Same Sex Marriage Debate (3 Viewers)

[sida1049]

How can something be inherent and not genetic? Genuinely interested for an example.

Once again, you're mixing up your inquiry. I'm pointing out that you seem to imply that if homosexuality is not a choice, then it must be genetic. Homosexuality may or may not be inherent or genetic, whatever. But if it isn't genetic/inherent, it doesn't make it not a choice. So the line of questioning regarding whether homosexuality is genetic/inherent or not is irrelevant. At the root of this sub-discussion is enoilgam's mentioning that homosexuality isn't a choice, and you doubting that it is.

 

[sida1049]

These are the sort of questions that will spring to people's minds and be put on political agendas should the law be changed to reflect the 2% of people born with the defect of homosexuality.

Poverty, domestic violence and other pressing matters will be put on the back burner so long as the left-wing continues making stupid requests.

You still don't really understand the flaw in your lines of reasoning.

Your first paragraph reeks of this.

Your second paragraph is this.

Read up on them and inform yourself. It might make your legal studies mark a little higher.

 

[Orwell]

You still don't really understand the flaw in your lines of reasoning.

Your first paragraph reeks of this.

Your second paragraph is this.

Read up on them and inform yourself. It might make your legal studies mark a little higher.

I'm sorry but in no way is making a determination, based on shifting trends, a logical fallacy. If anything, it's more logical than to just assume nothing irreparable will happen.

There has clearly been an increased influx in transgenderism, homosexuality and infidelity through the continued aim of eliminating the theocratic foundations of Australia's legal and cultural roots through increased secularisation. You're either in denial or tolerant of the aforementioned.

People assume the 'No' voters justifying themselves with the religious argument are 'anachronistic' and 'obstinate' but it's not that we're reluctant to change but rather the change that's being proposed will have negative repercussions.

 

[Flop21]

How can something be inherent and not genetic? Genuinely interested for an example.

What does this even mean? He's saying for something not to be a choice doesn't imply that it's genetic - e.g. a nuclear bomb going off, getting blasted with radiation and getting cancer 20 years later.

Also fun fact, the human genome was only sequenced in 2003. Basically, we've only had <20 years to explore what each gene does. What makes that even more complicated? That each combination of genes can give a different phenotype. So sexuality probably isn't even one gene that scientists have to discover, it's probably a combination of genes. There is a lot of work still to be done in genetics.



Like I said boredofstudiesuser1, no one here can argue with you. Your views are totally blinded by religion and not built on logic - thus they're irrelevant. You don't believe in science, yes I remember you arguing that evolution is not real.

 

[cosmo 2]

i spilled spot remover on my dog

now hes gone

 

[BLIT2014]

https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/s...arriage_law_-_survey_question_markings_v3.pdf

How to vote validly.

 

[sida1049]

in no way is making a determination, based on shifting trends, a logical fallacy. If anything, it's more logical than to just assume nothing irreparable will happen.

I don't know which of your previous arguments you were referring to, so I'll address both.

1. "gay marriage leads to underage marriage/marriage to inanimate objects/polygamy et cetera"
This is a slippery slope argument that is fallacious. Gay marriage isn't associated with the legalisation of any of those other modern "taboos", and yet you're forcing that casual relationship to exist out of nothing. By doing so, you make the assertion that we should oppose same sex marriage because we should oppose underage marriage/marriage to inanimate objects/polygamy.

What you're doing is making unsubstantial conjectures which obscure the debate and divert attention away from SSM. Furthermore, you're making an appeal to fear.

Understand this: you're allowed to make inferences on what may happen in the future, given that you reasonably acknowledge casual relationships and uncertainty. But that is not what you're doing: you're overextending the extent of which you are able to claim casuality, and abusing this to justify an opinion.

(If you want a reason as to why your conjectures are unsubstantiated, then here it is: same sex marriage is about legality between two consenting adults. None of the more extreme issues you've posited a casual relationship with same sex marriage can is of the same.)

2. "bigger problems are obscured by left-wingers making stupid requests"
You are making the assertion that we should oppose the opposition because they are backing causes which get in the way of "pressing matters".

What you're doing is shifting attention from the debate at hand to other worrying issues, then coming back and asserting that the opposition is incorrect. This is an appeal to emotion. You're not addressing the current issue, but using other, unrelated issues to back your position.

So in the end you haven't brought any substance into the debate, but have only (consciously or not) used dirty tactics to fallaciously back your position.

