Ban on Gay Marriage (3 Viewers)

[neo o]

Originally posted by Xayma

So you would be ok if the "White Australia Policy" was reintroduced. Everybody had the same rights, entry into the country if they passed a dictation test in a European language.

WTF is with you people and mouthing off random racial examples that have nothing to do with the topic.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by steph@nie
I probably shouldn't of insulted you, but you shouldn't call them faggots. It makes them sound like animals or garbage.

Meh, ill agree with you that it was offensive

 

[steph@nie]

Originally posted by neo_o
WTF is with you people and mouthing off random racial examples that have nothing to do with the topic.

Yeh, um, Xayma, what do you actually mean by that?

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o

I read one post about Aboriginals and voting and that was enough. Neither issue has any bearing on the discussion at hand. So stfu kthx

Wrong.... and as for 'stfu' - um, no. Aboriginals and voting is extremely relevant. The question by Katie Tully was why should we change a law that's been in place for so long. So I gave the examples of Aboringals who were not allowed to vote for so long, a law in place for ages... it was changed because it was unjust.
So, as you can see, it's extremely relevant.

Originally posted by neo_o
Oh, and just some more for the guy who posted the site saying that the bible doesn't really care either way about homosexuality

Rom: 1:26-27

Originally posted by neo_o
And why should we give additional rights to a minority group? Right on etc

Originally posted by neo_o

However, some guy posted a link that said that

1) The Bible doesn't specify that homosexuality is bad.

Well actually it depends.... The Uniting Church, a perfectly valid denomination, believe the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The Catholic church believes it does. So it all depends on where you're standing.

Originally posted by neo_o
The key difference dude, is that homosexuals made a lifestyle choice. Nobody however makes a choice to be born Aboriginal and noone chooses to be disabled.

This is very arguable and you hardly have a case by presenting that as a fact... I firmly believe no one chooses to be a homosexual.

Additionally, homosexual marriage is a completely different issue. We aren't talking support payments here. Aboriginals receive support (and this is arguable) because they come from a disadvantaged background, and disabled people are obviously disadvantaged. Explain to me in what way homosexuals are disadvantaged and less capable then heterosexuals, and explain to me why, we should change the law for this minority group.

Allright, I'll explain. Listen closely. Homosexuals, besides being very discriminated against, are denied the kind of rights that heterosexuals are allowed. Such as marriage. Surely, this disadvantages them?
Not to mention the amount of gaybashings and non-tolerance over the issue.

Additionally, and this has been said before. HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS ANYONE ELSE. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, i see no inequality.

The inequality is that they can't marry someone they love, heterosexuals can. If you can't see that then you're hardly looking.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
Wrong.... and as for 'stfu' - um, no. Aboriginals and voting is extremely relevant. The question by Katie Tully was why should we change a law that's been in place for so long. So I gave the examples of Aboringals who were not allowed to vote for so long, a law in place for ages... it was changed because it was unjust.
So, as you can see, it's extremely relevant.







Well actually it depends.... The Uniting Church, a perfectly valid denomination, believe the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. The Catholic church believes it does. So it all depends on where you're standing.



This is very arguable and you hardly have a case by presenting that as a fact... I firmly believe no one chooses to be a homosexual.

Allright, I'll explain. Listen closely. Homosexuals, besides being very discriminated against, are denied the kind of rights that heterosexuals are allowed. Such as marriage. Surely, this disadvantages them?
Not to mention the amount of gaybashings and non-tolerance over the issue.


The inequality is that they can't marry someone they love, heterosexuals can. If you can't see that then you're hardly looking.

I could just some up my entire response as, "I CAN'T SEE INEQUALITY, IF THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AND CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE IT."

**Since you guys are into random examples**

That's like a necrophiliac complaining because that it's discriminatory that the law won't let him root corpses. He has the same right as everyone else, except he just chooses not to exercise it.

 

[400miles]

But I just told you where inequality was....
You chose to ignore it and that's why you can't see it.

I'll give you reading lessons if you like

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
But I just told you where inequality was....
You chose to ignore it and that's why you can't see it.

I'll give you reading lessons if you like

But I just told you why it wasn't inequality...
You chose to ignore it and that's why you can't see it.

I'll give you reading lessons if you'd like them. I may even consider throwing some English lessons in free of charge.

 

[400miles]

But you didnt tell me why it wasn't inequality. You said you couldn't see the inequality if they could marry someone of the opposite sex. So I told you where the inequality was.

As for your example:
That's like a necrophiliac complaining because that it's discriminatory that the law won't let him root corpses. He has the same right as everyone else, except he just chooses not to exercise it.
That's completely different and a stupid example at that. By doing that the necrophiliac is hurting somebody else (any relatives of the deceased) and is hence doing something wrong. That's why it's not allowed.

