ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: ninwa on August 05, 2010, 10:14:33 am
-
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco decided Wednesday that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure in California that banned same-sex unions.
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment," the judge wrote. "Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation."
Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs' relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States."
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples... Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2 1/2-week trial in January.
Walker's historic ruling in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on the testimony he heard at trial. His ruling listed both factual findings and his conclusions about the law.
Voters approved the ban by a 52.3 per cent margin six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was permitted under the state Constitution.
The state high court later upheld Proposition 8 as a valid amendment to the state Constitution.
An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married in California during the months that it was legal, and the state continues to recognize those marriages.
The federal challenge was filed on behalf of a gay couple in Southern California and a lesbian couple in Berkeley. They are being represented by former Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative, and noted litigator David Boies, who squared off against Olson in Bush vs. Gore.
A Los Angeles-based group formed to fight Proposition 8 has been financing the litigation.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown refused to defend Proposition 8, prodding the sponsors of the initiative to hire a legal team experienced in U.S. Supreme Court litigation.
Backers of Proposition 8 contended that the legal burden was on the challengers to prove there was no rational justification for voting for the measure. They cited as rational a view that children fare best with both a father and a mother.
But defense witnesses conceded in cross-examination that studies show children reared from birth by same-sex couples fared as well as those born to opposite-sex parents and that marriage would benefit the families of gays and lesbians.
-
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples... Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Wow, nice one America.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/04/decide-gay-marriage-judge-ruling-proposition-decision/#content
No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 51%
Derp.
-
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/mexico-court-rejects-gay-marriage-challenge/story-e6frfku0-1225902083207
MEXICO'S Supreme Court has ruled Mexico City's gay marriage law constitutional, defeating a challenge to the measure by the Federal Government.
-
*sigh*
Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?
-
*sigh*
Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?
um is it only me but are you a little shit???? If u don't care then shut up, others do!!!!! C this is wot shits me. These are people lives ur talking about. And people just don't care because it doesn't affect them.
-
*sigh*
Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?
um is it only me but are you a little shit???? If u don't care then shut up, others do!!!!! C this is wot shits me. These are people lives ur talking about. And people just don't care because it doesn't affect them.
Don't call me a little shit you ignorant child.
An apathetic opinion is still an opinion, and since I have the right to my own opinion don't tell me to shut up.
-
*sigh*
Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?
Out of interest, why not?
-
*sigh*
Is it only me who doesn't care about gay marriage?
Out of interest, why not?
I have nothing against the notion, it's just that I've never really had any contact with homosexual people and so I've never really reflected on the issue. To be honest if someone asked me to either vote yes or no on legalizing it I'd probably vote yes but it wouldn't be a very passionate yes.
-
Ah okay, fair enough :)
-
I'm going to be controversial here: why do homosexuals need marriage? I see marriage as more of a religious rite, and since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality), why is it necessary? And it's not as if married couples have any significant rights that de facto couples don't.
I'm curious to see people's opinions.
-
I agree with you.
-
since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),
That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.
see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.
You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?
-
since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),
That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.
see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.
You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?
And I agree that that was a wrong generalisation to make. What I meant was, homosexuals would not get married because their religion frowns upon a sexual relationship before marriage. The fact that they are homosexuals would probably precede that.
Why not grant those rights (which I don't see are significant) to all couples, both de facto and married? It would be better than changing an age old tradition. For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?
And besides, it's not as if marriage means anything anymore. With the amount of divorces nowadays, I don't see how marriage can be seen as an act of committing oneself to a relationship.
I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?
-
Yeah there is too much divorce these days. I don't see much point in marriage at all anymore the whole idea of it was that you loved someone and wanted to spend the rest of your life with them and share everything but there is no reason you can't do that without getting married.
These days the religious idea of marriage has pretty much gone down the toilet in secular society.
As for atheists getting married: I'd like to think that they're marrying for love rather then a religious or legal aspect.
Don't quote me on this because I can't find the source but I've read that divorce rates in religious couples is higher than in atheist couples.
As for gay marriage: It's the 21st century and everyone should have the right to be happy and if its marriage that makes them happy and being recognised as a married couple than so be it.
Could you imagine the outrage of civil unions and de facto relationships had the same legal rights as married couples? The religious fundies that hate everyone would go nuts.
-
I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?
Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but perhaps such people get married because they love each other...?
-
You are right, Cthulhu, that the religious have higher divorce rates, but only marginally. Which only goes to show that marriage means nothing.
My opinion only arises from my own personal experience; I am Iraqi, and for my community, if a couple was to live together, and have sexual relations without going to church and declaring their "commitment" for each other, they would be ostracised. That is why I don't see the need for the non-religious to get married.
Could you imagine the outrage of civil unions and de facto relationships had the same legal rights as married couples? The religious fundies that hate everyone would go nuts.
You contradict yourself here; you are for gay marriage but not for giving them the rights of marriage (without legally being married). I think that giving them these rights, but not the opportunity to get married is a good idea because it would not cause the outrage that the legalisation of gay marriage has and will in the future. Legal rights mean nothing to those fundamentalists, but it is the idea that two people of the same sex getting married is what makes them go crazy.
And lynt.br, call me cynical, but I don't think that a love strong enough to withstand any circumstance really exists anymore. Everyone is so selfish these days, which, again, is evidenced by divorce rates. It's quite sad, really.
-
Well I didn't mean don't give them the rights I'd be more than happy for them to have their rights to be equal and what not. I didn't mean for it to seem like I am against it. I was merely imagining what the reaction would be from some of the religious nuts out there
I imagine it would be:
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUR THEY CANT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS US MARRIED FOLK THEY'RE NOT MARRIED AND THEY'RE A SIN DUUUUUUUUR"
I'm assuming you're muslim, fady. I'm wondering what the Quran says about homosexuality?
-
Well I didn't mean don't give them the rights I'd be more than happy for them to have their rights to be equal and what not. I didn't mean for it to seem like I am against it. I was merely imagining what the reaction would be from some of the religious nuts out there
I imagine it would be:
"DUUUUUUUUUUUUR THEY CANT HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS US MARRIED FOLK THEY'RE NOT MARRIED AND THEY'RE A SIN DUUUUUUUUR"
I'm assuming you're muslim, fady. I'm wondering what the Quran says about homosexuality?
I'm actually a practicing Catholic.
But as an Iraqi, I know a little more about Islam than the average person. It is actually illegal in Saudi Arabia, as well as other Arab countries, to be homosexual (wow that sounds so stupid), and actually punishable by death, in accordance to Sharia Law (which is derived from the Quaran, I believe). It is treated as a highly immoral sin.
-
since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality),
That's a pretty large generalisation to make. Just because they don't attend church doesn't mean a majority of homosexuals are non-religious.
Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to get married? At the moment all they've got is a civil union/domestic partnership which does not grant them the same rights as a marriage licence does.
see http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm for a comparison of the two.
You see marriage as a religious rite does this mean that you think atheists don't have the need to get married?
And I agree that that was a wrong generalisation to make. What I meant was, homosexuals would not get married because their religion frowns upon a sexual relationship before marriage. The fact that they are homosexuals would probably precede that.
Why not grant those rights (which I don't see are significant) to all couples, both de facto and married? It would be better than changing an age old tradition. For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?
And besides, it's not as if marriage means anything anymore. With the amount of divorces nowadays, I don't see how marriage can be seen as an act of committing oneself to a relationship.
I don't see that atheists have as much of a need as the religious in regards to marriage. Can you enlighten me as to the reasons why an atheist like yourself would want to get married?
NOT ALL CHURCHES FROWN ON HOMOSEXUALITY. The Uniting Church allows homosexuals to be ministers, and I know homosexuals who regularly attend church. So that screws up that argument pretty badly actually. Also, if atheists are allowed to get married, then why shouldn't homosexuals. It's not up to you to judge WHY the want to get married.
-
Most churches frown upon homosexual actions (and not homosexuals per say) because the ultimate aim of marriage in a religious sense is to allow someone to have sex in order to procreate. As homosexuals cannot do this, they cannot get married. I don't think homosexuals are eager to give up their so called "rights" as sexual beings in order to be practicing religious people.
I think that the Uniting Church shares this opinion (as does Catholicism). Although there are some churches that do not, they are of the minority.
There has to be a compelling argument for gay marriage in order to change a tradition that is centuries old.
Also, many atheists are heterosexual, so you cannot compare marriage between atheists and homosexuals.
-
I don't see why you're assuming that homosexuals are any less religious than other people. Also, I very much doubt that evey religious person who gets married hasn't had sex before. Most religious people I know who regularly attend church are having pre-marital sex. It's not up to parliament to judge people for having pre-marital sex, it's up to them to give everyone the same rights and let THEM decide whether they want to have sex or not and get married or not.
-
Many religions view homosexual actions as a sin, just like heterosexual sex for reasons other than procreation. I am sure that many religious people are having pre-marital sex, but it is recognised as a sin nonetheless.
Allowing gay marriage makes no sense with these beliefs, as I doubt that married gay couples would refrain from having sex.
I'm sorry but your argument makes little sense. I never stated that "parliament should judge people for having pre-marital sex". They can have as much sex as they want, I really couldn't care less, but when they want to change something that I have explained has remained unchanged for centuries, and for reasons that are not really clear to me, I object. Especially when it is in the state that it is at the moment.
-
Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.
People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?
-
It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.
So. Out with all laws? Allow each of us to decide for ourselves what we will do based on our own conscience(or lack thereof).
-
Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.
People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?
Because they have the potential to have children, and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.
You have not given any arguments as to why homosexuals should be able to get married, just saying that they should. Please elaborate.
-
Hold on, does the church own marriage?
Why is this a religious issue in the first place?
-
I was just wondering why homosexuals would want to be married, as I believe that it is mostly for religious reasons that people get married-- as homosexual actions are frowned upon by many religions, many homosexuals are effectively non-religious.
Maybe you could answer my question? Why would homosexuals want to get married?
-
I've skimmed through this thread so forgive me if this is out of context.
To fady_22
How does the "potential to have children" (which homosexual couples can do through other means) give u more right to marriage. Also, 'different' doesn't equate to bad. On the contrary, I remember reading an article proposing children raised by homosexual couples to be more well adjusted and disciplined compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
I can't really think of anyone i know who has gotten married for religious reasons too be honest. Of the people i know it was more for social reasons. The recognition of their partner as official.
-
Not all churches frown on homosexuality or pre-marital sex. Why should the government frame laws with only one part of the church in mind? Surely it is for individuals to decide on their own beliefs, and if homosexuals want to get married, I don't see why anyone else should deny them that right. It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.
People who have sex before marriage are allowed to get married....prostitutes are allowed to get married. So why not faithful, religious homosexuals?
Because they have the potential to have children, and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.
You have not given any arguments as to why homosexuals should be able to get married, just saying that they should. Please elaborate.
Old people shouldn't marry then. Neither should people who are sterile.
-
Starbuckscoffee, I meant that in a religious sense, that is what marriage is ultimately for.
But we are not animals, and that is not all that marriage is about. I can understand wanting to make their relationships "official", but is it necessary to change something that hasn't changed in thousands of years for a small minority of the population? It has the possibility of undermining the institution of marriage, which is in such a fragile state at the moment.
I guess that was a bad choice of words-- marriage is a social and religious expectation that those who want to start a family. We have not progressed to the state that marriage has become completely obsolete as there is still a social stigma surrounding unmarried couples having children. Homosexuals do not need marriage in my eyes, then, as they do not need to surpass this barrier in order to start a family.
Ultimately, I am saying that you cannot grant marriage for love only. It is a legal binding contract, and needs much more than just "love".
