosexual parents are just as good if not better than heterosexual parents at raising well-adjusted children. Please get informed.
Frankly, people who are opposed to this are either just squeamish and don't like change or differences they aren't used to, or actually have no idea what the hell they are talking about.
On October 21 2011 15:31 Xalonark wrote: I am not the regular Australian teenager, but my opinion:
With gay people getting married, I don't really like it but it doesn't affect me and they should be able to do what they want. I am fine with it. I don't really like it if people are gay just to be controversial, though, but by no means do I think that all gays are like this.
But in terms of them adopting children, I do not think this is good. Even if you think that two same sex parents could give the same care to a child (I don't agree with this, but may be under informed), the social consequences would be a problem in my opinion.
I was bullied in primary school (elementary school), not much, but I was. At one point I didn't talk to anyone at all and just read books by myself at break times. But it was terrible and I think it had a big effect on me. I would imagine that if a person was the child of gay people, and they were at a point in school where other kids would know what being gay is etc. then bullying would be a massive issue.
You may have noticed that I wrote this post somewhat carefully, so if I upset anyone I don't mean it, we may have different opinions but we are entitled to them.
I think you are asserting two different (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) points: 1) A child, growing up with same sex parents, will suffer developmental problems that a child with a mother and father would not. 2) A child should not be brought up in circumstances likely to lead to bullying.
On the first, I would have thought that this is a scientifically testable assumption. It is perhaps better to base any such argument from current psychological research rather than anecdotally. I do not know what research is done though.
On the second, I am not very convinced on this point. This logic seems to suggest that ugly or obese parents shouldn't adopt children.
There have been numerous links to credible scientific sources posted in the thread a number of pages ago showing that argument 1 is in fact plain wrong.
On October 21 2011 15:40 CharlieBrownsc wrote: I still don't understand how it was ever illegal for gay marriage to occur in a democratic country
Tthe majority is against it... do you understand democracy?
(hehe)
If the majority was against people born in april from getting jobs, should that be illegal?
I think you're missing the point. If the majority of Australians and their politicians believed the above then it could be made illegal, asking whether it 'should' is to do with one's personal opinion. Not sure where you're heading with this.
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
On October 21 2011 15:40 CharlieBrownsc wrote: I still don't understand how it was ever illegal for gay marriage to occur in a democratic country
Tthe majority is against it... do you understand democracy?
(hehe)
If the majority was against people born in april from getting jobs, should that be illegal?
I think you're missing the point. If the majority of Australians and their politicians believed the above then it could be made illegal, asking whether it 'should' is to do with one's personal opinion. Not sure where you're heading with this.
He's talking about protecting minorities and human rights, regardless of majority opinion. If the majority decided tomorrow that Aprilians are evil scum, laws would probably protect still protect them. If the politicians are also biased towards Aprilians, then a lot of pressure would come from other nations who aren't bigoted against them.
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.
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.
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
The gay kid at meatbox's school wasn't bullied. He was.
I find the current state of politics amusing. Everyone wants the same basic things in life. We all want freedom, we all want the chance to do well and succeed, we all want the world to be a better place, and we all want to be safe. The point of liberal vs conservative ideologies is to argue about what is the best way to obtain these goals that everyone wants to achieve. Liberal ideology leans towards the government being the best way to solve problems while conservatives like empowerment of the people to solve problems. The problem I see is that many political parties are treating entire subsections of their population as second class citizens and denying them rights, this is not what they should be doing. Any political party that does not embrace all of its citizens is flawed, they should be about how to achieve freedom, prosperity, and a general level of equality for all, not deciding who gets these things. As for the majority of people in a democratic country being for or against gay marriage, it doesn't matter. If nothing else the governments role is to protect its citizens and ensure that everyone is treated fairly, not that people be subjected to the rule of the majority. I don't know that much about Australian politics, but in the USA I'm forced to vote almost exclusively democrat (even though I am more conservative on certain issues) because the republicans have been forced to pander to their base that is obsessed with social issues.
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...
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.
As long as you aren't forcing that disgust on others, I don't really care and respect that you can keep it to yourself. But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
Yeah I kind of think same way what you said about "forcing that on others" I think that is wrong. But there is nothing worse than having someone do the same thing onto me but as like "forcing the gayness upon me" when Im out on some club or whatever, and some sleazy guy tries to hit on me or whatever. Its really really disgusting and I cant take it. But no ofcourse you shouldnt force it upon others.
Really having a gay drunk guy hit on you bothers you that much. It's a compliment man just take it as that. I work with a gay guy and I know he thinks I'm attractive( he said that if I ever switch "teams" that he'll show me the ropes lol) but I don't let it gross me out. I just really don't understand why it grosses people out it's not like they're going to rape you and if your imagining gay sex in your mind when someone suggests it then maybe you should look at your own sexuality. So all that said unless your in most situations illogical and stubborn then I don't understand why one would have a problem with being hit on by anyone. ps just thought if this I suppose if the guy or gal in question gropes you then I could understand setting them straight but that goes for both sexes.
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
The gay kid at meatbox's school wasn't bullied. He was.
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...
I suggest reading not just that article and coming up with a conclusion with regards to the efficacy of their parenting. Just because their brains are similar doesn't mean it would be "the same" as being raised by two straight women, nor is that demonstrably bad.
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.
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
For example, gay couples often adopt. How is that not something that should be encouraged?
Ignoring that, why not? To paraphrase that guy from "The rent is too damn high" party, if you want to marry a shoe marry a shoe. IF it makes you happy, then all is good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"I hope I don't get banned" is the reason he got banned.
If you mention "I'll probably get banned for this", they will ban you regardless of what you post.
I will never understand why being gay is such a huge deal for so many people. Those are people, the same like you and me - the only difference is what they are doing in their bedrooms. As the bedroom is your privacy WHY DOES ANYBODY EVEN CARE ABOUT THIS?! I will never get it.
Just let people enjoy their lifes and let them do whatever makes them happy. If they wanna get married with their own gender, why the hell not?
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.
^It's all about taxes and rights. No one would give a shit if it was just a religious thing(well maybe some would, but it wouldn't be nearly the issue it is now), but with things as they are now, homosexual couples have none of the rights that heterosexual couples have.
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.
I think it would actually be a really good environment to grow up in. Gay parents would be able to teach really good values. Like, almost every gay person goes through ALOT of hardship growing up etc etc, I feel like they'd be able to teach their children to not judge people based on stupid things like race, orientation, beliefs, and what not.
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.
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 01:09 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.
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.
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.
Its posts like this that make me wonder if I am being trolled or if social conservatives are the victim of a misinformation conspiracy (apart from religion) .
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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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)
As a person from the Netherlands i still find it hard to believe that so many countries still refuse gay marriage. Marriage should be between two people who love eachother, if they're gay or straight, should not make a difference.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
Why should marriage be a religious thing, why cant it just be a testimony of love? If i get married i'm not getting married for the church, but just because i want to celebrate that amazing day with my loved one and friends and family (church has 0 place in that for me personally)
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Again, never quite stated that is the case. May I ask you how do you know anything to be true to the contrary? This phenomenon has not been around for anyone to make a study and post any results as to what is actually the case. That is just my hypothesis of what I believe would happen with the child.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Last line of your post reveals how prejudiced you really are. If a child is raised by a gay couple, they'll most likely end up being more supportive of ALL sexual orientations. Please explain to me and the rest of TL how that is in any way "messed up."
also btw dude, check the myriad of links posted earlier in the thread about scientific studies showing that children raised by gay couples are no worse off for it.
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant.
In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights.
He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere.
Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.
Don't you think you are the ignorant one here trying to speak for all gay people when saying "they" don't want to get married in churches anyway. I certainly know plenty of gay people who do want to get married in the traditional way with all the religious elements.
I'm in support of the principle behind the movement. Marriage, despite any attempt to reduce it to spirituality, IMO is a social class/status. Public unions of one type recieve benefits/entitlements/tax status, then so should the other. Name it what you like, call it something else. As long as there is equal treatment/equal everything.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Hey more power to them, I think its great and I have always thought that gays had something figured out that us straights havent. If it gets officaly recoginesed I think it is a sign about how the world is so much more open minded these days
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
You are so silly. Clearly you haven't even taken a moment to research or consider the implications of gay marriage. Just because the Federal government legalizes gay marriage does not mean that religious organizations will be required to provide marriage services to gays. They have the right to set their own religious practices (within the law, as has always been the case). What it will mean is that religious organizations that are willing to provide marriage services can do so freely, and the government will recognize and provide marriage certificates for gays.
The old civil union malarkey has never stood up to any real thought regarding equality. Giving them all the same legal rights, but calling them something else to appease non-gays would be no different from having a separate citizenship for Black people with all the same rights because whiteys don't like dem negroes up in dere herp derp.
Bigoted, closed-minded churches and religious groups can continue being bigoted and closed-minded, but those that aren't can give homosexuals what they've always wanted; long, unfulfilled sex lives and high rates of divorce.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
you're arguing that the opinion backed up by "personal conviction" is at least equivalent to one backed up by research and evidence?
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
You just retyped what the person quoted you as saying, just 3 times longer. Does he now have to retype what he typed in a more bloated way as well?
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion.
If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion.
If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
ITS NOT A FUCKING OPINION.
When you says this causes that, you are making a factual statement that can proven wrong. Opinions can't be proven wrong. Saying the sky is blue is not an opinion, saying that children raised by gays are inherently different isn't an opinion.
So yes, if I said 'saltwater causes warts' and you posted a bunch of research showing that it doesn't, but I still insisted that it does, I would be a fucking moron. Same as if you say gay people raise children that are inclined to be gay. Research has been posted showing that it doesn't matter if they're gay, but if they have a masculine and feminine adult-figure in their life. So if you continue to insist that they do you would be wrong.
I'm completely with the people who say that gay marriage should not be allowed. Unfortunately, there are so many things that have eroded the sanctity of marriage.
It used to be that black people were not allowed to marry white people. We need to revoke that change now. Also, handicapped people should not be allowed to marry, they should be hidden away in shame like it used to be.
And why is it that I can't buy a bride from her father? That's tradition! And of course she should obey me in everything I say, because the bible says so.
It seems people have no respect for traditional values anymore.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
This is how I've felt for a long time. Marriage is widely considered a Christian institution. The idea that gay people want to be married is just strange to me. But the fact that marriage gives rights to straight people while excluding gay people is just mind boggling. Christians can have their marriages, but gay people deserve the same legal rights.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion.
If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
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.
Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation? Really mods?
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.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Fair enough, but you don't have to belong to a certain group of people to be interested in their rights as humans. I'm not a homosexual either, but I don't want to be part of a society where they have to suffer a more difficult process of self actualization due to other people stubbornly holding on to their stupid "convictions." I doubt if we can conclude that studies being carried out on the subject are by gays exclusively, I'm sure there are valid objective non-biased (government funded and regulated) studies being carried out.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion.
If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
Rather odd how one statement can turn the whole discussion into something irrelevant to the OP.
I think this subject matter needs to be interpreted by the dichotomy between, for example, evolutionism and creationism. Both are opposed to one another, but then again the one cannot disprove the other as well. If you look at it that way, some things come into light. For instance, if you base your view on a study which could not have been conducted for a very long time, given that gay marriages haven't been and still isn't legal in most parts of the world; 'conclusive' evidence really is not the order of the day here. And even if so, your scientific beliefs cannot disprove my philosophical beliefs, and vice versa. Now don't get me wrong, I am a strong believer in science, but it just does not make sense to me when a study is not based on realistic assumptions and conditions. This is where the actual study breaks down in my view, and I rather stick with what I believe in. And that is that, and nobody can take that away from me.
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.
Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation? Really mods?
I was curious about this too, so I read through the thread and discovered the reason.
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.
I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Dude, there's been research on it. When you can form a hypothesis and test it, it isn't an opinion. As he said, saying you like cats more then dogs is an opinion. Saying that this causes that is not - that's making a factual statement.
We aren't talking about cats and dogs, we're talking about gay people. You quoting some research on the topic doesn't mean that you have the right to define other people's opinions. I think a completely natural and logical assumption that substituting mom with uncle bob will effect a child's view on sexuality and I don't think I or other people deserve to be condescended upon by people for having this opinion.
If I posted some research contrary to yours, would that entitle me to call you stupid and degrade your opinions and put my own opinions forward as fact? Please answer the question directly and don't talk about cats and dogs or twist my words. Thank you.
Actually when you can provide conclusive research on a subject you are well within your right to call people who has an opinion that goes against the results of the research wrong. People can chose to be of the opinion that the earth is flat, that doesn't mean they are right. Opinions that goes completely against actual facts are per definition wrong
This is complete bullshit, you're twisting my words and you have no concept of science. In additon, they weren't saying 'wrong' the words stupid and other degrading words were used. Anyway, I'll explain to you: You cannot compare 'hard science' (ie. the world is round) with intagible things such as (Does having homosexual parents effect your view on sexuality). The one is real science and the other is pseudo-science. Anyway, you've obiously not got a clue about science, basically a waste of time teaching you but whatever.
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.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Or they might want to conduct actual research. If you have some a legitimate reason to doubt the research, like a conflict of interest, prior bias, or anything to corroborate that they went in with a conclusion already at hand, I'd be willing to listen. But again, you're throwing out unsubstantiated claims and hiding behind 'it's my opinion'.
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.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
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.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
On October 22 2011 05:15 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Gays or homophopes only? You have a strange view of science. This is false. The resaerch presented is about understanding how people think, the implications of a variety of factors and generally understanding all about people. The proper way to "do" science is to look for the truth, not for pre-determined conclusions that support one's argument. Most researchers are actually doing this and it is evident in the care and nuances in their results. It's not about a single study, it's about a body of work that points in pretty much the same direction, independently. You are basically saying "well these citations are biased because they don't support my view, and i'm sure all studies are just looking for pre-determined results."
That's not how it works. You can't just dismiss all the evidence because you don't like it. Sure there's always bias in any human work. But what is your reason for believing that decades of research into developmental psychology, neurology etc, is just false? If there are good arguments, then that's great to hear. Simply saying it so doesn't mean much.
Also, opinions are great and all, but we can't just say that an opinion is equal to the knowledge brought on by decades of work. That's the difference. You have a right to your opinion, and i'm not bashing you for it. But hiding behind "it's my opinion, and so is yours" is false. It's more than opinion.
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.
Why was he banned for an opinion that he backed up with a nice an mannered explanation? Really mods?
On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote: [quote] I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote: [quote] So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
you should probably stop flamebaiting and making south park quips and instead back up your claims
On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote: [quote] So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
User was warned for this post
I wasn't comparing geography to psychology, I was comparing opinions with fact. And the fact of the matter is that fact trumps opinion every time. No matter what the one with the opinion thinks.
On October 22 2011 02:27 NeThZOR wrote: [quote] I think so because of personal conviction.
So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
Marriage is widely considered a Christian institution
You gotta be kidding. Marriage existed long before Christianity. Marriage exists in non christian countries too. There's nothing exclusively Christian about it nor does anyone consider it Christian.
The idea that gay people want to be married is no more strange than idea that heterosexual people want to be married.
Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote: [quote] So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
There's been plenty of people who said they don't want gay marriage and weren't hunted down. They were just stating their opinion. It's only the people who've tried to make unsubstantiated claims that have been refuted.
The idea that gay people want to be married is no more strange than idea that heterosexual people want to be married.
Then why are we having this debate? Of course it seems strange to at least some people out there, although I believe to most other people. If it was not perceived as strange then why do countries have to conduct elections for its implementation into the marriage system?
I dont get the thing about why make a shit storm about gay marriage. Why dont just let ppl get married if they want? Whats the big deal if two gays get married? Does it affect ur life so much that u cant be happy for them, because u disagree with what they value in life? I just dont get it.
Before you judge my post, I hold a dual citizenship for both Australia and Canada. Whilst in Canada, gay marriage has been successfully integrated into society, I do not see the same for Australia.
Australians are more aggressive by nature in their opinions and all I can see is more hate crimes arising from such a bill passing.
On October 22 2011 05:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: I get warned for saying a person who just called me stupid is a genius and they don't get warned. Fair enough, I'll take that as a hint and log off.
You got warned for making a personal attack. Don't try to play the victim.
Also, saying your post is stupid is appropriate. Calling a person stupid = personal attack. Calling what that person said stupid is not.
On October 22 2011 05:47 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: I get warned for saying a person who just called me stupid is a genius and they don't get warned. Fair enough, I'll take that as a hint and log off.
On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote: [quote] So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
It's pretty bold to assume that gay rights groups are somehow lobbying and buying their way into influencing studies. For instance I would actually be surprised if any of the research carried out on the subject was funded by anything except the university where the research was performed.
Then there's also the fact that all science is published and peer reviewed. If the studies had been poorly performed it would have been picked up on by other psychologists and criticised heavily for having poor methodology. As far as I know this has not been the case
Well, for the record, I hold a citizenship for South Africa, and you haven't seen shit until you've been living here for many years. If some of you think that my opinion is based on something as thin as air, then think again; as my opinion is based on quite a lot of experience. You think you've seen all that society has to offer? Come live here my friend, I implore you.
I live in a beautiful country, but even for all its beauty and splendour it is still a country ravaged by myriad issues in society. You want racial diversity? You got it here. You want violence? You got it here. You want poverty? You got it here. You want homosexual marriages? You got it here. In abundance I might add.
