Ban on Gay Marriage (3 Viewers)

[lengstar]

i wish i had that list of quotes from the bible about slaying goats and stoning your wife for infidelity to prove my point

i read the entire levitus chapter and it was full of shit

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o
This is a debate about a) faggots and b) marriage. Aboriginals and voting don't figure into it. Sorry.

This debate is about a)homosexuals and b) marriage

Aboriginals and voting did come into it and was very relevant in the point that was made. If you go and read my other post you can see how relevant it was.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by lengstar
i wish i had that list of quotes from the bible about slaying goats and stoning your wife for infidelity to prove my point

i read the entire levitus chapter and it was full of shit

Don't forgot stonings for working on the Sabbath!

In all honesty, I thought Leviticus was a great read! Funniest book ever

Originally posted by 400miles
This debate is about a)homosexuals and b) marriage

Yup, thats what i said a) faggots and b) marriage

Aboriginals and voting did come into it and was very relevant in the point that was made. If you go and read my other post you can see how relevant it was.

I read one post about Aboriginals and voting and that was enough. Neither issue has any bearing on the discussion at hand. So stfu kthx

 

[neo o]

Oh, and just some more for the guy who posted the site saying that the bible doesn't really care either way about homosexuality

Rom: 1:26-27

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

 

[eviltama]

----
Originally posted by tWiStEdD

Firstly, eviltama, thank you for your well aimed, emotional critisism. I will not respond to you however, because I find you purely emotional about the topic rather than at least partially objective.
----

Is there something wrong with being passionate about an issue? If you are not passionate about an issue then i think your opinions and ideas are meaningless. Mental dribble based on a few spare thoughts you had on the topic. If you do not embrace the issue then you do not embrace the cause you are fighting for or against and can be called hypocritical or be seen as having a transperant arguement because your heart isnt in it. And if the issue is not of importance to you.. why bother wasting your time on it? I have never been and will never be 'purely emotional' about anything. I've always found pride in the fact that i while quick to speak up i am also quick to listen and take heed of others opinions. And i don't fault any reasonable, logical and well thought out opinion. But to accuse me of being purely emotional is like accusing me of being completely detached from the subject all together.


-----
Besides, your arguement is flawed and hinged on remaining political correct at all costs, and I will have no time for that.
-----
Remaining politically correct at all costs? An example please, for i find this hard to understand. I try to maintain the use of the correct terminology... perhaps this is what you mean? And if you have no time for someone who can respect the difference between gay, gays, homosexuals, lesbians and other terminology then you have no time for the subject at hand and very little understanding of it indeed.

-----
I think you are far too vicious for this thread, take a breather and come back when you're willing to listen to opinions.
------
As i said above, i'll listen to anyones opinion, and if you are lucky enough to have a well structured educated opinion i'll even consider it. But i only expect of others what i expect of myself... if i can manage to back up my opinions and ideas i expect you to be able to as well. I don't dish out to anyone shit that has no backing either in real life experiences or thru education/research. It demeans the forum and the topic/s at hand to deliver to anyone that sort of shit. As for being vicious, deal with it. This is me trying to be reasonable (and at times failing) with a group/s of people who don't listen, can't understand plain english and find simple concepts hard to grasp. Why some of them even enter this part of the forum is beyond me because they have little or no interest in discussion or debate on the topics at hand.

------
There are many people who still believe in marriage and what it stands for. Marriage has always been property of the Church, and so it should remain (albeit regulated and protected by Government). I will not accept that Government controls marriage, but I will conceed that the Church (including any religious sects) does not control marriage anymore either.
------
Marriage is seen by some as sacred and consecrate ground. And i agree it should be... but not entirely in a religious sense.. if you're religious then sure see it that way. I'm not.. so i don't. Which is why i like knowing that there is a choice of being married in a religious way (church, minister etc) AND also being married in a non religious way (J.O.P/celebrant, in a garden with your own vows etc no religious innuendo at all). I don't think the religious part should be removed entirely (as an option) but i also don't like the idea of marriage being an institution derived from the church. *Shrugs*

-----
Cartoons had weddings on them often, I used to speak to my parents about theirs, I went to my Aunt's wedding and I have seen the results of marriage and the happiness they bring about (Children, compassion, happiness support etc) and it is for these reasons that marriage should remain.
-----
Of course, you have to take the good with the bad... but why should this experience, be it good or bad be only limited to heterosexuals?


------
I ALSO welcome the recognition of homosexual couples, as per the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act, but we cannot push legal recognition too far.
-------
Agreed, everything will come in it own time. Be that when it may.

