Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[dagwoman]

Gay people can't have families?! HA. Have you ever heard of the organisation "Rainbow Babies"? It was started in Sydney in 1999 with four families for children of gay parents, and is now a nation wide organisation.

OF COURSE the government legislates against us. We aren't given the basic right of marriage. And as for using the argument of marriages being for having children, what about straight couples who cannot have children or choose not to? They are allowed to marry. Therefore that is not a legitimate argument, so don't bother trying.

Kinsey did not propose the 10% idea, his ideas of sexuality are based on a 6 point scale. The 10% hypothesis is supported by a number of different studies and organisations, and the website you referenced is a very invalid one from Canada, hardly relevant to worldwide statistics.

And you have still failed to answer the question asked by many of us: how does gay marriage negatively affect you or society?

 

[dagwoman]

I love this:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in Australia.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

 

[bshoc]

Gay people can't have families?! HA. Have you ever heard of the organisation "Rainbow Babies"? It was started in Sydney in 1999 with four families for children of gay parents, and is now a nation wide organisation.

Yeah because there is nothing more natural than a child who:

1. Doesen't know their father.
2. Is artifically created and thus far more likely to develop with defects and to be aborted.

No really I can really feel the family values and compassion LOL

OF COURSE the government legislates against us. We aren't given the basic right of marriage. And as for using the argument of marriages being for having children, what about straight couples who cannot have children or choose not to? They are allowed to marry. Therefor that is not a legitimate argument.

You already have the basic right of marriage

Marriage;

mar‧riage

[mar-ij]

–noun 1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Kinsey did not propose the 10% idea, his ideas of sexuality are based on a 6 point scale. The 10% hypothesis is supported by a number of different studies and organisations, and the website you referenced is a very invalid one from Canada, hardly relevant to worldwide statistics.

Ok so you want me to belive that a disproven hypothesis is more belivable than professional private, medical and government statistics. OH NOES ONLY 1.3% of males and 0.7% of females are gay, those are the facts, live in denial if you want, I've seen these statics pretty much fit real life experience, such as in highschool 2/180 people in my grade were gay, thats 1.1%, simular stats in other places, even the queer society in my university had a simular proportion of queer people.

A little lesson from history: dont try and claim overinflated numbers, lest you find yourself in need of their support, only to find that they do not exist.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Marriage;

mar‧riage

[mar-ij]

–noun 1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Why is it that you bother to bring up the definition constantly? The point of contention is whether we should change the definition to allow for gay couples.

Ok so you want me to belive that a disproven hypothesis is more belivable than professional private, medical and government statistics. OH NOES ONLY 1.3% of males and 0.7% of females are gay, those are the facts, live in denial if you want, I've seen these statics pretty much fit real life experience, such as in highschool 2/180 people in my grade were gay, thats 1.1%, simular stats in other places, even the queer society in my university had a simular proportion of queer people.

Where are you getting your figures from bshoc? If you're talking about the recent australian survey (I think in 03?) I'm pretty sure those results were taken by over-the-phone interviews, therefore missing a large chunk of Australians that may not wish to come out with their homosexuality.

In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports.

It is important to note, however, that these numbers are subject to many of the pitfalls inherent in researching sensitive social issues. It is possible that survey results may be biased by under-reporting, for instance. (See note 1.) The frequent use of non-random samples (white college students) in many studies could also serve to skew the data.

In general, most research agrees that the number of people who have had multiple same-gender sexual experiences is fewer than the number of people who have had a single such experience, and that the number of people who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual is fewer than the number of people who have had multiple homosexual experiences.

In addition, major historical shifts can occur in the prevalence of homosexuality. For example, the Hamburg Institute for Sexual Research conducted a survey over the sexual behavior of young people in 1970, and repeated it in 1990. Whereas in 1970 18% of the boys aged 16 and 17 reported to have made same-sex sexual experiences, the number had dropped to 2% by 1990. [2] "Ever since homosexuality became publicly argued to be an innate sexual orientation, boys' fear of being seen as gay has, if anything, increased," the director of the institute, Volkmar Sigusch, suggested in a 1998 article for a German medical journal. [3]

In 2005, as part of the statistical and financial measurements required to implement the UK's new Civil Partnerships Act, the British government's H.M. Treasury actuaries calculated that there are 3.6 million British people who may want to enter into a gay or lesbian civil partnership arrangement. This is equal to around 6 percent of the UK population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#_note-1

What's the point of this debate anyway, I'm asking both dagwoman and bshoc here - What do you think you gain by proving there are more/less gays?

 

[Pilgrim]

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

Yeah because we all know gay children are born to parents who weren't attracted to the opposite sex. *Shoots self in head*

 

[dagwoman]

"Yeah because there is nothing more natural than a child who:

1. Doesen't know their father.
2. Is artifically created and thus far more likely to develop with defects and to be aborted."

