Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[dagwoman]

I'm not saying he's homophobic. I'm saying the idea that homosexuality can stem from abuse/trauma is homophobic. I agree that there can be other determining factors, but the idea that one determining facter could be abuse is homophobic.

 

[kami]

So the question I pose is this:

If homosexuality is becoming more of a lifestyle choice made attractive through its alternativeness and acceptance from all (within the homosexual community), does this pose an issue in regards to validating exactly who is genuine about their orientation and feelings?

I'd just like to raise the issue that the gay community isn't that accepting, it can be quite exclusive; you must have a certain look, wear a certain style, be a certain age etc. There are also elements that are prejudiced/paranoid regarding bisexuals because 'its just a phase' etc. So I don't feel thats a valid reason.

There is always an issue with sexuality, repression and experimentation - I'm sure many men and women who later identify themselves as homosexual have been with the opposite sex and thought themselves straight. This obviously impacts the hetero people they get involved with, it likewise happens with homosexuals. This makes me thinks that its less a gay issue about alternativity than simply a people issue, namely the search for identity.

 

[dieburndie]

I'm not saying he's homophobic. I'm saying the idea that homophobia can stem from abuse/trauma is homophobic.

You mean homosexuality can stem from abuse/trauma?
Otherwise I've missed the point entirely.

 

[blue_chameleon]

But hasn't this shown to be wrong in many tests which were posted much earlier in the life of this thread? I'll try to dig them up for you.

Yeah, I havent looked at all. This is a pretty large thread, so il leave it up to you Mr Mod!

In what way exactly is this an issue?

Even if people are merely feigning their homosexuality (something I truly doubt happens on any wide-scale) what does this matter ?

For the community on a whole, I see this as being a massive issue.
Realisation that there are members of a community that dont have the best interests lying in the community as a whole, and more likely in satisfying their curiosity through experimentation has the potential to undermine the credibility of the whole community.

For me, if I were homosexual I would like to find comfort and security (and pride) in the fact that: 1. My views and beliefs towards my orientation were being mirrored and spoken out by people that I knew were genuine with their orientation, and 2. Those who were experimental homosexuals (or more specifically bisexuality) didnt have their hands in operations which sought to forward the plight and visions for the gay community, namely civil unions, greater acceptance etc.

 

[bshoc]

bshoc, obviously you are not arguing about a right to marriage and its definition.

Moreso, whether homosexuality is a natural human condition, rather than some random fetish.

Marriage has changed over the years, legally and socially, but I feel that marriage in a modern day sense, its very core of it, marriage is for love.

Thus we must discuss, is homosexuality natural?

Is homosexuality love?

It could be both, I'm not homosexual and neither is 99% of the population so we'll never know - thats why I got fed up with replying, nobody gets what I'm trying to say - ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT ME OR YOU THINK INDIVIDUALLY, nor is it about whether homosexuality is natural, love, a fad, whatever, it has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

Despite what you believe marriage has not changed since its inception into society, the nature of the relationship between husband and wife may be percieved to be socially equal these days, but alot of marriages before feminism were defacto equal anyway. Marriage is as defined for a very good purpose, a union between man and woman, and given long enough nearly all marriages will produce children naturally, neither of us can really identify with it since we've never been married, but the fact that the strongest opposition to gay marriage comes from married couples should tell you something about the nature of the opposition - that is you're threatening to equate the sanctity of marriage with something like a gay relationship, you're threatening to derail an institution which forms the very cornerstone of society. Notice how this latest illegalization was almost a form of retaliation for what the majority of people percieved to be an attack on the institution they value. Lets put this another way, take the institution of women's rights, if we gave men equal control over unborn children, most women would view it as an attack on the necessary exclusivety of their rights. Same principle applies here.

Its not really the social liberalism I question, but the judgement.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

and given long enough nearly all marriages will produce children naturally, neither of us can really identify with it since we've never been married, but the fact that the strongest opposition to gay marriage comes from married couples should tell you something about the nature of the opposition

No, the strongest opposition comes from right-wing conservative christians.

that is you're threatening to equate the sanctity of marriage with something like a gay relationship, you're threatening to derail an institution which forms the very cornerstone of society.

No... We take nothing away from marriage by allowing gay marriage except for some undefinable symbolism that you (and maybe others) use to defend your position.

take the institution of women's rights, if we gave men equal control over unborn children, most women would view it as an attack on the necessary exclusivety of their rights.

Bad analogy, you see granting men equal rights over control of unborn children really does hurt a womans freedom directly. All that allowing gay's a right to marriage does (as you've claimed) is tarnish the institution of marriage, making married people feel they're not as 'special' or something along those lines... It is more akin to being in charge of a male only / female only club and then crying about how letting a woman/man in will make your club not so special anymore.

 

[townie]

It could be both, I'm not homosexual and neither is 99% of the population so we'll never know - thats why I got fed up with replying, nobody gets what I'm trying to say - ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT ME OR YOU THINK INDIVIDUALLY, nor is it about whether homosexuality is natural, love, a fad, whatever, it has no relevance whatsoever to this discussion.

