Homosexuality in Australia (7 Viewers)

[tako]

People are so fucking stupid.

By that I'm referring to the minority of deluded, religious nuts.

I support faggots over religious nuts.


*awaits for somebody to misinterpret my post*

Don't bother, I'm better than you.

 

[dagwoman]

I'm not sure if many people on this forum realise, but the word "faggot" is horribly offensive. It's not the 1950s anymore.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

bshoc, you don't know how to debate do you?
You make a point, such as your facetious one about homosexuals being paedophiles, and then you ignore all rebuttals in favour of "60% of society agrees with me"
You lose.

You make slurs and suggest that the gay population of Australia all frequent Oxford street and go to the marti gras...without of course any backing for this claim since it is in essence just another "eww gays are yucky and they have a parade that is also yucky" kind of statement.

It doesn't matter about personal experiences of marriage. The fact is that there are no requirements for marriage such as intentions to reproduce, other than that the two people must be of opposite sex. I think that should change, and that gay people should permitted to marry, for the same reason straight people are- whatever reason they want.

Oh please

Marriage is a naturally occurring pre-political institution that the state only recognizes as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs." All same-sex marriage does is that it advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of higher hetrosexual union and reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex.

You're not going to change thousands of years of human history and relationship with a piece of paper, not that most people will ever give you that piece of paper either. Get over it.

And yes there is no such thing as a gay family, its just a freakshow, alot like gays and the places they inhabit (ie. oxford st., mardi gras) show me one historic instance of a functional "gay family,"

What you did just then, is not actually address what dagwomen was saying.
The fact is that there are no requirements for marriage such as intentions to reproduce, other than that the two people must be of opposite sex.

The fact that legislation has been passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman (where previously it had just been assumed) should show you why the government is relevant in this argument.

Instead of actually addressing the point: that all your arguments about not letting a couple that cannot reproduce marry are spurious because that is not the legal definition of marriage anyway,

you chose to pretend dagwoman was trying to rewrite history.


"show me one historic instance of a functional "gay family,"

Show me one functional mixed race family before mixed race marriages became acceptable.

Numerous people have given example of African tribes etc that have had same sex marriages, its even been known to happen amongst native americans. Of course for some reason these don't qualify as marriages to you, probably because they aren't white.


One more thing. If you are going to quote directly from Wikipedia you really should make sure you put that somewhere in your post, rather than giving the impression that you are posting your own views.

 

[tako]

Faggot is an awesome word!

 

[dagwoman]

Maybe when you're the idiot aiming it at others.

 

[tako]

Ppft, sif.

Everybody calls faggots faggots.

 

[Dougie]

bshoc, you don't know how to debate do you?
You make a point, such as your facetious one about homosexuals being paedophiles, and then you ignore all rebuttals in favour of "60% of society agrees with me"
You lose.

You make slurs and suggest that the gay population of Australia all frequent Oxford street and go to the marti gras...without of course any backing for this claim since it is in essence just another "eww gays are yucky and they have a parade that is also yucky" kind of statement.





What you did just then, is not actually address what dagwomen was saying.
The fact is that there are no requirements for marriage such as intentions to reproduce, other than that the two people must be of opposite sex.

The fact that legislation has been passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman (where previously it had just been assumed) should show you why the government is relevant in this argument.

Instead of actually addressing the point: that all your arguments about not letting a couple that cannot reproduce marry are spurious because that is not the legal definition of marriage anyway,

you chose to pretend dagwoman was trying to rewrite history.


"show me one historic instance of a functional "gay family,"

Show me one functional mixed race family before mixed race marriages became acceptable.

Numerous people have given example of African tribes etc that have had same sex marriages, its even been known to happen amongst native americans. Of course for some reason these don't qualify as marriages to you, probably because they aren't white.


One more thing. If you are going to quote directly from Wikipedia you really should make sure you put that somewhere in your post, rather than giving the impression that you are posting your own views.

don't you just love when someone can be bothered to write down what you're thinking and trying to convey, but goes to the effort to do it properly, rather than in one long sentence
nice one!

 

[Tamazoid]

As long as the left keep advocating gay marriages and adoption, they will keep losing elections in Australia. Only irrelevant political parties such as the Greens and Democrats actually believe such provisions would be legislated which demonstrates the abject lack of popular sovereignty the notion holds.

 

[kami]

Bshoc, how would you feel if the following occured:

• all forms of civil unions were abolished (including the awarding of rights to married couples) and;
• rights and privileges associated with marriage(superannuation, tax, centrelink and health cover benefits and rights regarding inheritance and custody )bestowed to defacto couples regardless of gender,
• leaving marriage as an institution governed solely by religion, with each religion defining marriage on its own basis.
• Which, with consideration of the freedom of religion idea, means that if people choose to be part of a religion that does not marry between two same gender parties then tough luck, however if they are perhaps buddhists or quakers or whatnot then since their religion permits same-sex marriage then thats that.
• Also that benefits/incentives associated with families be bestowed to those who form family units rather than those who get married.[if currently that is how it works].

This would deal with the following:

• issues against government controlling a 'sacred institution' as the 'government does not create marriage anymore than it creates jobs'.
• inequity of rights between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
• inequity of religion as currently buddhist and quaker definitions of marriage are not provided for by law. (i.e Australian legislation only covers Anglican/Catholic/Jewish definitions - which considering Australia is not a homogenous country should not be permitted).
• your fear of homosexuals tainting marriage - they would have no more access to the institution than they do now, simply the rights and privileges associated with it.
• your fear that this would lead to an affront to the value and responsibility of rearing one's own children.

