Should homosexual marrige be allowed in Australia?
- Thread starter the_rebel_medic
- Start date
jerkasaur
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
- Reaction score
- 1
i Vote no cause it generally, disobeys the basic rule that men are attracted to women and women are atrracted to men. this could cause serious problems if it spreads large. homosexuals who adopt children, where do the children come from? not from a gay or lesbian sexual act. it means when there are more gays, there are less children, and basically, the society is in danger.
for some men, having sex with other men may not seem so bad, just as for some women, who having sex with other women doesn't seem a problem to them, and they may even tend to enjoy it; but when it get's to legal issues, when it's illegal to marry someone in your own sex, they won't do it, and cause they have sexual and emotional needs, they'll think of "marriage", as the way it's supposed to be.
i don't know if i can get to the point or not...
for some men, having sex with other men may not seem so bad, just as for some women, who having sex with other women doesn't seem a problem to them, and they may even tend to enjoy it; but when it get's to legal issues, when it's illegal to marry someone in your own sex, they won't do it, and cause they have sexual and emotional needs, they'll think of "marriage", as the way it's supposed to be.
i don't know if i can get to the point or not...
F
Freebound
Guest
I find the belief that children of gay couples recieve redicule ironic. The only reason that this happens is because you fuel the ridicule. It's a chain. The more you say that gays are wrong, the more you strengthen the "I don't want to be gay" attitude. The insecurity infects the thoughts of homosexual marriages. You automatically think it's wrong. That's the only reason the children would experience ridicule. If people would just accept it, no one would care.
Nearly everyone contributes to this; every time you express the word "gay" or "fag" as a bad word, you make it worse. You insult others with your own ignorance and insecurity. The very thought of yourself not being homosexual, while others "suffer" reasures you.
The statement about children gaining homosexual tendencies could be argued over. Is homosexuality a chemical or psychological affair? I believe it is chemical. You don't choose to be gay. Yes, you can inherit the behaviour, but you can't inherit the feelings. This is my opinion, I know most of you will disagree.
I suppose you could call me gay agressively if you really wanted to. I can't see it going anywhere though. If my thoughts on homosexuals are equal to those who are "normal", then the "insults" go straight through me.
Nearly everyone contributes to this; every time you express the word "gay" or "fag" as a bad word, you make it worse. You insult others with your own ignorance and insecurity. The very thought of yourself not being homosexual, while others "suffer" reasures you.
The statement about children gaining homosexual tendencies could be argued over. Is homosexuality a chemical or psychological affair? I believe it is chemical. You don't choose to be gay. Yes, you can inherit the behaviour, but you can't inherit the feelings. This is my opinion, I know most of you will disagree.
I suppose you could call me gay agressively if you really wanted to. I can't see it going anywhere though. If my thoughts on homosexuals are equal to those who are "normal", then the "insults" go straight through me.
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
Jerkasaur:
If homosexuals are 'breaking the rules' why allow them at all?
Hang on, how is it a 'basic rule' if it's been broken by many people and animals for (as far as I know) our entire recorded history and beyond?
Exactly how does homosexual adoption mean less children? Don't the children have to exist in the first place in order to be adopted? Can't homosexuals actually have children through science? What evidence is there that homosexuality 'spreads' rather than merely becoming more widely accepted/admitted? What about straight people who choose not to have children? Can you at least attempt to make an argument and/or sense?
If homosexuals are 'breaking the rules' why allow them at all?
Hang on, how is it a 'basic rule' if it's been broken by many people and animals for (as far as I know) our entire recorded history and beyond?
Exactly how does homosexual adoption mean less children? Don't the children have to exist in the first place in order to be adopted? Can't homosexuals actually have children through science? What evidence is there that homosexuality 'spreads' rather than merely becoming more widely accepted/admitted? What about straight people who choose not to have children? Can you at least attempt to make an argument and/or sense?
Sparda said:
Oh, I'm well aware of the difference. But you still need to define what homosexual tendencies are. That's called operationalization, an important aspect of any scientific study.
I'm unsure as to what you mean by this.