I still don't really see the reason for homosexuals to want or deserve to get legally married. At least not any reasons that can outweigh the negatives.
I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents. Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?
Also have a read of this: http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html
I think it sums up my beliefs quite nicely. (I'm sorry, it's Friday and my arguments have been incoherent and clunky)
And now I return to one of my first arguments. Where is the line drawn? If gay marriage is legalised, then what is stopping polygamy, marriage between humans and animals etc.? Surely there is love in these relationships as well, as well as the yearning to be recognised as legal partners?
-
I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents.
Because there are still ignorant fucks out there who raise their children to hate gay people.
Also: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html
It explains how children raised by lesbian parents seem to do better academically and socially than their counterparts.
Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?
What about children who have a dead mother/father or single mothers who decided to have their babies on their own through sperm donation? Are those children not well rounded and happy?
What makes you think someone raised in a homosexual relationship wont have healthy development?
-
at fady_22 marriage isn't such a religious rite anymore. for example Russia actually banned religious weddings in 1917 (probably been reversed by now but still). people should be allowed to do what they want, but I doubt the restrictions on homosexual couples will last, nothing like this does
also being in a marriage i've heard does make certain things easier (mainly financial form what I hear such as a joint bank account or the like).
in regards to the side topic, I half-agree that divorce has invalidated marriage. there are a lot of divorces now which is a good thing in one way, it ensures people aren't bogged down in a relationship that's bad for them, but it's also been made too easy to get- but it's not like you could have one without the other. but I think divorce is a good thing, people just abuse it. it's like the notion that legalising abortion may lead to abortion becoming a contraception; both negative and positive implications
in summary: weddings are not about religion anymore
EDIT: reading further through this board, I find it disturbing the influence of the church in legislative matters. parliament cannot make laws creating a religion or imposing religious observance, yet religion's can do as they please it appears. I think a referendum should be held for this, why leave so much to chance. we'd see what the majority wants through a referendum and we all know parliament won't act on this itself
Don't you think that a child needs both a father and mother figure for healthy development?
whether it's a female and a male, 2 females or 2 males doesn't matter. it's more 'normal' to have 1 of each gender as a parent, but that doesn't guarantee healthy development. it matters who the people are themselves rather their gender. a kid who comes from a homosexual home will probably have a healthier development than another child who comes from a home filled with domestic violence
(sorry, this post is all over the place)
-
Dear religionists,
Please recognise that marriage did not begin with religion. Its roots can be traced even to the times before Judaism and paganism. Religion did not start off owning marriage, it merely grabbed it when it ascended to power in the dark ages.
Marriage is not an artefact of religion. Religions have different interpretations for what marriage should be, but it is not the property of religion. As evidenced by its transcendance of all religions; marriage is about the symbolising of a bond between two people. Christian marriage symbolises a marriage within the set of values that embody christianity, likewise Islam, and likewise Judaism. If marriage was religious, would not the 'correct' marriage of the 'correct' religion invalidate all the other ones?
That is lunacy, and if you aired that in public you'd be hounded and heckled. Yet, surprisingly, this does not happen when referring to marriage between homosexuals? It is a simple thought experiment to realise that if you think marriage is religious, then at LEAST 80% of all marriages must be entirely invalid.
So the argument that marriage is owned by religion is ridiculous. Marriage is universal. Culturally, Marriage means the official stamp of "I love you" - and to deny this monumental cultural symbol of love to homosexuals is a ridiculous slap in the face. You're basically saying "your love will never be viewed with the same status as a straight couple's love"
A 'civil union' is so sterile, so devoid of the romanticism afforded to marriage. If civil unions were really exactly the same as marriage, why not call it marriage?! Because, what you're really doing is creating a distinction between the bond of straight people, and the bond of gay people. For example, it's like calling a white person a master and a black person a slave. 'Master' and 'slave' both mean 'person' but one means a higher 'class' of person. This condescending "civil union" treats homosexuals as second class citizens. It is the epitome of discrimination; it is LEGALISED sexual discrimination.
Further, what shits me is this "Marriage is purely for a man and a woman" BULLSHIT. This is the standard line that homophobes hide behind. It deligitimises homosexuals without you actually having to say "i don't like homosexuals" - and it does so in such a way that has become acceptable in our society. This is bullshit, and I really hope people realise this. I will certainly agree that some people are simply ignorant when they say this, but in my experience, most of the people who spout that line are completely homophobic, they just don't want to admit it.
Marriage is a romantic symbol of undying love. It is the announcement to the world that you love somebody and they love you back. (This isn't always the case, but it is the romantic idyll). And I will reiterate; to deny this right to homosexuals is to slap them in the face and treat them as a lower class of citizen.
History will look back on the opponents to gay marriage with the same disgust that it viewed those who believed woman should not vote, or that blacks were worth 3/5 of a human. Please consider that for a moment, and ask yourself if that is how you wish to be remembered. And if that doesn't work for you, just imagine that you were being denied a right based on your love for your partner (a human being, for those who have forgotten somewhere along the way...). Truly disgusting, dastardly, discriminatory.
-
Let's take all these arguments to their logical conclusion; perhaps then you'll see their absurdity.
Re: comparison to atheists getting married, marriage doesn't mean anything anymore yadayadayada.
The difference is that the option remains open to heterosexual atheists. They have the CHOICE to either get married or live in a de facto relationship. The option does not remain open to homosexuals. What makes a heterosexual atheist any different from a homosexual atheist (on strictly religious grounds; I'll come to your other arguments later)?
Also, many atheists are heterosexual, so you cannot compare marriage between atheists and homosexuals.
On this argument alone, it makes no sense why parliament would allow one and not the other. Strength of atheist belief doesn't vary with sexual orientation. And, what about religious homosexuals? (yes, shock horror, they do exist, I couldn't fathom why but good for them)
For centuries, a marriage has been between a man and a woman. Why change that now? And if it is changed, what else will change along with it? Where is the line drawn?
but when they want to change something that I have explained has remained unchanged for centuries
Oh please, marriage has changed so much over the centuries. A few examples:
For centuries in the US, interracial marriage was not allowed.
For centuries (perhaps millenia, I am not so familiar with their history) in India (and even today), intercaste marriage was not allowed.
For centuries in many countries, inter-religion marriage was not allowed. There was a time where a Protestant marrying a Catholic was a big deal, for example.
For centuries, marriage between royalty and commoners was heavily frowned upon.
Where is the line drawn? At the point where two consenting people of able mind decide to join in a union. Heterosexuals are allowed to (even, as you say, if they are atheists). Is the consent of homosexuals somehow worth less than those of heterosexuals?
You are right, Cthulhu, that the religious have higher divorce rates, but only marginally. Which only goes to show that marriage means nothing.
And lynt.br, call me cynical, but I don't think that a love strong enough to withstand any circumstance really exists anymore. Everyone is so selfish these days, which, again, is evidenced by divorce rates. It's quite sad, really.
So abolish it altogether then. Why does it only mean nothing to homosexuals and not to atheists etc.? Or more pertinently, why force your own personal cynical view of marriage upon others?
Legal rights mean nothing to those fundamentalists, but it is the idea that two people of the same sex getting married is what makes them go crazy.
Exactly why they should have as little influence in modern society as possible.
Most churches frown upon homosexual actions (and not homosexuals per say) because the ultimate aim of marriage in a religious sense is to allow someone to have sex in order to procreate. As homosexuals cannot do this, they cannot get married.
Because they have the potential to have children
Therefore, it would be perfectly logical by your stance to ban religious but infertile couples from getting married.
NB definition of infertile: do not have the potential to have children.
and to bring them up in a "normal" family. Homosexuals cannot.
So your view of what a "normal" family consists of is so superior to anyone else's that it should be imposed upon everyone else.
Assuming your "normal" family is a mother and father:
I propose that DOCS take children away from any families where one parent has passed away, or the parents have divorced, or for whatever reason, the parents cannot take care of the children and they are instead brought up by grandparents/other relations. (By your logic then I should have been placed into a foster home, since I grew up with my grandparents and *divorced* uncle shock horror! Abnormal family!)
I guess that was a bad choice of words-- marriage is a social and religious expectation that those who want to start a family. We have not progressed to the state that marriage has become completely obsolete as there is still a social stigma surrounding unmarried couples having children. Homosexuals do not need marriage in my eyes, then, as they do not need to surpass this barrier in order to start a family.
Okay, another marriage ban then - on religious, heterosexual couples who do not want to have children. What a ridiculous idea; the world is overpopulated and orphanages are overflowing as it is.
"Social stigma" is simply a euphemism for how backwards society still is. It should not (but unfortunately often does) translate into backwards laws.
I suggest you do some research on how hard it already is for any couple, let alone a homosexual couple, to adopt children.
Ultimately, I am saying that you cannot grant marriage for love only. It is a legal binding contract, and needs much more than just "love".
Such as?
I did a quick google search and found this: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2001/fm59/vr.pdf
It explains how children of gay parents are bullied about the sexual orientation of their parents.
That is an indication of how backwards society still is in some areas. It is also an indictment on the parenting skills of those bullies. There will always be shit people and shit parents in the world. What's your point?
I was bullied and spat on in primary school for being Asian. Let's ban all Asians in predominantly white countries from marrying and having children (since the two cannot possibly be mutually exclusive?)
And now I return to one of my first arguments. Where is the line drawn? If gay marriage is legalised, then what is stopping polygamy, marriage between humans and animals etc.? Surely there is love in these relationships as well, as well as the yearning to be recognised as legal partners?
What is wrong with recognising polygamy?
Lol, the same tired old "I want to marry my dog" argument. I can't put it any better than this:
3) 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 contract.
(and I would add "and obviously is capable of giving consent" to that.)
TL;DR
By your logic, the following should be banned from the institution of marriage:
- homosexuals, atheist or religious;
- atheists and agnostics;
- couples who do not want children;
- infertile and senile couples;
- couples whose children, for whatever reason, may be bullied later in school;
- couples who may separate/divorce later;
- couples who have the potential to be abusive parents because that will hinder their children's development and this somehow relates to to eligibility for marriage;
- couples who have no better reason to get married than because they are in love;
- couples where one or both parents will die before their children are of adult age and will therefore be raised in an "abnormal" family; and
- interracial, interreligious and intercaste couples because marriage hasn't changed at all over the course of history.
-
Typical arguments against gay marriage.
I have yet to read a single one that's not been thoroughly exposed below for its utter hypocrisy and absurdity.
- Being gay is not natural. We always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- 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 contract.
- Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Australia.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
- Gay culture is a new fad created by the liberal media to undermine long-standing traditions. We know this is true because gay sex did not exist in ancient Greece and Rome.
- There are plenty of straight families looking to adopt, and every unwanted child already has a loving family. This is why foster care does not exist.
- Conservatives know best how to create strong families. That is why it is not true that Texas and Mississippi have the highest teen birthrates, and Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have the lowest. This is a myth spread by the liberal media.
- Marriage is a religious institution, defined by churches. This is why atheists do not marry. Christians also never get a divorce.
- Gay marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives, not the courts. The framers checked the courts, which represent mainstream public opinion, with legislatures created to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Interference by courts in this matter is inappropriate, just as it has been every time the courts have tried to hold back legislatures pushing for civil rights.
- Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because "separate but equal" institutions are the best way.
Credit: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=2204465246&v=info&ref=ts
-
Holy Adrian. You two are like a tag team.