Please do not try to scar my opinions which are based on a lot more which you will ever know. I have many friends coming from different cultural backgrounds, and know a bit about what their views and beliefs on life are. I even have homosexual friends. Do not judge me based on one statement which I said with the uttermost of humbleness, and never intended to offend gay marriages.
I find these obstructions so "yesterday" there are so many gay people "out of the closet" today that reading stuff like this makes me feel sorry for the gay people. Btw all these obstructions are because of conservative religions acting in people rights. and about the people talking about how nasty/disgusting is being gay, let them be, although it's no right in a genetic/evolution point of view, every one has the right to choose what make them happy, and everyone should have the right to be happy. so show respect! for the harsh people, maybe one day your own son will tell you that he is gay, will you have this "disgust" towards you own son?
On October 22 2011 03:19 iamahydralisk wrote: [quote] So basically... Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you're going to keep believing something incorrect because of "personal conviction?"
Quite frankly... People like you are exactly what's wrong with the world today. You're not willing to open your mind up and think critically even a little bit, even when your precious viewpoints are proven false by reputable scientific studies. Viewpoints like yours are the exact opposite of progress.
People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
...why don't you look up the study then?
See, the thing is, it is very difficult to actually change somebody's mind. You OR me. If you were to look up the study, and find out that it completely satisfied your skepticism, you would simply make another excuse to justify the same opinion. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not actually calling you out, because everybody does it.
But the fact is, I'm skeptical that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You can always ask for more and different evidence or evidence that is impossible to produce. Then claim that your opinion is completely valid because we are uncertain without that specific piece of evidence despite the other mountains of evidence we do have.
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you. If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion. If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion. And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
On October 22 2011 03:36 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] People that slag off other people's opinions and degrade them as well are the most open minded of all, you're just like Kyle's mom.
What he has isn't an opinion. He's just wrong. There's a difference.
An opinion is when you believe something that cannot be proven right or wrong. For example, "I think dogs are better than cats." That's an opinion because nobody can prove one way or another which one is better. On the other hand, virtually every scientific study ever done on the subject of gay parents and their children has returned with the results of "no different than a child being raised by heterosexual parents." To believe otherwise in the face of overwhelming evidence is not an opinion because it can be and has been proven wrong. It would be like me saying "I think all mammals are cold-blooded." Not an opinion because I would be demonstrably wrong.
I realize I came across as harsh in my previous post, but I can't fucking stand it when people basically turn off the higher thinking parts of their brain and close out new info if it doesn't agree with their existing beliefs.
By the way, who's Kyle's mom? lol.
What you're doing is stating that your own opinions are 'facts' and degrading other people and their opinions, at the same time you're claiming that you yourself are 'open minded'. Despite the fact that you're degrading other people and their opinions and putting forward your own points of view like a fascist. Kyle's mom does it all the time in South Park, claiming to be superior to other people and open minded while at the same time forcing her point of view on others.
Can I point out that you're obliviously doing exactly the same thing right now? What he made was a value judgement, and a correct one. He's made a judgement that one value (ignorance as a personal conviction, lol), isn't as good as another value (universal tolerance). One of those things is better than the other. Period. You can either see this or you can't. Someone also raised a valid point that the realm of subjectivity and opinion has no place in a discussion of empirically demonstrable facts.
Don't pretend to hold up the notion that everyone's views and opinions are equally valid, while denouncing those opinions that fly in the face of that same premise. It's called a contradiction.
I think it's laughable that you're calling this sort of thing an emipiral fact, you've obviously never been to university. There are rules for research and you need criteria, such as validity, you need it to be representative and consistent, even if these requirements were met, it would still not be an empirical fact. An empirical is like 2+2=4, not the load of rubbish you're coughing up and presenting as fact. If you went to college or university and presented this as a rock hard empirical fact, the professors would be laughing for ages.
sevencck, B.A., B.Sc. (Hons), currently working on Ph.D
Let me just add that you don't need to have attended university to have an educated, inclusive, or evolved view. I hope we can put that ugly university comment behind us now.
1. You, the champion of people's rights to their opinion from 5 minutes ago, has now decided that my opinion sucks and I should be laughed at for my ignorance. Not that this is relevant, I just thought I'd point that out.
2. There does indeed exist a realm of empirical fact in this topic, because you can conduct empirical studies on the psychological effect of children that have been raised by a gay couple in a given society. Does this mean that it's fact in the same way that 2+2 = 4? No, since no study is perfect. Is that relevant? No, because it remains an unbiased empirical study, which operates in the realm of objective factual truth, and is better than the ignorant convictions of people. I doubt a professor of clinical psychology would laugh if I told him his empirical studies weren't factually oriented. These types of studies exist within the realm of objective, empirical, factually oriented truth. It is entirely different than subjective philosophical conjecture, though to be honest I prefer the latter to the former. I find it more stimulating and fundamental to philosophically outline and critique a view.
The point is, people have asked you to provide any empirically based study that gays can't make decent parents, and you have yet to do so.
I honestly am not very interested in the subject, due to me not being a homosexual. Ask yourself this, who are the people most likely to conduct these studies, it's either gays or homophobes and I'm neither. Ask yourself another question, what is the most likely conclusion of the results carried out by these select groups?
So everyone at the American Psychology Association is either gay or homophobic. Got it.
Obviously there are going to be biased studies, but please don't assume that just because someone is researching homosexuality means they're either gay or homophobic.
You may be less sceptical than me. As far as I know parents need to give their consent for these studies to be conducted? If this person had previously conducted tests that showed gay people in a negative light, would he get a green light for a test? No Would a homophobe get a green light? No Would gay rights groups want to fund this sort of research? Yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly Would conservative homophobic groups want to fund this sort of research? yes Could it possible effect the outcome? possibly
Would the government be interested in spending money on this? maybe because of gay rights groups and conservative groups. Anyway, it's obvious that you're gonna get hunted down in this thread unless you're pro gay everything.
...why don't you look up the study then?
See, the thing is, it is very difficult to actually change somebody's mind. You OR me. If you were to look up the study, and find out that it completely satisfied your skepticism, you would simply make another excuse to justify the same opinion. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not actually calling you out, because everybody does it.
But the fact is, I'm skeptical that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You can always ask for more and different evidence or evidence that is impossible to produce. Then claim that your opinion is completely valid because we are uncertain without that specific piece of evidence despite the other mountains of evidence we do have.
I'm happy to report that I have looked through the literature. Conclusive studies on this simply do not exist. The best that can be said is "in the absence of bullying, gay two parent families may not do worse than straight two parent families, in terms of the child's happiness from ages 5-18."
As for the two people who replied to my previous post: no, I am not trolling. I see you have yet to take the red pill.
Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Honestly whichever way this turns out, the fact we're still letting the majority vote for rights for the minority is disgusting and as soon as we as a species start simply enforcing equal rights we might finally have legitimate claim to the word "civilised".
For clarification I mean that as a species wide thing rather than an attack on any one specific country/people/belief - I just find it impossible to get my head around voting on this kinda thing.
On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote: After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you. If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion. If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion. And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party.
On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote: After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you. If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion. If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion. And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party.
I don't concern myself with the sexuality of mythical figures.
On October 22 2011 08:26 Kickstart wrote: After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you. If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion. If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion. And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
Doncta know Jesus was gay? He hung out with 12 sailors and hosted a no girls allowed dinner party.
I don't concern myself with the sexuality of mythical figures.
No way... You never been curious about the sexuality of unicorns ever?
On October 22 2011 09:52 Kickstart wrote: I'm not sure if I would describe any type of sex as pretty? Besides, sex is better when you go at it like two pigs anyways.
It was more of an expression to say I don't like gay sex either. But either way, I actually lied, because I would say sex between two lesbians is very pretty
Stereotypical lesbians like butch lesbians? or Lipstick lesbians? Anyways it is ok that the idea of gay sex makes you a bit uncomfortable, the thought of doing anything to a vagina is terrifying to me. Just realize that just because you find it odd or uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong.
On October 22 2011 09:59 Kickstart wrote: Stereotypical lesbians like butch lesbians? or Lipstick lesbians? Anyways it is ok that the idea of gay sex makes you a bit uncomfortable, the thought of doing anything to a vagina is terrifying to me. Just realize that just because you find it odd or uncomfortable doesn't make it wrong.
Stereotypical as in a straight mans fantasy. Normal lesbians(and normal life in general) is far less sexy.
And that was also my point. I find it odd and it makes me uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean what two people do in private is any of my concern.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Such a single study does not exist because it is unfortunately not attainable at this time. There are not that many families currently, because of the negative reaction to them and the discrimination that is pervasive in many cultures. However, there are a number of studies that have some of those traits, and, together, all paint the same picture. On all the metrics, there is very little difference in terms of quality and developmental landmarks, whether they be self reported or otherwise. I'm not saying that you aren't right, that there is some conclusive study that "proves" it. However, what I am saying is what is being said about many things in science. To the best of our ability, with significant effort in methodology and population, there appears to be no more negative effect towards same-sex parenting. Expecting a study that has ALL of those categories is unreasonable in many cases in science that involve people (but not only).
On the other hand, there is NO evidence that there are significant negative effects (unless you consider "slightly more accepting on average" a negative). So why should we believe that this means that gay parents are somehow inferior? And how can they prove themselves through these multi-thousand carefully designed studies if they are not allowed to have children?
Bottom line is that there's significant evidence that points in one direction and very little to no evidence otherwise, even though more work needs to be done, obviously. Even if the quality of the study is not necessarily "ideal" the fact that independent parties came up with virtually the same result no matter the dimension studied suggests that their conclusion is more likely than the alternative, at least.
§ 7. DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE” In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
two men or two women forming a legal union is not marriage a homosexual and a lesbian forming a legal union is gay marriage
On October 22 2011 09:07 Iyerbeth wrote: Honestly whichever way this turns out, the fact we're still letting the majority vote for rights for the minority is disgusting and as soon as we as a species start simply enforcing equal rights we might finally have legitimate claim to the word "civilised".
For clarification I mean that as a species wide thing rather than an attack on any one specific country/people/belief - I just find it impossible to get my head around voting on this kinda thing.
so true
could you imagine christians voting if sikhs are allowed to wear turbans? come on.
On October 22 2011 10:44 PrideNeverDie wrote: § 7. DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE” In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
two men or two women forming a legal union is not marriage a homosexual and a lesbian forming a legal union is gay marriage
This is the Australian Gay Marriage thread and you bring in a US defintion? ~_~
Hope it goes through, I live in the US but I think that gay marriage should be a given everywhere
I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
On October 22 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
Marriage is a civil institution it has nothing to do with the church. The church merely refuses to do christian marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and pressures the government to continue denying them the civil institution of marriage.
The church's right to traditions based on their beliefs? Does this mean the government should allow the church to hold slaves, stone people to death for eating the wrong things etc? Or are some traditions more important than others?
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
On October 22 2011 10:44 PrideNeverDie wrote: § 7. DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE” In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
two men or two women forming a legal union is not marriage a homosexual and a lesbian forming a legal union is gay marriage
This is the Australian Gay Marriage thread and you bring in a US defintion? ~_~
Hope it goes through, I live in the US but I think that gay marriage should be a given everywhere
Australian legal definition of marriage is even more strict than the US one:
The effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) and section 109 of the Constitution is that the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia (i.e. there is no room for States to legislate).
The descriptions of the term 'marriage' used in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cwlth) (s. 43(a)) and the Marriage Act 1961 (ss. 46(1) and 69(2)) are based on the definition in the 19th century English case of Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee,(2) namely, a formal, monogamous and heterosexual union for life.
no open marriages or marriages between a homosexual and a lesbian
please give your rationale on why gay marriage should be a given everywhere.
On October 22 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
Marriage is a civil institution it has nothing to do with the church. The church merely refuses to do christian marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and pressures the government to continue denying them the civil institution of marriage.
The church's right to traditions based on their beliefs? Does this mean the government should allow the church to hold slaves, stone people to death for eating the wrong things etc? Or are some traditions more important than others?
Please don't use the slippery slope argument, as its ridiculous, I might as-well use it in the opposite way and say after they allow they marriage of gays soon they'll be marrying man to goats! It makes just as much sense as what you're implying.
Aside from that I don't really care enough about this to have an argument about how much religion should have to do with marriage.
I shouldn't have posted here, let the gays marry, whatever, lets get it over with we have more important things to be concerned about.
On October 22 2011 11:10 Disquiet wrote: I'm against it, because they are not respecting the church's right to tradition, by forcing them to change their definition of marriage. But then marriage probably shouldn't be a state institution, and legally we should all be under civil unions.
Either way I think this issue is a lot hot air over something insignificant, its hardly going to have a major effect on the world no matter the outcome. I wish we were voting on more important issues like climate change, infrastructure, tax reform etc.
Marriage is a civil institution it has nothing to do with the church. The church merely refuses to do christian marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and pressures the government to continue denying them the civil institution of marriage.
The church's right to traditions based on their beliefs? Does this mean the government should allow the church to hold slaves, stone people to death for eating the wrong things etc? Or are some traditions more important than others?
Please don't use the slippery slope argument, as its ridiculous, I might as-well use it in the opposite way and say after they allow they marriage of gays soon they'll be marrying man to goats! It makes just as much sense as what you're implying.
Aside from that I don't really care enough about this to have an argument about how much religion should have to do with marriage.
I shouldn't have posted here, let the gays marry, whatever, lets get it over with we have more important things to be concerned about.
Is it though? Seems to me that society has been forced to fight against "the churches" ideas of what is right and moral and its "traditions" for centuries now and "the church" drops/changes its stances based on common consensus. Point being that if "the church" (or religion?) had it's way we would still have many things that are immoral (slavery?, bans on interracial marriages, etc.) and the further back in time you go with any of the main monotheism's, the more brutal and immoral its followers behaved.
Edit: I don't really want to derail the thread into some religion debate, but it is hard to talk about homosexual marriage and not bring up the role that religion has on shaping peoples views on the topic.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
are you meaning amount of children who, coming out of same-sex families, are gay? or are you indicating somehow this could make them unable to reproduce? o_O
If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
What???
You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What?
This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify.
Is it though? Seems to me that society has been forced to fight against "the churches" ideas of what is right and moral and its "traditions" for centuries now and "the church" drops/changes its stances based on common consensus. Point being that if "the church" (or religion?) had it's way we would still have many things that are immoral (slavery?, bans on interracial marriages, etc.) and the further back in time you go with any of the main monotheism's, the more brutal and immoral its followers behaved.
You're arguing the wrong direction. There are churches who think gay marriage is ok. Ban on gay marriage infringes on those church's religious beliefs. If churches don't want to marry gays they don't have to. That is completely up to them.
On October 22 2011 11:42 meatbox wrote: If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO.
The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
What???
You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What?
This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify.
Is it though? Seems to me that society has been forced to fight against "the churches" ideas of what is right and moral and its "traditions" for centuries now and "the church" drops/changes its stances based on common consensus. Point being that if "the church" (or religion?) had it's way we would still have many things that are immoral (slavery?, bans on interracial marriages, etc.) and the further back in time you go with any of the main monotheism's, the more brutal and immoral its followers behaved.
You're arguing the wrong direction. There are churches who think gay marriage is ok. Ban on gay marriage infringes on those church's religious beliefs. If churches don't want to marry gays they don't have to. That is completely up to them.
Slippery slope doesn't really make sense.
Liberal sects aren't as common or influential as you seem to think. Would I rather someone be Unitarian rather than an Orthodox Roman Catholic? Probably. But the later has always had, and still has more power and influence than the former. I think arguing religion in this way is silly though as individual people interpret scripture differently. The real point though is that the scriptural justification for all sorts of immoral beliefs are there, so the slippery slope is how lenient society as a whole is on allowing people to hold/ act/ influence policy based on these immoral things that can be justified with scripture. And my argument is that over time, especially in recent history, societies have constantly been forced to battle the religious on social issues, and society makes more progress when they stop allowing policy to be made based on religious texts.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
What???
You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What?
This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify.
They may choose not to have as many kids. Their upbringing may not equip them to be spouses and parents in heterosexual unions, since part of the role of parents is to teach their children about interpersonal relationships. I don't know, and that is why I want to find out before the floodgates are opened.
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote: I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
This is kind of my view. where i'm not against it per-se but i just don't understand why its such a big deal, why would someone want to marry the way that has a lot against them? Also legal marriage doesn't help with much other than make it very difficult during a divorce and help if you get kids which, right now and probably for a long time will not occur with gay marriage. Personally i'm not against seperating gays but at the same time i don't see why the same thing should apply to people that don't need all the services a legal marriage provides but still want a signed document that these two love each other. I get that love should triumph over red-tape, but whats the point in having the same word attributed to different legal areas with different possible mechanisms and procedures.
On October 22 2011 08:30 Rhine wrote: Which papers did you read? And what do you consider conclusive studies? Certainly it's hard to have a completely cut and dry answer, but there's a mass of work that's never found very different answers.
What I consider a conclusive study, has several traits: sample size in the thousands, random selection, limited self reporting. The subject matter I am interested in: the effect of parental sexuality, in toto, on a child's future income, criminality, mental health, physical health, propensity to divorce, fertility. (yes, i consider the last two to be important. Stable families are a precondition to a stable and safe community, while a fertility rate at or above replacement is important too).