Despite what you believe marriage has not changed since its inception into society, the nature of the relationship between husband and wife may be percieved to be socially equal these days, but alot of marriages before feminism were defacto equal anyway. Marriage is as defined for a very good purpose, a union between man and woman, and given long enough nearly all marriages will produce children naturally, neither of us can really identify with it since we've never been married, but the fact that the strongest opposition to gay marriage comes from married couples should tell you something about the nature of the opposition - that is you're threatening to equate the sanctity of marriage with something like a gay relationship, you're threatening to derail an institution which forms the very cornerstone of society. Notice how this latest illegalization was almost a form of retaliation for what the majority of people percieved to be an attack on the institution they value. Lets put this another way, take the institution of women's rights, if we gave men equal control over unborn children, most women would view it as an attack on the necessary exclusivety of their rights. Same principle applies here.

Its not really the social liberalism I question, but the judgement.

if marriage can be derailed by gay people getting married, then it's not a very strong "cornerstone" is it now?

and i believe, and i think people will agree, that the so called "sanctity" of marriage comes from the individuals in loving relationships themselves, and if sanctity is derived from love (which it should be, because sanctity derived from prevailing social winds is just tradition, not sanctity), then gay people should be allowed to marry as they are just as capable of love and commitment

 

[bshoc]

No, the strongest opposition comes from right-wing conservative christians.

I had no idea that 58% (this was an ABC poll by the way, so it probably skewed the numbers towards their leftist opinions) of the country were conservative evangelical christians. Well 70% of the country are christians, but still.

No... We take nothing away from marriage by allowing gay marriage except for some undefinable symbolism that you (and maybe others) use to defend your position.

Yes you do, what I outlined above, you take away control, exclusivety, meaning and relevance in terms of family.

Bad analogy, you see granting men equal rights over control of unborn children really does hurt a womans freedom directly.

Neither does not creating certain laws.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I had no idea that 58% (this was an ABC poll by the way, so it probably skewed the numbers towards their leftist opinions) of the country were conservative evangelical christians. Well 70% of the country are christians, but still.

You clearly said 'the strongest opposition'.

Yes you do, what I outlined above, you take away control, exclusivety, meaning and relevance in terms of family.

Control? What do you mean by that?

The rest I'm pretty sure I've already offered my opinion on.

Neither does not creating certain laws.

.... What? No one's freedom is hurt by allowing gay marriage, the only time freedom comes into the debate is when you're arguing in favor of it.

 

[townie]

Yes you do, what I outlined above, you take away control, exclusivety, meaning and relevance in terms of family.

What, marriage is like some kind of membership club now, YOU are the one who devalues marriage be cheapening it to some sort of bloody RSL

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Anyway to be honest I'd not give gay's "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships", what's your problem with that Bshoc?

 

[Graham Trevor]

Anyway to be honest I'd not give gay's "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships", what's your problem with that Bshoc?

That's completely revolting -- you would not give them "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships". . . ?

And what is it that puts you in a position to decide what anyone will be given? It sounds as though you believe that being heterosexual gives you authority over homosexuals.

The problem with your resolution is that it does not take into account that homosexuals are people, and you are not granting them equal rights.

 

[bshoc]

That's completely revolting -- you would not give them "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships". . . ?

And what is it that puts you in a position to decide what anyone will be given? It sounds as though you believe that being heterosexual gives you authority over homosexuals.

The problem with your resolution is that it does not take into account that homosexuals are people, and you are not granting them equal rights.

Yeah NTB didn't you know thats completely REVOLTING? lol u friggin stalinist

I guess that means we'd better leave things the way they are, seeing as how domestic partnerships are revolting, marriage must be the worst thing on Earth, remember you're 1% of the population.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

That's completely revolting -- you would not give them "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships". . . ?

Yes, when you're describing hypothetical's sometimes you like to put yourself in a hypothetical position of authority to hypothetically make the decision.

And what is it that puts you in a position to decide what anyone will be given?

See above.

It sounds as though you believe that being heterosexual gives you authority over homosexuals.

No, It's more a matter of compromise....... both sides 'give' and 'take' in order to come to a more compatible solution for both sides.

The problem with your resolution is that it does not take into account that homosexuals are people, and you are not granting them equal rights.

No, actually I propose giving them equal rights... Except for any government grants that have been set up to encourage child-birth etc. If you want marriage to help you get loans together, to show you're a couple etc then essentially I don't see what your problem would be with my idea - However instead of asking me what I mean, you assume the worst.

 

[townie]

As i've said before, many times, "Marriage" should be returned to a completley religious ceremony, decided only by the church with no legal interference and no legal rights granted.

All the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage should be Civil Unions/Partnerships whatever u wanna call them, and be provided to same-sex and oppossite sex partners

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As i've said before, many times, "Marriage" should be returned to a completley religious ceremony, decided only by the church with no legal interference and no legal rights granted.

All the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage should be Civil Unions/Partnerships whatever u wanna call them, and be provided to same-sex and oppossite sex partners

My only problem is that some of the assistance provided for under marriages is directly for the purpose of encouraging children to be born. So I do think there'd need to be a distinction there, or merely the abolishment of such practices.

 

[townie]

My only problem is that some of the assistance provided for under marriages is directly for the purpose of encouraging children to be born. So I do think there'd need to be a distinction there, or merely the abolishment of such practices.

I cant comment because i'm not quite sure what assistance there is?

i know ONCE you have children you can get assistance, I wasnt aware that there were encouragement schemes

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I dunno I'm kinda tired after 12 hours of work put in today

 

[Bricktop]

I wish I was gay so I could pull the homophobia card whenever my pride was in doubt.

 

[ihavenothing]

It doesn't work all the time

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tatchell

still gets called a racist and Islamaphobe