My sister was made through artificial insemination. She has absolutely no problem with not knowing her sperm donor, and as for the second point, that's absolute bull. All artificial insemination does is take the sperm from the donor. It doesn't involve altering DNA. There is NO higher likelihood that a child conceived through AI is more likely to have birth defects or be aborted. NONE.

Your specific experience with people who are gay is hardly reliable. In highschool not many people have come out yet (and they certainly wouldn't be out to you), not to mention that being gay isn't a black and white thing. Some people are bisexual to varying degrees, and this is included in the 10%. The data you quoted was from a Canadian study in which many people would be reluctant to disclose their sexuality due to the stigma attached to being labelled gay. And I doubt you have any realy knowledge of the queer collective at your university.

 

[dagwoman]

Pilgrim, you do realise the list I posted on the previous page is satire, don't you?

 

[bshoc]

Why is it that you bother to bring up the definition constantly? The point of contention is whether we should change the definition to allow for gay couples.

Because marraige means what it means, just like when I say "plum" I dont mean "strawberry"

Where are you getting your figures from bshoc? If you're talking about the recent australian survey (I think in 03?) I'm pretty sure those results were taken by over-the-phone interviews, therefore missing a large chunk of Australians that may not wish to come out with their homosexuality.

The canadian government, a place where gay marraige is legal, see the previous page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#_note-1

What's the point of this debate anyway, I'm asking both dagwoman and bshoc here - What do you think you gain by proving there are more/less gays?

And what do you have to gain by quoting tenative sources like wikipedia instead of coming to terms with official statistics?

Dont try and pretend you're trying to walk some sort of "middle line"

 

[poloktim]

I'm in favour of strong (not necessarily big) government providing the correct context in which society should exist, keeping and enforcing law and order, certain things legal, certain things illegal, a comprehensive education system, at least minimal levels of state policies in things like healthcare and GTE's, and maintaining policies that benefit state and society in aggregate, such as promoting family and children, keeping most drugs illigal and with penalty and so forth.

For the bold part. Define comprohensive education system? I define it as something that teaches children the basics of literacy, numeracy, history, technical knowledge, the arts, and contemporary issues. Homosexuality is one such contemporary issue.
We're in agreement with everything here. A government doesn't necessarily need to be big in order to provide strong policies on many things of detriment to society. As for promoting family and children what do you mean?

The moral path of the indavidual however intrests me little, I dont really want to adress your teary eyed pro-gay rant on morals, I will however say that choices have consequences, such as being gay means never being able to marry or have kids, or chosing an arts degree over a science means you'll never be a scientist. Its not about morality, morality is subjective, its about what works best, and having things like lagalised drugs, pedophilic relationships or gay marriage would be a detriment to society overall.

I agree, choices do have consequences. But according to the Australian Psychological Society, sexual identity or orientation is not a choice (link). Homosexual people can choose the life they want to live with their sexuality, but not their sexuality itself. They can choose to live a lie, but this involves a lot of work (for example, remembering the lie). It also becomes difficult for a homosexual Alice, if Bob is able to enjoy legal protection with his wife Carol, yet Alice cannot enjoy the same protection with her partner Eve. Neither Alice nor Bob chose their orientation, but legally Alice is discriminated against.

The government doesent legislate against them per se, just not for them, in the sense that things like marriage are too vital and important to legally detriment to favour some overly vocal gays and their pet leftists. Homosexuals cannot have either proper families nor children, only if they could would these people even have the slightest right to tell the country whats what.

The children argument is void. The aged cannot have children, people who are unable to create children cannot have children.
As for the first portion of your quote in italics, do you always see an issue in terms of left and right? If something appears to you as left, are you quick to attack the issue and its supporters?
As for the second portion of italics... well, this is an interesting one. See, I always thought being a voting citizen of a country gave the person the right to tell its government what's what. This is done through organised protests, voting, lobbying and other such instruments. Where did you get the idea that one needed to be fruitful to have that right? If that were so, then surely only people with families would be given the right to vote?

That said, there's nothing wrong with government legislating the intrests of the people, its sure better than having some activist judge make decisions based on sole personal opinion.

Judges don't make decisions based on sole personal opinion. They make decisions impartially based on fact. Any judge who did otherwise would not be sitting in the High Court of Australia.
Though, government legislating in the interests of the people? Shouldn't it be fair that the government legislates freedoms, as the people can't unanimously agree on any issue? If we all agreed on an issue, we'd be living in a single party state.

Call it whatever you want, race is nowhere near the level of personal determination that sexual choice is.

But the APS determines that sexual orientation is not a choice. Race or gender aren't choices either. Should we legislate against people who have no say in what they are?

