Same Sex Marriage Debate (2 Viewers)

[spaghettii]

I would vote no if i was eligible.

Society is evolving and social taboos of the past are slowly fading. 30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

My greatest fear is that in time, like how homosexuals and transexuals have been welcomed as healthy members of society today, the other taboos i have previously listed will be part of the social standard tomorrow. A man should be allowed to marry a horse or a child, because at the end of the day "it's just love between two individuals that doesn't affect me in anyway, so i shouldn't care too much".

I know two other people have already said the same thing, but there is a big difference between two consenting adults getting married and a child or animal getting married, since neither can legally or physically provide consent. I do understand your point though with taboos becoming accepted, especially with furries and shit becoming more common. Nevertheless, I don't think there is need to worry about pedophilia or bestiality becoming the norm, since only those who are into that shit actually support it.

On a separate note, whilst I support SSM, I'd be suprised if the Yes vote wins. We may have a lot of support for it in Aus society, but the plebiscite becoming postal in my opinion has just ruined the chances of Yes winning.

Edit: About kids being indoctrinated in the education system, schools are about more than just reading and writing. Social values and norms are taught there too, hence why some schools are beginning to include education on various sexual identities. It's the education system's job to promote conformity in children, especially since many parents nowadays are neglecting to teach their children basic manners. Whether or not that conformity is appropriate or not is up to the individual. That isn't to say schools are forcing children to adopt a sexuality that isn't theirs, but simply to be informed and perhaps accepting of such diversity

 

[Jaxxnuts]

I would vote no if i was eligible.

Society is evolving and social taboos of the past are slowly fading. 30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

My greatest fear is that in time, like how homosexuals and transexuals have been welcomed as healthy members of society today, the other taboos i have previously listed will be part of the social standard tomorrow. A man should be allowed to marry a horse or a child, because at the end of the day "it's just love between two individuals that doesn't affect me in anyway, so i shouldn't care too much".

you know there are "homosexual animals" as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Two men (or women) getting married is completely different from a man marrying a dog as they are obviously both humans and of the same species (wheras a dog is obviously a different species")

An adult marrying a child is just wrong due to the massive age difference.

 

[sida1049]

30 odd years ago, homosexuality, pedophilia (Islam?), beastiality, gender dysphoria would have been considered crimes against nature and mental illnesses (which they are). Today however, these are perfectly acceptable with even young children being indoctrinated in the education system, rather than being taught to read and write.

How can you commit a crime against nature? You can't commit a crime against nature. It's always a perceived transgression against some kind of established social norms, religious principles, ethics or law, which society dictates. Your slippery slope argument doesn't work, for the same reason Squar3root mentioned.

Also your other argument goes both ways: you can argue that the implementation of sex education and possibly safe schools are indoctrinating children to accept homosexuality and non-binary genders as thing that exist and that individuals can accept. But your argument can be flipped around, for example, I can claim that the current system is indoctrinating children to further entrench the views held by previous generations.

 

[enoilgam]

H

Also your other argument goes both ways: you can argue that the implementation of sex education and possibly safe schools are indoctrinating children to accept homosexuality and non-binary genders as thing that exist and that individuals can accept. But your argument can be flipped around, for example, I can claim that the current system is indoctrinating children to further entrench the views held by previous generations.

Im no fan of Safe Schools (it's a good idea, but poorly executed), but man it is so hypocritical of the churches to be arguing that it indoctrinates kids when they have been teaching Christian programs in public schools for years. Id consider that to be a worse form of indoctrination, because that deals with belief, not facts (the former in my view has no place in public institutions).

Then again, if 15+ years of Catholic Education taught me anything, it's that when it comes to hypocrisy, churches hold a monopoly.

 

[Microsoft Word]

that is a good point there but like for 2 "things" to get married they need to provide consent and the horse/child can't do that?

what i was trying to allude to is similar to the arguments that eating plants is bad because they can feel pain or homosexuality is natural and not a choice or pedophilia is acceptable considering my Prophet did it a millennium ago. In the end as society moves forward, different excuses can be made to support a certain lifestyle. Someone down the line will find evidence of consent in animals and children.

