neo_o said:
evil_tama, before actually commenting on my replies to other posts, please read the entire post I was commenting on first. You seem to have missed what I was saying in half of those.
I will not post in this thread again. Not because i'm giving up, however, this thread has become pointless as I have found myself reiterating my point over and over again.
Right since this will be your so called last post.. my nickname is eviltama. It doesn't have an underscore, and it doesn't need one. And i'm afraid you were the one who missed the point. But enought about that lets talk about this 'reiterating', i've spent.. 30 something pages in this thread reinterating my stand on this issue and as of yet it hasn't sunk in ... i've defended my opinion, i've stood on my soap box and as of yet you have never understood really anything.
In an attempt to be fair i've also included the main arguments for Gay Marriage in this post as well (and reasons why they're incorrect)
-
Why disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?
The major argument here is that by allowing homosexuality the institution of marriage will be devalued
read here :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...5E32522,00.html
Right you have your point... then you have a reason against and then you have a nonfunctioning url. (i did read the article before tho so i'll ignore that) Where is why its incorrect? You've given me someone else ideas (which i've already gone through and pointed out where the article is flawed) and you give me "the major arguement". I fail to see why we should "disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?". The point you bring up is allowing the concept of homosexuality, it doesn't even refer to gay marriage or even to marriage in general. Please correct this or tell me how this links together to make a valid point.
- Disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination (and a violation of human rights).
- The Declaration of Human Rights is non-specific towards allowing or disallowing homosexual marriage (and as some people pointed out heterosexual marriage, and yes, the declaration isn't gender specific). However, the agreement allows the state to define family, and leaves the state open to make its own choice as to whether allow gay marriage for example
So in no way is the government violating human rights as defined by the United Nations.
We've been through this, The UDHR is genderless in who can marry who, read it as you will. It doesn't say no to gay marriage it is neutral yes.. but it doesn't 'ban gay marriage'. It does say:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
So to break it up for you.. one last time.
"Men and women of full age" - Not a man and a woman, not only a man and a woman, not even some men and some women of full age. It means every man and every woman of full age.
"have the right to marry" - So as per above, every man and every woman "have the right to marry.
"and to found a family" - Now this is the part when it starts to become a little un-neutral, becuase you can view this from the family = nuclear family point of view or the family = whatever your idea of family is or family = what the govt says a family is.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:family
Take a scroll through there and open your eyes to how many definitions of 'family' don't go along with the 'traditional' mum, dad and kids bs.
The 'family' should be entitled to protection from the state... but thats the family in all its definitions not just the one you see, or i see, or johnny howard sees.
The next argument is that by disallowing gay marriage the government is "discriminating" against homosexuals. However, and this has been repeated time and again. Homosexuals have
EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS EVERYONE ELSE, yet simply choose not to exercise it. Now, 400 Miles and a few others have argued throughout this thread that providing AN ADDITIONAL right to gay marriage is not an ADDITIONAL right, but I can't make head nor tail of that
.
An additional right would be letting homosexuals marry furniture.. but not allowing them to marry each other. Its additional because no one else has that right, but giving homosexuals the right to marry is not additional because heterosexuals have that right already. Its like heterosexuals will obviously want to marry heterosexuals... homosexuals don't want to marry heterosexuals obviously otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. Now by allowing ONLY heterosexuals to marry it is discrimination. Because as the logic goes, homosexuals are not allowed to marry other homosexuals.. but heterosexuals are allowed to marry other heterosexuals.
SOCIETIES VIEWS
Why is religion an invalid point to raise in this argument? In a country that has a majority Christian population, obviously societies perspectives will be somewhat determined by the dominant religion.
So far, the only rebuttal I have received for this argument is "Well maybe people have converted from Christianity, since the census is soo old". To reiterate, the census is 3 years old, and Australia has a 70% Christian majority. Do you think its likely that that many Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years? I don't.
I thought this section was about societies views, not about religion. Society caters for many different religions, so unless you argue religion with someone knowledgeable about your religion then your religious points are wasted. Sure society in parts reflects the dominant religions Catholicism and Christianity. Two different religions you keep referring to as one. But the point here is, religion is a poor foundation to lay your arguement on when argueing against someone not of your religion. As for how many "Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years" i'd personally hope alot, because they'd probably be better off for it. But meh Christianity isn't the only religion out there even all its offshoots can't agree with each other, so its a moot point really.
Homosexuality and Genetic Factors
You and a few others argued that homosexuality is 100% genetic as opposed to my argument that it was caused both by environmental and genetic factors. God knows why this is relevant but w/e. You argued that it's caused by hormonal imbalances or some such. I remember this clearly as I was insulted by a number of people for not agreeing with you.
Your memory isn't as clear as you might like. Your arguement has changed over the duration of this thread. I never said it was 100% genetic either. And it was you who started us all on the topic of what makes a person a homosexual.
Now, for this to have been caused genetically, a mutation would have had to have taken place within some genes to result in this imbalance, the result being bodily imbalances.
SO by your own definition, homosexuality is the result of a MUTATION, which has caused IMBALANCE and a deviation in NORMAL BODILY FUNCTION.
Therefore, according to you, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETIC DISORDER, like say sickle-celled anemia which is caused in basically the same way.
Now, do you still want to go with the argument that homosexuality is 100% Genetic and that homosexuals have no choice, or that there is a choice, and environmental factors also have a role to play.