-
hm interesting enwiabe
http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1158:lifestyle-choices&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290 ... scroll down to gay marriage its quite interesting
"Having government define, control or sanction marriage, or give advantages (or disadvantages) to people based upon their marital status, is beyond the protection of individual rights. It is certainly not valid for the government to purport to give or withhold approval to marry on the basis of the sexual preference of those involved or the fact that the marriage involves two people of the same gender."
the thing that holds some people back is religion. like my parents would say marriage is between a man and a woman and the church has said this and its a god thing etc etc...but yeah i dunno everyone should have individual rights and its private etc but we still have these laws because of the overarching prevalent attitutes of the people and anyway if those people want to have their legal status as marriage, i guess why not? but even if you don't have it as marriage at least give the same legal rights to them. its not like they have to marry via an orthodox church or whatever...but anyway if the government just got out of the business of marriage and gave the individual the same rights then the whole legal thing would be no problem because then you can define marriage according to church/religious beliefs or whatever... i dunno...
-
I can understand that the world is becoming more secular, and that as a result marriage has lost its place as a religious rite. I've done some more research, and now I can come to understand WHY homosexuals would want marriage. I apologise for my ignorance.
All the things that I have thought would happen as a result of recognising same sex marriage has not occurred in any of the countries that have legalised it. In a place where the proportion of homosexuals is increasing more than ever, I now see that there is no real negatives (but rather positives) in allowing gay marriage. They deserve the rights of any other human being.
Nonetheless, as you have all stated, although we would like to think of ourselves as progressed, society is as backward as ever. I don't think that such a society would be hospitable to the idea of legalising gay marriage.
-
It's up to each individual person to decide what is right and wrong, not the parliament.
So. Out with all laws? Allow each of us to decide for ourselves what we will do based on our own conscience(or lack thereof).
Yes. People should decide for themselves, unless it negatively affects other people. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people getting married. When has framing laws on religious beliefs ever turned out well? Look at the middle east, where women have very few rights and can be stoned to death for adultery because they think that religion has a place in politics.
-
"Yes. People should decide for themselves, unless it negatively affects other people. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone except the people getting married. When has framing laws on religious beliefs ever turned out well? Look at the middle east, where women have very few rights and can be stoned to death for adultery because they think that religion has a place in politics."
are you serious? people need to be regulated. not by religion, but by a legal body. public order would collapse. in fact i'd even prefer people to be regulated by religious extremeists than have nothing controlling individuals in society
and of course at some point actions will negatively affect others (it's almost unavoidable, we don't live in a greatly caring society) and then we're just back to our system anyway
but I do agree with you on the gay marriage being allowed. but it's not like banning gay marriage is anywhere near as extreme as women being stoned to death for adultery
-
If what someone does has no effect on anybody else, why does the government have the right to tell them not to?
-
I don't think that such a society would be hospitable to the idea of legalising gay marriage.
I'm not sure about that, actually.
Three in five Australians support same-sex marriage, according to a new survey, with women, young people and those on higher incomes most likely to support it.
NB: commissioned by gay marriage lobby group, probably biased results
Online poll on this article: out of 43366 surveyees, 64% are for gay marriage.
Yet not only does the government continue to ban it, they're even preventing gay couples from getting married overseas.
-
it's more that the government doesn't want to act on it. think about it, if you were PM and you legalised gay marriage, you're pissing off a lot of people who are against it and as it's such a big issue they'll likely take their next vote elsewhere. it's like how abortion used to be, except finally they did something about that. parliament will avoid big issues like this until forced to handle it, unless it's beneficial to the government they won't act on it. quite a selfish and flawed system.
and gay marriage would have an effect on someone else. I am in favour of letting them do what they want, but you can't deny that it would mess with thousands of years of tradition (not that I at all mind that, but you still have to be mindful of what it would do). but yes it shouldn't matter that much to religious people, they should really loosen their stranglehold on society, they aren't mindful enough (not talking about ALL religious people here, but the few that ruin it for everyone else)
everything we do has repercussions, newton's law applys to more than physics :P (for example karma)
-
That's true, although I would've thought they'd learned their lesson from abortion (Tony Abbott's getting bitten in the arse right now because he opposed the abortion drug RU48 all those years ago, for example). But that's the nature of politics for you. Very rarely is a government actually interested in the nation; rather, they're interested in what gets them votes (which often just happens to also be good for the nation)..
I don't see the problem with messing with tradition. Legalising interracial marriage in the US messed with tradition and that did a bucket load of good. Tradition is just as often a bad thing as it may be a good.
There has not been a single argument against gay marriage which hasn't been torn to shreds. You can't hide homophobia behind reason because it is not rational.
To the proponents of the "marriage is religious" argument: if you were to get married, would you sign a marriage certificate?
-
I think there has to be a clear distinction between marriage as a religious rite, and as a legal process (something which I have learnt just recently); they are two separate things, and we cannot use the religious argument to deny homosexuals the right to get married, and legally to be acknowledged as partners. Any religion has the right to give or withhold this right within their respective institutions, but they should not have any influence on the legal definition of marriage.
-
Yup.
(http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cd5327b8-249f-4890-ad33-57e088a53a0a.png)
-
Now if only Australia can follow suit...
-
I used to think Australia was a progressive nation, and that the US was a backwards hole... but come to think of it, the US is far more progressive in so many areas... at least in the non-redneck states.
-
The conflict is between religion and state. We need to seperate the religious and legal aspects of marriage by having the state only recognise civil unions. Religious couples can get married safe in the knowledge that (to them) gays aren't married while gay couples can get married anywhere they want.
-
if they proposed a gay marriage vote i'd vote no.
-
if they proposed a gay marriage vote i'd vote no.
for any reason in particular?
-
if they proposed a gay marriage vote i'd vote no.
for any reason in particular?
i don't want gay marriages.
-
What an interesting, constructive and totally non-bigoted contribution to the thread.
-
i don't want gay marriages.
that is the most selfish and pointless contribution. firstly, how would gay marriage negatively infringe upon your livelihood? just because they can't get married doesn't mean there aren't gay couples, do you not want them too?
-
i don't want gay marriages, simple as that. what gay people do in their own time is their choice but as a man with an opinion i can openly say i DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGES. so can everyone stop being a bunch of hippy politically correct robots and maybe express what you really feel cause a lot of you are just saying what you think others want to hear.
just to rephrase : I OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGES
-
i don't want gay marriages.
that is the most selfish and pointless contribution. firstly, how would gay marriage negatively infringe upon your livelihood? just because they can't get married doesn't mean there aren't gay couples, do you not want them too?
Don't bother, arguing with idiots just brings you down to their level.
-
i don't want gay marriages.
that is the most selfish and pointless contribution. firstly, how would gay marriage negatively infringe upon your livelihood? just because they can't get married doesn't mean there aren't gay couples, do you not want them too?
Don't bother, arguing with idiots just brings you down to their level.
i'm an idiot cause i oppose gay marriage? you are truly are retard seriously your so self centered you think your opinion is beyond that of any one else and you try use what you've learnt in law to argue ... please stfu you're annoying
-
No, you're an idiot because you haven't even attempted to justify your opinion except to claim that you are a "man with a viewpoint".
so can everyone stop being a bunch of hippy politically correct robots
Speaking of thinking your opinion is beyond that of anybody elses... please stfu, you're a moron and a hypocrite :)
-
No, you're an idiot because you haven't even attempted to justify your opinion except to claim that you are a "man with a viewpoint".
so can everyone stop being a bunch of hippy politically correct robots
Speaking of thinking your opinion is beyond that of anybody elses... please stfu, you're a moron and a hypocrite :)
STFUUU
-
i don't want gay marriages.
that is the most selfish and pointless contribution. firstly, how would gay marriage negatively infringe upon your livelihood? just because they can't get married doesn't mean there aren't gay couples, do you not want them too?
freedom of speech, every person is entitled to their views and they don't have to provide evidence to why they feel that way.
I have my pro's and con's on gay marriage, however you sound like a single-minded extremist. <= entitled at @ spreadbury
-
freedom of speech, every person is entitled to their views and they don't have to provide evidence to why they feel that way.
I have my pro's and con's on gay marriage, however you sound like a single-minded extremist. <= entitled at @ spreadbury
it's idiotic to post in a controversial area and not expect your opinion to be attacked when you can't outplay and justify your views. do you think anyone would just get away with posting "religion sucks" in a religious argument and not be questioned about it? no.
and there's always a reason for an opinion, it's never just an "I don't want it".
i'm a single minded extremist? really? is asking someone for their opinion, and then questioning them further when they fail to provide an adequate response extreme?
there are really no cons for gay marriage. If they can put up with us being allowed to get married, i'm sure we can all put up with them getting married. But if you can give me ONE legitimate reason that justifies howgay marriage will negatively affect you, i'll shut up right now.
-
freedom of speech, every person is entitled to their views and they don't have to provide evidence to why they feel that way.
I have my pro's and con's on gay marriage, however you sound like a single-minded extremist. <= entitled at @ spreadbury
it's idiotic to post in a controversial area and not expect your opinion to be attacked when you can't outplay and justify your views. do you think anyone would just get away with posting "religion sucks" in a religious argument and not be questioned about it? no.
and there's always a reason for an opinion, it's never just an "I don't want it".
i'm a single minded extremist? really? is asking someone for their opinion, and then questioning them further when they fail to provide an adequate response extreme?
there are really no cons for gay marriage. If they can put up with us being allowed to get married, i'm sure we can all put up with them getting married. But if you can give me ONE legitimate reason that justifies howgay marriage will negatively affect you, i'll shut up right now.
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FAGGOT just cause someone has an opinon doesnt mean they need to explain it to someone online who thinks theyre so mighty seriously take a shit
-
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FAGGOT just cause someone has an opinon doesnt mean they need to explain it to someone online who thinks theyre so mighty seriously take a shit
But I kindly asked you to explain it... and then you just reiterate the exact same point. can I kindly ask you again to explain your opinion, or you could just stop posting because obviously you're not going to try/ can't justify your opinion- which gives credence to the idea that it's a purely irrational one.
I find you quite rude, is this how you act in every day life?
-
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FAGGOT just cause someone has an opinon doesnt mean they need to explain it to someone online who thinks theyre so mighty seriously take a shit
But I kindly asked you to explain it... and then you just reiterate the exact same point. can I kindly ask you again to explain your opinion, or you could just stop posting because obviously you're not going to try/ can't justify your opinion- which gives credence to the idea that it's a purely irrational one.
I find you quite rude, is this how you act in every day life?
only to small minded retards like yourself
-
how am I small minded? Because I asked for your opinion. oh may you have mercy for me trying to gain an understanding of someone elses opinion.
I hope you get blocked, I will take no further part in your troll war.
-
freedom of speech, every person is entitled to their views and they don't have to provide evidence to why they feel that way.
I have my pro's and con's on gay marriage, however you sound like a single-minded extremist. <= entitled at @ spreadbury
i'm a single minded extremist? really?
there are really no cons for gay marriage.
thank you for proving my point.
-
if you can give me ONE legitimate reason that justifies howgay marriage will negatively affect you, i'll shut up right now.
I set you a challenge. if you can give me a legitimate reason i'll accept your point of view and retract my statement about there being no cons for gay marriage. but explain to me a single con. what does marriage mean for straight people? that they love eachother? that they want to spend their lives together? they can take out loans from a bank more easily as a couple? how does any of this being available to gay couples drain society of its values?
-
to be completely honest on this topic.
i think its fair to say " one is entitled to his/her own opinion , regardless of another thinks or understands of it"
however . in saying this .. it would be good for HARD to justify his views.
at the same time.
i cannot see why he would have to ... if he dosnt like gay marriages . cool .. leave it at that ..
personally
whilst we are on this topic.
i do not believe gay marriages should be allowed .. simply for the fact that marriage implies a common agreement between MAN AND WOMAN ... look it up in the dictionary ...
in saying this , nevertheless .. if 2 guys or girls got married .. it wouldnt affect my life in anyway .. and so i couldnt care less
moral of the story
let people be
why try to ruin their happiness?
dont argue with anyone about their views ... it is THEIR views .... not yours.
but it would be good to get a understanding of why their views are so
:)
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
saying that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, frankly i don't care at all. I agree to a gay couple having the same benefits as a straight couple, i agree for fair rights for everybody, however i have always seen marriage to be between a male and female.
see my point?