There has clearly been an increased influx in transgenderism, homosexuality and infidelity through the continued aim of eliminating the theocratic foundations of Australia's legal and cultural roots through increased secularisation. You're either in denial or tolerant of the aforementioned.

Yeah that's correct. I lean towards "tolerance" towards the above, but now you're shifting the attention away from the discussion at hand.

Here, my views are irrelevant. I'm pointing out the fallacies in your arguments.

Secondly, transgenderism and infidelity has nothing to do with the SSM debate at hand. And regardless of whether homosexuality is a growing presence or not, that isn't the debate. This is not the trend you were using previously. Polygamy and pedophilia are not transgenderism nor infidelity.

You're continually injecting irrelevance into your arguments.

People assume the 'No' voters justifying themselves with the religious argument are 'anachronistic' and 'obstinate' but it's not that we're reluctant to change but rather the change that's being proposed will have negative repercussions.

If this is addressed in relevance to our previous discussion, then this is irrelevant. If not, then I have no problems which what you've wrote here.

I'm sorry

Apology accepted. Don't do it again.

 

[Squar3root]

my reasons for voting no are:
1. it's gonna happen sooner or later there is no fighting it. All this resistance now won't mean shit once it passes through eventually
2. people who vote yes hold violent protest to those who have voted no. like it's a democracy u vote what u vote and other people vote what they want. don't have a sook because someone didn't vote the same way u did. like why don't the people who voted labour hold protest against ppl who voted liberial etc
3. for the lols
4. to trigger people

 

[Orwell]

I am simply stating that, not too long ago, Australians of a certain generation would've overwhelmingly come to rally against such a plebiscite. In this way, I am simply asserting that as time elapses there's a chance that individuals may be left dissatisfied with just homosexual marriage, and that they'll continue down this slippery slope. (haha).

Additionally, I find it amusing that someone who establishes boundaries for assumption, posits with absolute conclusiveness about the mutual exclusiveness of homosexuality, infidelity and transgenderism. Anyway, I am merely stating that these are indicators of a society where values are crumbling and the sanctity of God given features and institutions, are mutilated because of political correctness and left-wing boredom.

Also, I am not making appeal to emotion. It's just ludicrous that we shell out $120+ million to gather some idea of where Australia stands on the issue pertaining to same-sex marriage, which is only applicable to less than 2% of the population, yet, a significant amount more are suffering from serious issues; issues that could be helped drastically with that money.

@Soulful Please tell me that request was a joke. Do one google search and have your mind blown.

 

[sida1049]

Additionally, I find it amusing that someone who establishes boundaries for assumption, posits with absolute conclusiveness about the mutual exclusiveness of homosexuality, infidelity and transgenderism. Anyway, I am merely stating that these are indicators of a society where values are crumbling and the sanctity of God given features and institutions, are mutilated because of political correctness and left-wing boredom.

I think the term you're looking for is independence, not mutual exclusiveness. But at no point did I say that a relationship between homosexuality, infidelity and transgenderism doesn't exist. But without evidence and/or any valid line of reasoning, to say that those things are related would be a fallacy. The burden of proof isn't on me to prove its inexistence, but rather on the person who asserts that it exists. But all of this is irrelevant anyway.

As far as I'm away, this is the first time you've mentioned "sanctity of God", in relevance to infidelity and transgenderism.

Also, I am not making appeal to emotion. It's just ludicrous that we shell out $120+ million to gather some idea of where Australia stands on the issue pertaining to same-sex marriage, which is only applicable to less than 2% of the population, yet, a significant amount more are suffering from serious issues; issues that could be helped drastically with that money.

Pretty much no one disagrees with this. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that this was the most inefficient way possible. But you blamed "left-wingers", who agree with you.

You can have any opinion you want, reasonable or not, and you don't have to justify them. But if you are going to argue for them, do it properly next time. And I'm not trying to pick on you either. It just so happens that you hurt my brain more often than some of the others on this thread (nothing personal).

 

[InsoulvencyReaper]

If we were in the UK as a commonwealth citizen you'd be allowed to "vote" in something like this.

Plus as a Kiwi you are practically from Australia so join in!

I'm not progressive enough.

I'd get eaten alive for my opinion, lol.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[enoilgam]

wot

this is news to me

He went to a catholic school and ND.....