I suspect that the effects are negative, but in most cases minor.
Technically I wasn't talking to you, but that's okay. I only bring that up because I think it would be very difficult to change that person's mind, but I have no idea what your opinion actually is.
That evidence blatantly falls under "evidence that is impossible to attain." We simply don't have enough same-sex families currently.
I don't understand fertility rate. What are you talking about? They're either adopting or some artificial stuff.
Fertility rate of the children, not the homosexual parents.
What???
You mean the children of homosexual parents would choose not to have as many kids? How are those two things related? Or they would somehow be physically deficient? What?
This argument seems entirely random. Please clarify.
They may choose not to have as many kids. Their upbringing may not equip them to be spouses and parents in heterosexual unions, since part of the role of parents is to teach their children about interpersonal relationships. I don't know, and that is why I want to find out before the floodgates are opened.
Even if that WERE the case (psychology theory and current evidence is contrary) what would you lose on this? Same sex couple cannot get their own children. The only children they would have are a) orphans or b) artificial with donor help. In a) the statistics faaaar favor having loving parents than none at all. In b), well you woulnd't have those kids anyway!
On October 22 2011 11:42 meatbox wrote: If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO.
The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have.
The same thing, but the difference is the type of 'marriage,' heterosexual or homosexual, some lesbians look like men, some gay men look like women.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Def Leppard I wouldn't bother too much with responding to meatbox in this thread. He just quoted me and then posted something that made no sense. Not to mention that just about every one of his posts in this thread are one liners that are hardly coherent.
On October 22 2011 11:42 meatbox wrote: If homosexual couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, do not call it marriage, that is my advice, only then would Australia pass such a vote, IMO.
The problem is that if the state wants to recognize "marriage" then to not recognize it in the case of homosexuals is the state treating them separate but equal. The easiest thing would be for the state to just recognize civil unions and not give the term "marriage" to anyone, but that won't happen. The governments objective should be to treat everyone fairly and equally, not to pander to a portion of its population that wants to infringe on the rights of others or treat others as second-class citizens (no matter how large this portion of the population may be). And yes, not allowing homosexual couples to use the term marriage is treating them as second class, it is saying : you can have something similar/equivalent to what we have, but you cant have the same thing we have.
The same thing, but the difference is the type of 'marriage,' heterosexual or homosexual, some lesbians look like men, some gay men look like women.
(lol)
If you were trying to make a point or want me to respond could you please restate this, because I have no idea what you are saying.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Are you just trolling now? Yes it does occur naturally. And you're wrong, it's not mostly rape. That's silly. What if i say, based on your argument that rape appears to be natural? Is it ok then?
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Are you just trolling now? Yes it does occur naturally. And you're wrong, it's not mostly rape. That's silly. What if i say, based on your argument that rape appears to be natural? Is it ok then?
That's not silly, it's natural, pederasty, an ancient Greek practise wasn't homosexual in the slightest, it was used to stimulate intercourse with the opposite sex. Spartans use to have intercourse to cure their sexual frustrations.
You've just implied that something natural may not be okay, so it can apply to homosexuality then?
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
you wont change your mind too so? as far as i know theres no prove that people born being gay
This is getting aggravating. I don't want to spend all my time refuting silly arguments that can be disproved with simple google searches. Just look at wikipedia for example: Homosexual behavior in animals Under "Research on homosexual behavior in animals": Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[26] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[27][28] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs not only in species with permanent pair bonds,[20] but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
There you are, some scholars believe it originates from the social displays of dominance that you described, but that is as far as you can take it. It 'could' have originated there, but homosexual behavior STILL HAPPENS IN NATURE MAKING IT NATURAL.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
you wont change your mind too so? as far as i know theres no prove that people born being gay
I thought I was already dealing with the most frustrating individuals I would come across in this thread. Then someone comes in and says he believes homosexuality is a choice. Sir, there is no evidence at all that homosexuality is a choice, and all the evidence points to it not being a choice. Your opinion on the matter is of little importance unless you have facts to back them up. If you are ignorant of the topic that is ok, but then you should you not withhold judgement on the issue instead of taking the opinion that homosexuality is a choice?
EDIT:
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
Please read the thread, this has been addressed multiple times.
To be honest it also says "some researches" in relation to homosexuality. So it's not saying anything, definitely not something you want to use as an evidence.
Similar discussions often pop up on TL and most of the time people with anti-gay sentiments end up getting banned, so if you want to wait it out you are going to win the argument.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape.
The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender.
It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence.
On October 22 2011 12:59 Kickstart wrote: This is getting aggravating. I don't want to spend all my time refuting silly arguments that can be disproved with simple google searches. Just look at wikipedia for example: Homosexual behavior in animals Under "Research on homosexual behavior in animals": Some researchers believe this behavior to have its origin in male social organization and social dominance, similar to the dominance traits shown in prison sexuality. Others, particularly Joan Roughgarden, Bruce Bagemihl, Thierry Lodé[26] and Paul Vasey suggest the social function of sex (both homosexual and heterosexual) is not necessarily connected to dominance, but serves to strengthen alliances and social ties within a flock. Others have argued that social organization theory is inadequate because it cannot account for some homosexual behaviors, for example, penguin species where same-sex individuals mate for life and refuse to pair with females when given the chance.[27][28] While reports on many such mating scenarios are still only anecdotal, a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs not only in species with permanent pair bonds,[20] but also in non-monogamous species like sheep.
There you are, some scholars believe it originates from the social displays of dominance that you described, but that is as far as you can take it. It 'could' have originated there, but homosexual behavior STILL HAPPENS IN NATURE MAKING IT NATURAL.
some researchers believe and suggest doesnt sound too convincing does it?theres researchers who believe in a lot of things
On October 22 2011 13:04 discodancer wrote: To be honest it also says "some researches" in relation to homosexuality. So it's not saying anything, definitely not something you want to use as an evidence.
Similar discussions often pop up on TL and most of the time people with anti-gay sentiments end up getting banned, so if you want to wait it out you are going to win the argument.
That is in relation to the origins of homosexual behavior, which isn't the point. The bolded part of what is quoted is what is important which states that permanent homosexuality does occur among animals.
EDIT: Good lord people are testing my patience with their inability to read. Am I really not making my points clearly enough or are the anti-gay people in this thread just playing dumb?
some researchers believe and suggest doesnt sound too convincing does it?theres researchers who believe in a lot of things
Again, read the bolded part, which states: "a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs..." You do understand what confirms means don't you?
On October 22 2011 13:10 Kickstart wrote: Again, read the bolded part, which states: "a growing body of scientific work confirms that permanent homosexuality occurs..." You do understand what confirms means don't you?
I'm not sure what a "growing body of scientific work" means. And non-monogamous species like sheep means sheep only, right? Just wondering, since this sheep example is pretty beat up.
On October 22 2011 13:08 discodancer wrote: I wonder, do females have sex with each other in nature? Or this homosexual behavior was only observed amongst males?
Go to any porn site, click on the category 'lesbians' and use the search terms 'nature' or 'outdoors'.
Edit: Humans are animals, and before there were houses we lived in the wild. Therefore we are natural.
My fiance will not tolerate me watching human sex acts; I can probably talk my way out of watching 2 sheep fuck each other though.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape.
The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender.
It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence.
Quite an interesting read, studies carried out by neurologists show that the mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally that is.
"In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/#.TqJC895jJGQ)
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
What does naturalness have to do with anything? Your lifestile is decidedly unnatural. Additionally, just because two guys can't have babies doesn't make it unnatural.
If most animals are not monogamous, why is it, and through association heterosexual marriage natural?
Yes it is natural for mammals, humans are mammals, and naturally choose a partner for life, this is getting silly now...
Yeah it is silly, because it's a silly argument. Around 93% of mammals are not monogamous, so no. But i assume you can just say "well humans are mostly monogamous so it's natural." As i said before, naturalness doesn't mean anything. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. I can just as easily demonstrate that monogamy is not natural and so what? I can also demonstrate a whole bunch of ridiculous things that i can say are "natural." For instance, homosexuality IS natural, by definition, since it appears a lot in nature. In addition, our lifestyles are not natural. It has no bearing on how we live our lives.
Humans are monogamous though.
(haha)
Keep retreating while not actually reading anything from what i posted. You'll never change your opinion no matter what because you dismiss any and all evidence on the contrary by simply ignoring it.
you wont change your mind too so? as far as i know theres no prove that people born being gay
No, i will change my mind as soon as i see evidence. Considering you are not aware of work being done to ascertain whether it is a choice or not here are just a couple of references:
These are just a few of a body of work that spans decades and has given us a fairly good understanding of homosexuality and how it is decidedly NOT a choice (who would choose to be bullied and driven to suicide?). Now are you going to give me evidence to the contrary or are you going to consider this?
As for meatbox, once again, i was saying how naturalness is a poor argument in this case. Thus, it being natural or unnatural does not matter....
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
On October 22 2011 13:08 discodancer wrote: I wonder, do females have sex with each other in nature? Or this homosexual behavior was only observed amongst males?
Seriously? Just do a google search...put safe search on and go to wikipedia, even.
Growing body would mean that as more research is done, more of it confirms the idea that permanent homosexuality occurs in nature. The fact that homosexuality occurs in species with permanent pair bonds is significant because in biology a pair bond is the strong affinity that develops in some species between the males and females in a pair, potentially leading to breeding, yet homosexual bonds occur. The ram study shows that even when given a choice between a male or female relationship, 8% of rams (male) choose a male partner.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even if you follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Pretty sure you got warned for blatantly trying to insult me while just as blatantly putting words in my mouth. I'm pretty sure no one who has argued against homosexuality in a calm and at least somewhat respectful way has been banned or warned.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
the bans you are talking about occured because they called attention to their own possible banning.
the fact they mentioned their being banned is why they got banned, not the content they led with
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I was under the impression that a person being dense is the same as stupid? Maybe my English is bad? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dense : 'Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.'
Now, if that's not calling a person stupid, I don't know what is.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
What's so wrong about gay parenting? I'm sure two men are capable enough to raise a child, if gays are to be accepted then gay parenting too. But right now this may be hard in some countries, not sure about australia dont know squat about down under
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Fun fact: meatbox is not as informed on the topic as he likes to think. Fun fact 2: "genetic inbreeding" is not that uncommon in nature.
I'll just re-quote myself because it takes way too long to restate the probable evolutionary/genetic relevance to homosexuality:
On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote: To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run.
Unfortunately its difficult to describe homosexuality positively in evolutionary terms as its basically an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If the entire human race were to become gay, it would end pretty quickly. Unless we evolved asexual reproduction or some other form of procreation.
There are a lot of ways that homosexuality might be advantageous, but those are all I remember because my biology tutor was too cute for me to focus.
I'm not hugely convinced by those arguments. (I'm replying to your whole post btw, it was just pretty big) The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general).
Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though.
Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate.
Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children.
The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers.
This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily.
Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though.
Yes, I’d hate genetics as well if I couldn’t grasp it...
First of all, his quote doesn’t suggest him being a medic/doctor at all; it was just an excuse for you to state that you were in medical school, as if stamping a seal of authority on your post...which is actually quite embarrassing because if my doctor pretended to be so informed on a subject like genetics and evolution (so integral to the field of biology) when he really had no inkling on the subject, I’d probably find myself second guessing his medical advise as well. Then again, many doctors are clueless about these fields because it’s not essential to the practice of medicine (even though medicine is heavily based upon it) so I guess another one bites the dust.
Anyway, let’s break down your post and point out the many flaws in it.
The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome.
. Actually, it’s still somewhat debateable as to why many organisms switched from asexuality to sexuality, factoring in all the costs associated with the latter, but the strongest theory as to why it occurred was definitely not to encourage reproduction; it was most likely to increase genetic variation in a dynamic and changing environment (which many multicellular organisms occur in), allowing evolution to work faster on these sexual organisms.
Furthermore, if you think about it for a second, you would realize that sexuality would go against preserving one’s own genome as it causes you to pass on only half of it to your progeny...
If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general).
You may use the “in general” part of this quote as a cop-out for your misunderstanding, but given the nature of your post, I’d imagine you wouldn’t know how so.
An organism being incapable of reproduction in no way means that their genes have reached a “dead end”. The answer lies in Hamilton’s Inclusive Fitness Theory (which Darwinian evolution is a subset of). To put it in layman terms, if I happened to die in a freak accident today, all my genes could theoretically still be passed on to the next generation due to having biological siblings who share DNA (and therefore genes) with me. This concept is the basis of eusociality in insects, common among many species of the order Hymenoptera.
For those who are scratching their head at this last sentence, many of you have probably seen a wasp hive before of which it is inhabited by usually one queen and workers/soldiers. Well, it so happens that the workers in a colony are generally sterile (extreme but common), forgoing their own reproduction in favour of the gyne who in most cases is their mother. Like homosexuality, this behaviour remained elusive for many biologists prior to Hamilton’s ground breaking work (including Darwin, who considered eusociality as being fatal to his theory of evolution by natural selection) because why would an organism give up its own reproductive success in favour of its sibling? To make this short, many eusocial species (though not all) are generally haplodiploid, so sister workers are more related to each other than they would be to their own son or daughter (0.75 vs. 0.5), thus making sense why they would help take care of their supersisters in favour of their own offspring (the genetics behind this would take another two paragraphs to read so if you’re interested pm me, but I’m losing readers at this point so just take my word for it). Thus, like kin selection can be attributed to eusocial species, it can also be used to explain homosexuality in humans (I’ll get to that later).
Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though.
I’m not sure if you realize this but CF is a mendelian inherited trait while homosexuality most likely is a quantitative trait so of course the former would be much easier to detect and understand.
Furthermore, if the genetic basis of homosexuality is murky, so is that of intelligence as both are complex inherited traits that have not had a gene identified for either. The theory behind their existence is there but the technology (lack of resolution in detecting biological factors associated with aforementioned traits) is still lagging behind. But we don’t question the idea that smarter parents will tend to have smarter children, despite the lack of proof for the existence of a gene for intelligence so why the fuss with homosexuality? Both traits and twin studies already prove the underling biological component in both (if requested I’ll search them up and post the abstracts here) so perhaps people should revise their perspective on the situation.
And I have no idea why you would even mention allele expression when right before that you mention homosexuality being linked to a “vastly reduced chance of reproduction”. If you were right and there were no continuity in a gay gene’s lineage, why even mention allele expression to begin with? Do you even know what allele expression entails?
Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate.
Recent studies generally suggest a prevalence rate of between 2-5% in modern Western populations, but as you have conceded, there are many factors that can confound an accurate statistic. For every gay that is open and out, how many are closeted? In some countries you can receive the death penalty for being gay and Western society—although a lot more tolerant nowadays—still has a far way to go before gays even have a neutral portrayal. With that in mind, these recent estimates can at best tell you only a conservative estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, which cannot be explained by spontaneous mutation rates, but must persist due to biological factors conferring some kind of potential fitness benefit.
Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children.
Having more adults per children leads to greater survivorship of the latter and if these children harbour a gay gene that is not “active”, can further lead to a larger propagation of the gene. Remember (not sure if it’s even in your memory to begin with...) but the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the group.
The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics with this excerpt. Although one’s direct fitness would be greatly reduced due to homosexuality, the same fate would not necessarily apply to their indirect fitness, and the scientific literature supports this perspective.
Your example of Huntington’s disease and its effect of an increased libido/fecundity in females actually parallels what is thought to occur with homosexuality—and this is an advantage from the perspective of the gene for these traits. You need to realize that that’s all that really matters when it comes to evolution. A gene doesn’t care about its bearer but about itself only. If it can increase its propagation at the expense of other genes, then such a scenario is likely to occur.
In either case, evolution can explain these examples that you list. With Huntington’s disease, if I’m not mistaken, the age of onset is generally in adulthood and is a recessive disorder. Thus, people still tend to have kids without knowing they could be carriers of the disease. Furthermore, recessive mutations are hard to weed out of populations because they can hide in heterozygotes, and if it confers an increase in libido/fecundity, could also be classified as a balanced polymorphism (provided that the effect is still present in heteros).
With Cystic Fibrosis, it may be detrimental to be homozygous for the disorder-causing alleles but if you are heterozygous for them, then you can generally live a normal life and also be generally immune from cholera and other diarrheal illnesses. Thus, balanced polymorphism can also explain this disorder's prevalence in the population.
With regards to homosexuality, I found this post in my history (didn’t even realize it was within this same thread as well...I know there are more in other threads scattered on the forum but I guess this proves you didn’t at least read through this one) which explains the evolutionary reason behind homosexuality:
On August 30 2010 06:24 Apexplayer wrote: This is just an arbitrary thought that I was kinda curious about.
Let's assume that being gay is genetic.
If that is true then isn't it a "disorder"(in the reproductive sense) that is worse than having a mental illness or most other genetic diseases?
The more open people are about being gay, the faster the whole idea of being gay will be a thing of the past and in some obscure section of the history book. Simply because it's something that cannot be passed on to the next generation because of the lack of a next generation.
Before you talk about genetics, study genetics first. There's something called recessive traits. That's not to say it's definitely genetic, it's just that such an argument is invalid. The only thing you could say is that the gene (if there is one) is not dominant
I have studied genetics, thanks for the needless flame. If you studied genetics you would know that there isn't only recessive and dominant genes. The majority of gay people will tell you that they believe their sexuality is genetic, and people are finding evidence for this constantly. Maybe you have heard of the choice vs genes controversy?