Everyone's opinions hold equal weight in our equal vote democracy, thats why gay marriage is banned.

That's not what you said before. You said that a person who has a family or children has more of a vote than one who does not. ACT civil unions were banned by Ruddock. Does this suggest that those inside the ACT have a lesser vote than those outside the ACT?

No many people have different reasons to oppose things like gay marriage, if it was just all "Judeo-Christian" gay marriage would be legal right now, do you even think I'm a christian?

No. If it were up to Judeo-Christians (perhaps moreso the evanglical ones), homosexuality would still be a disease to be treated. According to both these religions, it's wrong for a man to sleep with another man, so why would they allow marriage?
I didn't even say Judeo-Christian beliefs was the only reason. I mentioned that Howard gave that reason when he legislated to discriminate against homosexual couples and deny them the right of marriage.

I would rather all people dealt with their own problems, rather than attack my institutions in ill fated social crusades. I have made it clear that I dont care if people are gay or not - I just care that there is no gay unions, marriage, adoption and so forth, because the future of the state and society rest on these things never coming to pass, which I am overly glad to say, looks like the case.

Are you saying homosexuality is a problem? If so, medical associations have removed homosexuality from the list of diseases.
You have not made anything clear apart from your belief that homosexuality is wrong. Thus you must care if people are gay or not, since these people are breaking your perception of morality. What do you expect to happen if gay marriage/unions came to pass? How would society come tumbling down?

Also, unions exist in several countries already. Wikipedia reports that same-sex marriage exists in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and the US state of Massachusetts. In December, same-sex marriages will also begin in South Africa. It looks to me like it's already happened. Civil unions for homosexual couples happen in: Denmark, Norway, Israel, Sweeden, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, France, South Africa, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Croatia, Luxembourg, NZ, UK, Andora, Czech Republic, Slovenia, and will start in Switzerland in 2007. They're recognised in some regions of Agentina, Italy, Brazil, and USA.

What's really interesting is that in some Australian states, various laws have been enacted to allow de facto same-sex couples access to various things which you claimed didn't seem to be the case:
- Tasmania's Relationships Act includes provisions for same-sex couples to make their relationships known to the state's Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. The union gives couples certain extra rights that de facto couples mightn't have.
- Western Australia gives couples equal rights in relation to adoption and in-vitro fertilisation. Yes, in Western Australia, same-sex couples can adopt children.
Other states have given same-sex couples rights, but not nearly as much as those of Tasmania and Western Australia (though ACT tried).

 

[bshoc]

Yeah because we all know gay children are born to parents who weren't attracted to the opposite sex. *Shoots self in head*

lol yeah just like

"1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural."

Material sciences relate directly to sexual practices, man so sad when people have to resort to stupidity like this when they lose arguments, even sadder when the stupidity itself can be refuted LOL

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Because marraige means what it means, just like when I say "plum" I dont mean "strawberry"

Marriage is a human construct not an actual physical object.

The canadian government, a place where gay marraige is legal, see the previous page.

I think you'll find that the wikipedia article is backed up by 'official statistics' including many different canadian studies. It also seems to be on the money when it says that people whom are anti-gay marriage will claim there are less, those that are pro will claim there are more... the percentages were even correct with dagwoman claiming 10% and yourself claiming less than 1%.

Dont try and pretend you're trying to walk some sort of "middle line"

I'm not pretending nor am I walking any line... I'm pretty straight with my opinions when I have one. I don't have much of a position of the question of 'How many gays are there' other than 'Nobody knows, seems to be between 1 and 10 percent' as I don't see the relevance. You've still failed to explain to me the point of the debate so I'm going to guess you're both just bored.

 

[withoutaface]

On what rational basis do you oppose homosexuality?

On what basis do you oppose drug legalisation? Is it because you don't want to see drugs of a more consistent quality (virtually eliminating overdoses), you're uncomfortable with the concept of them taxed to fund the medical care they induce (which is currently sourced from income taxes), or because you like the flow on crime produced by the fact that illegal goods command inflated prices?

 

[bshoc]

Marriage is a human construct not an actual physical object.

Well if want to get philosophical about it be my guest, that plum is probably a human construct anyway lol, still doesent change anything.

I think you'll find that the wikipedia article is backed up by 'official statistics' including many different canadian studies. It also seems to be on the money when it says that people whom are anti-gay marriage will claim there are less, those that are pro will claim there are more... the percentages were even correct with dagwoman claiming 10% and yourself claiming less than 1%.

I'm claiming 1.3% for males and 0.7% for females as per the official statistics of a western country where homosexuality is acepted and gay marriage is legal.

