Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Capitalist Scum]

Ok since you can't engage in self-critisism lets try and pose this another way:

Whose beliefs should guide the law regarding marriage?

Can you objectively prove that laws for marriage are beneficial? No? Then none should exist.

 

[HotShot]

why should there be laws regarding marriage?

Because they way our institution is construction - mainly for security purpose - identity reasons etc. Ownerships rights extra - to make life easier when it comes to problems essentially.

So government is a religion? sigh...

Some governments are religion. Sharia law - in a way is a religious government. Anything with set of beliefs - can be deemed a religion - although the norm is religion is set of beliefs - that relate to something that cannot be proved to exist.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Some governments are religion. Sharia law - in a way is a religious government. Anything with set of beliefs - can be deemed a religion - although the norm is religion is set of beliefs - that relate to something that cannot be proved to exist.

It sure can be deemed to be a religion, but why the hell would we use such an overzealous definition? If Governments/Philosophies/Schools of Thought/etc are always religion then that seems to include many things that traditionally aren't religion:

i.e. "I like boobs" - The religion of boobology.

I would argue it's a simplistic, vague and useless definition. Religions need imho Belief in something paranormal... a higher 'supernatural' power that is all-encompassing and has great implications for our world.

 

[dagwoman]

^ It's actually called "Boobism".

 

[dagwoman]

It's boobism, I tell you!!! BOOBISM!!

 

[dagwoman]

I would know, I'm a life-time member of the highest order

 

[bshoc]

So government is a religion? sigh...

No the government is a collection and representation of people who follow certain religions, hence the need for political parties.

 

[bshoc]

why should there be laws regarding marriage?

Why should the be laws regarding anything? Why can't we just live in anarchy?

 

[bshoc]

Can you objectively prove that laws for marriage are beneficial? No? Then none should exist.

You cant objectively prove most laws, therefore most laws are not based on objectivism, but rather principle.

 

[bshoc]

How condescending do you want to be?

I don't think such a question can be answered. Laws shouldn't be based on one person's set of beliefs. Obviously you're implying that I want them to be based on my beliefs.

This is a debate. This debate is guided by the opinions of individuals. Obviously each person will want the law to match their own beliefs. You want the laws on marriage to match yours, I want them to match mine. That's why we're having this debate.

Are we done?

No because you're dodging the question, what you're suggesting is that all people's beliefs in terms of all issues be represented equally, since clearly no one opinion should ever guide these issues, such a system has led to the outlawing of the farcical concept of a gay marriage in Australia (I believe we call it "democracy" or something), hence despite your personal beliefs you must be at least an in principle supporter of the status quo, if not then you don't really believe any of the bullshit you say you do.

This isn't a debate, since the status quo mirrors my own views personally, rather this is a dismissal of a radical fringe ideology that seems to have collected itself disproportionately in this thread.

 

[poloktim]

You cant objectively prove most laws, therefore most laws are not based on objectivism, but rather principle.

Previously Indigenous Australian children were kidnapped from their homes by government officials and given to white families or placed in orphanages to be looked after. This was a law based on principle. This was a law enacted by a government that was voted in by the majority. This law was damaging.

Previously if one wasn't from a white background they were refused entry into Australia. This was a law based on principle. This was a law enacted by a government that was voted in by the majority. This law was damaging.

Laws based on principle can damage. If there's an objective way to look at a law, forget the principle and do it properly.

 

[goldendawn]

This isn't a debate, since the status quo mirrors my own views personally, rather this is a dismissal of a radical fringe ideology that seems to have collected itself disproportionately in this thread.

The 2006 Youth Poll of people aged between 15 and 20 (which may be found on Senator Stott Despoja's website - http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/), suggests 57% support of same-sex marriage.

 

[dagwoman]

What is this "question" you keep insisting you are asking??? I didn't suggest that all people's beliefs in terms of all issues should be represented. I can't understand what you're saying half the time because your whole paragraph is only one sentence.

 

[bshoc]

The 2006 Youth Poll of people aged between 15 and 20 (which may be found on Senator Stott Despoja's website - http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/), suggests 57% support of same-sex marriage.

And you actually believe what a limited survey by a far left party has to say? As the Daily Show once pointed out there really exists one accurate and faultless poll of people and opinions, its called an election.

 

[dagwoman]

Elections only show what party people vote for. Such parties have all different kinds of policies, and people have many different reasons for choosing parties. It's not a good basis for showing people's views on same-sex marriage. I get what you're saying though, and I think the only accurate and faultless poll of people and opinions on this topic would be a referendum.

 

[goldendawn]

And you actually believe what a limited survey by a far left party has to say? As the Daily Show once pointed out there really exists one accurate and faultless poll of people and opinions, its called an election.

You actually believe what the Daily Show tells you? Common sense suggests that an election does not indicate the stance of the majority on any one particular issue; an election is a rather more complex phenomenon. You should also be aware that the survey to be found on Senator Stott Despoja's site is of people aged between 15 and 20, the majority of which are still too young to vote. The survey nonetheless epitomises what has similarly been indicated by a number of other surveys for this demographic, and it is also in synergy with the results of the poll attached to this thread.

 

[townie]

A letter all should read, one that never fails to send shivers down my spine



As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be. Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic I don't know. I can only tell you that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "Whatever happened to the idea of striving… to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?




Sharon Underwood lives in White River Junction, Vt.

 

[littlewing69]

No because you're dodging the question, what you're suggesting is that all people's beliefs in terms of all issues be represented equally, since clearly no one opinion should ever guide these issues, such a system has led to the outlawing of the farcical concept of a gay marriage in Australia (I believe we call it "democracy" or something), hence despite your personal beliefs you must be at least an in principle supporter of the status quo, if not then you don't really believe any of the bullshit you say you do.

Actually, it's called a "liberal democracy". That is, the power of the majority should be tempered by civil liberties, such that minorities are not 'legally' oppressed. Soon, homosexuals will be given these civil liberties.

I certainly don't want my civil liberties, or, indeed my bedroom conduct to be decided by a majority of freedom-hating, moralising voters.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

And you actually believe what a limited survey by a far left party has to say? As the Daily Show once pointed out there really exists one accurate and faultless poll of people and opinions, its called an election.

News flash, Democrats aren't far left, they're centre-left.

News flash, you're also centre-left, you protectionist fucktard.

 

[S1M0]

well said the last 4 posts.

this is along similar lines to what one_wit posted, but i thought i'de share it anyway...

A friend sent this..its sad..but true..

I am the boy who never finished high school, because I got called a fag everyday

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the EMTs stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didnt have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

I am the person ashamed to tell my own friends im a lesbian, because they constantly make fun of them.

I am the boy tied to a fence, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die because two straight men wanted to "teach me a lesson"

wow....i never thought of it like that..

I can tell you right now that what you just typed there changed my perception of homosexuality.

Thanks for opening my eyes a bit. You should be proud.