Can you stop changing the font, font colour and size? It's really annoying when quoting to have to remove it all.
I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I’m giving reasons why I think gay marriage (an oxymoron if ever there were one) should not be introduced.
If you would vote against a proposal to legalise gay marriage, then it is forcing your opinion. Hence, my accusation stands.
You are doing the opposite, so to be technical you are advocating a lack of morality. And you have yet to raise a substantial and credible case as to how this obtuse rejection of morality serves to benefit society (and not just provide anything more than an ego boost to the leaders of the "gay rights" movement.
Once again
you cannot force your version of morality onto society. You can follow it yourself, but you
cannot make it the basis of legislation. It may be an obtuse rejection of morality, but it's an obtuse rejection of
your morality, not an objective one.
We all know marriage is only one goal of the “gay rights” movement. To them it is nothing but a milestone, to atheists it is nothing but a party, to me it is a holy sacrament, and to see it being defiled in ways which do not bear contemplation is disheartening to say the least.
Um, tell that to the gay couples who want to get married?
And fuck you, you clearly have no idea what marriage would mean to an atheist like myself. It's more than a fucking party, you arrogant and ignorant fool.
Marriage means different things to different people.
Your religious wankers have no claim on the title of marriage; they never had that right and they should not have it now.
Unless you advocate the return of polygamous business transactions as marriages, as in the Bible.
There was a case where a group of gay people sued a dating website for not allowing an option for users to search for same sex couples.
There was another case where a lesbian couple sued a wedding photographer because they refused to sell their service to them because they were opposed to gay marriage.
Your point? There was a case recently when a couple sued their civil celebrant (!) for refusing to marry them because they were an interracial couple and he didn't agree with that.
We should be fighting against discrimination
everywhere, unless you think that civil celebrant was well within his rights.
Kwayera, you cannot seriously deny that legalising of gay marriage would lead to a higher occurrence of such incidences and encourage greater exploitation of sexual orientation discrimination laws - the end result of which would be to promote greater tensions between religious groups and homosexuals (and their sympathesisers). This need not occur.
If it leads to equality as it has for women and those of ethnic heritages, then that can only be a GOOD thing. As far as I'm concerned, religious groups can kiss the arse of those homosexuals if it means they're treated equally.
It is
BEYOND RETARDED RETARDED that you discriminate against someone based on who they choose to sleep with. My god, enough is enough.
And lets get this straight (no pun intended 
) you’re saying that Churches should have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to reject homosexual couples from being married? (Personally I think if gay marriage has to happen, this would have to be an essential component of a compromise). If every Church was perfectly serious about their interpretation of the scripture, NO Church would undertake such a ceremony.
Churches
already have this right.
(Now I know there are those institutions who are too lax in their interpretation of God’s word who already have conducted such ceremonies; among other blasphemies, for example allowing female bishops etc). My point is any religious institution who is more dedicated to the following of the fundamental scriptures of their religion (not just Christianity) rather than looking “cool” in the social light would reject gay marriage anyway.
Well, okay, good for them. No one's asking them to accept it/marry gay couples. Your point?
Eventually, gays, once allowed to marry, will start demanding all Churches respect their unions.
Just like churches have to respect interracial unions? (Actually I don't believe they even have to do that)
You cannot equate the homosexual “struggle for rights” to that of blacks in America, Aborigines in Australia and women’s suffrage.
Firstly, women, blacks and Aboriginies were being unfairly exploited by society. None of them had equal rights. Gays do not face such persecution.
Don't they?
*pointed look*
Everyone in our society has the same rights. Everyone is allowed to marry, everyone is allowed to adopt kids and everyone is allowed to have kids. There are provisos however to all of these; to marry you must be marrying one consenting person of the opposite sex.
Just like there used to be provisos that you had to marry someone of the same race, right?
Just because a small selection of the population doesn’t seem content to marrying someone of the opposite sex, does not mean the institution of marriage is to be defiled in such a heinous manner.
Doesn't seem content?! Again, you display your breathtaking ignorance and contempt.