Aside from the flame. It is, reproductively, and unwanted trait which does cause the % of the trait in the population to diminish over time, recessive, dominant, co-dominant or not.
If you have studied genetics, it wasn't very well. Anyone who studies genetics seriously will know that evolution goes hand-in-hand with it (and everything else in biology) and that's where your post is flawed. I'm guessing you believe it's a choice or else it would have dwindled away by now? Well make sure to read my post because I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
Like I mentioned earlier, just because you can't directly reproduce does not mean that your genes are forever barred from the next generation--your relatives can pass on your genes for you as well. Homosexuality can be seen as an alternate mechanism to evolution (albeit less frequent) in that it adheres to kin selection. From the wikipedia entry on it: Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Switch sterile females for voluntarily sterile brothers and mother to sisters in that last sentence and voila! The case of homosexuality makes a little more sense.
If I had to classify homosexuality, I'd say that it acts similarly to an outlaw gene in that it jeopardizes the reproduction of other genes in favour of itself. I say this because there have been studies done where they have found that female relatives of gay males tend to be more fecund than females not known to have any gay relatives. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that under the right environmental conditions, males with the gay gene have a great chance of becoming homosexual, whereas this same gene in their female relatives makes them hornier (who knows, but they tend to have more children than average). With the brother having no children of his own, he works to ensure the survival and replication of his nieces and nephews, which in turn share his genes as well. So it benefits the sister's genes, while fucking over some of the brother's genes. It would also help his brothers who may not be expressing the homosexual trait but whom have the "gene" anyway
Now the environment probably does have a bit to do with homosexuality, but I'd wager my life on their being a genetic precursor. I'd imagine that their could be some possible epigenetic factors involved or maybe even the way a certain portion of mRNA is spliced or something. Who knows, but there is something biological going on and the environmental component of it definitely wouldn't be a choice someone makes.
I'm not so sure about the genetic processes of lesbians, but it leads me to believe that their may be alternative modes of inheritance of homosexuality, be it genes themselves or other biological factors.
This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily.
I’m sure (I hope) that you’ve heard the phrase that sociology is a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of chemistry which is a subset of physics which is a subset of math. Well it’s true; evolution is integral to the field of biology and happens to be highly influential in the fields of psychology and sociology, which genetics also plays a major role in. Although the environment does complicate such a complicated issue as homosexuality in humans, it is less influential on many of the other myriad of species in nature used to discern many of its mysteries. Regardless, when you look at homosexuality from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint, you also happen to be looking at it from a psychology/sociological standpoint as well.
Sorry to come off as a douchebag with this monstrous post, but when someone comes into a thread dedicated to a minority group—still persecuted and viewed negatively today—only to try and flaunt their knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof) at the expense of these individuals (because let’s face it, your post was basically implying that homosexuality is a disease almost on par with life threatening ones such as Huntington’s and CF) who already have enough shit on their plates, I had no choice but to reply.
tl;dr homosexuality is most likely biological and has its evolutionary advantages.
If your argument is "gay people can't have kids, therefore homosexuality is unnatural durrr", spend more time getting out of bronze league and less time speculating about an area of science you have no clue about.
Monkeyz you cried about this earlier and were shot down then, why are you bringing it up again. Earlier in this thread, on page 14, you wrote:
Good points about the ban, I get it now and I also should have backed up my opinion earlier.
in response to someone explaining that ban to you. You also stated that you should have backed up your opinion earlier. Surely you realize that this is all we want. You have an opinion on the matter, that's wonderful, but worthless unless backed up by something. Maybe you should have read what I posted earlier on page 27 about opinions:
After coming home and reading the last few pages that were posted after I was at work it seems like half the people haven't even read the thread and keep posting questions that have been answered....
And whoever has been telling you that everyone's opinion is valid and beyond scrutiny has lied to you. If it is your opinion is that the Earth is the center of the Universe, I don't have to respect or tolerate that opinion. If your opinion is that the Earth is 6000 years old and flat, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion. And if you think that Homosexuals are second class citizens that don't deserve the same benefits and protections from the government, I don't have to respect or tolerate your opinion.
Respect and tolerance are over rated.
And someone said your post was stupid, not that you are stupid, and you responded by making a personal attack on them:
On October 22 2011 05:24 Badboyrune wrote: Trying to invalidate multiple scientific studies that you have not even read by assuming bias in the ones conducting them is one of the stupidest post I've seen on this forum.
You're a real genius though, comparing geography to psychology, I'm sure you must have been a real winner in school.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
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.
As long as you aren't forcing that disgust on others, I don't really care and respect that you can keep it to yourself. But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
Yeah I kind of think same way what you said about "forcing that on others" I think that is wrong. But there is nothing worse than having someone do the same thing onto me but as like "forcing the gayness upon me" when Im out on some club or whatever, and some sleazy guy tries to hit on me or whatever. Its really really disgusting and I cant take it. But no ofcourse you shouldnt force it upon others.
How do you expect them to find a partner then? If you impose the same arbitrary rules on heterosexuals, our species would die out with the next generation. Saying 'Sorry I'm not gay' is too much of a hassle for you to allow a person his freedom of speech?
Women having a fun time with her friends at the bar probably think Joe Hobo who puts his hand in her lap while looking into her eyes, and with a hissing drunken voice asks if she's ok with going round the corner to fuck is pretty disgusting as well FYI. This has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, but rather people who lack social skills.
AFAIK there is no one gene that makes one gay are not, I think the consensus is that a mixture of biological and social factors lead to homosexuality ( I myself am not convinced that social factors play a role because as a gay man I don't see it , though admittedly I have not looked into that aspect of it and it could play a role in someone else, I just don't think it did in my case).
EDIT: I think I confused social factors with what was supposed to be environmental factors, which makes more sense to me ^^. Biological and environmental factors.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
...this does seem like a straight up troll. Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature. We've known this for a while. No it is not humilating or rape.
The entire idea that gay => feminine is not only bullshit but a shameless stereotype that has absolutely no bearing on reality. Gay is not transgender.
It is not acceptable to make random assertions. You have to look at reality and see what is actually true. Provide evidence.
Quite an interesting read, studies carried out by neurologists show that the mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally that is.
"In the Swedish study, when sniffing a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains involved in sexual activity were activated in gay men and straight women, but not in straight men, the researchers found." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/#.TqJC895jJGQ)
No, that's a hormonal reaction. It's not saying that the "mind of a heterosexual female is no different to the mind of a homosexual male structurally." It's not saying that gays are feminine and lesbians are masculine. It's saying that gays respond to male hormones the same way that straight females respond to male hormones.
Gay is not transgender. Ask any gay or any transgender.
On October 22 2011 14:01 taldarimAltar wrote: Is it possible at all, if you didnt have a gay gene to become gay?
It's kinda hard to actually say because behavioural traits all have some sort of a genetic basis and are not as black and white as your classical brown eye/blue eye example. So with that said, no, I don't think a person is likely to become gay without some underlying biological predisposition... I mean it's not like someone can eat some magical cheerios or something and turn gay. The environment would have to act in combination with your biology to change such an important trait like sexual orientation, so in essence, a "gay gene" or a "gay biological factor" would most likely be required for a person becoming gay.
Being christian, I don't think homosexuality is ok.
However, if people are gay, then they should be allowed to be gay. It's not as if it is hurting anyone. Why should my view of morality be forced on everyone? I don't want others to force their weird morality on me.
If we accept that homosexuality is allowable, then it is not to big a leap to accept that homosexual marriage is allowable. Marriage is not just a christian institution, it is a cultural & legal thing as well.
On October 21 2011 15:40 CharlieBrownsc wrote: I still don't understand how it was ever illegal for gay marriage to occur in a democratic country
Tthe majority is against it... do you understand democracy?
(hehe)
I don't think democracy understands democracy, I mean, Julia didn't become Prime Minister on a majority vote.
Most important at all, it's a governments responsibility to avoid the 'tyranny of the many'. If 55% votes to slaughter the remaining 45% systematically, this would not pass. Likewise it's the governments job to look out for minorities. Are black people not allowed to ride the public bus in Australia either? After all I assume they're minority, and they do take up bus seats that could've been used for a person who was in the majority. Do you have more men than women by some margin? Why not legalize rape? Legalize it!
In this case gays are a target of unjustice for no good reason.
On October 21 2011 07:11 LashLash wrote: In the 2010 election, there was this user/party spreadsheet with the policy stances of different parties then:
It has sources and everything. At that time, Labor and Liberal are against gay marriage.
My opinion is that gay marriage should be legal. It is purely symbolic that it should be called marriage and not something else, but it is a strong symbol and would be a milestone for civil rights in our country.
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
Oh damn same here. Guess I'll start voting instead of drawing clouds and sunshine on ballot forms. How accurate does that spreadsheet look to you guys?
OT: On views about gay marriage, support would vary depending on which part of Australia you happen to be in. I could see strong support in Victoria and New South Wales, perhaps not so much in Queensland.
That said what happens if the conscience vote is passed in parliament? Does it then go through and become law?
On October 22 2011 14:51 ControlMonkey wrote: My opinion:
Being christian, I don't think homosexuality is ok.
However, if people are gay, then they should be allowed to be gay. It's not as if it is hurting anyone. Why should my view of morality be forced on everyone? I don't want others to force their weird morality on me.
If we accept that homosexuality is allowable, then it is not to big a leap to accept that homosexual marriage is allowable. Marriage is not just a christian institution, it is a cultural & legal thing as well.
I wish the rest of the religious cohort could be as flexible as yourself. The problem is, when these ideas are presented as 'infallible truths' handed down by God, a live and let live attitude can be hard to develop.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
Are you seriously saying people who are anti gay get persecuted? lol...what about the gay kids? It has nothing to do with "hard facts." The natural sciences are just as fuzzy most of the time. There is a lot of room for ambiguity and it's difficult to get at the real universe directly. It's different than something like physics, but not in the same way you think, i believe. And no, it's not about 1 study that says something one way or the other. It's about a whole body of work.
Unfortunately, you appear to believe that it's all part of the agenda and that the work that's been done is all biased. I dont understand this point, and i don't think you have sufficient exposure to all the facets in this debate. Just look at Masamune's post for instance. Does he also have an agenda because he's got a lot of knowledge on current genetics and evolution theory?
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
Rhine pretty much stole the words from my mouth. This is not about one single study, it's about many studies who all point in the same direction. When you are at that point you need to have better arguments than 'that is my opinion' or that all studies carried out are biased.
And no self respecting scientist would decide not to publish work that is well done because the results are controversial. If the study is done properly it will be respected within the scientific community, which is what scientists strive for.
On October 22 2011 14:51 ControlMonkey wrote: My opinion:
Being christian, I don't think homosexuality is ok.
However, if people are gay, then they should be allowed to be gay. It's not as if it is hurting anyone. Why should my view of morality be forced on everyone? I don't want others to force their weird morality on me.
If we accept that homosexuality is allowable, then it is not to big a leap to accept that homosexual marriage is allowable. Marriage is not just a christian institution, it is a cultural & legal thing as well.
Nailed it. Christians know and accept that sin exists in the world. All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. All - meaning all peoples, Christians and non-christians, gays and straights, have all fallen short of God's glory. Gay marriage? Go ahead. If the population agrees in a referendum, then I guess it has to go ahead. If the general population disagrees, then they have had their say. Christians simply don't care and shouldn't be exceedingly passionate on this issue. The harvest is in the field, not in man-made politics.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
On October 22 2011 13:03 SecondChance wrote: [quote]
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
Are you seriously saying people who are anti gay get persecuted? lol...what about the gay kids? It has nothing to do with "hard facts." The natural sciences are just as fuzzy most of the time. There is a lot of room for ambiguity and it's difficult to get at the real universe directly. It's different than something like physics, but not in the same way you think, i believe. And no, it's not about 1 study that says something one way or the other. It's about a whole body of work.
Unfortunately, you appear to believe that it's all part of the agenda and that the work that's been done is all biased. I dont understand this point, and i don't think you have sufficient exposure to all the facets in this debate. Just look at Masamune's post for instance. Does he also have an agenda because he's got a lot of knowledge on current genetics and evolution theory?
Gay kids get the fuck bullied out of them at school. Anything that can be vaguely deemed sexist, racist, homophobic gets hounded by the press and academia. And when I say sexist/racist/homophobic, that means anything that paints women, blacks, gays in a bad light, compared to men, whites and straights.
Even if its true.
Consider larry summers. He told the fucking truth, that high IQ men outnumber high IQ women. He lost his job over it.
Yet you get prominent feminists calling all men rapists, and they keep their jobs for life. Or hell, every week, you get another article calling men useless. Have you ever read an article calling women useless?
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
I'm not saying science is always right, in that case we wouldn't need to carry out any more science. I'm not really read up on the vaccine issue so I can't really comment much. I do think it would be strange if doctors started recommending parents not to vaccinate their children base of off one study (I would find it more likely that for example media found out about this one study and blew it all up for sensationalism like they tend to do. But as I said I'm not read up on in so please do correct me.).
Sometimes even studies done with good methodology will yield false results, that is true. That is also why things are tested and retested, people redo other peoples experiments to try to repeat previous results. All this is done to be as sure as possible that results are accurate. In this case we were discussing many studies have been made that all point towards the same direction. As far as I know few, if any, studies have contradicted the results. From wikipedia: 'Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”'.
And yes, much of what we know is going to turn out to be false to some degree. I don't think that means that going saying the things that are currently agreed upon by science are false unless you have something substantial to back that up with. Doctors will continue to use whatever methods have been scientifically establish to be the most effective ones because as far as we know they are the best ones. New research might be discovered that changes that and then doctors would change their ways.
Just like psychologists would if large amounts of evidence suddenly turned up that said that gay parenting was indeed harmful for the children.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
Bad example. That Autism / vaccine study was refuted by tons of others for a decade. It was hyped up by people who had no idea what they were talking about, like celebrities, and was just ingrained in stupid parents minds which caused people to go way overboard.
On October 22 2011 13:18 Evil_Monkey_ wrote: [quote] To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Peer reviewed or not, these aren't rock hard facts that you're using it as. None of you distinguish between natural sciences (where you have rock hard facts, I.E. the world is round) and human sciences (Does having homosexual parents effect the child's views on sexuality or the parents ability to be good parents), you just accept one study as rock hard facts. Posting a study or a survey on something does not make it fact. In addition, if you actually conducted and published a study that proved homosexual parents to be bad parents or their parenting to have an adverse effect on their children's view on sexuality, what would happen? In Denmark you'd get hanged in the press and called a biggot, just like when one of our university professors published a study showing men had higher average iq's than women.
Are you seriously saying people who are anti gay get persecuted? lol...what about the gay kids? It has nothing to do with "hard facts." The natural sciences are just as fuzzy most of the time. There is a lot of room for ambiguity and it's difficult to get at the real universe directly. It's different than something like physics, but not in the same way you think, i believe. And no, it's not about 1 study that says something one way or the other. It's about a whole body of work.
Unfortunately, you appear to believe that it's all part of the agenda and that the work that's been done is all biased. I dont understand this point, and i don't think you have sufficient exposure to all the facets in this debate. Just look at Masamune's post for instance. Does he also have an agenda because he's got a lot of knowledge on current genetics and evolution theory?
Gay kids get the fuck bullied out of them at school. Anything that can be vaguely deemed sexist, racist, homophobic gets hounded by the press and academia. And when I say sexist/racist/homophobic, that means anything that paints women, blacks, gays in a bad light, compared to men, whites and straights.
Even if its true.
Consider larry summers. He told the fucking truth, that high IQ men outnumber high IQ women. He lost his job over it.
Yet you get prominent feminists calling all men rapists, and they keep their jobs for life. Or hell, every week, you get another article calling men useless. Have you ever read an article calling women useless?
So because of that case you now think that scientists can't say anything that paints the gays in a bad light? I've seen tenured professors who are considered incredibly racist and go out to massive audiences where they get hit with stuff. But they seem to never get fired. Perhaps your example was such because the media and politics butted in and external pressures forced something that should probably not have happend. There are maybe hundreds of examples of professors with strange beliefs who somehow still keep their jobs.
If you believe that research cannot be made that is negative towards the gays, then I think you should reconsider believing in science and its results. In this world, competition is most fierce. And the truth and recognition for it is what matters. The problem is politics or media blowups sometimes come into play and destroy a message that would be scientific. There are so many examples of "controversial" research that's been debated and redebated in academic circles. It was not thrown because it was controversial.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
Bad example. That Autism / vaccine study was refuted by tons of others for a decade. It was hyped up by people who had no idea what they were talking about, like celebrities, and was just ingrained in stupid parents minds which caused people to go way overboard.
I think that's a great example of the misunderstanding of the scientific process. As you said, that study was debunked almost as soon as it hit the presses. (i am responding to JesusOurSaviour) This is BECAUSE of the scientific process which is the most cutthroat environment. Why did it get accepted in the first place? A variety of reasons, among which being that the editors felt like, though it wasn't very good science, it was an issue important enough (and the study was not so bad as to throw it out immediately) to put it to discussion. The fact that it was published is EXACTLY in accordance to due process.