Let me be very clear, I went to Catholic institutions as a matter of convenience and practicality. Im not a Catholic and Id never be a part of their organisation - their history and especially the recent sex abuse issues disgusts me.

boredofstudiesuser1, actually I will say as someone who thinks the Bible is very clear on marriage and am also voting 'no' on this matter.

I disagree but that's partly because I believe that Paul was an interlooper who should never have been included in the bible (the first in a long line of errors made in Christianity). Take Paul away and the bible reads very different.

Even if I did believe being gay was wrong, Id still be a Yes. The state and religion should stay separate - Im very happy that Western society has drawn a line in the sand against the excesses of religion and its influence on society over the past several centuries. I want that trend to continue.

 

[enoilgam]

I am simply stating that, not too long ago, Australians of a certain generation would've overwhelmingly come to rally against such a plebiscite. In this way, I am simply asserting that as time elapses there's a chance that individuals may be left dissatisfied with just homosexual marriage, and that they'll continue down this slippery slope. (haha).

Additionally, I find it amusing that someone who establishes boundaries for assumption, posits with absolute conclusiveness about the mutual exclusiveness of homosexuality, infidelity and transgenderism. Anyway, I am merely stating that these are indicators of a society where values are crumbling and the sanctity of God given features and institutions, are mutilated because of political correctness and left-wing boredom.

Also, I am not making appeal to emotion. It's just ludicrous that we shell out $120+ million to gather some idea of where Australia stands on the issue pertaining to same-sex marriage, which is only applicable to less than 2% of the population, yet, a significant amount more are suffering from serious issues; issues that could be helped drastically with that money.

@Soulful Please tell me that request was a joke. Do one google search and have your mind blown.

There was a movement a long time ago driving a push for equal rights. Conservatives and churches were up in arms, stating how this movement was upsetting social norms and warning of dire consequences should equal rights be granted. The supporters of this movement were militant, employing hunger strikes, violence and a whole range of unsavory tactics (far worse than the current Yes campaign).

Anyway, this push for equal rights was successful. Those militant activists today are celebrated - the opposition though lives in infamy. It was the women's suffrage movement.

Im a student of history and Id be willing to bet, 50, 60 years from now the Yes campaign and those who pushed for equal rights will be celebrated. Those who opposed will be silently forgotten.

 

[Microsoft Word]

There was a movement a long time ago driving a push for equal rights. Conservatives and churches were up in arms, stating how this movement was upsetting social norms and warning of dire consequences should equal rights be granted. The supporters of this movement were militant, employing hunger strikes, violence and a whole range of unsavory tactics (far worse than the current Yes campaign).

Anyway, this push for equal rights was successful. Those militant activists today are celebrated - the opposition though lives in infamy. It was the women's suffrage movement.

Im a student of history and Id be willing to bet, 50, 60 years from now the Yes campaign and those who pushed for equal rights will be celebrated. Those who opposed will be silently forgotten.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of equal rights just yet. I see marriage as more of a luxury, since i don't see it taking any precedence over food, shelter and basic education. I'd rather send over food and clothing to Syria, rather than marriage officiates. Even so, i'd still have the same 'rights' as a homosexual. We're both equal in front of the law. I cannot marry someone of my gender, they can't either. They can marry someone of differing genders, as can i. Maybe change this detail in the campaign?

 

[dan964]

Let me be very clear, I went to Catholic institutions as a matter of convenience and practicality. Im not a Catholic and Id never be a part of their organisation - their history and especially the recent sex abuse issues disgusts me.

I disagree but that's partly because I believe that Paul was an interlooper who should never have been included in the bible (the first in a long line of errors made in Christianity). Take Paul away and the bible reads very different.

Even if I did believe being gay was wrong, Id still be a Yes. The state and religion should stay separate - Im very happy that Western society has drawn a line in the sand against the excesses of religion and its influence on society over the past several centuries. I want that trend to continue.

Fair enough, I have Christians who would agree wholeheartedly on everything I have mostly said, yet still deem it reasonable to vote yes and all that. I also agree that abuse is abhorrent.

Yeah I think we would have to sharply disagree on that one. I don't know fully your position but I don't think we can look back and make our judgements of what is the Bible and what isn't, that wasn't how the canon was formed; the church or any individual doesn't give authority to the Bible.

2 Peter for instance in his letter affirms the writings of Paul as Scripture. So I think there is severe problem. Paul's letters do contain some hard things, but it would really depend on why people want to throw him out. In fact Luke was the travelling companion of Paul.
aside, even when Jesus in the Gospel accounts draws on the Old Testament, he affirms an understanding of marriage in Genesis 2, as one man and one woman. Jesus also makes it clear he agreed with the standard set in the Old Testament on these issues. Maybe that is a topic for a separate thread.