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
saying that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, frankly i don't care at all. I agree to a gay couple having the same benefits as a straight couple, i agree for fair rights for everybody, however i have always seen marriage to be between a male and female.
see my point?
pretty much agreed
well done
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
saying that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, frankly i don't care at all. I agree to a gay couple having the same benefits as a straight couple, i agree for fair rights for everybody, however i have always seen marriage to be between a male and female.
see my point?
Marriage predates the judeo-christian religious ideology... Religion also claims sexual practices as a part of its theology. I'm sure nearly every Priest is also offended that gay men are having sex and that gay women are having sex, but this has not stopped us from overturning bans on being homosexual. Do you see how your logic fails to hold up, here?
The difference is, bigots CHOOSE to take offense to matters which do not involve their lives. Religion viewed throughh the eyes of the law in any good democracy is ENTIRELY of the self and is a set of beliefs that apply to one's own self. Provided that there is no infringement of the rights of others, there is no room for "your beliefs offend me!" to be a valid excuse for denying rights to people. As being in a gay marriage does not tangibly affect the rights of others, there is no good reason not to allow it. Seriously. None.
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
I disagree, and homosexuality has gone even further back than marriage. priests and religious people being offended shouldn't be the top priority, they've been enforcing their views upon the world for far too long, often with hideous results (the crusades, the dark ages) and gays have never done anything back to them. traditional religion is far too rigid- and really about marriage it was just whoever got in there to get married first. if a homosexual couple had been the first couple to marry this whole debate would probably be the exact opposite and it would be straight people campaigning for the right to get married.
EDIT: also, at matt123 yes, he's entitled to his own view, and he could've just left the topic when asked to justify his view, but no, he lashed out and started screaming at people. poor handling of the situation
-
Religion also claims sex as a part of its theology
really? you can't be serious. sex predates religion by milennia.
EDIT: sorry for pointless reiterating, I just found it funny. :2funny:
-
Religion also claims sex as a part of its theology
really? you can't be serious. sex predates religion by milennia.
Which is precisely my point :P
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
saying that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, frankly i don't care at all. I agree to a gay couple having the same benefits as a straight couple, i agree for fair rights for everybody, however i have always seen marriage to be between a male and female.
see my point?
Marriage predates the judeo-christian religious ideology... Religion also claims sexual practices as a part of its theology. I'm sure nearly every Priest is also offended that gay men are having sex and that gay women are having sex, but this has not stopped us from overturning bans on being homosexual. Do you see how your logic fails to hold up, here?
The difference is, bigots CHOOSE to take offense to matters which do not involve their lives. Religion viewed throughh the eyes of the law in any good democracy is ENTIRELY of the self and is a set of beliefs that apply to one's own self. Provided that there is no infringement of the rights of others, there is no room for "your beliefs offend me!" to be a valid excuse for denying rights to people. As being in a gay marriage does not tangibly affect the rights of others, there is no good reason not to allow it. Seriously. None.
you hold up a very good argument. Like i said, i don't care about it, any option would have no affect on me, i just like to see from both sides.
You couldn't ban homosexuality, religion disproves it however it is powerless to do anything about it (nowadays). What religion does have power to is marriage. They can choose not to marry a gay couple.
Take out the priest, the holy vowels, the "church" wedding, what do you have? certainly not marriage.
-
Marriage has always been a sacred bond between a man and a women. History+religion go far back with marriage. Priests, religious people can get offended (big slap to religion, since marriage is so closely linked to religion)
saying that, I'm not opposed to gay marriage, frankly i don't care at all. I agree to a gay couple having the same benefits as a straight couple, i agree for fair rights for everybody, however i have always seen marriage to be between a male and female.
see my point?
Marriage predates the judeo-christian religious ideology... Religion also claims sexual practices as a part of its theology. I'm sure nearly every Priest is also offended that gay men are having sex and that gay women are having sex, but this has not stopped us from overturning bans on being homosexual. Do you see how your logic fails to hold up, here?
The difference is, bigots CHOOSE to take offense to matters which do not involve their lives. Religion viewed throughh the eyes of the law in any good democracy is ENTIRELY of the self and is a set of beliefs that apply to one's own self. Provided that there is no infringement of the rights of others, there is no room for "your beliefs offend me!" to be a valid excuse for denying rights to people. As being in a gay marriage does not tangibly affect the rights of others, there is no good reason not to allow it. Seriously. None.
you hold up a very good argument. Like i said, i don't care about it, any option would have no affect on me, i just like to see from both sides.
You couldn't ban homosexuality, religion disproves it however it is powerless to do anything about it (nowadays). What religion does have power to is marriage. They can choose not to marry a gay couple.
Take out the priest, the holy vowels, the "church" wedding, what do you have? certainly not marriage.
So are you saying that priests and churches are what makes a marriage? That must really suck for Jews and Muslims etc.
In fact the power that a priest holds these days in a Western democracy is determined by the government. Marriage is a LEGAL status now. In separating church and state, whilst marriage can be a religious CEREMONY the status of marriage itself is a legal one.
So the only thing that can be religious about marriage is, really, the ceremony and the symbolism. But as shown, the symbolism and the religiousness differs from couple to couple. So what is universal to marriage? The union of two people who (generally :P) love each other. Why can't we extend that to gay people? Who said it had to be a Christian marriage ceremony or any other religious ceremony for that matter?
It's not about the ceremony, it's about validating homosexual relationships as being legally exactly the same as a heterosexual one. And that includes holding the same status. Marriage doesn't belong to any one religion, it doesn't belong TO religion. Marriage has, in our society, come to mean the official confirmation of two people entering a life partnership because they (i say again, generally :P) love each other. Not one individual religion owns this. What they have is their own interpretations of a universal idea that is intrinsic to our society. If you identify with a certain set of religious interpretations and beliefs then more power to you! But that makes your marriage no more valid than a Muslim's does it? And their views are a bit different as well. So then please now explain to me why a homosexual marriage is any less valid than an Islamic marriage which contravenes your religion's tenets? Or a marriage between two non-religious people who don't even have a religious ceremony? Surely that would also invalidate the marriage from the eyes of religion. And yet these are allowed to be marriages! So how are they any less invalid than a homosexual marriage which simply contravenes a different section of your beliefs?
The fact that every religion differs points to the fact that NO RELIGION owns marriage and therefore religion in general cannot own marriage. And therefore, with every individual religious marriage ceremony contravening the tenets of each and every other religion - HOW CAN RELIGION POSSIBLY OWN MARRIAGE?!?! It is simply an interpretation. That is what they own! Christianity owns CHRISTIAN marriage, Judaism owns JEWISH marriage, etc. And as the interpretation of homosexual marriage DOES NOT TANGIBLY AFFECT other people negatively, there is therefore no reason why it should not be allowed. And to deny homosexual people this is to deny them a basic right.
-
I'm not even christian, or religious for that matter :P.
I was implying how homosexuals wanted all rights to the ceremony/etc, including getting married in a church if they wanted to.
-
Hmm yes, well I'm sure priests would not be forced to marry homos, after all that would go against the word of the almighty bigot.
-
I'm not even christian, or religious for that matter :P.
I was implying how homosexuals wanted all rights to the ceremony/etc, including getting married in a church if they wanted to.
Some churches would be happy to marry homosexuals, some wouldn't. That's entirely up to the churches to decide and should have no influence on our laws.
-
I propose legalization for people chopping their dicks off.
I don't want to see it happen. I don't want to hear about it. Heck, I'll much more comfortable with never contemplating the mere possibility of such act.
But how the fuck do other people chopping their dicks off affect me?
If you think gay marriages are 'bad' and can acknowledge the fact that they don't actually affect you, I have one question for you:
what the fuck?
-
I propose legalization for people chopping their dicks off.
I don't want to see it happen. I don't want to hear about it. Heck, I'll much more comfortable with never contemplating the mere possibility of such act.
But how the fuck do other people chopping their dicks off affect me?
If you think gay marriages are 'bad' and can acknowledge the fact that they don't actually affect you, I have one question for you:
what the fuck?
Chopping your dick off is... perfectly legal... :-/ Also your point is very unclear, please elaborate...
-
I propose legalization for people chopping their dicks off.
I don't want to see it happen. I don't want to hear about it. Heck, I'll much more comfortable with never contemplating the mere possibility of such act.
But how the fuck do other people chopping their dicks off affect me?
If you think gay marriages are 'bad' and can acknowledge the fact that they don't actually affect you, I have one question for you:
what the fuck?
because the mere thought of knowing children being brought up by 2 men or 2 woman is stupid. it has never happened since just recently and seriously if i had 2 dads id comitt suicide. NO JOKE I WOULD.
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
-
I propose legalization for people chopping their dicks off.
I don't want to see it happen. I don't want to hear about it. Heck, I'll much more comfortable with never contemplating the mere possibility of such act.
But how the fuck do other people chopping their dicks off affect me?
If you think gay marriages are 'bad' and can acknowledge the fact that they don't actually affect you, I have one question for you:
what the fuck?
i never said they where bad. I have my pro's and con's on gay marriage, nobody asked to hear my pro's on it, they just wanted to hear my con's
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
the whole point of marriage is to get married.. have kids and grow a family. how can 2 men have a family? what do they say when their son/daughter asks why their friend has a mother and they got 2 dicks caring for them??? and whats the son say wen he catches hes 2 days having gay sex? and wahts the children do wen they find out theyre 2 male parents have aids?? INTERESTING
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
the whole point of marriage is to get married.. have kids and grow a family. how can 2 men have a family? what do they say when their son/daughter asks why their friend has a mother and they got 2 dicks caring for them??? and whats the son say wen he catches hes 2 days having gay sex? and wahts the children do wen they find out theyre 2 male parents have aids?? INTERESTING
would karma bite me in the ass for laughing hysterically at this?
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
the whole point of marriage is to get married.. have kids and grow a family. how can 2 men have a family? what do they say when their son/daughter asks why their friend has a mother and they got 2 dicks caring for them??? and whats the son say wen he catches hes 2 days having gay sex? and wahts the children do wen they find out theyre 2 male parents have aids?? INTERESTING
I still don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it. Back in the days black/white marriages (or any interracial unions) were frowned upon. Now, no one cares, and much of popular media actually promotes this.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual intercourses or having parents of the same sex, so long as the society is open-minded enough and accepting enough to it. Right now, that is the primary barrier to legalizing this, because too many in our society are close minded and will pass judgement, thus affect the healthy psychological development of a child. Simply put, people like you are stopping this simply by being here, there isn't a logical defense.
Also, it is unscientific to claim homosexuality is linked with AIDS.
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
the whole point of marriage is to get married.. have kids and grow a family. how can 2 men have a family? what do they say when their son/daughter asks why their friend has a mother and they got 2 dicks caring for them??? and whats the son say wen he catches hes 2 days having gay sex? and wahts the children do wen they find out theyre 2 male parents have aids?? INTERESTING
Studies have shown that children with same-sex parents are as well-adjusted as those with heterosexual parents:
e.g. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids.
Learning to accept the kinds of lifestyles people can lead is part of growing up. It takes a well adjusted person to accept that. As to your other points, responsible parents don't let their children catch them having sex, and believe it or not, not all homosexuals have aids.