Peer review doesn't just happen pre-publication to find out if it should be accepted. Publication is only the first (and may be the easiest) hurdle. The question is how that work is received. Can it withstand the arguments put forth by their peers? Can it be replicated by independent parties? Can it make predictions that can be tested? The fact that shitty work like that (which was dead pretty much as it hit the paper) passed the first hurdle is a sign that our system isn't unfair towards issues that may be important to a lot of people. Later debates and evidence of fraud found that work to be invalid. And what did they do? THey admitted that the work is invalid, and retracted it from the journal! That's exactly in the spirit of how things should be done: if we later find that our previous beliefs are wrong, we should change our beliefs.
The study on autism and vaccines was a shitty study proven to be invalid and not to mention potentially fraudulent. It got blown up by the media and everyone panicked over something debunked hundreds of times.
As for the medicine example, I will answer by suggesting you read Asimov's essay on the Relativity of Wrong. The medicine you learn today will very likely be way more "true" than that which you would have learned 10 years ago. And that will never change, even if we expand our knowledge and fix our models in the future.
One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
I really don't care if 2 adults get married for whatever reason. Gay or Hetro. None of our business. However, Big headaches in the divorce courts when it comes to adopted kids. The Judge. "OK Which one of you plays Mummy? OMG. Also the kids at school are gonna cop a flogging for having 2 dads or 2 mums. Just think about the kids if you decide to adopt.
Oh and as for politicians. Countries aren't run by politicians, the countries are run by businessman.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
I'm not saying science is always right, in that case we wouldn't need to carry out any more science. I'm not really read up on the vaccine issue so I can't really comment much. I do think it would be strange if doctors started recommending parents not to vaccinate their children base of off one study (I would find it more likely that for example media found out about this one study and blew it all up for sensationalism like they tend to do. But as I said I'm not read up on in so please do correct me.).
Sometimes even studies done with good methodology will yield false results, that is true. That is also why things are tested and retested, people redo other peoples experiments to try to repeat previous results. All this is done to be as sure as possible that results are accurate. In this case we were discussing many studies have been made that all point towards the same direction. As far as I know few, if any, studies have contradicted the results. From wikipedia: 'Judith Stacey, of New York University, stated: “Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights”'.
And yes, much of what we know is going to turn out to be false to some degree. I don't think that means that going saying the things that are currently agreed upon by science are false unless you have something substantial to back that up with. Doctors will continue to use whatever methods have been scientifically establish to be the most effective ones because as far as we know they are the best ones. New research might be discovered that changes that and then doctors would change their ways.
Just like psychologists would if large amounts of evidence suddenly turned up that said that gay parenting was indeed harmful for the children.
Well said - indeed my point wasn't that science and the inductive method by which we study our natural world is by any means terrible (in fact, it is extremely effective). But like you said - this vaccine --> autism study was blown up by the media because the media perceive science to be flawless, as do a lot of TLers.
Now to the issue of gay = natural or acquired, I am not well read on the literature. I see and know a lot of people who simply are incapable of loving a Woman or seeing beauty in women and lusting after women. There are also men who are married for 25 years, then go off on tangents with men (Men who have Sex with Men) M-S-M. So in the case of MSM, they became gay for some reason (which we really don't know). Then there's the case of the child abuse ---> becoming gay, of which I have not encountered anyone like that in my life yet.
However I am certain that some people are gay and that's part of life. We shouldn't judge anyone in anything, so being homophobic is simply not nice. Yet we have to remember to not label homophobics "bigoted" or "dense", because they felt disgust at an issue and speak strongly about it. Don't forget, we all feel intense disgust at certain things. I know of several female friends who absolutely despise snakes. I don't - and I find it quite amusing that they do ^__^
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
I competely agree with what you said and it's nice to finally get a little bit of support, instead of all the: 'you're stupid because you don't share my point of view' attitude I've been getting.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
This is the case for everything. You shuold be skeptical of everything. But knowing more about the process is good. There is a bias as you say, but it's less than you think, in my experience. There are lots of controversial research i've seen published. However, this is exactly why we must read ALL of the body of work to determine what's been done and how. It's not so easy to change results by faking all of the other aspects of resaerch in multiple areas of science throughout multiple continents. This is why a single study doesn't mean that much. You can take things with a bucket of salt. No one is saying you should accept things at face value. But you can't dismiss everything with a swipe of the hand.
But what are your arguments for the entire body of research? i've not referenced it all here, obviously. It spans many disciplines. Are they all in on it? Researchers have agendas? Perhaps, but I'd venture to say that the scientific process is by far the best at correcting itself and weeding out wrong, when compared to pretty much any other activity.
Psychology is not as bad as you seem to think, though. And when you look at this topic, it's more than that. It's evolutionary biology, neurology, genetics, and a shit ton of things. You SHOULD be skeptical. But let me know of reasons to dismiss a particular work through proper reasons about their methodology, their sampling, whatever. And then if you break apart sufficient corner stones from the entire body of work, then i will completely be on your side. Until you do that, you can't dismiss things out of hand because they may be biased. Everything is. The question is how much, what can be done, and how can we figure out better ways of doing it.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
I competely agree with what you said and it's nice to finally get a little bit of support, instead of all the: 'you're stupid because you don't share my point of view' attitude I've been getting.
I don't know why you feel this way. Personally, I have not said that and I believe you're entitled to your opinion, of course. One thing I will say though, is that throughout this thread there's been efforts towards trying to figure out what is true or false and neither you nor some of the others have made any attempts to refute work other than general swipes of "it's probably false bcause of liberal bias" or "it's unnatural."
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive.
Obviously, I am for gay marriage. Its not an issue of religous right or wrong, its an issue of freedom or lack thereof.
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) it does look to be moving forward in both a more humanitarian and logical direction (mainly because it can't pass its own legislation).
Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.
I am sorry but i am an Australian and i find this highly offensive. Australia is not a "bigoted, homophobic country" not by a long shot. there are bigots and homophobic people here but to state that it is worse than other countries is foolish. all countries have their bigots and homophobes and racists and criminals and scum. That however does not make the country such.
Australia's education policies are not "quite behind" at all and our immigration is in the shitter because we want to have our cake and eat it too. Our carbon policies are at the moment progressive. The new controversial carbon tax for example is hardly innovative but it is also not "quite behind"
As for mainstream media being liberal biased i will not disagree. That does not however mean that the rights to marriage for homosexuals is going to be rubbished. To be honest media attempts to appear progressive to a fault. The issues (non religious and homophobic) of gay marriage will probably not be entered into by mainstream media. I can almost guarantee that the media will strongly back the movement as i believe they should.
And just so we are clear whilst i may disagree with all of the issues against gay marriage that i have seen so far, i am also not going to say that some people may not have some legitimate concerns. I am not educated enough to make claims that all those concerns are rubbish and i very highly doubt that anyone is seeing as we have "professionals" on both sides of the argument for things such as adoption.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
After skimming through the link you posted quickly it seemed to be more about if mental illnesses are more prevalent in homosexuals than if homosexuality is a mental illness, there's quite a big difference.
Maybe taking a class in psychology in order to understand how rigorous psychological studies are done would be a good idea. You shouldn't criticise things while seemingly having very little knowledge of how they're done. It's not simply about making surveys with leading questions to get the results you want. You should tread very lightly when putting psychology in the same category as pseudo sciences.
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.
Just out of curiosity, why was this person banned? Of course, advocates for freedom and gay rights could argue with his opinion as it very well may be wrong (For the record I have no qualms whatsoever with gay couples wanting to get married; I think it should be looked at no differently than couples who are of the opposite sex who are wanting to get married).
I remember reading a moderator or some other form of TL member stating that you can't preface a post with (I am strictly quoting this) "I hope I don't get banned"" because it's a "copout" that is trying to make the content of their post exempt from any moderation, even though it's most likely breaking a rule of some sort.
However, in his post I see no content that is explicit or inappropriate. As previously mentioned, his stance is easily argued with, and most likely wrong. However, he articulated it in a passive and non offensive manner; and ended it quite admirably.
On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
So I simply question why it is necessary to punish somebody for prefacing a post with that when the content isn't objectionable in the first place. I realize the OP isn't titled "What is your opinion on Deekin's punishment thread?" But I know not of any other way to ask this, apologies if I am derailing the thread.
As for the OP, I mentioned my stance previously.
Gay and want to get married? Best of luck to you.
edit: So I went through the thread and found multiple people saying that he was a 'matyr'.
I still don't particularly understand nor do I agree with the decision; however my spidy sense tells me this would not be the time or place to discuss this.
To me this thread is basically: If you're pro gay rights, write whatever you want however biased it maybe and ridicule as you see fit. If you're against some gay rights don't expect to be allowed to be biased or ridicule without a ban.
You guys are being purposely dense? Even follow 'i hope i don't get banned' with 'all hail glorious teamliquid' YOU WILL BE BANNED. The content of the post no matter what become irrelevant when the poster attempts to make a martyr of themselves.
Fact is, in this thread people can call me I'm stupid and tell me what I write is stupid. Just like you did now but if I did the same I'd be banned because I've expressed I'm against gay parenting. People are 'open minded' as long as you're as 'open minded' as them (I.E. share the same opinion).
Waht? Are you going to address my explanation to you at all or just accuse me of calling you stupid...
I think he's talking about how he said that all research carried out on the subject of homosexual parenting was biased, which I in turn called one of the stupidest things I've read on this forum.
The wording might have been a bit harsh from me, but I don't really think it was that unjustified.
Assuming powerful groups with a lot of money can influence studies by funding them or by lobbying is stupid? In addition, you have the fact that parents would have to give consent and would only give consent, if they had faith in the results turning out in their favour. I must say I'm really stupid aren't I, questioning these things makes me a stupid man.
The problem is that science is publicly published and peer reviewed. If a study is carried out with poor methodology it would be criticised quickly and heavily by other scientists in the area.
Really? What about that vaccine ----> autism study which caused en entire generation of British neonates to not receive the MMR? Wasn't that peer reviewed and cited? To my understanding it was even in a reputable journal. Science isn't as powerful as you think my friend Medicine is a perfect example: What we think to be "right" at the moment, will almost all be "wrong" within 20 years. Life-long learning for a doctor sucks, but that's that
That's blown massively out of proportion. It was a single article by a discredited doctor that was taken up by unscrupulous newspapers. Most people still got the jabs. Taking that and saying "science is fallible" completely ignores the fact that pretty much every scientist knew there was no link, it was the credulous public and bad reporting in the media that caused the problem.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
I am sorry but i am an Australian and i find this highly offensive. Australia is not a "bigoted, homophobic country" not by a long shot. there are bigots and homophobic people here but to state that it is worse than other countries is foolish. all countries have their bigots and homophobes and racists and criminals and scum. That however does not make the country such.
Australia's education policies are not "quite behind" at all and our immigration is in the shitter because we want to have our cake and eat it too. Our carbon policies are at the moment progressive. The new controversial carbon tax for example is hardly innovative but it is also not "quite behind"
As for mainstream media being liberal biased i will not disagree. That does not however mean that the rights to marriage for homosexuals is going to be rubbished. To be honest media attempts to appear progressive to a fault. The issues (non religious and homophobic) of gay marriage will probably not be entered into by mainstream media. I can almost guarantee that the media will strongly back the movement as i believe they should.
And just so we are clear whilst i may disagree with all of the issues against gay marriage that i have seen so far, i am also not going to say that some people may not have some legitimate concerns. I am not educated enough to make claims that all those concerns are rubbish and i very highly doubt that anyone is seeing as we have "professionals" on both sides of the argument for things such as adoption.
From what i have encountered Australian are pretty racist and homophobic though if they are more so than other countries i have no idea. A friend of mine was watching the news and they mentioned gay rights and he said basically "we should let them do what ever they want" and both his father and grandfather could not believe he had said that and said it was ridiculous. While anecdotal i have a number of similar stories as well as encountering a wealth of prejudice towards Asians.
That is also were i have to disagree that the media has a liberal bias in Australia. The ABC, SBS and generally the channel Ten news are liberal but the handling of stories on the other channels are so conservative. It is a similar story with news papers except there is a conservative paper and a liberal paper and pretty much all conservative papers have a higher circulation herald v telegraph in Sydney for example. Also should we really want the media to strongly back an issue? It is hard to respect a media outlet that will take a stance across the board on an issue how do you decide what is true and what isn't?
The coverage of gay marriage has been pretty bad so far. Air time was given to U.S. expert who basically used a good ole fashioned slippery slope argument, "if you allow gay marriage whats next? marriage to children? marriage to animals?". This got coverage from all network as well and who knows why. I just use the smbc tactic of sliding the other way.
The main arguments against seem to be based tradition/morals based or just disgust. They make little sense in my mind but the lobby groups will make the decision for a lot of people.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
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.
Wow, why was he banned? Personal opinions are not allowed here?
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.
Wow, why was he banned? Personal opinions are not allowed here?
Read the thread. It has to do with martyring and has been explained.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
Any progress on this proposal by Gillard? Surely something will come of it, the phrasing of the question will not suit either side and only aim to achieve middle ground.
The question will be something along the lines of homosexual couples being permitted to sign a partnership/gay marriage agreement having the same rights/benefits as married couples. Expect outrage from obsessive lefties...
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
Lol. That was a theory which seemed appropriate because it fit SOME of the data and was somewhat influenced by anti-gay politics. Regardless, further work has discovered that, in fact, this is not true because there are significant differences between people who are mentally sick. While it was a supported hypothesis, it turned out it was false. And you know how? By people doing more and more work to try to support or dismiss the hypothesis. It was never an established "fact" it was an arbitrary classification. It's such a different quality of work than the work people cite for parenting, for instance.
But you know what? continue to retreat and think "oh science was wrong before, therefore it's always wrong!" because it's certainly easier than actually reading ALL the work to understand why it's no longer thought this way. The earth isn't round because we used to believe it was flat.
Regardless of my personal feelings I think it's a simple matter of liberty. They should have the same rights as anyone else. When we deny one group of people personal freedoms, we weaken our own freedoms.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
No one is trying to force any opinion on anyone, we're just stating that your opinion is factually wrong. You can stick with it if you want, but that doesn't make it any more right.
As for the suggestion that gay people are mentally ill Rhine already said this has since been proven false. Even if that wasn't the case those studies are not saying that gay people are mentally ill. They suggest that mental illness might be more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals. It doesn't even imply any direct causal link between being gay and being more prone to mental illness. It might very well have been that other factors, like social pressure and shame (especially since many of the studies were quite old), could have been the reason for increased mental illness among gay people had there been one. That would have sounded plausible to me.
Having only read the OP, and having lived in Australia for a short time, I would've said that there was a substantial gay community in metropolitan Australia (which makes up most of the population). It wouldn't surprise me if this passed before something similar in the USA or UK.
I say to all gay people sure go for it. I may not agree with it personally (not something I would ever do), but it doesn't affect me and rights shouldn't be restricted or given to a certain group of people. Also I don't get the mentality that somehow your own personal marriage is devalued or infringed upon by letting two other people get married. If it offends your beliefs, sorry you're offended, but move on please.
Don't Heteros get divorced more often than Homosexuals? If marriage was so sacred to these people you'd think they could live together. I feel like Australia, the US, and the rest of the world really just need to live and let live, pass this, and be done with it. One less issue to bicker and fight about.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
as an australian, im confident this is just another vote buying campaign by a labor government drowning in its own incompetence. pathetic they'd resort to such popularist policies in an attempt to please all of the minority groups
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots.
All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots.
All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots.
All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal.
That is not the same as your charge that academia has a liberal bias.
On October 22 2011 18:18 vetinari wrote: One case? Look, what I am saying is that there is a massive bias in academia (and the press*) towards liberal attitudes. For some reason, liberals/progressive/greens types tend to gravitate towards the academic life, while conservative views are far more prevalent in the private sector. We aren't talking about 5% differences here either. Psychology students are two hundred times more likely to be liberal than conservative, while liberals make up only 20% of the general population.
For this reason, even peer reviewed psychology articles need to be taken with a bucket of salt, whenever the subject matter could possibly be politicised. Researchers have agendas too, and they aren't above using some creative sampling techniques.
For the exact same reason you should look at studies produced by the heritage foundation carefully, take the findings of the soft sciences, (especially the dismal science), very, very carefully. A lot of psychology is a circle jerk. There is a reason it has a reputation almost as bad as homeopathy.
*obviously, fox news goes the other way.
Love the "bucket of salt" analogy. : ))) and I 100% agree. Psychology a priori rules out any kind of conservative thinking (any mention of God is only in ridicule). Ya - bucket of salt for all psych/social sciences imo. Also another bucket of salt for pharmaceutical related subjects $$$$$$$ is involved eh
When, in any serious academic journal is the supernatural an appropriate explanation for an phenomenon? Not invoking supernatural explanations for a phenomenon is somehow a liberal sort of behavior?
You assert that academia has a liberal bias. Why is that the case? What evidence do you have for it?
One article presents a survey of academic social scientists that reports that 79.6 percent of 1,208 respondents said they voted mostly Democratic over the last 10 years, with 9.3 percent voting Republican.
The only things that your post showed was that (in link one), scientists are more likely to vote liberally. The other two are speculative in nature, lack a citation at the bottom I can read, or are from the new york times, all things that remove them from being discussed seriously as sources of fact.