Two people being in love isn't hurting anyone else.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by 400miles
But you didnt tell me why it wasn't inequality. You said you couldn't see the inequality if they could marry someone of the opposite sex. So I told you where the inequality was.

As for your example:
That's like a necrophiliac complaining because that it's discriminatory that the law won't let him root corpses. He has the same right as everyone else, except he just chooses not to exercise it.
That's completely different and a stupid example at that. By doing that the necrophiliac is hurting somebody else (any relatives of the deceased) and is hence doing something wrong. That's why it's not allowed.

Two people being in love isn't hurting anyone else.

1) It's only as stupid as your examples darling.

2) It's open to debate whether a necrophiliac is hurting someone else. Would you like to start another topic on it?

3)

The inequality is that they can't marry someone they love, heterosexuals can.

THIS IS WHERE YOU POINTED OUT INEQUALITY

I could just some up my entire response as, "I CAN'T SEE INEQUALITY, IF THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AND CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE IT."

THIS IS WHERE I EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY THERE ISN'T INEQUALITY

qed

 

[neo o]

Oh and

Two people being in love isn't hurting anyone else.

really does depend on the situation doesn't it? eg : two homosexuals who both have catholic parents... guess who your hurting there.

You could go on with hypotheticals forever etc...

 

[eviltama]

-----Originally posted by tWiStEdD
Its others intruding upon mine. I'll allow a different form of recognition for them, but not marriage or anything equating to marriage. Unless you're gay, I should like to see how you see it as up to you to intrude upon gay rights, when you have no grounds to.... [if you are infact gay, then keep on tryin buddy]
-----
Others intruding on yours? Unless you were gay how would allowing homosexuals to marry intrude
on your life? Give us an example because i just don't see it possible.
If you won't allow them anything equating to marriage do you then propose a solution to the problem as soemthing along the lines of marriage but just not called that? Same rights etc but just not called marriage.

-------
I find it outrageous that homosexuals think that because they have an opinion, think they have feelings for another person of the same sex and exist as a person, they have the right to legal recognition with respect to something which is obviously a heterosexual union.
-----
They 'think' they have an opinion... 'think' they have feelings? but yet they exist as a person. Thats contradictory. If you exist as a person, then you can have opinions, can have emotions (including love for other humans) and just because you exist you have the right to expect to be treated equally... in all areas.Marriage is only seen as a heterosexual union because it has never been given the chance to be seen in any other light. (In western civilisation. In india i've heard of dogs marrying.. kids marrying animals etc)
Everything changes, thats obvious. Religion changes too (its just hella slow about it) over time religion does change and maybe one day (Big maybe i know) they will allow marriage to also be interpreted as not only a heterosexual union. But in society we are allowed to be in union with anyone, male, female or inbetween. Our laws should reflect that freedom.

------
Its like having a boat, and then complaining to the manufacturers that it cant be driven on land. The whole concept of homosexual marriage is preposterous... I need more than "Its the right thing to do" to conceed to homosexual marriages. They will always be a minority, always be a fringe group... It is biologically unnatural.
--------
If i was to rate that analogy i'd give it a negative rating. But since you opened it up... what about the boats that can be driven on land? In england they use them as ferries (in places where the water rises and falls dramatically in a short space fo time), the army uses them too. We now have cars that can be driven under water.... humans are clever creatures and we constantly push the normal boundaries of science and nature. We also push the boundaries of tradition, culture and acceptance.. why should this be a different case? Its not.
Sure, we are seen as a minority... but we are not that small of a minority. How many people can say they don't know a homosexual? Know of? Are friends with? Work with? And we aren't a fringe group, jazz musicians are a fringe society, homosexuals don't try to segregate themselve from normal society, we don't move in different social circles. If we were a fringe group we'd be like all those little unknown music festivals that no one really knows about/cares about and only the devout fans etc go to.

 

[steph@nie]

Ok, say it was the other way around. Who thinks that heteros would accept the fact that they can't marry?
The equivalent for gay people is a commitment ceremony, or something along those lines, and its nice, but if they want something legally binding, then why not let them have it?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by steph@nie
Ok, say it was the other way around. Who thinks that heteros would accept the fact that they can't marry?
The equivalent for gay people is a commitment ceremony, or something along those lines, and its nice, but if they want something legally binding, then why not let them have it?

That's not what they want (apparently). Civil unions (which I support fully btw) just aren't good enough for them. They want the full recognition of being a married couple - not just the legal rights.