You seem to have a lot of hatred towards homosexuals, that is quite worrying.
-
p.s
i agree with alot of the stuff on here
i mean . yeh let the homosexuals be right? . why not? they are humans ..
im not trying to be close minded
..... but i do find it quite sickening that 2 guys could have intercourse ..and so do many straight aussies .. i mean . we are aussies .. we love the vag ( sorry to be so innapropiate) ...
and obviously some of the society also finds it sickening
i mean ... the reason it is so "frowned upon" . is because people have been discouraging it for YEARS.
if gays want to be gay .and take it in the bum ... let them be ... its not gonna affect you.
but
in my answer
NO .. i would rather people NOT to be gay .. simply because .. penis goes in a whole .. and not against another penis.
dont troll . just my opinion.
-
p.s
i agree with alot of the stuff on here
i mean . yeh let the homosexuals be right? . why not? they are humans ..
im not trying to be close minded
..... but i do find it quite sickening that 2 guys could have intercourse ..and so do many straight aussies .. i mean . we are aussies .. we love the vag ( sorry to be so innapropiate) ...
and obviously some of the society also finds it sickening
i mean ... the reason it is so "frowned upon" . is because people have been discouraging it for YEARS.
if gays want to be gay .and take it in the bum ... let them be ... its not gonna affect you.
but
in my answer
NO .. i would rather people NOT to be gay .. simply because .. penis goes in a whole .. and not against another penis.
dont troll . just my opinion.
HAHAHA ,
even though i don't agree with you, I cacked myself reading that.
-
p.s
i agree with alot of the stuff on here
i mean . yeh let the homosexuals be right? . why not? they are humans ..
im not trying to be close minded
..... but i do find it quite sickening that 2 guys could have intercourse ..and so do many straight aussies .. i mean . we are aussies .. we love the vag ( sorry to be so innapropiate) ...
and obviously some of the society also finds it sickening
i mean ... the reason it is so "frowned upon" . is because people have been discouraging it for YEARS.
if gays want to be gay .and take it in the bum ... let them be ... its not gonna affect you.
but
in my answer
NO .. i would rather people NOT to be gay .. simply because .. penis goes in a whole .. and not against another penis.
dont troll . just my opinion.
I used to find homosexuality sickening too, but even when I found it sickening I respected the rights of people to be that way, and would never have advocated any form of discrimination against these people. This is an essential part of who these people are, and nobody should be ashamed of who they are because somebody else thinks it's "weird". We should try as hard as we can to accept people no matter who they are, as I'm sure we would want people to do for us if we were considered different.
-
p.s
i agree with alot of the stuff on here
i mean . yeh let the homosexuals be right? . why not? they are humans ..
im not trying to be close minded
..... but i do find it quite sickening that 2 guys could have intercourse ..and so do many straight aussies .. i mean . we are aussies .. we love the vag ( sorry to be so innapropiate) ...
and obviously some of the society also finds it sickening
i mean ... the reason it is so "frowned upon" . is because people have been discouraging it for YEARS.
if gays want to be gay .and take it in the bum ... let them be ... its not gonna affect you.
but
in my answer
NO .. i would rather people NOT to be gay .. simply because .. penis goes in a whole .. and not against another penis.
dont troll . just my opinion.
I used to find homosexuality sickening too, but even when I found it sickening I respected the rights of people to be that way, and would never have advocated any form of discrimination against these people. This is an essential part of who these people are, and nobody should be ashamed of who they are because somebody else thinks it's "weird". We should try as hard as we can to accept people no matter who they are, as I'm sure we would want people to do for us if we were considered different.
so true
-
YES HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG COZ BIBLE SAYS SO AND SOMETHING TO DO WITH HISTORY SAYING SO RAWR RAWR RAWR.
THEREFORE WE SHOULD BRING BACK CRUSIFYING AND STONING PEOPLE TO DEATH WOOO! WHO CARES ABOUT CHANGING IDEOLOGIES AND DEVELOPING SOCIETY WHEN WE COULD JUST FOLLOW 20000 YEAR OLD LAWS.
Fuck I think I'm a bit of a Misotheis
PS.
penis goes in a whole .. and not against another penis.
LOL you made my day!! :D
-
if gays want to be gay .and take it in the bum
omg i love this thread, aaaaaaaaahahahahahaha
-
However it is quite amusing seeing the male population of vn stereotyping homosexuality with "men" and "penises" and how wrong it is, while the same people haven't said anything about women on women =P
-
However it is quite amusing seeing the male population of vn stereotyping homosexuality with "men" and "penises" and how wrong it is, while the same people haven't said anything about women on women =P
kus i like vag
not dick
sorry for being " rude" .but thats the whole point.
all in all tho
i feel the same way about women.
if they wanna go hand bag shopping and shiz 24/7 and be lezbians with short hair cuts
i got nothing against it
they are humans .. they have rights . let them be . no 1 cares
end of story
-
One day homosexuals will achieve
The passing of legislation
Their key to freedom
To marry and to fuck
Legally, without abuse from bigots
I like to type like this
Because it looks
Like poetry
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
Well whose fault is that? soicety's. And who's to say what kind of people children raised by homosexual couples are going to grow up to be anyway. You can't just make an assumption and presume their going to be negatively affected, then say you can't have children and you can't have children. (well i don't think dumb people should be able to have children because dumb parents have dumb children. C what i mean?). Moreover, they will always have a mother and father. No matter what u do. They will just have an extra parent.
(ps. wasn't this thread about marriage)
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
Well whose fault is that? soicety's. And who's to say what kind of people children raised by homosexual couples are going to grow up to be anyway. You can't just make an assumption and presume their going to be negatively affected, then say you can't have children and you can't have children. (well i don't think dumb people should be able to have children because dumb parents have dumb children. C what i mean?). Moreover, they will always have a mother and father. No matter what u do. They will just have an extra parent.
(ps. wasn't this thread about marriage)
Who cares whose fault it is, the fact is kids with homosexual parents often get bullied. I didn't say they wouldn't grow up right, but they don't deserve to be ridiculed for a decision they didn't make.
This thread was about marriage but I was making a point that I'm fine with it until others suffer the consequences of their actions. (ie their adopted kids). Plus, if we do allow marriage, many gay couples will want to adopt too.
And the dumb parents one is not even close to the same scenario - people whose parents have low IQ can still do fine and wouldn't be ridiculed for it.
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
Well whose fault is that? soicety's. And who's to say what kind of people children raised by homosexual couples are going to grow up to be anyway. You can't just make an assumption and presume their going to be negatively affected, then say you can't have children and you can't have children. (well i don't think dumb people should be able to have children because dumb parents have dumb children. C what i mean?). Moreover, they will always have a mother and father. No matter what u do. They will just have an extra parent.
(ps. wasn't this thread about marriage)
Who cares whose fault it is, the fact is kids with homosexual parents often get bullied. I didn't say they wouldn't grow up right, but they don't deserve to be ridiculed for a decision they didn't make.
This thread was about marriage but I was making a point that I'm fine with it until others suffer the consequences of their actions. (ie their adopted kids). Plus, if we do allow marriage, many gay couples will want to adopt too.
And the dumb parents one is not even close to the same scenario - people whose parents have low IQ can still do fine and wouldn't be ridiculed for it.
What a redundant post. You bring up no new points at all. So to you sir i say WHATEVER. (won't someone please think of the children!!!! You sound like Helen Lovejoy). And what's wrong with them wanting to adopt. I would rather have two awesome parents then be an orphan. By the way, who bullies them. People like you!!!
-
What a redundant post. You bring up no new points at all. So to you sir i say WHATEVER. (won't someone please think of the children!!!! You sound like Helen Lovejoy). And what's wrong with them wanting to adopt. I would rather have two awesome parents then be an orphan. By the way, who bullies them. People like you!!!
i'm sorry, but you put far too much faith in society. this topic has demonstrated that there are bigots even among the educated, and that there are clearly people who would pick on another for something like that. people get picked on for less. To be honest I do think it's a little unfair to allow them to adopt an unborn child, or maybe a child too young to understand because there is a fair chance that child will have to put up with some sort of ridicule, or isolation. it is instantly rejecting them normality- not to say that a homosexual couple would make bad parents, it's just the nature of the relationship. it will at least attract some raised eyebrows at the least.
edit: personally I think children should be given some form of choice in all matters of adoption
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
The thing is it's a circular cycle. Homosexuals, and children of homosexual parents are probably bullied because for many people there is still a social stigma against homosexuality. One of the ways to remove that stigma and therefore reduce the bullying is to stop discrimination against homosexuals. Marriage equality may be one way to achieve this aim by lessening the extent to which we distinguish homosexuals as 'different'.
-
i'm sorry, but you put far too much faith in society. this post has demonstrated that there are bigots even among the educated, and that there are clearly people who would pick on another for something like that. people get picked on for less. To be honest I do think it's a little unfair to allow them to adopt an unborn child, or maybe a child too young to understand because there is a fair chance that child will have to put up with some sort of ridicule, or isolation. it is instantly rejecting them normality- not to say that a homosexual couple would make bad parents, it's just the nature of the relationship. it will at least attract some raised eyebrows at the least.
edit: personally I think children should be given some form of choice in all matters of adoption
Exactly.
The thing is it's a circular cycle. Homosexuals, and children of homosexual parents are probably bullied because for many people there is still a social stigma against homosexuality. One of the ways to remove that stigma and therefore reduce the bullying is to stop discrimination against homosexuals. Marriage equality may be one way to achieve this aim by lessening the extent to which we distinguish homosexuals as 'different'.
I agree completely, homosexuals should be able to marry - once it becomes prevalent and accepted then allow them to adopt perhaps?
What a redundant post. You bring up no new points at all. So to you sir i say WHATEVER. (won't someone please think of the children!!!! You sound like Helen Lovejoy). And what's wrong with them wanting to adopt. I would rather have two awesome parents then be an orphan. By the way, who bullies them. People like you!!!
I may sound like Helen Lovejoy, but you sound like a desperado who just wants to sound politically correct. You completely ignore the reality that they will be the centre of ridicule.
And what the hell do you mean by "people like you". It is people with your ignorance that create stigma.
This had turned from a debate to me arguing with an ignorant child.
I'm done here.
P.S You should adopt yourself some punctuation. Questions end with a question mark.
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
Kids are a lot more innocent than you think. In a playground, kids would play together without any politics in mind. No racism, sexism, homophobia or any bullshit. lynt already covered what I wanted to say; just like with any problems such as racism, don't hang out with idiots and everything should be fine. Any member of the intelligentsia would understand that homosexuality is just a loaded word used for fear-mongering like anarchy, communism, ground zero mosque. My advice to the kid getting bullied, stop hanging around plebs
-
Kids are a lot more innocent than you think. In a playground, kids would play together without any politics in mind. No racism, sexism, homophobia or any bullshit. lynt already covered what I wanted to say; just like with any problems such as racism, don't hang out with idiots and everything should be fine. Any member of the intelligentsia would understand that homosexuality is just a loaded word used for fear-mongering like anarchy, communism, ground zero mosque. My advice to the kid getting bullied, stop hanging around plebs
intelligent people can still be fear mongerors. and it's not like you can always just stop hanging around with them, if it were bullying wouldn't be a problem in schools. some people, especially the ones who would try and pick on children with homosexual parents, could go out of their way to make that child feel bad, isolated, or just bully them any way they can. and they may not bully them regarding their parents, but it could be the root cause of why they get bullied (e.g. they may insults them generally like 'you're stupid' but they only say it because their parents are homosexual)
this argument will go round in circles, but it's probable that a child with homosexual parents is more likely to be singled out and attacked than a person with straight parents.