I'm not pretending nor am I walking any line... I'm pretty straight with my opinions when I have one. I don't have much of a position of the question of 'How many gays are there' other than 'Nobody knows, seems to be between 1 and 10 percent' as I don't see the relevance. You've still failed to explain to me the point of the debate so I'm going to guess you're both just bored.

No no you see once you start denying the relevance of official statistics and equating them with theories, guesses and wikipedia you are trying to demote the relevance of the only real numbers we have.

The point of this is rather trivial, as someone accused me a few pages back of only adressing male homosexuality, to which I pointed out that female homosexuality is much rarer and thus less of an adressable point (1.3% males to 0.7% females)

 

[withoutaface]

Becuase homosexuality is not the kind of behaviour that should be given equal status with normal people, children should not have to be exposed to this filth in any dynamic, especially people who are four times as likely to be pedophiles. Infact, nothing would be better than these people, these "gays" going back to the dark underground hole from which they came from and not mess about with the lives of society, incase you haven't noticed our society hasn't survived and grown from men having anal sex.

1. Men are ten times (unsourced, but I doubt I'm far off) more likely to be rapists than women. All men should be thrown in a hole where they can't come out.
2. In that case we should also ban oral sex, heterosexual anal sex and contraception as well. While we're at it we should deny people who choose a career over children the right to vote, because they choose not to have children and voting is a social construct which I say that they shouldn't be allowed to have because I define it in such a way. I don't particularly like people named Ted either, they shouldn't be allowed to have forklift licenses.

 

[bshoc]

On what rational basis do you oppose homosexuality?

Read thread please.

On what basis do you oppose drug legalisation? Is it because you don't want to see drugs of a more consistent quality (virtually eliminating overdoses), you're uncomfortable with the concept of them taxed to fund the medical care they induce (which is currently sourced from income taxes), or because you like the flow on crime produced by the fact that illegal goods command inflated prices?

Once you legalise hard drugs you greatly enchance their consumption among the populace, thus reducing human capital and enchancing crime, basic economics there.

 

[bshoc]

1. Men are ten times (unsourced, but I doubt I'm far off) more likely to be rapists than women. All men should be thrown in a hole where they can't come out.
2. In that case we should also ban oral sex, heterosexual anal sex and contraception as well. While we're at it we should deny people who choose a career over children the right to vote, because they choose not to have children and voting is a social construct which I say that they shouldn't be allowed to have because I define it in such a way. I don't particularly like people named Ted either, they shouldn't be allowed to have forklift licenses.

No things are great just the way they are ..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well if want to get philosophical about it be my guest, that plum is probably a human construct anyway lol, still doesent change anything.

No I don't think so, a plum would still be a plum no matter what we called it, you could call a plum a strawberry and yet there would still be these things with the characteristics of what we currently call a strawberry. If we decide to change the legal definition of marriage (all that IMO marriage is) then the characteristics of former marriages (in that they required a man and a woman necessarily) are no longer in existance.

No no you see once you start denying the relevance of official statistics and equating them with theories,

There are official statistics that support both sides of the argument. There's no reason that I can imagine why you would choose to believe one set of 'official statistics' so much over another set as to make them the authority when surely they all have some sort of flaw in their methodology that you could point out.

The point of this is rather trivial, as someone accused me a few pages back of only adressing male homosexuality, to which I pointed out that female homosexuality is much rarer and thus less of an adressable point (1.3% males to 0.7% females)

So you guys are bored

 

[withoutaface]

No things are great just the way they are ..

But why? Why do we define marriage in such a way? Why do you hold on to such an archaic notion when it's clear that there is no rational basis for it? You respond in such a way because you have no argument to counter the fact that I can use the exact same propositions as you have been using throughout the thread to justify laws which are utterly absurd.

Once you legalise hard drugs you greatly enchance their consumption among the populace, thus reducing human capital and enchancing crime, basic economics there.

1. Where's your evidence that it significantly increases consumption? I don't take drugs because I believe many of them to be detrimental to my health, not because they're illegal.
2. Most crime that comes from drugs is theft because they are prohibitively expensive, due to the need to import them 500g at a time implanted in people's stomachs.

 

[dagwoman]

Yes agentprovocator, let's!

To NTB- you're right, the incidence of homosexuality is irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless of numbers, they should be allowed the same rights straight people have. I was insistent on arguing bshoc's claims as he was implying they were a tiny and therefore insignificant minority.

Funny that of that satirical list I posted, bshoc only managed to half-heartedly argue one point. And he STILL hasn't answered why he thinks gay marriage would harm him or society.

 

[bshoc]

I know one thing, there are 5 people trying to debate me on the same points more interested in dismissing them as "half-hearted" than actually adressing them, 5 people is too many and too time consuming , I guess people will have to spend their entire lives wondering why its illigal, since no-one very clearly wants to know why it is so now ..