And a law by its definition affects everyone. I can say (as an example) laws regarding driving don't affect me becuase I don't ahve a car (or a lisence) and I catch public transport pretty much everywhere or walk.
Those laws affect you if you, say, drive a car. You can't be fined for speeding if you don't drive a car.
Ergo, you can't be affected by gay marriage if you aren't gay.
This would be wrong, because laws are binding on everyone, and just because I don't drive doesn't mean the road laws will affect me (not directly, but they still do).
No, they affect your bus driver. You're not going to get arrested if he speeds.
Haha, enlighten me then.
Mathew 19:4-6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
Ah, so here we get into it! It's not generic religious marriage you care about, it's CATHOLIC marriage! And presumably all of Australia must then bow to the 26% of the population that are Roman Catholics!
You disgust me.
What have you’re arguments even been? May I ask for a summary, please? Likewise, I’ll concisely rebut each and provide a summarised version of the conservative counter-argument if you want.
- that the only "valid" arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, which is invalid as this is a secular country and laws promoting equality/removing discrimination trump the protection of religious sensibilities
- arguments that detail gay marriage "destroying society" are ludicrous
- arguments that detail gay marriage as "destroying the institution of marriage" are ludicrous, as religion has no claim over what marriage means for people not of their faith, nor does it have any claim over the word
- something something
- there are no sane arguments
against gay marriage
- profit?
So far, the pro gay case seems to be limited to “we choose to be gay and we want you to treat us as if we haven’t made the choice, despite what your sense of morality may tell you, most people think being gay is ok, so it is”. Not worded that way, of course, but words to that effect and arguments to that futility.
For the last time:
BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.
How many times do we have to say this before it penetrates your very thick skull?
We already have equality. Marriage is an option for all Australians; the proviso being it must be between one man and one women (because thats what marriage is by fundamental definition). Ergo "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
Just like being the same colour used to be the proviso?
Discrimination (as in violence, insults etc) (usually) occurs when gays openly segregate themselves from the rest of society and make a point of being different. But as I have said, I'm not pro-violence or oppression, people should be able to do what they want, but keep what belongs behiend closed doors where it should be kept.
Oh so they should hide what they are. Your argument essentially is: "WOMEN WHO DRESS LIKE SLUTS DESERVE TO BE RAPED/GAY MEN WHO ACT GAY DESERVE TO BE BASHED"
What gays don’t want is the right to marry (since they already have that) they want the alteration of marriage to encompass their individual lifestyle choices. This is akin to legalising a behaviour (which only a small minority of the population even takes part in). It could be compared to legalising a drug (just a comparison, homosexuality =/= drugs I know) because a group of people think it is fine and ok, even if only a small proportion of the pro-drug movement actually use it themselves.
No, they want the
same marriage rights as anyone else. Clearly this is a foreign concept for you.
And freedom from what? Gay people can hardly claim they are being persecuted (like IDK in some cases where they are getting bashed up or attacked, I could see why, but I’m not involved in that and I don’t stand for that at all). Gay people are free, they have the right to love each other, to practise their homosexuality as they see fit, and to celebrate their “individuality” and choice to do so every year in Mardi Gras parades...
They just can't do what heterosexuals do, and get married and adopt. Because that would be bad. Uh huh.
I’ve seen this tossed around a lot. Can you provide a citation please?
Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies
Lesbian parents raise happy, healthy children according to 22-year study - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News
Lesbian women 'make better parents', says Government adviser | Mail Online
etc
Either way, IMO it demonstrates nothing. Heterosexual couples and the family will always be the preferable, natural institution through which a child should be raised.
Why? They're not better. Are you saying every single parent should shack up with someone because it's the "preferable, natural institution" through which you think a child should be raised?
I’m not saying some individual homosexual people wouldn’t be great parents or that some heterosexual couples aren’t terrible parents, but every child deserves both a mother and a father. Some don't get them, because one parent may die or may get a divorce (but even then they still have a mother an a father). Homosexual adoption is unfair and immoral since it fundamentally denies a child this right. Sure many heterosexual marriages don't work the way they should be, but gay adoption never even provides the initial chance of the child being raised properly.