-
Kids are a lot more innocent than you think. In a playground, kids would play together without any politics in mind. No racism, sexism, homophobia or any bullshit. lynt already covered what I wanted to say; just like with any problems such as racism, don't hang out with idiots and everything should be fine. Any member of the intelligentsia would understand that homosexuality is just a loaded word used for fear-mongering like anarchy, communism, ground zero mosque. My advice to the kid getting bullied, stop hanging around plebs
intelligent people can still be fear mongerors. and it's not like you can always just stop hanging around with them, if it were bullying wouldn't be a problem in schools. some people, especially the ones who would try and pick on children with homosexual parents, could go out of their way to make that child feel bad, isolated, or just bully them any way they can. and they may not bully them regarding their parents, but it could be the root cause of why they get bullied (e.g. they may insults them generally like 'you're stupid' but they only say it because their parents are homosexual)
this argument will go round in circles, but it's probable that a child with homosexual parents is more likely to be singled out and attacked than a person with straight parents.
But kids get bullied for a lot of reasons which have nothing to do with homosexuality. Nevertheless, the likelihood a kids going to get bully is not a good enough reason to justify saying a couple shouldn't have kids ......
-
Kids are a lot more innocent than you think. In a playground, kids would play together without any politics in mind. No racism, sexism, homophobia or any bullshit. lynt already covered what I wanted to say; just like with any problems such as racism, don't hang out with idiots and everything should be fine. Any member of the intelligentsia would understand that homosexuality is just a loaded word used for fear-mongering like anarchy, communism, ground zero mosque. My advice to the kid getting bullied, stop hanging around plebs
intelligent people can still be fear mongerors. and it's not like you can always just stop hanging around with them, if it were bullying wouldn't be a problem in schools. some people, especially the ones who would try and pick on children with homosexual parents, could go out of their way to make that child feel bad, isolated, or just bully them any way they can. and they may not bully them regarding their parents, but it could be the root cause of why they get bullied (e.g. they may insults them generally like 'you're stupid' but they only say it because their parents are homosexual)
this argument will go round in circles, but it's probable that a child with homosexual parents is more likely to be singled out and attacked than a person with straight parents.
But kids get bullied for a lot of reasons which have nothing to do with homosexuality. Nevertheless, the likelihood a kids going to get bully is not a good enough reason to justify saying a couple shouldn't have kids ......
my point plain and simple: kids ith homosexual parents are more likely to suffer some form of ridicule or bullying because society, still having homosexual values and often being quite cruel, will find a way to pick on nearly anything. until homosexuality is as normal as being straight, people could still be made fun of for being gay, or, having gay parents. not to say that a child will be bullied because of it, but it's easy to see how they COULD be bullied for it. is society totally accepting of gay marriage? hell no. so would it be accepting of homosexual adoption? hell no.
furthermore, part of being a parent would be considering the needs of your kids. say you were going to adopt a kid and knew that it could result in ridicule, say 50/50 chance, would you still do it? you wouldn't see that as just a little irresponsible?
-
You're right, intelligent people would use fear to assert control over dumber ones, I'll concede that one. Intelligent people would not be subjects of such irrational fears themselves.
Behaviourists has proven that each child is born with a tabula rasa. Hence, only through homophobic parents would they act homophobic themselves. Archaic laws are currently being forced out in an effort to appear "progressive" and much as I hate to admit this, people are becoming more liberal (urgh). In the next few lifetimes, it is likely no one would care about stuff like these any more.
"It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas." - Philip II of Macedon
-
Kids are a lot more innocent than you think. In a playground, kids would play together without any politics in mind. No racism, sexism, homophobia or any bullshit. lynt already covered what I wanted to say; just like with any problems such as racism, don't hang out with idiots and everything should be fine. Any member of the intelligentsia would understand that homosexuality is just a loaded word used for fear-mongering like anarchy, communism, ground zero mosque. My advice to the kid getting bullied, stop hanging around plebs
intelligent people can still be fear mongerors. and it's not like you can always just stop hanging around with them, if it were bullying wouldn't be a problem in schools. some people, especially the ones who would try and pick on children with homosexual parents, could go out of their way to make that child feel bad, isolated, or just bully them any way they can. and they may not bully them regarding their parents, but it could be the root cause of why they get bullied (e.g. they may insults them generally like 'you're stupid' but they only say it because their parents are homosexual)
this argument will go round in circles, but it's probable that a child with homosexual parents is more likely to be singled out and attacked than a person with straight parents.
But kids get bullied for a lot of reasons which have nothing to do with homosexuality. Nevertheless, the likelihood a kids going to get bully is not a good enough reason to justify saying a couple shouldn't have kids ......
furthermore, part of being a parent would be considering the needs of your kids. say you were going to adopt a kid and knew that it could result in ridicule, say 50/50 chance, would you still do it? you wouldn't see that as just a little irresponsible?
So you'd rather have a poor kid have no family at all and live in an orphanage than have a loving family and parents?
-
So you'd rather have a poor kid have no family at all and live in an orphanage than have a loving family and parents?
a very fair point. It wouldn't be good for them to be unhappy at an orphanage, but if they were bullied then would they be happy as happy as they could possibly be?
i'll bring up a point I mentioned earlier, perhaps only children who are able to understand the basics of adoption should be able to be adopted (which applies to both straight and homosexual couples)- but this could also backfire. Perhaps homosexual adoption should wait until homosexuality itself is more accepted? I don't think they would make bad parents by any means, but it could accidentally have the child exposed to unfair torment.
-
Putting it out there, we'd have to wait for a very long time. Put this in perspective, the abolishment of slavery wasn't a particularly popular idea either. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
-
Putting it out there, we'd have to wait for a very long time. Put this in perspective, the abolishment of slavery wasn't a particularly popular idea either. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
our government probably won't act on gay marriage at all. not in its best interests.
-
Agreed. The government's demagogy rears its ugly head again
-
Putting it out there, we'd have to wait for a very long time. Put this in perspective, the abolishment of slavery wasn't a particularly popular idea either. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
our government probably won't act on gay marriage at all. not in its best interests.
Why wouldn't it be?
-
I'm not answering on his behalf, but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls
he breakdown of the poll suggested that support was strongest amongst women (68%), Labor voters (64%), Greens voters (82%), and those aged 16–24 (74%)
While not conclusive, this indicates that not enough people at the peak of their earning power are in favour of it. Most 16-24 year old's are working entry-level jobs or full-time students which isn't of much use to the government
-
Why wouldn't it be?
well the whole voting system means that the government will generally only act to retain support from the people. It happened with abortion until they were forced to make laws about it, and we even saw it with the mining tax that had Kevin Rudd ousted from parliament. In theory, the voting which is meant to make the system more fair, actually makes our system less efficient
-
I'm fine with gay marriage but not with them having children.
Personally, I think many kids would get bullied (they shouldn't, but it's the harsh reality) if their parents were of the same sex. These kids should not suffer for a decision they had no part in making. I mean, their friends will have a mum and a dad and surely at some point will wonder what it is like to have a mother or a father.
This is ludicrous. If you have red hair, should you not have children for fear that your child will also be red-haired and teased a "ranga"? If you were Jewish at the height of the pogroms, was it wrong for those parents to have children who were Jewish? Because i can tell you, bullying back then was a lot worse than it was now (hint: maiming and killing).
Someone mentioned a 50/50 chance of being bullied. The actual figure of kids being bullied in school is a whopping 20%. Should nobody have kids because there's a 1 in 5 chance they'll be bullied at school? That is utterly absurd.
Just because bigots and assholes exist and do their retarded best to make life hard doesn't mean you just sit there and let them win. You try the best that you can to make the environment safe. As someone already mentioned, would you rather they be an orphan? Or with parents who never wanted them and/or don't love them?
I don't know if you've read the papers lately, but the foster care programs in Australia are riddled with child abuse. There are many people who do it simply to get the pay cheque and then neglect the children to try and 'profit' from the government. There are also some sick, sick people who do it so they can get a slave and either abuse them physically/emotionally and sometimes, horrendous as it is, sexually abuse them as well.
But no, I'm sure an orphan going to a homosexual family who has battled through some of the worst adversity imaginable to try and adopt a child because they want to give it their love IS FAR WORSE than neglect/no parents/sex abuse. In the end, by not having read into the issue in the slightest (as evidenced by your malformed opinion) you actually number as one of the ignorants (but I wish to clarify that I do not think that you are in any way a bigot, as your intentions are good, but are simply misguided) you so decry in your post who stigmatise homosexuals and prevent them from attaining the level of respect and decency that they so completely deserve.
What's actually happening is that denying homosexuals the right to adopt is depriving innocent children of an exit to the cycle of abuse in the foster care system. THAT'S what's actually hurting kids. Not some perceived threat of being bullied, but actually being abused in the system as it is, because there is a dearth of decent people either wanting to or allowed to adopt.
Finally, read any study about children from homosexual parents... the results mainly vary from children of homosexual couples having the exact same to a slightly higher quality of social/mental/educational development than those children of heterosexual couples.
-
Someone mentioned a 50/50 chance of being bullied. The actual figure of kids being bullied in school is a whopping 20%. Should nobody have kids because there's a 1 in 5 chance they'll be bullied at school? That is utterly absurd.
that was a hypothetical situation, not a statistic. my apologies
-
I'm all for gay couples adopting kids but here's a good question:
Say if there's a kid up for adoption and you had a choice between the straight couple and the gay couple. They have the same "resume" and everything.
Whick would you prefer?
-
I'm all for gay couples adopting kids but here's a good question:
Say if there's a kid up for adoption and you had a choice between the straight couple and the gay couple. They have the same "resume" and everything.
Whick would you prefer?
straight couple.
look people .. im getting sick of this crap argument ...
im not AGAINST gay people.
HONESTLY . if they wanan touch dicks .. it dosnt bother me.
BUT
i find it sick.
god made a man and a woman.
a child needs a mother . its the effin fundementals ... get ur head straight people.
u cant just say .. 2 gays adopt a kid .. nd the kids gonna be happy.
when all the other children have a mother ... the little poof kid is gonna be left out .. feel cold inside.
i think purely its cruelty... 2 guys cannot show the same affection as a mother.
if guys wanna "love" eachother . and get married .. then so be it ... let them be .. i dont really care.
but to adopt a child ..... is cruelty.
dont be trolling
just my opinion
-
Two guys cannot show the same affection as a mother is a true statement. However, they can show the same level of affection. How would you know the kid would be left out? If you can rationally prove that to me, I'll concede that point
-
Two guys cannot show the same affection as a mother is a true statement. However, they can show the same level of affection. How would you know the kid would be left out? If you can rationally prove that to me, I'll concede that point
lol????
bro are u srs?
...
imagine this
its show and tell day ... every 1 brings in their parents .... everyone has a mum and a dad.
the kid with gay parents has 2 dads ..
he begins to question why he doesnt have a mother.
other kids begin to treat him like shit . laugh at him.
he begins to question how he was brought up? .. how he was born maybe?
his understanding on life will be .... .. .. limitied? . idk the word.
kmon man .. how can u deny the obvious... a man and woman is how its meant to be ... or else god would have gave us the function to give birth as a man.
note : im not hardcore religous or anything btw ..
but i can tell you now .. that its not coincidence that men cant have babies ...
its for a reason.
and lets say
the gay population increases .. guess what happens to life on earth
it decreases.
i have nothing wrong with gays effin around with eachother
it just makes me sickened knowing 2 dads are gonna have a kid
if my dad was gay and i had another father
i could quite honestly say .. right now .. id be very ... mentally confused.
you dont have to have past experience to see the obvious.
i dont want to be rude to the gay community.
but they shouldnt be able to adopt.....quite frankly . its wrong....its cruel . in inhumane.
dont tell me im close minded
its the truth ... the kid would probably turn out to be messed up .... bullied . etc etc
-
matt123, logic. We require logical argument. That post contained a lot of "it's just wrong" and "c'mon man", but I can't get much logic out of it. Why exactly would two male parents be unable to provide a good enough level of care? Why do you say they cannot provide the right psychological up-bringing to account for the lack of a feminine presence? How exactly are they 'incapable'?