Iterms of the topic at hand, picking up on a slight nuance in your reply, you have to be careful in your reply, as much as I do. The Bible explicitly condemns those in sexual active lifestyles and relationships. for the biblical writers, it is not a matter of whether you are 'being gay', because the Bible does not speak of same-sex attraction. But what it is clear on, I can be clear on. And to say that "The Bible says being gay is wrong" is a statement that is misleading, because if by "being gay" you mean having same sex attraction, is that something that can be considered a moral thing anyways?

Also, I think that two wrongs won't make a right. Sure religions and Christendom have been responsible for purporting the things you suggest (although it may be helpful with those claims to link some articles on the matter)

I personally think and view very strongly marriage as something that is highly beneficial for our society to be kept the way it is, and if there are needs for LGBTIQ people in terms of rights, there are better ways then changing something which is organic and has strong connections with the natural and biological reproduction of children. Sure, if you feel so inclined, to celebrate same sex couples and all that. Yes, I have my religious views, but these same views are what drives me to want to engage in this debate. It is not just a religious issue.

To say that anyone's belief in God or lack of belief isn't going to influence them, and by extension those around them, is not something that anyone can claim is true. We assume that we less religion in the public sphere. Let me ask an interesting question, why aren't Muslims speaking up on this issue? Even if Christianity was somehow proven that it's views are as liberal as been suggested. Muslims have clear views but why aren't they allowed to speak up? (both sides are to blame)

 

[Queenroot]

Fair enough, I have Christians who would agree wholeheartedly on everything I have mostly said, yet still deem it reasonable to vote yes and all that. I also agree that abuse is abhorrent.

Yeah I think we would have to sharply disagree on that one. I don't know fully your position but I don't think we can look back and make our judgements of what is the Bible and what isn't, that wasn't how the canon was formed; the church or any individual doesn't give authority to the Bible.

2 Peter for instance in his letter affirms the writings of Paul as Scripture. So I think there is severe problem. Paul's letters do contain some hard things, but it would really depend on why people want to throw him out. In fact Luke was the travelling companion of Paul.
aside, even when Jesus in the Gospel accounts draws on the Old Testament, he affirms an understanding of marriage in Genesis 2, as one man and one woman. Jesus also makes it clear he agreed with the standard set in the Old Testament on these issues. Maybe that is a topic for a separate thread.

Iterms of the topic at hand, picking up on a slight nuance in your reply, you have to be careful in your reply, as much as I do. The Bible explicitly condemns those in sexual active lifestyles and relationships. for the biblical writers, it is not a matter of whether you are 'being gay', because the Bible does not speak of same-sex attraction. But what it is clear on, I can be clear on. And to say that "The Bible says being gay is wrong" is a statement that is misleading, because if by "being gay" you mean having same sex attraction, is that something that can be considered a moral thing anyways?

Also, I think that two wrongs won't make a right. Sure religions and Christendom have been responsible for purporting the things you suggest (although it may be helpful with those claims to link some articles on the matter)

I personally think and view very strongly marriage as something that is highly beneficial for our society to be kept the way it is, and if there are needs for LGBTIQ people in terms of rights, there are better ways then changing something which is organic and has strong connections with the natural and biological reproduction of children. Sure, if you feel so inclined, to celebrate same sex couples and all that. Yes, I have my religious views, but these same views are what drives me to want to engage in this debate. It is not just a religious issue.

To say that anyone's belief in God or lack of belief isn't going to influence them, and by extension those around them, is not something that anyone can claim is true. We assume that we less religion in the public sphere. Let me ask an interesting question, why aren't Muslims speaking up on this issue? Even if Christianity was somehow proven that it's views are as liberal as been suggested. Muslims have clear views but why aren't they allowed to speak up? (both sides are to blame)

They probably are in mosques

 

[Queenroot]

no public demonstrations cos they know the media would whoop their ass

 

[BLIT2014]

* South Australians could still marry 12-year-olds well into the 1950s ( the Last state to raise the age of consent)
* In 1918 NT restricted marriage between Indigenous women and non-indigenous men

 

[BLIT2014]

I've posted my vote.

 

[BLIT2014]

I'm not progressive enough.

I'd get eaten alive for my opinion, lol.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

We seem to be covering a variety of opinions here