The mere fact that the scientists vote liberally does not mean their studies, their papers, or their official, peer reviewed journal articles are liberally biased. A well done and written study will not spin anything in any way, and most real, accepted scientific publishing institutions would not publish something with obvious liberal bias that clearly fouled the data.
Even if there is bias in the write-up, there isn't in the raw data, which is what you should look at to draw your own conclusions anyway. The conclusion and the summaries are, by their reductive and interpretive natures, biased by the person writing them. Data has no such issue, and sadly, at the end of the day, this means your argument holds no water.
Also, calling psychiatry a soft science is not fair, because it is a medical specialty and all medicine, because of our limited understanding of the human body and the unpredictable nature of disease and disorder, is more of an applied science mixed with a little art. Psychiatry is no more a science than surgery or oncology.
Calling psychology a soft science isnt really fair either, we just havent advanced our knowledge of it enough yet. When you get really advanced in biology, it starts to blend with chemistry and the line between them is blurred. Likewise, when you get really deep into psychology (a depth we are only just now starting to poke at), it starts blending with biology and biochemistry because, at the end of the day, all brain functionality directly descends from chemical reactions.
EDIT: after a closer read, I realize that link one isnt anything other than a direct copy from the nyt article, which contains no sources, no easily accessible link to the article etc. Also, since the paper they are talking about was written by self admitted conservatives (or libertarians, etc, point is that they were not liberals, nor were they completely free of political bias), there is an inherent bias in them as well, which throws their paper into the same doubt you cast over the papers you decry here. You have to apply all criteria evenly, or not at all. No picksing and choosing.
I actually don't care, I'm just saying that I have not seen a study (or press report about one) that says Academia is conservative, whilst I have seen ones that have. It would seem that there is a consensus that it is true, I would think if people thought they could do a legitimate study that said otherwise they would. I mean, there are plenty of people who come out with studies that question Smoking's link to X.
You don't get the point. The studies that question the link between smoking and disease are disregarded not because they go against established dogma, but because they are flawed. A well designed, well executed study is not dismissed lightly. Sure, it's just one paper, but when a few well documented reports of something funny happening in the same way start popping up, you bet that someone will connect the dots.
All you have is an accusation that academia is liberally biased to refute data driven conclusions. This is ad hominem on a grand scale and is simply fallacious. Perhaps reality has a liberal bias, eh?
Like I said, I don't care nor have a comment on its effects on research. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence is that the people themselves are liberal.
That is not the same as your charge that academia has a liberal bias.
If people in academia are liberal, then academia has a liberal bias. Likewise, if people in academia were conservative, then academia would have a conservative bias.
Peer review helps lessen the effect of biases, it doesn't eliminate them altogether. This is especially true when the author, editors, reviewers all have the same bias.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
Lol. That was a theory which seemed appropriate because it fit SOME of the data and was somewhat influenced by anti-gay politics. Regardless, further work has discovered that, in fact, this is not true because there are significant differences between people who are mentally sick. While it was a supported hypothesis, it turned out it was false. And you know how? By people doing more and more work to try to support or dismiss the hypothesis. It was never an established "fact" it was an arbitrary classification. It's such a different quality of work than the work people cite for parenting, for instance.
But you know what? continue to retreat and think "oh science was wrong before, therefore it's always wrong!" because it's certainly easier than actually reading ALL the work to understand why it's no longer thought this way. The earth isn't round because we used to believe it was flat.
Your super science has classified homosexual people as mentally ill for ages and many psychiastrist and psychologists still hold this to be correct. My point is that you would only ever define psychology and psychiatry as a precise science as long as backs up your opinions. You don't see the double standard in using a science that has defined homosexuality an illness and still defines homosexuals as abnormal to support gay rights?
You're also comparing psychology and geology which is absolutely no basis for a discussion. You cannot compare intagible things with hard sciences, don't you get it? If you go to university and argue your points like this you'll be flunked immediately.
And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
In the past being religion was pretty much forced upon you or you would be removed from society (or stoned to death) because the religious folk couldn't handle people disagreeing with their beliefs.
i.e. intolerance
Bring any of those scientists into a modern society and I highly doubt any would still be religious.
All of this back and forth about science it crazy. Nobody thinks science is flawless, they just think it is the best foundation for drawing conclusions. The major strength of science when placed against tradition and religion is that science changes as new information comes to light. It is this willingness to not only accept fault but constantly question assumptions that has created the colorful history of science as well as earned the field so much respect.
Basically the sentiment that people are putting forward when they use scientific studies is not that people with different opinions are wrong, but that they dont understand the reasons you have your differing opinion. Academia has trained us to understand that baseless claims and anecdotal evidence are not as valuable as a more comprehensive view when forming opinions. This means that whenever a person forms an opinion based entirely on feelings, personal experience or faith when there is legitimate evidence to the contrary they should expect to be dismissed.
If I am to put my two cents in on the issue, I dont think you have to trust anybody in such a polarizing issue. It all reminds me of the birther movement. I saw an interview with a super far right personality who basically said that there is no way Obama could be illegal because if he were then Hilary's hit squad of investigators and lawyers would have had him knocked out long before he had the chance to be in the general election. On that same note, if there was unbiased, clear evidence that gay marriage or gay families were bad then you know every conservative media outlet would be driving a nail in the coffin of the gay movement. If you believe that on the whole people act according to human nature then very little is left to chance.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
Er. What? Most people in the last 2000 years have been religious so that's hardly an argument. There was no naturalistic explanations for the creation of the universe (like the big bang theory), so most "atheists" were most likely "deists." Why are we debating the entire idea of religion? Seems pretty off-topic honestly.
And considering that science is all about discovering the order and logic of the universe, I don't see how that is different between the religious and nonreligious.
Edit: (why did you put muslims in parentheses anyway? There have been plenty of influential scientific thinkers that were Muslim. And Buddhist. And Hindu.)
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
You said you were against gay parenting. How is that not anti-gay?
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people? So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage? None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married. How can you be against this without being religious?
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people? So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically.
Yeah, if you're against gay parenting, you're a facist, anti-gay, reactionary, religious psycho. There are no other valid opinions than yours, keep on believing it.
On October 23 2011 20:49 Kickstart wrote: And your religion has classified homosexuals as abominations, woman below men, blacks as slaves, it has called for the wiping out of entire tribes, the stoning of people, and numerous other things that I could go on and on about. Science can at least admit when it was wrong, as that is the point. Science is based on what we know at the time, so yes not so long ago the APA and many others classified homosexuality as a mental disorder, go read their site now and the literature on the subject now.
You see science has the ability to continue studying things and learning about how the world works, while religion and people like you are stuck in the bronze age with no capacity for critical thought and no interest in figuring out how the world works. You just sit around and figure out new and clever ways to convince yourself and people like you that are outdated ways of thinking have any merit this day in age.
I'm an atheist and haven't mentioned religion once and you start attacking my religion? Can we agree that you at this point are simply rambling and grabbing at straws?
You had me fooled then, I apologize. I made that assumption because you have been making anti-gay arguments ( at least against homosexual marriage and adoption from what I remember) and would assume that someone holds these views because of religious conviction as there are no real arguments against homosexual rights. No I am not grabbing for straws, I don't think I am the only one who when reading your posts in this thread would make the assumption you are religious (and again I apologize if that was a false assumption) and regardless my points about religion still stand.
As for:
So much wrong in this post. Not sure if srs.
1. True. 2. No. 3. No. 4. True, lacking context. 5. No religion has ever recognized fault in it's collective past? Ok then. 6. Newton, Galileo, Reimman, Kelvin, Mendel, this list goes on. The majority of influential scientists and thinkers over the past 2000 years have been religious men, catholic, protestant, or jewish (also also Muslim if you went a little further). It was a belief in an orderly, logical universe that prompted them to find out the hows and whys of the world.
I am completely serious, but again I don't really want to take the time to debate religion, because as I stated before, one can take any holy text and interpret it however they like. But since you at least made a coherent post unlike must I'll respond. 1. Glad we agree that religion says homosexuality is an abomination. My question is in 20 years will they recognize this as a fault of their past as well, even when the texts themselves make it clear (there is no room for interpretation on: homosexuality is an abomination and they should be put to death). For you Christians: Lev. 20:13 2.I am sorry but almost every religion makes women subservient to men. In Islam there is hardly an argument to be made, woman are treated poorly, in Christianity, woman are below men from the very beginning (re-read your Adam and Eve story please), not to mention that the man is the head of the house because he is closer to god, that woman are to be quiet in church and only consult their husbands on religious matters afterwards. I am sure I could find more examples but again, it takes too much time and is open to too much " BUT WHAT THAT LINE REALLY MEANS IS ________". For you Christians: 1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-5; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11-12; I Pet, 3:1) 3. I am sorry but religion has been used to justify slavery, and again, it is open to interpretation, but fact is some people interpreted it as a justification for slavery, and was a huge factor in it not being abolished sooner (at least in my country). Not just Christianity either, there are Islamic justifications for slavery as well (these are the two religions I know most about so I will cite them the most). For you Christians: Lev. 25:44-46; Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; Ex. 21: 7, 21:20-21; Luke 12:45-48. 4.Just to remove any confusion I am talking about old testament god here. Lacking context? You hear this argument all the time when talking with the religious about the NUMEROUS genocides in the old testament (well normally they try and avoid it all together saying it doesn't matter, only the new testament does, but sometimes you run into this context argument). I am sorry, but for me killing is wrong, I know that the religious believe anything is permissible if god says it is ok, but not to anyone else. Calling for the genocide of enemy tribes, or calling for the death of all its men and then taking their woman into slavery is wrong. But hey if you believe in a god that can justify that, whatever that's on you. " Are actions right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right" -Plato If the later is true, actions are right whether or not god says so or not and we don't need god to discuss morality, but if the former is true then God could make any action permissible no matter how horrible it is. This establishes that, if the authority of morality depends on God's will, then, in principle, anything is permitted. Went off on a bit of a tangent there, but anyways For you Christians: Ex. 34:11-14; Lev. 26: 7-9, Num 21:2-3, 21:33-35; Deut 2:26-35; Josh 1-12; Judg. 20:21, 25, 35; 2 Chron. 13:15-20, 14:8-13. 5. Oh how nice of them. Problem is if they are basing their beliefs on revelation from god, why are they continually having to admit they are wrong. And why then once they have admitted they are wrong, are they ready to be infallible all over again? 6. And point 6 was addressed fairly well already. It was hard not to be at least a deist in our not too distant past because we knew little about how the world works. We know much more now and its a fairly valid argument that many of those people would be atheists had they known what we know now. But you can do good things despite of or because of being religious, but that doesn't mean the religion is true.
That is why I kept my original statement short, because it is too much hassle to spell out for everyone, not because I don't have anything to back it up with. Enjoy the read though since you asked for it.
EDIT: Stupid versus making smiley emotes on me :@
I've never stated I'm against gay marriage, I've said the opposite in fact.You people basically just demonize people and call them stupid, religious wackos when they don't agree with you. I've not made a single anti gay comment and I've still been called stupid, accused of being biased, dense, reactionist, anti-gay. But hey I guess you pro gay rights guys are the only open minded people in this world and the only ones with valid opinions?
Is it honestly possible to give arguments based on logic for you anti gay people? So far I've never heard any. Remnants of a fascist and religious past basically.
Yeah, if you're against gay parenting, you're a facist, anti-gay, reactionary, religious psycho. There are no other valid opinions than yours, keep on believing it.
Never said anything about psycho, otherwise you're pretty much spot on I don't see how it has anything to do with you? What exactly would the problems be with gay parenting and marriage?
Edit. I don't consider any opinion that is stripping a minority of their rights for arbitrary reasons valid.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
But you're the one ignoring science. How can you say you're not ignoring science and then you proceed to give me an explanation of why you are ignoring science?! When I point to evidence of psychology evolving and suggesting that homosexuality is not abnormal, you claim it is a soft science (completely ignoring neurobiological studies of course). You JUST dismissed science ffs.
Why can't I use the same science to argue gay rights exactly? Why can't I be objective and see where the evidence leads me? Look at reality, then discover your beliefs.
You have nothing to support you. You have no evidence to back you up. And I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will ever convince you.
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage? None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married. How can you be against this without being religious?
Where have I ever written I'm against gay marriage? I'm for it. You could at least try reading my posts before trying to teach me. I'm not religious and if I was against gay marriage, it wouldn't make me a religious psycho either. What's wrong with you people, can't you read?
Going on the logic that many people have displayed in this thread. I could brand 'homosexuality' as a 'mental illness' because there's a body of work to support it.
Would I do that? No
Why? Because it's debatable and I personally don't believe it to be correct.
People are allowed an opinion on subjects and a so called 'body of work' doesn't give you the right to define other peoples opinions, that's called facism.
I believe with soft sciences or pseudo sciences like psychology and psychiatry that you can make surveys and research to back up all sorts of things up and likewise do research that would contradict your findings in the same field.
You ignored my response to you earlier in this thread, where I said you are blatantly showing cognitive bias.
You have an opinion, and you are trying to hold on to that opinion by pointing to how sure we are and saying "Look there's still wiggleroom!" because we are not 100% certain. You are suggesting that our mountains of evidence does not matter because we don't have specific evidence that you want. However, if the evidence actually agreed with you then it would probably be enough. So rather than looking at evidence, you are clinging to your opinion in spite of it.
However, you can do this for anything. You can always come up with rationalizations to keep your opinion. I sincerely doubt any amount of evidence will change your opinion.
So, let me ask you one question, are homosexual people mentally ill? Because there's been a far larger 'body of evidence' to support this than there is for yours and it's been a prevalent line of thought in psychology and psychiatry for ages and still is for many. Is this a FACT? Should everyone have thought this in the past because psychologists and psychiatrists said so? You use psychology studies when they support your view and discard them if they're against?
You shouldn't try and force your opinions on others, it's a complete and utter joke.
So do you just completely ignore progress that science makes? If we make new discoveries then you should update your ideas to fit them. We have new evidence. The old body of evidence has been completely discredited in recent years.
Ideas update. Progress in science, morals, and law occurs.
How am I forcing my opinion on you? I'm talking to you on a forum. Jesus.
I never wrote that we should ignore science. I've written that when science fits your views you use it to prove your point and when it's against your pov you discard it. I've also said that I don't think psychology in anyway can be classified a hard science. Your progressive scientist still classify homosexuality as a strong abnormality and before classified it as a serious illness. Now you're going to use the same science to argue gay rights? Also a lot of this is influenced by what is politically correct and the norm in society and has little to do with psycology and psychiatry evolving from the stone ages these last years as you would have us think.
What does any of this have to do with gays right to marriage? None's trying to convince you to go gay. Just to let them have the right of getting married. How can you be against this without being religious?
Where have I ever written I'm against gay marriage? I'm for it. You could at least try reading my posts before trying to teach me. I'm not religious and if I was against gay marriage, it wouldn't make me a religious psycho either. What's wrong with you people, can't you read?
Oh I jumped in and assumed you had that opinion as that's what this thread is supposed to be about, and you have a very negative attitude toward gay people. Whatever. I never said anything about psycho, I rather objected when you said it. Who's having reading problems? I'd assume you'd be religious though, as there are no other reasons(?). I never said that you were relgious, regardless.
You still havn't made any case on Why you don't think they deserve the basic right of parenting. Just that they shouldn't, which leads me to believe that you're simply irrational, which is easy to confuse with religious. Anti gay is basically only high up on the agenda of religious/ conservatist people, whereas atheists tend to either just not care or be for it.
Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
On October 24 2011 05:43 Kickstart wrote: Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
On October 24 2011 05:43 Kickstart wrote: Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
My point is none of you are actually grown up enough to have a proper discussion because you generalize people and toss around stereotypes without reading people's posts. If psychology and psychiatry are precise sciences, homosexuals are in effect abnormal people and some would say mentally ill but you only accept the parts of the science that you like. You could at least read people's posts if you're not going to respect their opinions? Am I right? Accusing other people of extreme bias and then not reading their posts and spewing random stereotypes is a good basis for a discussion? The only people being extremely biased and childish are in fact you lot. Also comparing people questioning the results of a psychology study to thinking the world is flat? Could you be anymore desperately grasping at straws.
Firstly, geology and psychology are by no means similar sciences and there's absolutely no academical basis for comparison.
Secondly, the world being round is scientifically accurate and no matter how many tests you run, the outcome will be the same, unlike psychology where you have huge variations in individual cases.
We've known the world is round for hundreds of years and it has never changed. Psychology has classified homosexuals as seriously mentally ill for ages and still classifies it as a strong abnormality, now all of a sudden you're going to use it to argue for gay rights? Don't you see the HUGE contradiction in terms?
Welcome to the era of psychology where variation is beginning to be accounted for through gene expression. Hard facts, no more speculative bullshit. No more figuring things out through trial and error and guessing and authoritarian bullshit. Psychology at the moment is still way too complex to even try being a "hard science". I mean, it's not like the brain is as simple as some huge ass rocks floating on a mantle of magma :D + Show Spoiler +
Just kidding guys, all sciences are equal and I have no intent of starting a shitstorm.
Edit: and to stay on topic; I completely support Australia in their quest for the legalization for homosexual marriages.