The defintion of mutation:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=define:mutation&btnG=Search
Now mutations are not all bad, some occur naturally like the mutation of our DNA which causes our gender. I don't think homosexuality is a 'mutation' like a cancerous cell, or such like. Homosexuality is a normal, natural genetically defined attribute. It is not 'a deviation in normal bodily function', i don't believe we are all created to be heterosexuals.. jsut like we all don't have the same eye colour or hair colour or same preference for different types of well anything. Life would be boring if we all loved white, had black hair and blue eyes...
Don't try and tell me what i do or don't believe i know what i think homosexuality is and how i think it comes to exist, don't try to 'read between the lines' that don't exist either. YOU think homosexuals have a choice, i don't. I think it is genetically determined and i think environmental factors have a say in not only how well someone accepts or doesnt accept their sexuality but also in how they grow into that genetic 'truth'. And example being someone who grows up in a strict household where homosexuality is a 'bad word' won't want to accept they are homosexual, they've been brought up with the ideas that its bad. They don't have a choice in their sexual preference, they do however have a choice in whether they wish to practise it.
You have opinions.. the way it seems so far you just borrow others and call them your own without even stopping to really think about the ideas assimilate them and accept what they mean to you.
The thing that truly disgusts me about gay marriage is not actually gay marriage itself, but homosexuals determination to make me accept them.
I don't accept homosexuals as being the same as heterosexuals. You are different. While i believe in tolerance, it's an individuals choice to accept you and this shouldn't be forcefed down anyone's throat.
So homosexuals disgust you because they want acceptance. So your also disgusted by black people wanting acceptance, and disabled people wanting acceptance and women wanting acceptance and the list could go on. You don't accept homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, explain it. How are they different? Do they look different? Smell different? Speak a different language that you will never understand? You can't just say i don't accept you your different and not qualify that statement. Sure its the individuals choice to accept or tolerate or hate or like and it shouldn't be forcefed... just like homosexuals shouldn't have to live like heterosexuals, why should they have to be forcefed your way of life, your way of thinking, your ideas, your ideals, your religions, your way of whatever??? Huh it doesnt only work one way. Why are we being forcefed that marriage is only a 'man + woman' event? thats a heterosexual, christian/catholic/religious idea. And YOU want to force feed that idea to everyone! And you expect us to take it and say 'yes sir' but you can't deal? Double standards.
evil_tama showed this herself. You're either a supporter of homosexuals, or your homophobic (as she so nicely called me).
And i was even nice enough to give you a definition and show why. You've shown that you are a homophobe and its obvious to anyone who reads this thread thats what you are. I support homosexuals, i also support people who can stand up and show me why they don't. I can give you all the reasons i support homosexuals and why i have those ideas, and if you can't give me a valid explaination other than one that hinges on fear or hate then your a homophobe as its defined. It really is that simple.
Marriage is simply political for homosexuals, they want it to advance the gay movement - and this will come at great social cost.
When has marriage EVER been a political process? Marriage is 2 people who love each other. It has nothing to do with advancing the gay movement (for me atleast), what it does have to do with is letting homosexuals marry the people they love. Heterosexuals can do it, why can't homosexuals? Go back to your article writer and ask her that question, ask yourself that question and then come back and tell me that you think its a political agenda for the gay movement. Don't give me a url i want YOUR opinion and why YOU think this is so. I'm sick of people arguing for things they don't fully understand, and for things that don't concern them. Your 'this will come at great social cost' reaks off conservative end-of-the-world bs. 'OMG society will suffer because if gays get married they might be accepted as equals and omg morals will vanish and omg omg' You seem a smart person, but yet you continue to fall back into this bs and not be able to fully explain yourself without trying to rely on some 'thing' which isn't your own.. or which isn't logical or which doesn't fully extrapolate on your ideas as you see them. And it makes your arguements seem faulty and flawed because your ideas don't come through properly.
Personally, i'm all for civil unions. Why doesn't anyone else in this thread want civil unions however? Quite frankly, because this isn't about gaining the same legal recognition as heterosexuals - homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals.
YOU ARE NOT.
HOMOSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS, HETEROSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS ARE EQUAL TO HETEROSEXUALS.
Its that simple. All people are equal regardless of gender, sexality, religion, race or other defining attribute.
Civil unions are a nice idea if you want to continue to label homosexuals as second class citizens. Heterosexual and homosexual couples in de-facto relationships are considered 2nd class citizens compared to married couples.. why? Well who knows really, maybe some idiot went out and told society that marriage is like 'Woah way better and like dude its the ultimate in a relationship' So everyone started to think that way, and now that homosexuals want to be able to attain that 'ultimate' status in their relationship its like 'Woah dude no way fk off' why? because some people don't think homosexuals are worthy of it. That they will devalue 'the institution', but yet they can't tell which institution they are devaluing.. the cultural symbol, the legal institution, the religious institution, the social institution or the institution of the individual. Now it seems silly to me neo_o that you argue that you don't want to be forcefed ideas, yet you want to be able to forcefed others your own. You argue a conservative point of view, yet recind. You argue the bible yet claim to be athiest. You say homosexuals are different yet give no explaination to your idea. You use others ideas to back your own, yet can't fully explain those properly either.
Your in this because its controversial, because you don't like homosexuals and you feel threatened. Your in this because it was a laugh and your 'straighter' than a die and your sympathetic to an elitist point of view. Now given all that, the moment this issue is laid to rest your going to not really give it any more thought you had your fun on the bandwagon and you spread your views around for everyone to see and for you thats the entireity of your involvement. You don't give a shit how this affects anyone else. You don't care at all.