A no vote to ssm should act as a stalwart to prevent these instances from becoming widespread.

 

[Queenroot]

tbh it's actually getting really annoying to see this shit plastered everywhere

online, irl etc.

I can't browse my damn newsfeed for funny memes because there's a fuc ton of shitty articles

vote what u want and get over it

 

[Queenroot]

what i was trying to allude to is similar to the arguments that eating plants is bad because they can feel pain or a homosexuality is natural and not a choice or pedophilia is acceptable considering my Prophet did it a millennium ago. In the end as society moves forward, different excuses can be made to support a certain lifestyle. Someone down the line will find evidence of consent in animals and children.

A no vote to ssm should act as a stalwart to prevent these instances from becoming widespread.

if it happens it happens

but I doubt it will happen

the world changes life goes on

 

[sida1049]

what i was trying to allude to is similar to the arguments that eating plants is bad because they can feel pain or homosexuality is natural and not a choice or pedophilia is acceptable considering my Prophet did it a millennium ago. In the end as society moves forward, different excuses can be made to support a certain lifestyle. Someone down the line will find evidence of consent in animals and children.

A no vote to ssm should act as a stalwart to prevent these instances from becoming widespread.

Oh boy.

 

[pikachu975]

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/370...otesters-at-brisbane-church-in-violent-clash/

Definitely making a good image for the 'yes' vote

 

[enoilgam]

tbh it's actually getting really annoying to see this shit plastered everywhere

online, irl etc.

I can't browse my damn newsfeed for funny memes because there's a fuc ton of shitty articles

vote what u want and get over it

Which is exactly why the government shouldn't have run a plebiscite on this or any other issue. We voted for a parliament, they should get it done. If it's a no in parliament, then fair enough. I just dont understand why a plebiscite was needed on this when there are a multitude of other issues of greater importance which the public would prefer a vote.

 

[cosmo 2]

i dont know why people are scared this could set a precedent of more surveys/plebiscites in the future though

like whys that a bad thing

 

[OkDen]

The elite did this...
Wake up...
Wake up goyim...

 

[enoilgam]

i dont know why people are scared this could set a precedent of more surveys/plebiscites in the future though

like whys that a bad thing

It wont set a precedent - the government didn't do this because they wanted to gauge the communities opinion on an important issue. They did it to appease the Liberal far-right who know a plebiscite is their best chance of stopping gay marriage (which was a masterstroke). As much as I dislike the far-right, they have played this whole issue masterfully.

Overall, rule by plebiscite is a bad idea because it reduces debate on complex issues to simple "Yes" or "No" propositions. It can also lead to a confusing mis-match of policies because the public is supportive of ideas which are inherently contradictory.

 

[Orwell]

Nowhere is it stipulated that same-sex marriage is a Universal Human Right.

Quoting the UDHR:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

I'm sorry but being homosexual is a biological defect. Our entire biological determinism is predicated on procreation and the continuation of the human race and so I find it baffling that people are trying to normalise relationships that defy such an evolutionary trait.

Pikachu may have used an incorrect analogy but his logic isn't flawed. The more and more we normalise anomalous and degenerative behaviour, the farther we are plunged into total delinquency. From what I see, the Left-wing sympathisers of homosexuality are vocalising their opinion in loud, incoherent and cantankerous protest, vilifying anyone who doesn't agree with them along the way. Today it's same-sex marriage, tomorrow it will be group marriages, the day after that it will be bestial marriage. Nothing is sacred anymore, there is no more sanctimony in once-be revered institutions.

Homosexuals keep stating they are marginalised and excluded from society but I don't want anyone who thinks taking children to same-sex advocacy events, where they propagate their agenda through unethical means, as an integrated member of any society of which I am apart of. Unfortunately, with time and political correctness, it's people like me, who have our heads screwed on straight, that will be excluded for our 'archaic' views.