Marriage is more or less just as important as a ring and a piece of paper nowdays anyway. If they want to marry and adopt/IVF a kid, who am I to stop them being happy? I'll be voting for it, no harm can come of it and it will unite the country that little bit more. Win:win scenario in my eyes
I'm all for gay marriage, never had anything against homosexuality. I just don't see this topic (EDIT: by topic I don't mean this thread, I mean this controversy throughout the world.) ever coming to a close, mainly because their are just too many people out there that are blind to other people's beliefs, practices, ect.
In America is especially worse from my point of view. Too many people cling to the cliche that being a homosexual isn't "cool" in this generation (once again, still talking about in the U.S.). The whole "It Get's Better" campaign or whatever is really cool, but I just don't see if being successful, along with other campaigns, just because of the current generation of youth in America and perhaps other countries also. It's just not widely accepted here, and I don't really see an end to this in the near future, which is upsetting. It goes back to the fact that most of the younger population in the US only "hates" gays is because they want to fit in with their straight friends, and those straight friends probably do the exact same thing, and it's disappointing.
On October 24 2011 15:47 BudgetTheLeech wrote: I'm all for gay marriage, never had anything against homosexuality. I just don't see this topic (EDIT: by topic I don't mean this thread, I mean this controversy throughout the world.) ever coming to a close, mainly because their are just too many people out there that are blind to other people's beliefs, practices, ect.
In America is especially worse from my point of view. Too many people cling to the cliche that being a homosexual isn't "cool" in this generation (once again, still talking about in the U.S.). The whole "It Get's Better" campaign or whatever is really cool, but I just don't see if being successful, along with other campaigns, just because of the current generation of youth in America and perhaps other countries also. It's just not widely accepted here, and I don't really see an end to this in the near future, which is upsetting. It goes back to the fact that most of the younger population in the US only "hates" gays is because they want to fit in with their straight friends, and those straight friends probably do the exact same thing, and it's disappointing.
I agree completely, I get to talk to a lot of gay youth, gay/straight alliances (school clubs) etc, and there is a lot of intolerance. But even in just the last 4 years, things have gotten a lot better, and they are continuing to get a lot better. Things are looking up for gay people, and rights are just on the heels in my opinion. We will see country by country, state by state, it will become legal, full rights. In my lifetime (I am 20), I think we will see universal equal rights in America, and that gives me hope.
Australians, please vote yes, even if you arent gay, you arent just voting for gay people to get rights, you are voting for equality and telling the world that you are serious about establishing equal rights for all people.
Firstly, geology and psychology are by no means similar sciences and there's absolutely no academical basis for comparison.
Secondly, the world being round is scientifically accurate and no matter how many tests you run, the outcome will be the same, unlike psychology where you have huge variations in individual cases.
We've known the world is round for hundreds of years and it has never changed. Psychology has classified homosexuals as seriously mentally ill for ages and still classifies it as a strong abnormality, now all of a sudden you're going to use it to argue for gay rights? Don't you see the HUGE contradiction in terms?
Knowledge change in science all the time, all sciences. No science has not had major turnarounds that completely changed it's view on many things. That is how science works. You can't hold it against one science that it for a long time believed something was wrong and pretend like no other sciences have. Should one doubt all of chemistry because we at one point thought there were only four elements? Should we doubt all of physics because it once thought gravity was not relative? Should we distrust all of biology because it for a very long time didn't believe in evolution? Should we not trust any doctors because medicine once thought mercury was a cure for quite a few things? The list will go on and on and on for all sciences, because that is how science works. It corrects its views based on new found evidence.
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill. You provided one link with a few studies that suggested homosexuals have a higher tendency for mental illness. As for the abnormal part I guess that depends on what criteria you go by for calling something abnormal. If you go by the broadest definition that it is anything deviating from the norm, ie any minority, then I'm sure no one would object to homosexuals being abnormal. Not even homosexuals.
Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
It's depressing how hard it is for people to actually read your posts Evil_Monkey_ let alone understand them. I thought that post of yours on this page was a bit provocative for alot of people but no less true. From any biological or evolutionairy point of view they have to be seen as an abnormality, simply for the fact that they don't further a species through procreation. Sadly it seems hard to comprehend or accept that for, as it seems to be, the majority of the posters in these last few pages.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
It is true that homosexuality being a mental illness was a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, but that was because homosexuality was against social standards, and psychology characterises socially disruptive behaviours as mental illnesses. For example, necrophilia is commonly observed in some animals (Google davian behaviour), and can be said to be somewhat natural, but is considered a mental illness in humans as it violates laws regarding abuse of corpses. Okay, I know this analogy is not very good since homosexuality, when fully consensual, does no harm, but the main point is that behaviours that go against social norms and are thus antisocial would be considered mental illnesses, and social standards vary across time, which can explain why psychologists in the past considered homosexuality an illness.
On October 21 2011 06:36 Darkalbino wrote: While this story is highly speculative, it surprises me that Australia would consider becoming so progressive.
Obviously, I am for gay marriage. Its not an issue of religous right or wrong, its an issue of freedom or lack thereof.
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) it does look to be moving forward in both a more humanitarian and logical direction (mainly because it can't pass its own legislation).
Any way, I am yet to see an Australian politics thread. So feel free to discuss both the main article and any other issues.
say what? you may think that but australia is 9999x less religious than the US/UK.
Actually homosexuality might not be an abnormality if you consider that it might be a gene selection mechanism resultant from population growth (most species are subject to population pressures long before our proliferation occurs), or a genetically proliferated social behaviour constructed by primate natural selection (see bonobo chimpanzee/the tamed fox experiment).
Obviously as a bisexual I'm biased but psychologists gave up classifying homosexuality as a mental disorder when they realized it wasn't one. For something to be a disorder it needs to interfere with the normal functionality of a regular human brain - obsessive compulsive disorder, anxiety, chemical imbalances and so on. There is an increasing body of evidence which suggests that homosexuality is just another of the normal operating modes of the human brain. Less common, but equally viable, just not relevant from the point of proliferation by natural selection.
It's no more a mental disorder than you being thicker than me is a mental disorder for you.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
I'm pretty sure the reason why homosexuality not only exists naturally but might actually benefit species evolutionary was covered very well a few pages back. In addition calling something that is not harmful to yourself or your surroundings an illness makes very little sense.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
I'm pretty sure the reason why homosexuality not only exists naturally but might actually benefit species evolutionary was covered very well a few pages back. In addition calling something that is not harmful to yourself or your surroundings an illness makes very little sense.
i believe in determinism and chance, i think that human beings are 99.99 or possibly 100% of what they are is based off chance. i try not to automatically hate on people weather they are a genius, politician, pedophile, homosexual, teacher or whatever. because i know i could be the same person as them. i try not to positively discriminate people who are worshiped in society as well. just because you invented computers or saved 1billion people from starvation doesn't mean i like you more as a human being. And just because you murder 10 children doesn't mean i hate you more as a human being. Because i accept that i could be either of these people. However i still allow myself to be repulsed or awed by human beings. (i don't get repulsed by homos tho btw, only individuals who are annoying and happen to be homosexual)
I have met a few people i have really hated in my life, but i accept that i am that person that i hate.
Anyway, just sharing my views on probability and homo's
On October 24 2011 19:25 Nyovne wrote: It's depressing how hard it is for people to actually read your posts Evil_Monkey_ let alone understand them. I thought that post of yours on this page was a bit provocative for alot of people but no less true. From any biological or evolutionairy point of view they have to be seen as an abnormality, simply for the fact that they don't further a species through procreation. Sadly it seems hard to comprehend or accept that for, as it seems to be, the majority of the posters in these last few pages.
Except that humans have sexualities for other than just procreation (a trait they share with dolphins I've heard). To say that homosexuality is an abnormality in this regard, is to say that heterosexuality (kissing, touching, sex with protection, etc) is aswell, except for when the purpose is to procreate. But fact is that gays (I suppose lesbians have it easier) can have babies aswell. Sex without offspring becomes an abnormality then. So basically humans are an abnormality on the evolutionary chain, or rather, a new link in it. Still I wouldn't single out homosexuality in this regard.
On October 24 2011 05:43 Kickstart wrote: Yes, in a post you said you were ok with homosexual marriage or something to that effect. No, you never said you were religious. My bad again. But you have to forgive me because every post of yours is a bore to read. Between the crying about people ganging up on you, the saying you don't even care about the topic, the trying to discredit science, and this silly idea that everyone's opinion is valid and should be respected, I have a hard time responding to you in a nice manner : ]. I hope you can forgive me
My point is none of you are actually grown up enough to have a proper discussion because you generalize people and toss around stereotypes without reading people's posts. If psychology and psychiatry are precise sciences, homosexuals are in effect abnormal people and some would say mentally ill but you only accept the parts of the science that you like. You could at least read people's posts if you're not going to respect their opinions? Am I right? Accusing other people of extreme bias and then not reading their posts and spewing random stereotypes is a good basis for a discussion? The only people being extremely biased and childish are in fact you lot. Also comparing people questioning the results of a psychology study to thinking the world is flat? Could you be anymore desperately grasping at straws.
Firstly, geology and psychology are by no means similar sciences and there's absolutely no academical basis for comparison.
Secondly, the world being round is scientifically accurate and no matter how many tests you run, the outcome will be the same, unlike psychology where you have huge variations in individual cases.
We've known the world is round for hundreds of years and it has never changed. Psychology has classified homosexuals as seriously mentally ill for ages and still classifies it as a strong abnormality, now all of a sudden you're going to use it to argue for gay rights? Don't you see the HUGE contradiction in terms?
Hey, the mentalliy ill can get married, can't they? :O) How does it matter either way. I'm not gonna read everything said before, but rights should not be taken away from gays if homosexuality was an illness. Thats stupid. Either way. I'd think ?
I don't think anyone should "vote" on your marriage based on your mental health, and I say this for anyone who uses it as an arguement. I think that rather speaks volumes of the mentality of those who say so, more than anything else.
Edit: Discussing other peoples mental health like this is beyond any plane of reality, it feels. I don't think many homosexuals (with a shred of confidence) would question their mental health for having sex. Feels more like some people are trying to pick on something that isn't really there. You could go around saying that blacks used to be slaves in the USA, say it to Obamas face for all I care, but you couldn't make any arguement of it that makes you look smooth, superior, or more entitled in any way. Only those who can not understand (maybe because they don't understand their own human nature) need to consider these classifications.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
So you are saying sexuality is a mental state. Then being a "player" is aswell. Being a "player" (sleeping around with protection) precludes natural reproduction, so "players" are mentally ill. That, and saying pedophiles function perfectly well in our society is reaching, I feel. I don't see how Everything you said can add up today, or even in 1972.. Maybe that's why "they" moved on from "their" classification of homosecuality, in 1972, while you just didn't.
On October 24 2011 19:25 Nyovne wrote: It's depressing how hard it is for people to actually read your posts Evil_Monkey_ let alone understand them. I thought that post of yours on this page was a bit provocative for alot of people but no less true. From any biological or evolutionairy point of view they have to be seen as an abnormality, simply for the fact that they don't further a species through procreation. Sadly it seems hard to comprehend or accept that for, as it seems to be, the majority of the posters in these last few pages.
Sadly, it seems that for a mod, you have not read the past few pages or this thread because it was already explained why this thinking (that procreation is the only way to "further" a species) is wrong.
On October 22 2011 12:31 Kojak21 wrote: if being gay is natural, then how come two guys cant have babies together?
Not entirely sure if you are serious or trolling? But I'll respond anyways. To try and make this as simple as I can, because based on your question I think simple is best for you. "Natural" is: a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature. So, since homosexuality occurs in nature among animals, it is natural. Also, just because something is odd or different does not make it unnatural. Is homosexuality odd according to nature, yes, but so is a person being over 6'2'' or having eyes that are different colors.
Fun fact; blue eyes was the result of genetic inbreeding which occurred around 5000BC, lol.
Homosexuality doesn't occur naturally amongst animals, a dominant male 'rapes' competing males in an effort to humiliate and stamp their authority, happens in the navy quite often, homosexuality is the result of a feminine mind placed in a masculine body.
Fun fact: meatbox is not as informed on the topic as he likes to think. Fun fact 2: "genetic inbreeding" is not that uncommon in nature.
I'll just re-quote myself because it takes way too long to restate the probable evolutionary/genetic relevance to homosexuality:
On July 13 2011 04:57 Bengui wrote: To the genetics crowd : has anyone ever heard of a study investigating the possibility of homosexuality being a natural mechanism to increase the ratio of parents to children ? Because the humans as a specie focus on having a low number of children and having all of them reaching puberty (as opposed to some species of fishes by example, who lay thousands of eggs hoping that a couple of them will reach adult state), and because it takes so long for human children to mature, it might be logical to think that having a little more adults taking care of a little less children could be an evolutionary advantage in the long run.
Unfortunately its difficult to describe homosexuality positively in evolutionary terms as its basically an evolutionary cul-de-sac. If the entire human race were to become gay, it would end pretty quickly. Unless we evolved asexual reproduction or some other form of procreation.
There are a lot of ways that homosexuality might be advantageous, but those are all I remember because my biology tutor was too cute for me to focus.
I'm not hugely convinced by those arguments. (I'm replying to your whole post btw, it was just pretty big) The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome. If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general).
Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though.
Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate.
Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children.
The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers.
This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily.
Are you a medic/doctor btw? Your quote suggests so. I'm a medical student myself, 3rd year. I fucking hate genetics in general though.
Yes, I’d hate genetics as well if I couldn’t grasp it...
First of all, his quote doesn’t suggest him being a medic/doctor at all; it was just an excuse for you to state that you were in medical school, as if stamping a seal of authority on your post...which is actually quite embarrassing because if my doctor pretended to be so informed on a subject like genetics and evolution (so integral to the field of biology) when he really had no inkling on the subject, I’d probably find myself second guessing his medical advise as well. Then again, many doctors are clueless about these fields because it’s not essential to the practice of medicine (even though medicine is heavily based upon it) so I guess another one bites the dust.
Anyway, let’s break down your post and point out the many flaws in it.
The evolutionary reason for sexuality is to encourage reproduction, therefore preserving the species/genome.
. Actually, it’s still somewhat debateable as to why many organisms switched from asexuality to sexuality, factoring in all the costs associated with the latter, but the strongest theory as to why it occurred was definitely not to encourage reproduction; it was most likely to increase genetic variation in a dynamic and changing environment (which many multicellular organisms occur in), allowing evolution to work faster on these sexual organisms.
Furthermore, if you think about it for a second, you would realize that sexuality would go against preserving one’s own genome as it causes you to pass on only half of it to your progeny...
If you code for a sexual preference that prevents reproduction, as I said before, its a dead end for that person's genes (in general).
You may use the “in general” part of this quote as a cop-out for your misunderstanding, but given the nature of your post, I’d imagine you wouldn’t know how so.
An organism being incapable of reproduction in no way means that their genes have reached a “dead end”. The answer lies in Hamilton’s Inclusive Fitness Theory (which Darwinian evolution is a subset of). To put it in layman terms, if I happened to die in a freak accident today, all my genes could theoretically still be passed on to the next generation due to having biological siblings who share DNA (and therefore genes) with me. This concept is the basis of eusociality in insects, common among many species of the order Hymenoptera.
For those who are scratching their head at this last sentence, many of you have probably seen a wasp hive before of which it is inhabited by usually one queen and workers/soldiers. Well, it so happens that the workers in a colony are generally sterile (extreme but common), forgoing their own reproduction in favour of the gyne who in most cases is their mother. Like homosexuality, this behaviour remained elusive for many biologists prior to Hamilton’s ground breaking work (including Darwin, who considered eusociality as being fatal to his theory of evolution by natural selection) because why would an organism give up its own reproductive success in favour of its sibling? To make this short, many eusocial species (though not all) are generally haplodiploid, so sister workers are more related to each other than they would be to their own son or daughter (0.75 vs. 0.5), thus making sense why they would help take care of their supersisters in favour of their own offspring (the genetics behind this would take another two paragraphs to read so if you’re interested pm me, but I’m losing readers at this point so just take my word for it). Thus, like kin selection can be attributed to eusocial species, it can also be used to explain homosexuality in humans (I’ll get to that later).
Its very difficult to compare something like CF (with a very well understood genetic aetiology (mutation in the CFTR protein) to homosexuality which has the murkiest of genetic basis. A major argument against a genetic basis to homosexuality is of course, the vastly reduced chance of reproduction, thus obliteration of genetic continuity to pass on any "Gay" gene. Thats simplifying allele expression and such though.
I’m not sure if you realize this but CF is a mendelian inherited trait while homosexuality most likely is a quantitative trait so of course the former would be much easier to detect and understand.
Furthermore, if the genetic basis of homosexuality is murky, so is that of intelligence as both are complex inherited traits that have not had a gene identified for either. The theory behind their existence is there but the technology (lack of resolution in detecting biological factors associated with aforementioned traits) is still lagging behind. But we don’t question the idea that smarter parents will tend to have smarter children, despite the lack of proof for the existence of a gene for intelligence so why the fuss with homosexuality? Both traits and twin studies already prove the underling biological component in both (if requested I’ll search them up and post the abstracts here) so perhaps people should revise their perspective on the situation.
And I have no idea why you would even mention allele expression when right before that you mention homosexuality being linked to a “vastly reduced chance of reproduction”. If you were right and there were no continuity in a gay gene’s lineage, why even mention allele expression to begin with? Do you even know what allele expression entails?