I would be interested to read what kind of critique you would generate against the above proposal while remaining within the guidlines proposed by this guide to arguing within this forum.



I also wonder why you're so vehement on excluding same-sex marriages - surely if their numbers are so small as you claim then any negative impact [and the negativity of this impact is debatable] would be rather minimal and would appease a large number of Australians in the process.

 

[bshoc]

Bshoc, how would you feel if the following occured:

• all forms of civil unions were abolished (including the awarding of rights to married couples) and;
• rights and privileges associated with marriage(superannuation, tax, centrelink and health cover benefits and rights regarding inheritance and custody )bestowed to defacto couples regardless of gender,
• leaving marriage as an institution governed solely by religion, with each religion defining marriage on its own basis.
• Which, with consideration of the freedom of religion idea, means that if people choose to be part of a religion that does not marry between two same gender parties then tough luck, however if they are perhaps buddhists or quakers or whatnot then since their religion permits same-sex marriage then thats that.
• Also that benefits/incentives associated with families be bestowed to those who form family units rather than those who get married.[if currently that is how it works].

This would deal with the following:

• issues against government controlling a 'sacred institution' as the 'government does not create marriage anymore than it creates jobs'.
• inequity of rights between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
• inequity of religion as currently buddhist and quaker definitions of marriage are not provided for by law. (i.e Australian legislation only covers Anglican/Catholic/Jewish definitions - which considering Australia is not a homogenous country should not be permitted).
• your fear of homosexuals tainting marriage - they would have no more access to the institution than they do now, simply the rights and privileges associated with it.
• your fear that this would lead to an affront to the value and responsibility of rearing one's own children.

I would be interested to read what kind of critique you would generate against the above proposal while remaining within the guidlines proposed by this guide to arguing within this forum.

http://community.boredofstudies.org/1808645/post-1.html

I really dont have the time or intrest to adress the leftist splatter you like to call policy ideas, I say, leave your gay wet dreams at the door please, things work great now and there is no need to change them, just face it, men and women will keep marrying, and all the whiny gays can go kill themselves for all I care, to have gays around is no benefit, to lose them is no loss.

(ps. good luck with electing people with those kinds of platforms)

Do you really think even a fraction of the country will give up their marriage licenses in order to somehow decouple them from your imaginary religious roots in order to appease a disgusting 1% of the population? Keep drinking your own kool aid son

 

[dagwoman]

If you're not able to deal with that you're probably NOT cut out to be a Lesbian considering the other shit you'll face, hey.

You should think about that, considering you're one of the people dishing the shit out. I'm completely able to deal with it. But I'm not going to stop at just accepting it, I'm gonna challenge it because it's offensive and it pisses me off.

There aren't any "rules" to be in the "lesbo club". If you're a chick who likes chicks, then you're cut out to be a lesbian.

 

[dagwoman]

bshoc, you're a horrible person for saying things like that. If you're not able to reply in the debate, you shouldn't be posting here.

 

[Dougie]

[/URL]

I really dont have the time or intrest to adress the leftist splatter you like to call policy ideas, I say, leave your gay wet dreams at the door please, things work great now and there is no need to change them, just face it, men and women will keep marrying, and all the whiny gays can go kill themselves for all I care, to have gays around is no benefit, to lose them is no loss.

(ps. good luck with electing people with those kinds of platforms)

Do you really think even a fraction of the country will give up their marriage licenses in order to somehow decouple them from your imaginary religious roots in order to appease a disgusting 1% of the population? Keep drinking your own kool aid son

it sounds like your main arguement is that gays are inferior. i can't see that going down too well. And the world has always constantly changed, why do you think it will suddebly stop?

 

[bshoc]

it sounds like your main arguement is that gays are inferior. i can't see that going down too well. And the world has always constantly changed, why do you think it will suddebly stop?

Why do you think that change is exlusive to left wing and homosexual causes?

 

[Dougie]

Why do you think that change is exlusive to left wing and homosexual causes?

i don't think change is exclusive. I just don't think you should put shit on gays when they're as normal as anyone else.

 

[dagwoman]

Nolanistic, what was that rant about? The name calling is just ridiculous and juvenile. You target people for no reason. I was merely responding to your comment.

 

[ur_inner_child]

[/URL]

I really dont have the time or intrest to adress the leftist splatter you like to call policy ideas, I say, leave your gay wet dreams at the door please, things work great now and there is no need to change them, just face it, men and women will keep marrying, and all the whiny gays can go kill themselves for all I care, to have gays around is no benefit, to lose them is no loss.

(ps. good luck with electing people with those kinds of platforms)

Do you really think even a fraction of the country will give up their marriage licenses in order to somehow decouple them from your imaginary religious roots in order to appease a disgusting 1% of the population? Keep drinking your own kool aid son

First thing, its not leftist splatter.

Second, kami clearly outlined proposals on what may occur and wished that you express your opinions in a very mature and civilised way. It was encouraging a more sophisticated debate than what has been occuring over the last few pages.

Your posts do contain content most of the time, but this quoted post is very poor, almost delete-worthy. Just because you do not approve of a concept full stop does not mean that subjects concerning the matter is to be brushed away undiscussed. Surely you can come up with some intelligent insight to what you feel about kami's particular topics.

 

[dagwoman]

bshoc, why do you dislike gay people so much? I'm asking this seriously. Where does your dislike come from?

 

[bshoc]

i don't think change is exclusive. I just don't think you should put shit on gays when they're as normal as anyone else.

Incase you havent noticed gays and their leftist pets such as yourself are the ones who are trying to "put shit" on the rest of society.

 

[dagwoman]

And how do gay people "put shit" on society???