Also, on a side note, can I please ask you to post sentences with punctuations/paragraphs and limit contractions as a personal request? It's a bit painful to read, and it's much harder to take u srsly wen u tlk lyk dys.....
idk.....
but u no wot i mean bro
-
That is an extremely skewed way of viewing things. I don't make fun of my friend because he is black. He doesn't go home wondering why he runs so fast. He doesn't question his bringing up. Read my post on tabula rasa. Parents have skewed minds. Children don't. If anything, a child from a heterosexual couple would have a more limited view mainly for the reasons you brought up.
Also, don't give me natural or religious arguments. Animals are just as prone to homosexual behaviour. You don't see a decline in population because of it. Homosexuality has been prominent ever since Ancient Greek civilisation. They are still quite alive right now. Granted, man's purpose is not to conceive children but that does not mean they can't raise one.
I like short sentences.
-
All children deserve the opportunity to be raised by both a mother and father. In some instances (divorce, death of a parent) this is not possible but I do not believe allowing a young child who has no say in the matter to be raised in a limited household is fair. If a man can offer the same affection as a woman than why can't a single man adopt a child (and vice versa with a single woman)? If a man's ability to care for and love his child is equal to that of a woman then why do mothers win the large majority of custody cases? Where possible, every child deserves to be raised by a man and a woman.
-
I wouldn't mind having two of the same sex parents if one of them was Neil Patrick Harris
-
matt123, logic. We require logical argument. That post contained a lot of "it's just wrong" and "c'mon man", but I can't get much logic out of it. Why exactly would two male parents be unable to provide a good enough level of care? Why do you say they cannot provide the right psychological up-bringing to account for the lack of a feminine presence? How exactly are they 'incapable'?
Also, on a side note, can I please ask you to post sentences with punctuations/paragraphs and limit contractions as a personal request? It's a bit painful to read, and it's much harder to take u srsly wen u tlk lyk dys.....
idk.....
but u no wot i mean bro
ok mao.
I understand where you are coming from with the " logic " business.
however , like " Duck" said , every child deserves to be brought up by a mother.
its unfair to have 2 fathers and no mother. a man cannot show the same affection as a woman.
why do you think there is a man and a woman? ... quite obviously , the woman gives birth the the child = the woman is the MOTHER.
you just don't have 2 fathers , if that was meant to be the case , the father should be able to pop a child out of his ass whole. there's some logic for you... why don't we just have men who can have children?
I'm just being frank with you .. but its complete nonsense to believe that 2 fathers can take out the role of a mother and a father.
a child needs to have a point of perspective from both a woman and a man. it cannot just be loved from 2 men and be " fine" in the real world.
im sorry , but that's the truth.
man AND WOMAN was made to live , serve god , and continue the human race ( in my opinion)
If "gays" become accepted in our society to be able to adopt children.
im not saying the child will become gay ... however , i do believe that one is highly influenced by their parents. read up on "observational learning" if you havnt done psychology. it states that someone will look at another persons actions in-order to guide their own behavior.
A child brought up with gay parents , is more LIKELY to become gay himself as he/she believes that is " the right way".
now lets just say .... 200 years .. everyone is "gay".
you tell me mao ... how the hell is the human race going to continue on?
i guess i am okay with homosexuals living out their lives in our society .. but for them to have children is pretty much "promoting" the gays.
and like i mentioned earlier
it is so so so cruel to make a child grow up , deprived of their mother.
would you like it if you had 2 fathers? ..
just to add to that.
one of my friends has 2 mothers....
when we had conversation a long time ago about it. his views were that .. fathers were not necessary in our life. and to be quite honest , he is now "Gay" himself. he has had no masculine figure in his life .. he is as queer as it gets. he has a close mind , only sees the world for what it is not. he only has tantrums all the time. he is emotional .. and he still believes that men and woman shouldn't be together.
now im not saying there is anything wrong with him .. don't get me wrong . he is a really nice kid.
but for farrrkin sake ... its just sickening.
p.s Mao .. happy with the punctuation now?.
-
matt123 if anyone's trolling it's you.
They'll always have a mother and father. You can't change that. It'd be like having three parents, except you'd be raise by two of them (or in an ideal situation all three).
And yes i did year 12 psych as well. That's kind of simplifying it a bit don't you think? How about biological and bio-social influences on behavior? You don't just turn gay. That's fucking ignorance at its best. Some have even suggested their to be anatomical differences between the hypothalamus of straight and gay males. Therefore, it shows there is somewhat of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
-
matt123 if anyone's trolling it's you.
They'll always have a mother and father. You can't change that. It'd be like having three parents, except you'd be raise by two of them (or in an ideal situation all three).
And yes i did year 12 psych as well. That's kind of simplifying it a bit don't you think? How about biological and bio-social influences on behavior? You don't just turn gay. That's fucking ignorance at its best. Some have even suggested their to be anatomical differences between the hypothalamus of straight and gay males. Therefore, it shows there is somewhat of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
what you say is quite correct.
but you cannot tell me that a child under the influence of gay parenting wont at the least " question why his parents are so".
i think some of you people really need to stop and think for a second.
god created man and woman .. not man and man .. not woman and woman.
clearly there is a reason for this.
go back and read what i said would happen in 200 years time.
i think its quite logical to conclude .. man and man shouldn't work out.
for a man cannot have a child.
if it was to " work out" .. then why cant a man give birth?
-
matt123 if anyone's trolling it's you.
They'll always have a mother and father. You can't change that. It'd be like having three parents, except you'd be raise by two of them (or in an ideal situation all three).
And yes i did year 12 psych as well. That's kind of simplifying it a bit don't you think? How about biological and bio-social influences on behavior? You don't just turn gay. That's fucking ignorance at its best. Some have even suggested their to be anatomical differences between the hypothalamus of straight and gay males. Therefore, it shows there is somewhat of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality.
what you say is quite correct.
but you cannot tell me that a child under the influence of gay parenting wont at the least " question why his parents are so".
i think some of you people really need to stop and think for a second.
god created man and woman .. not man and man .. not woman and woman.
clearly there is a reason for this.
go back and read what i said would happen in 200 years time.
i think its quite logical to conclude .. man and man shouldn't work out.
for a man cannot have a child.
if it was to " work out" .. then why cant a man give birth?
Please stop spurting such absolute nonsense. This has already been posted but it appears you have not read it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-06-07/health/lesbian.children.adjustment_1_psychological-adjustment-advocacy-groups-lesbian-households?_s=PM:HEALTH
The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.
The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting."
This would be the same with same sex male couples, especially with adoption being an incredibly arduous process.
-
Read my post on tabula rasa.
You know that tabula rasa isn't the entire story right? Environmental influences are by no means the sole factor in personality development.
then why cant a man give birth?
So you're okay with lesbian relationships then? Anyway, if you want to talk about your incredibly unrealistic future, where there are only gay couples left - I want to know how all the heterosexual couples disappeared. An increased incidence of homosexuality can't explain that past a pseudo-equilibrium point.
I can feel my brain cells dying after reading this thread :(
-
Read my post on tabula rasa.
You know that tabula rasa isn't the entire story right? Environmental influences are by no means the sole factor in personality development.
then why cant a man give birth?
So you're okay with lesbian relationships then? Anyway, if you want to talk about your incredibly unrealistic future, where there are only gay couples left - I want to know how all the heterosexual couples disappeared. An increased incidence of homosexuality can't explain that past a pseudo-equilibrium point.
I can feel my brain cells dying after reading this thread :(
LOL hahahaha
no .. ofcourse . i feel the same way about lesbian couples.
i mean honestly.... man wasnt created to give birth.
woman cannot give birth without man
why are we changing this? ..
look .. i do respect your views ... i do respect the views of homosexuals.
i do not respect that fact that a child is deprived of a mother or father.
its so evident .. why the hell was man and woman made?
-
Read my post on tabula rasa.
You know that tabula rasa isn't the entire story right? Environmental influences are by no means the sole factor in personality development.
then why cant a man give birth?
So you're okay with lesbian relationships then? Anyway, if you want to talk about your incredibly unrealistic future, where there are only gay couples left - I want to know how all the heterosexual couples disappeared. An increased incidence of homosexuality can't explain that past a pseudo-equilibrium point.
I can feel my brain cells dying after reading this thread :(
LOL hahahaha
no .. ofcourse . i feel the same way about lesbian couples.
i mean honestly.... man wasnt created to give birth.
woman cannot give birth without man
why are we changing this? ..
look .. i do respect your views ... i do respect the views of homosexuals.
i do not respect that fact that a child is deprived of a mother or father.
its so evident .. why the hell was man and woman made?
There is a difference between reproduction and the raising of a child. Any moron can reproduce.
-
your missing my point.
ok guys
you know what
i officially give up arguing with you.
unlike many of you . i have actually deeply thought about this issue and don't randomly bring out my ideas.
my opinion still stands that 2 men shouldn't raise a child.
but i guess , i respect your views and im not gonna keep trying to argue with you.
have a good night people.
-
unlike many of you . i have actually deeply thought about this issue and don't randomly bring out my ideas.
the father should be able to pop a child out of his ass whole. there's some logic for you...
Yup, too deep for me.
-
unlike many of you . i have actually deeply thought about this issue and don't randomly bring out my ideas.
the father should be able to pop a child out of his ass whole. there's some logic for you...
Yup, too deep for me.
haha
i love it how you delete the statement before it.
i clearly said
if gay couples were meant to have children.
why wouldn't god have created just men to have children.
-
its so evident .. why the hell was man and woman made?
I think we're going to need to have the the evolution vs. creationism debate (oh god no) before we can settle the "purpose" of man and woman...
-
hahah man
can we just end this debate/
?
i feel like the argument has become like .. hate for one another.
-
Matt 123 you're really not helping the cause. Okay then Russ, if man and woman are a result of evolution (even the pope accepts this now, doesn't he?) then where does this leave gays? Are gays a failure in the eyes of Darwin? Surely if you believe in evolution then you don't believe that anyone is born gay.
-
Matt 123 you're really not helping the cause. Okay then Russ, if man and woman are a result of evolution (even the pope accepts this now, doesn't he?) then where does this leave gays? Are gays a failure in the eyes of Darwin? Surely if you believe in evolution then you don't believe that anyone is born gay.
Why can't you believe in evolution and believe people are born gay? If gay people are still prevalent, you can make the assumption that homosexual behaviour might well be selected for in an evolutionary context and be something that bestows a selective advantage to the family line. It could be selected for as an adjunct to some other variable/s or because having homosexual behaviour or/and homosexuals in a group may well actually increase the number of offspring left by their relatives.
-
Sorry, I don't follow. Because my siblings are gay I'll have more children?
-
Sorry, I don't follow. Because my siblings are gay I'll have more children?
I'm sorry i assumed you had a basic understanding of Darwinian biology, since you were using it as the basis for your argument. It was just a theory.
(ps. i love how this has turned into a debate about gay marriage, to gay adoption to whether gays are actually born gay)
-
@matt123, your posts are slightly more bearable now, but I still don't think it's up to the standard (look at how everyone else posts).