Prevalence of Homosexuality is an near impossible statistic to calculate accurately due to all the confounders. In the UK, the office of National Statistics has a figure of 1.5%. Who knows? I personally feel 5-10% is quite a large overestimate.
Recent studies generally suggest a prevalence rate of between 2-5% in modern Western populations, but as you have conceded, there are many factors that can confound an accurate statistic. For every gay that is open and out, how many are closeted? In some countries you can receive the death penalty for being gay and Western society—although a lot more tolerant nowadays—still has a far way to go before gays even have a neutral portrayal. With that in mind, these recent estimates can at best tell you only a conservative estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality in humans, which cannot be explained by spontaneous mutation rates, but must persist due to biological factors conferring some kind of potential fitness benefit.
Also I'm not particularly sold by the "Grandmother" argument. In the rest of the world, in species with high infant mortality, you see increased reproductive rates as a protective measure. In our own race, places like Africa (I've been to Uganda myself to talked to people about this subject) You have people having large numbers of children (10+ is not unusual). Why? For their own preservation. The children will work at a young age, help support them, and look after the parents and their other siblings. This is similar to the Grandmother model, but I fail to see the need for an extra adult to be gay to help look after the children.
Having more adults per children leads to greater survivorship of the latter and if these children harbour a gay gene that is not “active”, can further lead to a larger propagation of the gene. Remember (not sure if it’s even in your memory to begin with...) but the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the group.
The idea that genes associated with homosexuality might offer an evolutionary advantage is difficult to support with basic evolutionary theory. If anything, as someone mentioned before, traits/genes associated with homosexuality should be weaknesses, disadvantages etc. as they would have a much reduced chance of transmission to the next generation. Against this is the fact that there are examples to the opposite. Huntingdon's in women is suggested to increase libido/fecundity, making it more likely for the genes to be passed on before the disease is symptomatic. Not really an advantage. CF is a great example of a horrific disease self-limiting by reducing fertility in its sufferers.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of evolution and genetics with this excerpt. Although one’s direct fitness would be greatly reduced due to homosexuality, the same fate would not necessarily apply to their indirect fitness, and the scientific literature supports this perspective.
Your example of Huntington’s disease and its effect of an increased libido/fecundity in females actually parallels what is thought to occur with homosexuality—and this is an advantage from the perspective of the gene for these traits. You need to realize that that’s all that really matters when it comes to evolution. A gene doesn’t care about its bearer but about itself only. If it can increase its propagation at the expense of other genes, then such a scenario is likely to occur.
In either case, evolution can explain these examples that you list. With Huntington’s disease, if I’m not mistaken, the age of onset is generally in adulthood and is a recessive disorder. Thus, people still tend to have kids without knowing they could be carriers of the disease. Furthermore, recessive mutations are hard to weed out of populations because they can hide in heterozygotes, and if it confers an increase in libido/fecundity, could also be classified as a balanced polymorphism (provided that the effect is still present in heteros).
With Cystic Fibrosis, it may be detrimental to be homozygous for the disorder-causing alleles but if you are heterozygous for them, then you can generally live a normal life and also be generally immune from cholera and other diarrheal illnesses. Thus, balanced polymorphism can also explain this disorder's prevalence in the population.
With regards to homosexuality, I found this post in my history (didn’t even realize it was within this same thread as well...I know there are more in other threads scattered on the forum but I guess this proves you didn’t at least read through this one) which explains the evolutionary reason behind homosexuality:
On August 30 2010 07:56 Masamune wrote:
On August 30 2010 07:00 Apexplayer wrote:
On August 30 2010 06:29 Danger_Duck wrote:
On August 30 2010 06:24 Apexplayer wrote: This is just an arbitrary thought that I was kinda curious about.
Let's assume that being gay is genetic.
If that is true then isn't it a "disorder"(in the reproductive sense) that is worse than having a mental illness or most other genetic diseases?
The more open people are about being gay, the faster the whole idea of being gay will be a thing of the past and in some obscure section of the history book. Simply because it's something that cannot be passed on to the next generation because of the lack of a next generation.
Before you talk about genetics, study genetics first. There's something called recessive traits. That's not to say it's definitely genetic, it's just that such an argument is invalid. The only thing you could say is that the gene (if there is one) is not dominant
I have studied genetics, thanks for the needless flame. If you studied genetics you would know that there isn't only recessive and dominant genes. The majority of gay people will tell you that they believe their sexuality is genetic, and people are finding evidence for this constantly. Maybe you have heard of the choice vs genes controversy?
Aside from the flame. It is, reproductively, and unwanted trait which does cause the % of the trait in the population to diminish over time, recessive, dominant, co-dominant or not.
If you have studied genetics, it wasn't very well. Anyone who studies genetics seriously will know that evolution goes hand-in-hand with it (and everything else in biology) and that's where your post is flawed. I'm guessing you believe it's a choice or else it would have dwindled away by now? Well make sure to read my post because I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
Like I mentioned earlier, just because you can't directly reproduce does not mean that your genes are forever barred from the next generation--your relatives can pass on your genes for you as well. Homosexuality can be seen as an alternate mechanism to evolution (albeit less frequent) in that it adheres to kin selection. From the wikipedia entry on it: Kin selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, in which sterile females act as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Switch sterile females for voluntarily sterile brothers and mother to sisters in that last sentence and voila! The case of homosexuality makes a little more sense.
If I had to classify homosexuality, I'd say that it acts similarly to an outlaw gene in that it jeopardizes the reproduction of other genes in favour of itself. I say this because there have been studies done where they have found that female relatives of gay males tend to be more fecund than females not known to have any gay relatives. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that under the right environmental conditions, males with the gay gene have a great chance of becoming homosexual, whereas this same gene in their female relatives makes them hornier (who knows, but they tend to have more children than average). With the brother having no children of his own, he works to ensure the survival and replication of his nieces and nephews, which in turn share his genes as well. So it benefits the sister's genes, while fucking over some of the brother's genes. It would also help his brothers who may not be expressing the homosexual trait but whom have the "gene" anyway
Now the environment probably does have a bit to do with homosexuality, but I'd wager my life on their being a genetic precursor. I'd imagine that their could be some possible epigenetic factors involved or maybe even the way a certain portion of mRNA is spliced or something. Who knows, but there is something biological going on and the environmental component of it definitely wouldn't be a choice someone makes.
I'm not so sure about the genetic processes of lesbians, but it leads me to believe that their may be alternative modes of inheritance of homosexuality, be it genes themselves or other biological factors.
This is just looking at it from a purely evolutionary/genetic standpoint. When it comes to sexuality there is a myriad of psychological/sociological factors that complicate it pretty heavily.
I’m sure (I hope) that you’ve heard the phrase that sociology is a subset of psychology which is a subset of biology which is a subset of chemistry which is a subset of physics which is a subset of math. Well it’s true; evolution is integral to the field of biology and happens to be highly influential in the fields of psychology and sociology, which genetics also plays a major role in. Although the environment does complicate such a complicated issue as homosexuality in humans, it is less influential on many of the other myriad of species in nature used to discern many of its mysteries. Regardless, when you look at homosexuality from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint, you also happen to be looking at it from a psychology/sociological standpoint as well.
Sorry to come off as a douchebag with this monstrous post, but when someone comes into a thread dedicated to a minority group—still persecuted and viewed negatively today—only to try and flaunt their knowledge (or in this case, lack thereof) at the expense of these individuals (because let’s face it, your post was basically implying that homosexuality is a disease almost on par with life threatening ones such as Huntington’s and CF) who already have enough shit on their plates, I had no choice but to reply.
tl;dr homosexuality is most likely biological and has its evolutionary advantages.
If your argument is "gay people can't have kids, therefore homosexuality is unnatural durrr", spend more time getting out of bronze league and less time speculating about an area of science you have no clue about.
Anyway, I'll just briefly say that selection works at the level of the gene. There are numerous bodies of work in support of this and others out there questioning if selection also acts on individuals and/or groups (Wilson et al. are some of the most notable but in actuality they confuse group selection with gene selection happening on a wider scale because ironically [imo.] their hard heads disallow them of actually conceding that they are wrong) but most scientists discredit this mainly because cheating behaviour would cause it to break down (a la the "selfish gene").
With that said, something like homosexuality (akin to eusociality in species like social insects) would definitely not be likely to arise through natural selection given that it basically nullifies an organism's reproduction unless it was beneficial and advantageous somehow. Homosexuals still being able to have biological kids would also not account for the high incidence of this trait in the population (found across different types of societies including traditional ones), nor would random mutation. So that leaves us with the most probably answer which is written in the spoilered post above.
btw Nyovne, I like you and I'm not singling you out (because a lot of people in this thread seem to have this thinking) but I recognized your post being quoted and figured that maybe a red tag would get more notice.
(To the above poster): So someone was stating that the "gay gene" in females make them "hornier" (taken from above) and have more kids; then why suggest that the gene will diminish over time? It serves a reproductive function in (straight) females. What if this is not a side effect but the main reason why the gene survives, who knows, but as far as I could see there's been explained 2 reasons for why the gene (possibly) does not diminish, so you can't really make that conclusion can you.. (Not suggesting anyone can make a definite conclusion, but a conclusion that goes against observations should not be made; not until you can discredit them)
That is probably one of the big factors as to why the "gene" survives, besides having kin to tend to these extra children from the more fecund females.
I'm sort of confused as to where it is stated that the gene will diminish, maybe I might have to go back and reread it. One thing that I can think of is that the gene likely evolved in a different environment than today, where people lived more as hunter-gatherer tribes with relatives, so the same benefit of having many children and them being tended to by relatives harbouring the same gay gene is not as common today, thereby impacting (and lowering [but by how much?] the frequency of the gene in future generations. Maybe that's what you're talking about?
-drums fingers on keyboard- S'about time. I don't see what the big deal about gayness is. Never have. Don't think I ever will. Hope this passes. America is so back-asswards when it comes to this issue. I'm glad I live in one of the two states where it's legal but when bans on it are passing with 84% of the vote in other states, it's worrisome...don't remember where this quote was from but to wit it was something like, "I only care about someone's sexuality when I am trying to have sex with that person."
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you still have nothing to uphold your views on. At least my views are actually based on evidence, while yours are completely and totally invalid. Even if you shoot down all my evidence, you are the one arguing against people's rights, so the burden of proof is on you. And no, saying "its my opinion" is not a valid argument.
On October 25 2011 05:53 Masamune wrote: That is probably one of the big factors as to why the "gene" survives, besides having kin to tend to these extra children from the more fecund females.
I'm sort of confused as to where it is stated that the gene will diminish, maybe I might have to go back and reread it. One thing that I can think of is that the gene likely evolved in a different environment than today, where people lived more as hunter-gatherer tribes with relatives, so the same benefit of having many children and them being tended to by relatives harbouring the same gay gene is not as common today, thereby impacting (and lowering [but by how much?] the frequency of the gene in future generations. Maybe that's what you're talking about?
I don't think it would necessarily lower the frequency of the genes in the population, moving from the hunter gatherer to agrarian to modern society. In traditional societies, gay people were basically forced to live as straight people, at sword point. Thus, the genes would become more prevalent, as the benefits of the genes would still exist, while homosexuals would reproduce themselves (thus spreading the gene a bit more). Given that family members would be sticking together anyway, the benefit of a related male sticking around wouldn't suddenly vanish either.
On October 24 2011 16:53 Kickstart wrote: Arguing with you is a real bore, you've rotated around the same 3-4 points throughout this entire thread never addressing anything anyone else says. A little common sense or just talking to any number of homosexuals would clue anyone in to the fact that it is not a mental illness, and for whatever reason you keep bringing that up after I and numerous others have said that yes, in the past it was seen as a mental illness ( why don't you look up why though, bet you will NEVER guess why /sarcasm), but now it isn't and anyone who still holds that view is "grabbing for straws" as you like to say. But again this thread is wearing on my patience. Half the people posting haven't read it, a few people make good posts that no one responds to, and a few others continuously spout fecal drivel that any five year old with some capacity for critical thinking could see through. With that said I will retire from this thread unless someone directly quotes me and I happen to catch it, otherwise you will need to PM me. Have fun trying to have an intelligent conversation with evil_monkeys guys!
If you actually had read my post, you'd know I wrote that I don't agree with homosexuals being mentally ill..........I wrote that it's been a prevalent view in psychology for a long time, nothing else.
But you have yet to answer how psychology once thinking homosexuality was a mental illness invalidates current psychological research any more than chemistry once thinking there were only four elements invalidates current research in chemistry.
To be honest, it seems odd to me, that a mental state that precludes natural reproduction can be anything other than a mental illness. Consider a person with no desire at all, or someone sexually attracted exclusively to objects, elderly women or pre-pubescent children. They would rightly be classified as mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent, even though they can function perfectly well in society*, which was the reason for homosexuality's removal from the list of paraphilias.
*the legality or social acceptability of them acting out their desires is utterly irrelevant, for what should be obvious reasons.
On October 24 2011 16:44 Badboyrune wrote:
And you have still not provided any links for psychology for a long time classifying homosexuals as seriously mentally ill.
Homosexuality was classified as a part of the paraphilia set of mental disorders until 1972.
So you are saying sexuality is a mental state. Then being a "player" is aswell. Being a "player" (sleeping around with protection) precludes natural reproduction, so "players" are mentally ill. That, and saying pedophiles function perfectly well in our society is reaching, I feel. I don't see how Everything you said can add up today, or even in 1972.. Maybe that's why "they" moved on from "their" classification of homosecuality, in 1972, while you just didn't.
Actually, given the amount of "accidents" players have, I don't think being a player precludes natural reproduction. All it takes is one burst condom or one woman lying about being on the pill.
Its just that usually, its other men who raise a players children. Which from the female's and player's perspectives, is the perfect reproductive strategy. The player's children have the benefit of "paternal" investment, while he still gets to play the field, while the female's children have the benefit of good genes and paternal investment. Win/win.
People seem to forget their basic evolutionary biology here. For a trait to be selected for in natural selection, it only needs to improve the likelihood of reproduction and retention of children to childbearing age in a population. Thus, it can be said, that just because homosexuality does not increase the odds of a penis being inserted into a vagina, does not mean it isn't an evolutionary advantage for a population to have homosexual members. There are plenty of viable, plausible, scientifically founded lines of thinking that indicate homosexuality may actually be a positive trait in societies. Also, when scientists say "gay gene" they are not indicating they believe there is a snippet of DNA that directly codes for human sexuality. It is far more likely, and indeed fits our models of homosexuality and human development, that there is a passive chance (based on hormonal expression in vitro) that a person will be gay, not that there is a switch like for eye color or genetic disease markers. This explains why each successive male child is more likely to be gay (the difference is marginal, but statistically significant).
The ignorance, mud flinging and pure silliness from all sides is what you get when people who's only knowledge of biology is a half paid attention to highschool class and they think they understand one of the most complex, nuanced, and influential ideas ever thought by man.
also, it should hardly matter if being homosexual is "natural" or "normal" or "evolutionarily advantageous" in a discussion regarding human rights. Being infertile is not conducive to spreading your genes, but we don't see major votes, hate filled campaigns, ignorant and fear laden opinions and the like about whether the infertile should be allowed to marry. We don't deny marriage to people because we don't think their inability to reproduce is important. We deny gays the right to marry because there are people that are legitimately afraid that doing so will debase their idea of marriage. It is also born of fear, irrational revulsion and, the child of fear, hate. There is no logically sound platform that anti-gay marriage pundits have to stand on when it comes to the denial of equal rights to same sex couples, they do it out of their own feelings and disregard of the rules of no establishment. Any sane, logical person, gay or straight, should look at the issue and be completely revolted and ashamed of their country and their fellow humans at their continued degradation of and systematic denial of rights to a group of people only differentiated by who they love. I would like to be judged by the quality of my character, not the person that I love.
"JULIA Gillard has effectively killed off the prospect of gay marriage by ruling out government legislation and allowing Labor MPs a conscience vote that would be destined to fail"
i said it would not go to a vote and even if she was dumb enough to put it to a vote the back lash would be to great australia des not want gay marriage.
ME: it will not get passed in australia 99% of australians do not want anything to do with the gay men and women. they are almost shuned from society.
myself and every single person i know would vote no
Nyovne: That first line is absolute bullshit, remind me to show you the results after the vote. More on that, if you make blanket statements, provide data or don't go there.
I have never seen a good argument against gay marriage. Even the people arguing that gay people can't reproduce, preventing them from marrying won't make them turn straight.
The main problem is that it requires altering two sets of legislation and overcoming a bigotted minority. Religious institutions would have to be exempt from anti-discrmination law if they refuse to marry homosexuals. That is the technical difficulty.
Seriously what the fuck guys? How can a basic rights issue be a low priority Sometimes my country makes me shake my head
I wish I could be more optimistic, but the evidence is just not there. It is simply a case where society has moved on and government is struggling to catch up. In the meantime your average Joe who doesn't know anyone who is gay, just accepts that there are more important things. It is apathetic but unfortunately it is reality.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20110829.gif)
![[image loading]](http://digmybones.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/gay-marriage-pie-chart-jpg.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/trBSD.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yIOp1.jpg)
Sometimes my country makes me shake my head 
![[image loading]](http://www.worldsfamousphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/little_rock_desegregation_1957.jpg)