-------
Now, to the heart of this debate. Should homosexuals marry?
Ms Katie Tully had a point, although she failed to articulate it very well, nor offer alternatives. She is right in that marriage has always been for heterosexual relationships. While I understand the need for legal change on the basis of changing social values, the whole concept of marriage is destroyed if homosexuals can marry as well. The point of marriage has almost always been, with some exceptions, to procreate with an individual of the opposite sex within a mutual relationship of committment and love.
------
The whole concept of marriage has changed... the whole concept of 'a relationship' has changed. To anyone who isn't religious (or wasn't brought up with that behind them) a wedding is just a piece of paper, 2 rings and a good party and a marriage is what happens afterwards... a continuation of the relationship as if nothing had really changed. To me.. the point in marriage is commitment to a person for life (love, honesty etc etc). Thats it. Kids, a house with a white picket fence and all that inbetween is just the products of a relationship.. of any relationship. And i think that regardless of sexual preference we should all be able to show that commitment to our partner.

------
- Perhaps one of the most important points in this is the issue of procreation. Homosexuals CANT procreate. Perhaps if they were to be able to, it would be accepted.. but they cant and they will never be able to.
------
Homosexuals cannot procreate within their relationship without outside help yes... but the same goes for some heterosexuals. I don't see this as an issue. 13yr old kids 'procreate', single mothers do it, widowers, divorcees, prostitutes... test tube babies.... procreation isn't just limited to heterosexuals, raising a family isn't just limited to them either. (As cute as kids are.. i don't think i'd ever want any... hence no issue here for me anyway.. it also helps that i'd have to be near dead or the like before i'd let someone 'procreate' with me)

------
- Perhaps they think they 'love' one another, but I say that a majority of their friends were girls and they grew up surrounded by girls and thus identified themselves with females, ergo they almost believe themselves to be girls, but they're not.
------
Since i assume your talking about male homosexuals here... unless you were referring solely to the 'bottom' or 'submissive' of a gay pair you would be on the wrong track. I have gay (male) friends who grew up in all male households, and some went to all male schools.... did guy things (fast cars, nerdy guys, macho men etc) and i don't think they would ever have identified with being female... or even having effeminite attributes to their personality. What you sound like you are referring to are the transgendered, not the homosexual. And if ur theory held water, most tomboys would be lesbians... which i don't think is true in the slightest.

-----
So, for those reasons I believe homosexuals should not marry, as it is the basis of everything marriage stands for.
-----
the basis for you.. which shouldn't really be much of a problem unless you were gay and considering marrying your partner. (No thats not an attack on you of any sort... )

 

[lengstar]

why would you care twisted you are not gay and what right to you have to intrude on other's lives

 

[tWiStEdD]

Its others intruding upon mine. I'll allow a different form of recognition for them, but not marriage or anything equating to marriage. Unless you're gay, I should like to see how you see it as up to you to intrude upon gay rights, when you have no grounds to.... [if you are infact gay, then keep on tryin buddy]

I find it outrageous that homosexuals think that because they have an opinion, think they have feelings for another person of the same sex and exist as a person, they have the right to legal recognition with respect to something which is obviously a heterosexual union.

Its like having a boat, and then complaining to the manufacturers that it cant be driven on land. The whole concept of homosexual marriage is preposterous... I need more than "Its the right thing to do" to conceed to homosexual marriages. They will always be a minority, always be a fringe group... It is biologically unnatural.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
They will always be a minority, always be a fringe group

And why should we give additional rights to a minority group? Right on etc

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
I need more than "Its the right thing to do" to conceed to homosexual marriages. They will always be a minority, always be a fringe group... It is biologically unnatural.

Those in wheelchairs are also a minority but will you stop giving them certain rights? Or stop giving them extra rights that others wont use such as ramps?

And this is also where relevance to Aboriginals and voting also becomes apparent as they are a minority a "fringe group"

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Asquithian
ffs dont quote the bible its about as helpful as asking edmond barton what he thought of Asian people.

I'm not a Christian and usually i'm not a fan of quoting the Bible.

However, some guy posted a link that said that

1) The Bible doesn't specify that homosexuality is bad.
2) That Jesus is gay

and so on and so forth.

I was just calling him on it, that's all. It's a pity he hasnt posted again

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Xayma
Those in wheelchairs are also a minority but will you stop giving them certain rights? Or stop giving them extra rights that others wont use such as ramps?