Did I insult you? Call you names? Question your intelligence? I do not recall doing so. Granted, I was being a tad of a smartass in my first paragraph, but nothing beyond the usual that takes place in this forum. Do not label me as immature when I call into question you claims.
VictimOfScience
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 7,020
- Reaction score
- 1
Of course it should, as it should be everywhere.
I agree with Stern: equal rights for all. I do think we are slowly getting there--I mean, women and blacks have only just recently been "equal" in this country, relatively speaking. These things seem to take time, but we have made some great strides since the late 1800s and that's not a long time in terms of human history.
I agree with Stern: equal rights for all. I do think we are slowly getting there--I mean, women and blacks have only just recently been "equal" in this country, relatively speaking. These things seem to take time, but we have made some great strides since the late 1800s and that's not a long time in terms of human history.
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
It would be awesome if I could read the ignorant replies in this thread and just attribute them to the fact that most members here are very young and immature. F*ckin AWESOME!
Sadly, that's not the case
The only somewhat valid anti-gay-marriage argument that I have ever heard is that business partners may marry each other solely to take advantage of the monetary benefits. But that is more a problem with polygamy and gay marriage rolled into one.
I still have no idea how someone can say "They're allowed to be gay, but they sure can't marry!" Marriage, in the eyes of the government, is just recognizing that two people live together and are very close with money and shit like that. All it does is allow them to get financial benefits and reduce taxes and just make it easier for them to live together.
If you hate dem dang buttseckzerz, you wouldn't want dem to be COMMITING THEIR HORRIBLE SINS! You wouldn't say "Oh sure dey can be ghey so long as dey ain't MARRIED!" That doesn't make any sense. At all. You are not just a moron when you say that, you are a liar.
Adoption is a completely different issue than marriage. I take it some of you Class A morons want to make it so that gay couples cannot adopt? Because they already can. I take it you also want to make it so that gay couples cannot get pregnant, or get someone pregnant? Oh, I'm totally for the mandatory infertility operation for them awful gays. :upstare:
I also find it completely hilarious that some people are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they think that homosexuality is some sort of disease that, once accepted by society, will spread like wildfire! YMCA parties everywhere! THE HORROR!
Sadly, that's not the case
The only somewhat valid anti-gay-marriage argument that I have ever heard is that business partners may marry each other solely to take advantage of the monetary benefits. But that is more a problem with polygamy and gay marriage rolled into one.
I still have no idea how someone can say "They're allowed to be gay, but they sure can't marry!" Marriage, in the eyes of the government, is just recognizing that two people live together and are very close with money and shit like that. All it does is allow them to get financial benefits and reduce taxes and just make it easier for them to live together.
If you hate dem dang buttseckzerz, you wouldn't want dem to be COMMITING THEIR HORRIBLE SINS! You wouldn't say "Oh sure dey can be ghey so long as dey ain't MARRIED!" That doesn't make any sense. At all. You are not just a moron when you say that, you are a liar.
Adoption is a completely different issue than marriage. I take it some of you Class A morons want to make it so that gay couples cannot adopt? Because they already can. I take it you also want to make it so that gay couples cannot get pregnant, or get someone pregnant? Oh, I'm totally for the mandatory infertility operation for them awful gays. :upstare:
I also find it completely hilarious that some people are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they think that homosexuality is some sort of disease that, once accepted by society, will spread like wildfire! YMCA parties everywhere! THE HORROR!
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2004
- Messages
- 20,876
- Reaction score
- 435
So you are saying sexual atraction dictates the urge to have children?who said:
The right to free speach means that we you can express your views and we're allowed to challage and ridicule them all we want.who said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacywho said:
Computers aren't natural, get off the internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnancewho said:
Just because you find it discusting doesn't mean that it's wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymemexlucidx said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof
Evidence?
I for one wouldn't want my child to be friends with someone as narrow-sighted as people who would mock him/her for that.xlucidx said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacyjerkasaur said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proofjerkasaur said:
Why will legalizing gay marrage increase the amout of gay people?
How is marrage "supposed" to be then? Practicaly every state and religion has a different definition of marrage, why should your view be the correct?jerkasaur said:
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Erestheux said:It would be awesome if I could read the ignorant replies in this thread and just attribute them to the fact that most members here are very young and immature. F*ckin AWESOME!