Anyways, I am fairly confident in my assessment that you are confusing biological function, religious beliefs and social values. Just because a man cannot give birth does not mean he cannot fulfill the role of a mother (psychologically speaking, we're not claiming he must breast-feed). Your assumption here is not valid, all your subsequent conclusions are also invalid. Can you give a logical reason why a man cannot fulfill the role of a mother (psychologically speaking)? [Don't reply with "c'mon he's a dude", that's just ignorant assumptions]
And especially in modern day society, you should not assume the intelligent design theory when arguing about controversial topics such as this.
@Duck, if you believe in evolution, I suggest you check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
homosexual coupling, and child rearing in a homosexual environment, are not freaks of nature.
-
Matt123.
For fucks sake man, learn what "trolling" means. Everytime you use the word, you set off the internal wanker alert for me.
EVERYONE:
If a 14 year old kid had lesbian parents, he'd be the most popular guy at school.
I'm just sayin'
-
Matt 123 you're really not helping the cause. Okay then Russ, if man and woman are a result of evolution (even the pope accepts this now, doesn't he?) then where does this leave gays? Are gays a failure in the eyes of Darwin? Surely if you believe in evolution then you don't believe that anyone is born gay.
I don't believe that people are born gay, I believe it's a mixture of genetics and environment (okay so that can describe every trait but in this case my point is that we have no definitive cause of homosexuality).
Homosexuality isn't a failure according to Darwinian evolution, although technically nothing is. I assume you're saying that since they can't reproduce, they can't pass the trait on. Unfortunately, it's not this simple. There are plenty of circumstances in which men/women who are possessed of a hypothetical "gay gene" would reproduce. The simplest example, is to imagine it as analogous to Huntington Disease - you're perfectly healthy until you're not. The product of the "gay gene" would accumulate and at some arbitrary point, would "turn" the individual (think a happily married man coming out of the closet). You're also assuming that we have no incidence of bisexual interactions.
(ps. i love how this has turned into a debate about gay marriage, to gay adoption to whether gays are actually born gay)
This thread is the best thread...
-
That page on animal homosexuality was interesting despite my limited knowledge and interest in biology. The Darwin comment was a cursory note about how sex is primarily about reproduction. I think you all may have convinced me to support gay marriage (not that I ever opposed it, I was more undecided) but I stand my ground on adoption. Mao the reason he can't give you a logical reason is that these things (different types of affection) are difficult to put into words (ineffable - awesome word.) Do you think a single man should be allowed to adopt? Do you think it is wrong that mothers win the large majority of custody battles?
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
And like someone said above, there has been evidence of homosexuality in animals too. It's stupid to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, blah blah we all know that. Seriously, are there any 100% legit reasons for making gay marriage illegal? No.
-
^wouldn't evolution kill off the "gay gene" then as it is not reproductive and has no use for the futue development of human nature.
So if being gay is not a choice, yet doesn't come from our genes, where does it come from?
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
And like someone said above, there has been evidence of homosexuality in animals too. It's stupid to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, blah blah we all know that. Seriously, are there any 100% legit reasons for making gay marriage illegal? No.
well yur' right yur' gna get a reply mate...thats outrageous...make life hard for themselves? gays have the same rights as straights kid...gays arise from the heart desiring another man; its lyk define love? yu cant...yu feel it kid, feel it.
-
Read my post on tabula rasa.
You know that tabula rasa isn't the entire story right? Environmental influences are by no means the sole factor in personality development.
Ja, but people are not, to my knowledge, inherently militant homophobics.
And to Matt, if "[you're] not hardcore religous (sic) or anything", can you please refer to a rational argument which doesn't involve God?
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
And like someone said above, there has been evidence of homosexuality in animals too. It's stupid to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation, blah blah we all know that. Seriously, are there any 100% legit reasons for making gay marriage illegal? No.
Although there may be a genetic factor, I disagree with this (especially considering the fact that this "gay gene" has never actually been isolated). Doing biology, you can appreciate the environmental effects on a person's characteristics. It is the environment, in my opinion, in which the person is brought up in that largely decides this.
Besides, that statement is almost paradoxical; if genetic, wouldn't that mean that they inherited the genetic information from their parents? Think about it. ;)
-
^wouldn't evolution kill off the "gay gene" then as it is not reproductive and has no use for the futue development of human nature.
So if being gay is not a choice, yet doesn't come from our genes, where does it come from?
Did you even read what I posted? It's entirely possible that it confers a benefit (this is why cystic fibrosis has such a high incidence/carrier rate and why sickle cell anaemia is so prevalent in sub-saharan Africa).
Anyway, there's almost certainly no single "gay gene".
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay?
Just because it's not a conscious choice, doesn't mean it's genetic.
-
Hmm you all have raised good points. Very good points that I will now think about. Homosexuality cannot arise from genetics alone- it is a result of environmental factors too. Thank you for not attacking me, but simply stating those facts to me- I appreciate everyone's responses.
But just think about it, I've read some autobiographies of people who knew they were homosexual ever since they were young- they had a feeling they were different. What do you people believe would have arose there? As kids they felt like they didn't fit in, but they weren't quite sure why. Not until later in their teenage years they finally realised it was because of their sexual orientation.
Just to make it clear, I am all for gay marriages, everyone should have the right to marriage no matter their sexual orientation.
-
Homosexuality was and never will be endorsed by mother nature/god, but neither is half of the stuff heterosexual couples do.
Homosexual couples should go through the same stringent testing that heterosexuals should go through should they be wanting to adopt, and yes, I do think having two fathers or two mothers will not contribute particularly positively when it gets to primary school bullying and such, but they are social factors, which can, and will need to change.
the way matt puts it I can't help but laugh.
Gay and Lesbian couples should live in groups of four, that would be cool 8)
-
@Dan, thanks?
@hard, sure, you want to suicide, but what is 'innately' wrong with a homosexual union?
the whole point of marriage is to get married.. have kids and grow a family. how can 2 men have a family? what do they say when their son/daughter asks why their friend has a mother and they got 2 dicks caring for them??? and whats the son say wen he catches hes 2 days having gay sex? and wahts the children do wen they find out theyre 2 male parents have aids?? INTERESTING
would karma bite me in the ass for laughing hysterically at this?
hahaha... couldn't help it either.
-
Matt 123 you're really not helping the cause. Okay then Russ, if man and woman are a result of evolution (even the pope accepts this now, doesn't he?) then where does this leave gays? Are gays a failure in the eyes of Darwin? Surely if you believe in evolution then you don't believe that anyone is born gay.
Why can't you believe in evolution and believe people are born gay? If gay people are still prevalent, you can make the assumption that homosexual behaviour might well be selected for in an evolutionary context and be something that bestows a selective advantage to the family line. It could be selected for as an adjunct to some other variable/s or because having homosexual behaviour or/and homosexuals in a group may well actually increase the number of offspring left by their relatives.
huh??
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
I think some people turn to homosexuality, because they have just had bad experiences with the opposite sex.
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
I think some people turn to homosexuality, because they have just had bad experiences with the opposite sex.
I think people turn to homosexuality kus their gay.
:S
-
I believe homosexuality arises from genetics- think about this. If someone weren't born gay, why would they choose to be gay? Wouldn't they themselves want to be straight so they don't get into shit like this? Why would they make life hard for themselves in such a judgmental society? I know I'm going to get a few replies from this.
I think some people turn to homosexuality, because they have just had bad experiences with the opposite sex.
Mate, best answer ever
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
haha...
not that I'm for or against same sex marriage,
but adam and eve are in the bible, and not everybody believes in christianity.
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
dude your arguments suck so much. but they're funny +1
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
dude your arguments suck so much. but they're funny +1
Hahaha lol man i know.
I dont actually have any strong points.
I KNOW someone gay .... and ... hes nice okay?... well to me anyhow.
nahhh i only kidd
good on the gays
let them be
let them prick each other and FIST and do unspeakable things.
They arnt hurting anyone.
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
dude your arguments suck so much. but they're funny +1
Hahaha lol man i know.
I dont actually have any strong points.
I KNOW someone gay .... and ... hes nice okay?... well to me anyhow.
nahhh i only kidd
good on the gays
let them be
let them prick each other and FIST and do unspeakable things.
They arnt hurting anyone.
they are if fists are involved
-
Can i just say one last thing to rap this shiz up
" its adam and eve , not adam and steve"
no more needs to be said
kthanxbai
dude your arguments suck so much. but they're funny +1
Hahaha lol man i know.
I dont actually have any strong points.
I KNOW someone gay .... and ... hes nice okay?... well to me anyhow.
nahhh i only kidd
good on the gays
let them be
let them prick each other and FIST and do unspeakable things.
They arnt hurting anyone.
they are if fists are involved
Hmm yeah true true.
The thing is.
I dont got nothing gainst the homos .. let them bang for all i care.
the truth is.
its a sickness .. not a choice.
How can you HONESTLY say you are " happy" touching dicks .. when there is this thing called " punani" on many hot women? ..... wtf? i cannot understand
I cannot understand thefore i dont believe it should be "allowed".
Then again
like i said
i dont give a shi .. let them be .. they arnt affecting anyone
if they wanna watch " guy stuffs man whole " instead of " girl gets pumped" .... by all means ... let them me .. its their loss . not ours
CASE CLOSED PLEASE.
-
the truth is.
its a sickness .. not a choice.
How can you HONESTLY say you are " happy" touching dicks .. when there is this thing called " punani" on many hot women? ..... wtf? i cannot understand
I cannot understand thefore i dont believe it should be "allowed".
Heh
-
Are matt's posts actually serious or are they just light hearted (albeit tasteless)?
-
I'm pretty sure they're serious.
-
Man to man
Face to face
Dick to dick
It only makes sense
^Happy 1k post
-
I'm pretty sure he realised how much attention people gave his early posts and decided if he said something stupider, more tasteless, and more ridiculous, he'd get more attention.
-
i don't want gay marriages, simple as that. what gay people do in their own time is their choice but as a man with an opinion i can openly say i DON'T WANT GAY MARRIAGES. so can everyone stop being a bunch of hippy politically correct robots and maybe express what you really feel cause a lot of you are just saying what you think others want to hear.
just to rephrase : I OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGES
Wait a minute, hard. Political correctness centred around homosexuality might involve: postive discrimination; using taxpayers money to fund gay events; making every other children's story or film into a parable of tolerance and diversity; treating tactless but merely naively misguided 'homophobic' remarks into sackable offences; a joke about a police horse being gay being deemed to neccesitate urgent police action (this did happen in Britain). That sort of political correctness, I agree, is excessive and detrimental. However, accepting that homosexuals should have equal rights and that nasty, irrational prejudices about them should be suppressed, that's not political correctness, hard, that's called "decency".
-
I'm going to be controversial here: why do homosexuals need marriage? I see marriage as more of a religious rite, and since most homosexuals are non-religious (due to most religions being intolerant of homosexuality), why is it necessary? And it's not as if married couples have any significant rights that de facto couples don't.
I'm curious to see people's opinions.
Other than legal benefits like insurance it could be a social matter. Getting married is something we're all expected to do and hence want to do, so gays not being able to follow suite is a form of discrimination I guess.
-
While looking up shit on the internet, I came across this. So of you might interest
As young queer people raised in queer families and communities, we reject the liberal gay agenda that gives top priority to the fight for marriage equality. The queer families and communities we are proud to have been raised in are nothing like the ones transformed by marriage equality. This agenda fractures our communities, pits us against natural allies, supports unequal power structures, obscures urgent queer concerns, abandons struggle for mutual sustainability inside queer communities and disregards our awesomely fabulous queer history.
http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/
Certainly throws a spanner in the works of the liberal left