And this is also where relevance to Aboriginals and voting also becomes apparent as they are a minority a "fringe group"

The key difference dude, is that homosexuals made a lifestyle choice. Nobody however makes a choice to be born Aboriginal and noone chooses to be disabled.

Additionally, homosexual marriage is a completely different issue. We aren't talking support payments here. Aboriginals receive support (and this is arguable) because they come from a disadvantaged background, and disabled people are obviously disadvantaged. Explain to me in what way homosexuals are disadvantaged and less capable then heterosexuals, and explain to me why, we should change the law for this minority group.

Additionally, and this has been said before. HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS ANYONE ELSE. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, i see no inequality.

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by neo_o
The key difference dude, is that homosexuals made a lifestyle choice.

That is debatable, numerous studies into animals have shown brain differences, a female rat injected with testosterone while developing it exhibited lesbian properties.

Originally posted by neo_o
Aboriginals receive support (and this is arguable) because they come from a disadvantaged background,

As obviously all Aboriginals come from a disadvantaged background. I know many who are more well off then me.

Originally posted by neo_o
Additionally, and this has been said before. HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS ANYONE ELSE. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, i see no inequality.

Hetreosexual couples who marry in other countries get their marriages recognised in Australia. Homosexual couples who get married in other countries wont.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Originally posted by Xayma
That is debatable, numerous studies into animals have shown brain differences, a female rat injected with testosterone while developing it exhibited lesbian properties.

I regect this 'mental sex' thing. It is an attempt to justify the whole sex-change thing. You were born male or female. It becomes obvious when you look south of the border. THAT is how you came out and THAT is how you should stay, and live your life accordingly.

Originally posted by Xayma
As obviously all Aboriginals come from a disadvantaged background. I know many who are more well off then me.

They're still treated much the same as they used to be and we generously hand out payouts accordingly. Call it what you like, they're disadvantaged... but did not choose to be Aboriginal. Your arguement made little sense, sorry.. so i answered as best I could.

Originally posted by Xayma
Hetreosexual couples who marry in other countries get their marriages recognised in Australia. Homosexual couples who get married in other countries wont.

Now you're getting into international law. Its a hairy area. Some Islamic countries allow for the stoning of an adulterous wife, perhaps then since it is allowed over there we should allow it here? Obviously not. Let the rest of the world make their own laws. We'll make our own. We dont have to listen to the rest of the world, and as such we will not change the law because another country does.

Originally posted by Xayma
Those in wheelchairs are also a minority but will you stop giving them certain rights? Or stop giving them extra rights that others wont use such as ramps?

And this is also where relevance to Aboriginals and voting also becomes apparent as they are a minority a "fringe group"

As for this, you misread me. I did not say we shouldnt give rights to minorities per se, rather minorities who make lifestyle choices (e.g. homosexuality, not disability) should not be given special concessions.

Noone has yet given me any other reason other than 'its the right thing to do', thus I remain wholeheartedly against it.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
She confused Christians and Catholics. I called her on it. Seems fair.

no she didn't. she was talking about her own experience as a catholic. you are just looking for any reason you can find to discredit her

Originally posted by neo_o
So? From my understanding a murderer needs to renounce his sin, and embrace 'God', obviously the same goes for a homosexual. A homosexual who believes that their sin is right will obviously never be forgiven.

who's to say the homosexual will never renounce the sin? you are saying that homosexuals will never get into heaven, or be accepted by god, which is quite obviously wrong

Originally posted by neo_o
that seems pretty specific to me don't you think? There goes the credibility of that site heh.

you want more? i'm not saying that jesus was gay, but since you are asking for sites on the subject

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm
http://www.365gay.com/newscontent/122503gayJesus.htm
http://www.apollonius.net/gayjesus.html
http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All About Church Articles/Was-Jesus-Gay.htm
http://www.religionnews.com/press02/PR050103.html
http://www.salon.com/feature/1998/04/cov_10feature.html
http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/newtestament/id5.html

Originally posted by neo_o
Well obviously, but by changing the law specifically for homosexuals, we are basically doing what evil_tama says that she doesn't agree with..

i actually haven't been reading evil's post, and have nfi what you are talking about. nice dodge though

Originally posted by neo_o
A heterosexual is someone who sleeps with members of the opposite sex. A homosexual sleeps with the same sex. I believe that's a difference?

no, i asked what was the difference between being able to sleep with who you want, and being able to marry who you want

Originally posted by neo_o
This is a debate about a) faggots and b) marriage. Aboriginals and voting don't figure into it. Sorry.

