Should homosexual marrige be allowed in Australia?

Should Homosexual Marrige be allowed in Australia?

  • Yes

    Votes: 62 84.9%

  • No

    Votes: 11 15.1%
  • Total voters
    73
no.

it's mocking marriage.

i've been incredibly let down that other countries have legalised it and i hope we don't follow here in aus.

actually, it's kind of sad in general about how little worth family/marriages are these days.
 
Jake17 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
A marriage is a committed relationship between or among individuals, recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. This dual nature, a binding legal contract plus a moral promise, makes marriage difficult to characterize.
Click to expand...

Here's the line, and we'll cross it when we come to it. I don't see a large amount of father/daughter pairs lining up for marriage, but I do see a lot of gay people wanting to get married.

What? It's mocking marriage? How are gay unions mocking marriage? Marriage is a testament to a relationship, bound by the particpant's religious beliefs (if they have any).
 
Jake17 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Wow, this slope sure is slippery.

Never mind that my daughter has no ability to consent. And before you even get around to it (and I know you will since most idiots think alike), neither does my pet. :D
 
You know what insults the institution of marriage? Government participation.
 
I have to ask, what exactly are gay men and women doing to gather all this hatred towards them from the people of the world ?
  • Are they infecting children with syringes filled with the "essence" of gayness to make them gay ? No, they are not.
  • Are they actively seeking out and killing straight people to make the entire world gay ? No, they are not.
  • Are they planning to do any sort of attack on the straight community as a gay community ? No, they are not.

Even if they are a pack of abominations, or a flaw of nature in your eyes, it's not up to you to "eliminate", "purge" or "purify" them. If you're a Christian, then let God deal with them when the time comes. If you are "corrupted" by the gay "disease" then don't worry, he'll most likely understand, as a benevolent god will most likely do. If you're an agnostic, or athiest and dislike gays, then leave them to evolution, or Mother Nature, as if they can't reproduce the trait will die out over a few millenia. Giving marriage rights to gays doesn't give them a instant baby-pass to pass the trait on - it simply gives them the right to be on equal footing with their fellow humans in some aspects.

Putting eveyone in the human race on even footing will not make us weaker - it will make us stronger if anything ...
 
Another brilliant argument!

Problem:

"I DISLIKE PEDOPHILES AND BESTIALISTS"

Solution:

"PERSECUTE RANDOM UNRELATED MINORITIES. ALSO FREE HANDJOBS FOR IDIOTS"
 
Jake17 said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and not debunk your arguments right now. Instead, im going to direct you to the logical fallacy thread. Read it, and try to understand it (assuming your bigoted cesspit of a mind can handle proper debating techniques) before trying to contribute any further.

:cheers:
 
>>FrEnZy<< said:
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.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
 
He puts his shaft in that guys hole.

That guy doesn't mind, he likes it, so he gets it done to him.

You on the other hand, DON'T like getting shafted in your hole, therefore, it doesn't get done to you.

Is there any sort of conflict of interests? NO!

Likewise, he marries a guy, cause the guy wants it.

You marry a girl, cause the girl wants it.

Any sort of conflict between your interests and his interests? FECKIN' NO!

The only reason anything becomes law, is because of conflicting interests. That guy shoots you. You don't want to get shot. There's a conflict between your wants and his wants, therefore, there's a barrier put between them.

Gay marriage on the other hand, offers NO cross between what the hetero and homosexuals want.

Any reason for a law? NO!

Yet another reason to hate Christianity. Damn Christians and their bullshit sacrements.
 
I liked the bit until you started dissing Christianity. I didn't see a need for it.
 
Jintor said:
I liked the bit until you started dissing Christianity. I didn't see a need for it.
Click to expand...
Nither do I :frown:
 
Jintor said:
I liked the bit until you started dissing Christianity. I didn't see a need for it.
Click to expand...
Maybe.
But these anti-gay people are major christian leaders - the pope for example.

And the bible tells you Homosexuals should be stoned to death.

Anyone who doesn't stone homosexuals, or people who work on the sabbath to death are imo pretty shit christians.
 
Solaris said:
Maybe.
But these anti-gay people are major christian leaders - the pope for example.

And the bible tells you Homosexuals should be stoned to death.