Sadly, that's not the case
hear hear! <clap clap clap>
the rest of your comments were good too, welcome back Erestheux. Some of the people in this thread make me hate humanity ...please dear lord where's that fiery ball of cleansing goodness you're supposed to send down to obliterate us all? it's not coming fast enough
Voodoo_Chile
Newbie
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2004
- Messages
- 617
- Reaction score
- 0
Honestly it doesn't concern me,People should automatically have equal rights regardless of all other considerations.
This should be the final word on any matter like this.
As for people claiming that children with Gay parents would be ridiculed and ostrcised(sic?),Well they arent exactly great friends if they all of a sudden turn on you over the sexual preference of your parents.
Now end this debate,It is simple.
People should have equal rights regardless of anything else. Just keep repeating that to yourself whenever you feel the urge to do otherwise.
This should be the final word on any matter like this.
As for people claiming that children with Gay parents would be ridiculed and ostrcised(sic?),Well they arent exactly great friends if they all of a sudden turn on you over the sexual preference of your parents.
Now end this debate,It is simple.
People should have equal rights regardless of anything else. Just keep repeating that to yourself whenever you feel the urge to do otherwise.
JNightshade
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,277
- Reaction score
- 0
Ugh. I have yet to hear a convincing argument against gay marriage. Furthermore, the talk of "civil unions" here in the US is strongly remniscent of the old "separate but equal" argument for racial segregation. Of course, I'll support whatever rights they can get, but it's just idiotic.
Also, just ONE thing:
in response to Redneck... if someone ridicules you for having gay parents, it's no loss. I mean, you wouldn't want to be friends with a prejudiced asshole anyway.
At least, I hope you wouldn't...
Also, just ONE thing:
in response to Redneck... if someone ridicules you for having gay parents, it's no loss. I mean, you wouldn't want to be friends with a prejudiced asshole anyway.
At least, I hope you wouldn't...
Sulkdodds
Companion Cube
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2003
- Messages
- 18,845
- Reaction score
- 27
In fact, actually don't understand why anybody should need to argue in favour of gay marriage.
So what if there are problems?
There are problems with all individual freedoms. There are problems with letting straight people marry. There are problems with letting people own property. There are problems with not keeping the entire population in forced labour camps. Is freedom worth these problems? Yes.
It's like somewhere alone the line half of society forgot that individual freedoms generally trumped everything else.
So what if there are problems?
There are problems with all individual freedoms. There are problems with letting straight people marry. There are problems with letting people own property. There are problems with not keeping the entire population in forced labour camps. Is freedom worth these problems? Yes.
It's like somewhere alone the line half of society forgot that individual freedoms generally trumped everything else.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Seriously, why stop at discriminating against gays?
We should be actively rewarding the normal race!
The normals can get special bus seats and access to better schools.
We can give them uniforms and batons.
We should be actively rewarding the normal race!
The normals can get special bus seats and access to better schools.
We can give them uniforms and batons.
theotherguy
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Messages
- 5,107
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't like it when people deny rights to others just because they feel that they are different. What is so bad about gay marriage anyway? I beleive it is a complex of fear and of hate for the unknown.
Our society values individuality and thought and the personality of a person, yet many of us look down in disgust on those who are only slightly different from us. We trumpet civil rights for other races yet we push back and discriminate against people with different sexual preferences. These people are just like you, they simply think like the opposite sex.
Why should they be denied rights that heterosexuals have? What makes heterosexuals so special that they have unlimited access to the financial and psychological benifits of marriage and children?
People have said that homosexuals are promiscuous and posses undesirable, non-monogamous tendencies, and I say, the reason for this assertion is that homosexuals lack the option for monogamous relationships. If marriage were allowed for homosexuals, with all the difficulties like divorce and other legal issues getting in the way if they broke up, I can garuntee you that homosexual promiscuity and all of the downfalls that come with it will drop dramatically, including the prevalence of HIV among the gay community.