well, let's see. why should we change our constitution just to suit the needs of a minority of voters? in the case of homosexual marriage, we don't even need to hold a referendum, as it is not part of the constitution. if you can't understand the anaolgy, then you really are as stupid as you look

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Its like having a boat, and then complaining to the manufacturers that it cant be driven on land. The whole concept of homosexual marriage is preposterous... I need more than "Its the right thing to do" to conceed to homosexual marriages. They will always be a minority, always be a fringe group... It is biologically unnatural.

actually, i think it's more along the lines of being born out at sea, and then being refused entry to land because you were born at sea.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
I regect this 'mental sex' thing. It is an attempt to justify the whole sex-change thing. You were born male or female. It becomes obvious when you look south of the border. THAT is how you came out and THAT is how you should stay, and live your life accordingly.

i'm glad you cleared that up. 'look, stop being depressed because you didnt come out that way, and thats how you should stay'. i'm sorry to break it to you, but whether you like it or not, genetics does factor into your mentality, and you telling people that it shouldn't won't make it so. this issue has already been covered in this thread, there is evidence for both environmental and genetic factors for in making someone a homosexual. it likely that in most cases it is a mix of both, but that doesn't mean that there are no gays who didn't have a choice

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
As for this, you misread me. I did not say we shouldnt give rights to minorities per se, rather minorities who make lifestyle choices (e.g. homosexuality, not disability) should not be given special concessions.

Noone has yet given me any other reason other than 'its the right thing to do', thus I remain wholeheartedly against it.

how is being able to get married a special concession? we aren't giving them hand-outs or any other amount of money that will come out of tax-payer money.

and you're entire arguments is 'because its the wrong thing'. how is that anymore valid?

 

[steph@nie]

I'm just wondering how many people who are posting in this thread are actually gay? Because it seems stupid that a bunch of heteros are arguing about whether or not to let gay people marry, because like I said before, it has no effect on us whatsoever if homosexuals marry or not.
And neo_o... don't call them faggots. Homeosexual or gay only. Unless of course you're trying to show how backward and neanderthal you are in the tolerance of those who are "different" to you.

 

[neo o]

I'm just wondering how many people who are posting in this thread are actually gay? Because it seems stupid that a bunch of heteros are arguing about whether or not to let gay people marry, because like I said before, it has no effect on us whatsoever if homosexuals marry or not.

Everyone has a right to opinion, gay or not.

And neo_o... don't call them faggots. Homeosexual or gay only. Unless of course you're trying to show how backward and neanderthal you are in the tolerance of those who are "different" to you. [/B]

1) If you take offense at someone "insulting" someone else, and want them to stop, insulting them is probably not the best way to go about it eh?

2) I'm into tolerance. It doesn't mean I have to be into acceptance.

3) By saying "different" I hope your not trying to get into the "homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals" debate again.

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Now you're getting into international law. Its a hairy area. Some Islamic countries allow for the stoning of an adulterous wife, perhaps then since it is allowed over there we should allow it here? Obviously not. Let the rest of the world make their own laws. We'll make our own. We dont have to listen to the rest of the world, and as such we will not change the law because another country does.

Actually I was talking about the original law being discussed on this topic, that the government is to ban homosexual marriage to effectively stop the family court to not recognise foreign gay marriages. They recognise heterosexual marriages from other countries why not homosexual?

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
As for this, you misread me. I did not say we shouldnt give rights to minorities per se, rather minorities who make lifestyle choices (e.g. homosexuality, not disability) should not be given special concessions.

So a person who is put into a wheelchair because they decided to drive and got in a crash shouldnt be allowed to use the ramps?

Originally posted by tWiStEdD
They're still treated much the same as they used to be and we generously hand out payouts accordingly. Call it what you like, they're disadvantaged... but did not choose to be Aboriginal. Your arguement made little sense, sorry.. so i answered as best I could.

So the government is compensating (and hence spending others money) because people refuse to treat them with the same level as their treat "their own kind"?

Originally posted by neo_o
2) I'm into tolerance. It doesn't mean I have to be into acceptance.

So you would be ok if the "White Australia Policy" was reintroduced. Everybody had the same rights, entry into the country if they passed a dictation test in a European language.

 

[steph@nie]

Homosexuals and Heteros have different lifestyle choices, but they're the same in that a gay man can have the same feelings for his partner as can a husband for his wife.
I probably shouldn't of insulted you, but you shouldn't call them faggots. It makes them sound like animals or garbage.