Anyone who doesn't stone homosexuals, or people who work on the sabbath to death are imo pretty shit christians.
Click to expand...
Yerh and Gods an Asshole for saying they should stone Gays "IF NOT YOU GO TO HELL"
 
Sparda said:
Yerh and Gods an Asshole for saying they should stone Gays "IF NOT YOU GO TO HELL"
Click to expand...
I just don't like people who will quote the bible to argue that Gays are evil, but arn't willing to stone them to death.
 
Solaris said:
I just don't like people who will quote the bible to argue that Gays are evil, but arn't willing to stone them to death.
Click to expand...
Even worse are the people who say the Bible hates gays but then can't tell you the verse.

Or even the book.
 
Raeven0 said:
Even worse are the people who say the Bible hates gays but then can't tell you the verse.

Or even the book.
Click to expand...
Not really, becuase it does say that.

I could tell you e=mc2 but I sure as hell couldn't name the paper which proved it.

Wait, yes I can actually. It was "Einstiens theory of general relativity" but you get the point.
 
Raeven0 said:
Even worse are the people who say the Bible hates gays but then can't tell you the verse.

Or even the book.
Click to expand...

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

got it from the Westboro Baptist site, I assume they didn't make it up.
 
Solaris said:
I could tell you e=mc2 but I sure as hell couldn't name the paper which proved it.
Click to expand...
Mathematical theorems don't need a context to be true (though some require conditionals). Based solely on the incident with Cain, independent of context, I could say God doesn't like fruit, or farmers.
Mr Stabby said:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.
Click to expand...
There was a time when I studied directly from the Bible for hours upon hours every week. I know what it says. :p
 
Raeven0 said:
There was a time when I studied directly from the Bible for hours upon hours every week. I know what it says. :p
Click to expand...

Didnt you used to be something of a fundie?
 
Frenzy said:
<snip>
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is, basically:

1. Marriage should be about values such as commitment, sacrafice and devotion.
2. These values cannot exist without procreation.
3. Since homosexuals cannot procreate, these values cannot exist within their relationships.
4. Therefore, homosexual relationships are based only on lust.
5. Therefore, homosexuals should not marry.

Frankly, that's absolute bullshit.

I like the part when you tried to justify that by saying 'infertile couples have a chance at children due to SCIENCE' but completely ignored the fact that the same is true of gays.
 
gick said:
Didnt you used to be something of a fundie?
Click to expand...
Something of, yeah. Bad things happen when reason takes a back seat to emotion.
 
Originally Posted by Solaris
But these anti-gay people are major christian leaders - the pope for example.
Click to expand...

Tony Blair is a British leader, but that doesn't mean that every Brit supports corrupt nationbuilding, does it?
 
Tony doesn't claim to be the absolute judge of human morality who cannot be questioned by his followers.

Also, if Tony does a shit job, he doesn't get elected again.
Popo stays until he dies.
 
i don't see why a straight couple should get special treatment over a gay couple. therefore, the principle of equality means that all couples should be allow to be called married, both colloquially and legally.

the idea of "marriage" for straight people, and "civil union" for gay people is called marital segregation. it's the same thing as washrooms for white people and washrooms for black people. the phrase "equal, but different" is a contradiction in terms.

gay marriage does not 'hurt society' or 'hurt children'. i think it is completely reasonable and fair that straight parents generally produce straight children, and therefore gay parents should, perhaps, generally produce gay children. it works both ways. and there is nothing wrong with this.

as for hurting society, that's just plain ridiculous. i think, the only thing it does is threaten straight people's sexuality indirectly by putting them in the same class as gay people. they are trying to preserve the distinction as an elitist clique for heteros.
 
On the subject of gay couples producing gay children:
1: The obvious one, give us evidence.
2: Due to the fact that there are a more gay couples than straight couples then obviously the gay offspiring will be a minority compared to the straight offspring. So gayness wouldn't become an 'epidemic' unless most straight people stopped having children while more gay people had them.
3: Is there something wrong with producing gay children?
 
there are regular marriages that are so far past the point of FUBARed anyway. I don't see how gay marriges can make it any worse.

I say let them marry.

Plus that means mo' lipstick lessssbians walking around, and i'm all for that.
 