Allowing gays also the right to adopt children will over time decrease the negative stigma of having gay parents, and it will no longer be an issue. Why does that frighten people? For a long time it was a negative stigma for black people to vote and own property. It was a negative stigma for women to work or even leave the house. People feared these things immensely and tried to pass legistation to prevent them from happening. But do we care now? I belive the same thing will happen with gay marraige and adoption.
Our society values individuality and thought and the personality of a person, yet many of us look down in disgust on those who are only slightly different from us. We trumpet civil rights for other races yet we push back and discriminate against people with different sexual preferences. These people are just like you, they simply think like the opposite sex.
Why should they be denied rights that heterosexuals have? What makes heterosexuals so special that they have unlimited access to the financial and psychological benifits of marriage and children?
People have said that homosexuals are promiscuous and posses undesirable, non-monogamous tendencies, and I say, the reason for this assertion is that homosexuals lack the option for monogamous relationships. If marriage were allowed for homosexuals, with all the difficulties like divorce and other legal issues getting in the way if they broke up, I can garuntee you that homosexual promiscuity and all of the downfalls that come with it will drop dramatically, including the prevalence of HIV among the gay community.
Allowing gays also the right to adopt children will over time decrease the negative stigma of having gay parents, and it will no longer be an issue. Why does that frighten people? For a long time it was a negative stigma for black people to vote and own property. It was a negative stigma for women to work or even leave the house. People feared these things immensely and tried to pass legistation to prevent them from happening. But do we care now? I belive the same thing will happen with gay marraige and adoption.
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,994
- Reaction score
- 70
Steps for being a natural human:
Medicine is not natural. Stop taking it and reduce your life expectancy to it's normal 40 years.
Technology is not natural. Throw your comp out the window.
Clothes are not natural. Take them off.
Shoes and everything that aids our transportation is not natural. Run barefoot through the city avoiding all sidewalks and roads.
Congratulations, you're natural.
Medicine is not natural. Stop taking it and reduce your life expectancy to it's normal 40 years.
Technology is not natural. Throw your comp out the window.
Clothes are not natural. Take them off.
Shoes and everything that aids our transportation is not natural. Run barefoot through the city avoiding all sidewalks and roads.
Congratulations, you're natural.
>>FrEnZy<<
Spy
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
No it shouldnt be allowed. Because homosexuality contradicts what marragies are about.
Marriage should be about values such as commitment, sacrafice and devotion that a couple feel for one another and their children. These values are independent of sexual preference, and due to the fact that homosexual couples are together primarily due to their sexual preference, the primary values of marraige are not upheld.
In the case where two men who are homosexual have a relationship due to commitment and devotion, then this relationship can be described more as brotherhood or companionship rather than a marraige, because it is not based on sexual preference.
The reason that this kind of relationship is not the case between a male and a female, is that there is a capacity to reproduce and have children, and the gender roles involved in marraige (such as being a father or mother) play an important role in the development of a child.
How about couples who can't reproduce? Well, according to what I know from a friend in this situation, there is always a hope that they may be able to have a child, and this hope plays a large role in the sexual component of thier relationship.
Although I wouldnt advocate such relationships, homosexuals who want to have a partnership with other homosexuals based primarily on there sexual preference should do so in a manner that is temporary, as sexual desires and preference wanes through time, and is not a stable basis for building a long lasting relationship that will last the test of time such as a marraige is suppose to do.
Marriage should be about values such as commitment, sacrafice and devotion that a couple feel for one another and their children. These values are independent of sexual preference, and due to the fact that homosexual couples are together primarily due to their sexual preference, the primary values of marraige are not upheld.
In the case where two men who are homosexual have a relationship due to commitment and devotion, then this relationship can be described more as brotherhood or companionship rather than a marraige, because it is not based on sexual preference.
The reason that this kind of relationship is not the case between a male and a female, is that there is a capacity to reproduce and have children, and the gender roles involved in marraige (such as being a father or mother) play an important role in the development of a child.
How about couples who can't reproduce? Well, according to what I know from a friend in this situation, there is always a hope that they may be able to have a child, and this hope plays a large role in the sexual component of thier relationship.
Although I wouldnt advocate such relationships, homosexuals who want to have a partnership with other homosexuals based primarily on there sexual preference should do so in a manner that is temporary, as sexual desires and preference wanes through time, and is not a stable basis for building a long lasting relationship that will last the test of time such as a marraige is suppose to do.