God save your souls.

 

[lorddoan007]

People irl and online who have the argument that "If people are so sick of hearing about gay marriage, maybe Australia should legalise it and then maybe you won't have to hear about it again" is so fucking stupid. Personally, I wouldn't want it to be legalised, why? Because once Australia passes more laws to recognising same sex relationships, they'll abuse their place in society and want more. They'll degraded society and Australia little by little and slowly. Example of this is with feminist. Not to long ago feminist wanted to change the crossing sign because Australia and it's society gave them a little bit of attention. Feminist were trying to cause problems out of nothing. This is what I mean when I said that "They'll abuse their place in society and want more. They'll degrade society and Australia little by little and slowly." People aren't even supporting gay's for the right reasons, they're only doing it because others are doing it, they're jumping on the band wagon. Gay's should just relax and shut the fuck up about their rights, Parliament knows that they'll abuse their place in society and want more thats why they aren't going to the full extent to legalise same sex marriages, gay's should be quiet be grateful with what Australia has given to them. Same sex marriage and relationships have been recognised through laws now just sit down and be quiet.

 

[enoilgam]

I'm sorry but being homosexual is a biological defect. Our entire biological determinism is predicated on procreation and the continuation of the human race and so I find it baffling that people are trying to normalise relationships that defy such an evolutionary trait.

The DSM V doesnt list it as a disorder, nor to any credible medical or psychological bodies. Do you have any proper justification for you view beyond this, or is this just your opinion? Even if I do concede your point that it is a "biological defect", that's not an excuse to justify your view. We dont discriminate against the disabled, or others with health issues.

 

[Orwell]

The DSM V doesnt list it as a disorder, nor to any credible medical or psychological bodies. Do you have any proper justification for you view beyond this, or is this just your opinion? Even if I do concede your point that it is a "biological defect", that's not an excuse to justify your view. We dont discriminate against the disabled, or others with health issues.

That's exactly my point; we don't acknowledge it as a malady. We know that depression is unbearable, we know that being crippled is a severe handicap but as far homosexuality is concerned, it's normal.

This is caustic because legitimising homosexuality and levelling it with heterosexuality could entail irreversible problems. We've already allowed homosexuals to adopt because it's the 'right thing to do', yet we do not consider the potential psychological ramifications this has on a child. We are not considering what they are being made witness to and the type of perception they have on certain societal structures.

 

[sida1049]

I'm sorry but being homosexual is a biological defect. Our entire biological determinism is predicated on procreation and the continuation of the human race and so I find it baffling that people are trying to normalise relationships that defy such an evolutionary trait.

By your own reasoning, people who don't want to have kids are also suffering from some kind of biological defect or mental illness or both, and hence shouldn't be normalised. At that point, it would be ironic to simultaneously hold that view while also holding the username Orwell.

Pikachu may have used an incorrect analogy but his logic isn't flawed... Today it's same-sex marriage, tomorrow it will be group marriages, the day after that it will be bestial marriage. Nothing is sacred anymore, there is no more sanctimony in once-be revered institutions.

Here you go.

Unfortunately, with time and political correctness, it's people like me, who have our heads screwed on straight, that will be excluded for our 'archaic' views.

.

 

[cosmo 2]

Overall, rule by plebiscite is a bad idea because it reduces debate on complex issues to simple "Yes" or "No" propositions.

whys it worse for politicians to be saying yes/no though over regular ppl like u n me

elements of direct democracy have worked fine in pretty much all the places they have been tried

 

[cosmo 2]

we do not consider the potential psychological ramifications this has on a child.

there are very likely none.

this isnt bc gays are necessarily just as "good" as parents as heterosexual couples. its more bc the home environment asserts next to no lasting influences on an individual's psychological development. this is a very controversial and seemingly counter-intuitive statement but it has been corroborated extensively in observational research to the extent that it can be characterised as the "explosion without a bang" of modern behavioral science