Mr Stabby said:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

got it from the Westboro Baptist site
sorry double posted. my bad.
Click to expand...
 
sry dbble post that is my bad i didnt mean to
 
Mr Stabby said:
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13.

got it from the Westboro Baptist site, I assume they didn't make it up.
Click to expand...
You're right they didn't make it up, good job; however you took it out of context,(fallacy of quoting out of context) you try to find examples in history that our "modern" culture doesn't accept any more. Even in that reference Jesus later says that the non-sinner cast the first stone, and no one does, not even himself; instead he went to the lady and helped her off the ground. He went about doing what he did because he was teaching them a lesson, none of us are sin-free. But if you want to bring up how people are hated, the problem is more or less widespread, why don't we just have a look at christianity in the same time period? I don't think I have to step into that area.

When making my previous post I wasn't saying that my arguments were the most logical. What I was posting was simply my opinion of the matter, without any bashing going on. But anyone who takes a side on the matter and argues for that side is commiting the "bias sample fallacy", therefore their argument is rendered illogical anyways. So what's the point? There's no hardcore evidence supporting either side, just opinions that some people are using to "brainwash" other people. I suppose the non-supporters of gay marraige are the "bad guys" now, that's an example of a personal attack fallacy, to attack my/others opinions by presenting no facts to back up their feelings that anti-gay marraige people are doing everything wrong, honestly what's the deal?
 
They should be allowed to get married, they should be allowed to adopt, it is their right a humans to do so, no one, no religion, no government should tell them what they can and cannot believe, if being gay makes them happy, good for them, let them live thier lives, if being gay doesn't make someone happy, then don't talk about it, and don't hate them because of it.

I think being gay is gross, but thats me, I'm not gay, I'm sure some gay people think being straight is gross, but thats them, they aren't straight.

Simple as that.
 
Jake17 said:
your right they didn't make it up. Good job. But you took it out of context(fallacy of quoting out of context), u try to find stuff that our secular culture doesn't accept any more, but even then jesus later says that the non-sinner cast the first stone, and no one does not even himself, instead he went to the lady and helped her off the ground, because he was teaching them a leason none of us havn't sinned, but if you want to bring up how people are hated why don't we just have a look at christianity in the same time period? i don't think i have to go into that.

Also when i made my post i wasn't saying that my arguments were the most logical and what i was posting was simply my opinion of the matter without any bashing going on. But anyone who takes a side on the matter and argues for that side is commiting the bias sample fallacy, therefore there arguement is rendered illogical anyways. So whats the point, there no hardcore evidence supporting either side, just opinion that some people are trying to brainwash other people with. I guess the non-supporters of gay marraige are the bad guys now, thats a personal attack fallacy to attack our opinion by stateing no facts to back up that anti-gay marraige people are doing anything wrong, whats the deal?
Click to expand...

i completely agree that peanut butter running is the best time of the day at night Jesus will do things that maybe. Good job. You may not just be the One but at the same time I do think that secular potato chips in Spain are very good tasty in the plain sun of daylight, but u try find things u do thing u do that?
 
Erestheux said:
i completely agree that peanut butter running is the best time of the day at night Jesus will do things that maybe. Good job. You may not just be the One but at the same time I do think that secular potato chips in Spain are very good tasty in the plain sun of daylight, but u try find things u do thing u do that?
Click to expand...
I prefer Albuquerque.
 
Erestheux said:
i completely agree that peanut butter running is the best time of the day at night Jesus will do things that maybe. Good job. You may not just be the One but at the same time I do think that secular potato chips in Spain are very good tasty in the plain sun of daylight, but u try find things u do thing u do that?
Click to expand...
wow, thanks for agreeing with me, it fills my heart with joy and makes we want to be a mashed potatoe. Your immature brain just proves the ammount of intelligence people can lack that they are driven to mock everything that they don't agree with...
 
Hah, I was only mocking your inability to create sentences :)
 
Erestheux said:
Hah, I was only mocking your inability to create sentences :)
Click to expand...
Ok, so you want me to use proper punctuation and grammer? Ok i'll edit it to make you feel better. :p
 
Man, I hate it when people are cool about me making fun of them. Then I'm all like "Damn, now I feel bad for doing it in the first place." You damn jerk :p
 
Ludah said:
People are going to **** regardless of wether or not they're married. It's an unrelated issue.
Click to expand...


agreed,but thats the arguement most homophopes use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top