The studies indicate that overall -
overall, not just anecdotally - lesbian parents are BETTER that heterosexual parents. So, really, for the good of the child, all children should be raised by lesbian parents. Right?
And where is this right to a mother and a father stated? Where does it come from? Why is it the "preferred" or "best" method? (Hint: it isn't.)
I hold nothing at all against a homosexual person who practises abstinence. As far as their sex-life is concerned they are doing nothing immoral.
Oh so you only care when they have sex. Because it's immoral to
you. And because it
affects you so much what someone does in their bedroom.
Seriously dude, no-one likes a nosy parker.
(blah blah sin blah blah destroying society, jesus dude, cite your references please that prove that "immoral sex" is destroying society, unless you're part of the crazy fringe that believe gays did the Haiti earthquake)
The slippery slope is very real. (As a light hearted example) How many times have you been watching TV when you should have been studying and you say “oh just one more ad break...” – it just doesn’t happen.
..okay?
If one were to legalise gay marriage, why not polygamy next (after all, it’s just consenting adults, and its impeding their happiness and “rights” if we don’t let them).
And what's wrong with that? Hey, polygamous marriages are in the Bible. They're traditional. You should have no problem with it!
After that, what about incest (people may claim possible birth defects affecting potential children, but this could be averted if it were made law that couples had to undergo a vasectomy or w/e prior to marriage). What makes the homosexuals’ “right” to marriage and adoption more legitimate and greater than that of these people?
It doesn't. Let them get married!
But there have already exists multiple examples of precedence where gay couples are seen exploiting sexual orientation discrimination laws, even before marriage is legalised (if it is to be).
Exploiting or using for intended purpose? But oh, you don't think that gays should be able to fight for rights. They should be CONTENT with what the overly-generous society has given them, right? Put up or shut up?
Legalising gay marriage is just another small step towards the West’s oblivion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
GAYS DID 9/11
I am expressing my view. Please, this country is not a theocracy;
THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A THEOCRACY. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEOCRATIC VALUES UPON IT.
it encourages sex before marriage, the use of contraception, homosexuality, divorce and now gay marriage. And that’s just sexual immoralities.
Tell someone who cares?
This is not a Christian state, unbelievers are hardly being oppressed here. If anything I could be a cry-baby and say that in fact it is the faithful who are being persecuted by heathen saying “oh because your argument is based on a religion which I don’t believe in, its invalid”.
It IS invalid because your religion affects YOU. YOU. It shouldn't have to affect anyone else who
doesn't choose to believe in it.
What about this is so hard to understand?
Feeling a lust towards a person or not may not be a conscious decision, but having immoral sex always is, and society shouldn’t have to make allowances for those who choose to do wrong.
Wrong to
YOU. Not the country! Not everybody! Fucking hell, ARE YOU SO ARROGANT AND EGOTISTIC THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE?!
You’re in the young Liberals, shouldn’t you understand the notion of personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility and personal
liberty.
Homosexuals can vote. A homosexual can do everything a heterosexual can in our society, and likewise a heterosexual can do everything a homosexual can. There should be no differentiation between “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” this just emphasises the differences between individuals, I prefer to think of everyone collectively as “people” - some of which choose to participate in immoral sexual behaviours (can be between two people of the same sex or of opposite sexes) while others choose the path of the righteous.
Yeah but you are creating difference. You are CREATING difference by not allowing them to marry people they love, while heterosexuals can marry those they love.
Now that I think of it, that was a dehumanising technique used by conquerors on vanquished cities/civilisations. Make them second class citizens by not allowing them to vote, own property, marry..
This is not an issue of equality.
"BLACK IS WHITE BECAUSE I SAY SO"
Because heterosexual marriage is always wholesome, good and natural. Homosexuality by itself is a perversion of love and sex, it shouldn’t be made one of marriage as well.
Ahahahaahahahah
Does marriage mean anything to you?
Clearly more than it does to you.