It's all about gay rights, they just want it so they can have it. In Norway for example where gay marriage has been legalised, less then 1% of unions are same-sex.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by steph@nie
Ok, say it was the other way around. Who thinks that heteros

That's not a very good example, since heteros consist of 90%+ of the population.

 

[steph@nie]

Have they made a law about gay people having kids? I know there was a big thing a while ago about lesbians having babies through artificial insemination, but is it illegal?

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by neo_o
The key difference dude, is that homosexuals made a lifestyle choice. Nobody however makes a choice to be born Aboriginal and noone chooses to be disabled.
-------
The lifestyle choice arguement is a fiercely debated one. The middle ground runs along the lines of homosexuality being a partially biological geneticly determined attribute influenced by environmental factors. Personally i think environmental factors really don't have much to do with it eg. A homosexual who grows up in a zelaously religious household with homophobic parents and family. And i don't think homosexuality is a choice, no one would choose to be discriminated against, or want to go against the grain of our genetic makeup and love a person of the same sex if they had the choice. I think its wrongly seen as a choice because many people deny their homosexuality so they can have 'normal' lives and not feel 'abnormal' and be outcasted by family and friends who may not like homosexuals.

-------
Additionally, homosexual marriage is a completely different issue. We aren't talking support payments here. Aboriginals receive support (and this is arguable) because they come from a disadvantaged background, and disabled people are obviously disadvantaged. Explain to me in what way homosexuals are disadvantaged and less capable then heterosexuals, and explain to me why, we should change the law for this minority group.
-------
I live next door to aboriginals, 3 families in the one house and they rort the govt and the tax payers, they use MY address because no one will take things from theirs (ie foxtel and telstra won't supply them any more but yet with MY address they get these services). BUT YET, these people are better off than i am. One of the children in there is 4 and already has a camera mobile fone, they all have computers + adsl, they all get new clothes every other week and they get handouts hand over fist. This is despite the fact the father of 5 of the kids in there is a criminal and currently doing time, despite the fact that none of the kids go to school and despite the fact that the police are here atleast once a week and every few months we end up with gang warfare on our hands here. Rent assistance on houses they don't even live in, but there friends do. Now show me the disadvantage and why they should be given all these extra rights and all this money.

there are many so called minority groups. All of them have the right not to be discriminated against. All of them are catered to in different ways under our legal system, our school system, our govt system... But homosexuals who are not such a small minority shouldn't be catered to?
Homosexuals don't want extra rights, they just want the same rights taht are afforded to every other person.

-------
Additionally, and this has been said before. HOMOSEXUALS HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS ANYONE ELSE. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, i see no inequality.
------
You see no inequality, i see a problem. Right using this idea of homosexuals having the same right to marry as anyone else... a person can marry anyone else... just not someone of the same sex. Transgendered people can tho they can marry someone of the same sex.

This also brings into question de facto relationships under which we can all live in a marriage situation and be seen under the law as married regardless of gender. Contradictory yes?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
I was just calling him on it, that's all. It's a pity he hasnt posted again

yep, damn shame

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
yep, damn shame

A real cryin' shame.

 

[eviltama]

-------
Originally posted by neo_o
Everyone has a right to opinion, gay or not.
---------
I have an opinion about how my dads boss runs his company if i told him what i thought i'd get told to stfu and keep my nose out of it because its none of my business. Everyone has the right to an opinion, everyone has the right to have theirs heard but not all opinions have the validity to support their opinion being heard by the right people. Unless you have a stake in this issue your opinion doesn't really count for much and it really only just shows off your ignorance on the subject at hand.


------
1) If you take offense at someone "insulting" someone else, and want them to stop, insulting them is probably not the best way to go about it eh?
------
It gets their attention and if you insult them long enough maybe they might listen and learn. Repetition is the key to training dogs isnt it?

------
2) I'm into tolerance. It doesn't mean I have to be into acceptance.
------
True but if you don't accept them you wouldn't tolerate them... on any level.

-----
3) By saying "different" I hope your not trying to get into the "homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals" debate again.
-----
We are all people. There is no debate, only idiots trying to divide a whole.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
1) It's only as stupid as your examples darling.

2) It's open to debate whether a necrophiliac is hurting someone else. Would you like to start another topic on it?

yes please do. you say our examples are irrelevent, then when holes are pointed out in your examples, you make vague claims about it being wrong. please. explain to me how rooting a corpse hurts no one

Originally posted by neo_o
Oh and



really does depend on the situation doesn't it? eg : two homosexuals who both have catholic parents... guess who your hurting there.

You could go on with hypotheticals forever etc...

doesn't heterosexual marriage have the exact same chance of a situation occurring where the parents don't approve? how about you think up an example of how it hurts people that is *unique* to homosexual marriage