>>FrEnZy<<
Spy
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
No, the argument in a nutshell is, Gays shouldnt marry because real marraiges are about devotion and commitment, not who you're sexually attracted to.
>>FrEnZy<<
Spy
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, that's the reason why the relationship between men and women are different from the relationship between a man and a man.
Any relationship thats based primarily on the way someone that you sexual prefer makes you feel do not last. You can see this in increasing divorce rates.
Because homosexuals are in a relationship, by definition, because of their sexual preference, they are obviously in it because they sexually desire one another.
If they arent in it for that, then they aren't regarded as homosexuals but close friends/companions or brothers.
Females and males who are in a relantionship because they arent in it for the sexual desire are in it to devote their lives to one another and so that they can be a strong mother and father to support any future children that they may have.
Since two males who are commited and devoted to one another cannot be a mother and a father, the kind of relationship that occors between a woman and a man in a marriage cant be warrented to a gay couple.
Any relationship thats based primarily on the way someone that you sexual prefer makes you feel do not last. You can see this in increasing divorce rates.
Because homosexuals are in a relationship, by definition, because of their sexual preference, they are obviously in it because they sexually desire one another.
If they arent in it for that, then they aren't regarded as homosexuals but close friends/companions or brothers.
Females and males who are in a relantionship because they arent in it for the sexual desire are in it to devote their lives to one another and so that they can be a strong mother and father to support any future children that they may have.
Since two males who are commited and devoted to one another cannot be a mother and a father, the kind of relationship that occors between a woman and a man in a marriage cant be warrented to a gay couple.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
FrenDzy said:
You really have to applaud fRenDZY.Lemonking said:
It's not every day that Lemonking gets to outsmart someone.
>>FrEnZy<<
Spy
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, but as I stated SEVERAL times, there relationship is primiarly based on on their sexual perference by DEFINITION. Hence, a relationship between two men that is not based on sexual preference is regarded as companionship, brotherhood, etc because they do not have the capacity to reproduce.
The same kind of relationship between a male and a female is different because they can reproduce. It has implications for their roles as mothers and fathers.
The same kind of relationship between a male and a female is different because they can reproduce. It has implications for their roles as mothers and fathers.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
frEndZY said:
"Gay people shouldn't marry because real marriages make babies."
Yuri
Tank
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,373
- Reaction score
- 4
Hey Frenzy, some day I will marry. I do not want kids, nor do I think I will ever have kids. Surely you should illegalize my right to marry because I will not reproduce!
News flash: Typing a lot doesn't make your post any less bigoted!
By the way, thanks for the welcome back, Sterny
News flash: Typing a lot doesn't make your post any less bigoted!
By the way, thanks for the welcome back, Sterny
J
Jake17
Guest
u guys crack me up...
It's funny how the only side most of you argue for is civil rights for gay people, well in that case why don't we just legalize poligamy and even relationships that involve 4 guys and 2 girls since if you can have a relationship you should have the right to marraige. this is funny becuase i don't think you guys know that marraige is not just supposably a lasting, loving relationship it's very symbolic and thats where your arguements are lacking, i guess in most of your opinions the dictionary diffinition of marriage is up for editing.
Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that "line" has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” so is it someone's right for daddies and little girls to get married. Just answer me this, where does it stop, where are you guys gonna draw the line, i would imagine there would clearly be a line that you liberal biased people have in your mind, or do you plan on getting married to your daughter?
It's funny how the only side most of you argue for is civil rights for gay people, well in that case why don't we just legalize poligamy and even relationships that involve 4 guys and 2 girls since if you can have a relationship you should have the right to marraige. this is funny becuase i don't think you guys know that marraige is not just supposably a lasting, loving relationship it's very symbolic and thats where your arguements are lacking, i guess in most of your opinions the dictionary diffinition of marriage is up for editing.
Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that "line" has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” so is it someone's right for daddies and little girls to get married. Just answer me this, where does it stop, where are you guys gonna draw the line, i would imagine there would clearly be a line that you liberal biased people have in your mind, or do you plan on getting married to your daughter?
