• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

400miles

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
379
neo_o said:
Well, I've been arguing for a while now that homosexuality is based on environmental and genetic factors. However, I'll take 400 Miles' and evil_tama's view of "its all genetic" for this one. Since according to them, homosexuality is 100% genetic, it's a genetic mutation that results in deformity (incorrect chemical levels in the brain etc etc) Do we really want our children being born deformed? According to these two, homosexuals have no choice...so they are born deformed.
Mate I never said homosexuality was genetic. To say it's genetic means that it's been passed on through your genes and chromosomes and stuff and I don't think that's true. I never said it was either so I don't know where you get your info. (About as true as everything you write). I think homosexuality is not a choice or a genetic product, perhaps a psychological product but in no bad way at all. It may well be based on environmental factors, I've never argued otherwise. All I think is that it'sn ot a choice.
And I think that's crap for you to say they are deformed. To have a genetic mutation something must have gone wrong (this is assuming homosexuality is genetic), and there is nothing wrong with being gay... and until you can PROVE otherwise then there is no deformity and for you to classify it as that is ignorant and offensive, extremely naive.

neo_o said:
They can be gay all they want and nobody cares. They can love each other all they want and nobody cares. Allowing homosexuals to marry is a bad idea however see : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

@evil_tama and 400 Miles - Homosexuality is either a disease/deformity caused by a genetic mutation or a lifestyle choice with a contribution by genetic factors. Pick one :uhhuh:
No. I will not pick one. Because it's not as simple as that. Homosexuality should not be looked at like a disease which you always seem to do. It's not a lifestyle choice (especially if the environmental factors that contribute are there whilst the person is growing up, too young to CHOOSE), I don't see why anyone would choose to be part of an underprivilaged, deprived and traditionally oppressed group....
And there is no evidence to say that it is caused by genetic factors so I don't think you can push that one.
I don't think that we have to look at the causes of homosexuality because I don't think that homosexuality is something that needs to be stopped. So whatever the argument your pushing is, it doesn't convince me in the slightest against homosexual unions.

neo_o said:
As long as you agree that if gay marriages are allowed, incestuous marriages should be allowed.. :uhhuh:
As shown above incestuous marriages are proven to allow genetic defomities to prevail, especially in procreation. Gay marriages does not. The only problem with gay marriages is that some extremely traditional right wingers such as yourself still refuse to accept homosexuals as equals in this community which is an extremely sad thing to see in this period of time. Until society can grow from its naive way of thinking then we will continue to make the same mistakes we made with women and aboriginals and many other groups by oppressing them and being highly unjust.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
lol genetic wtf
i didn't think amino acids were programmed to have a sexual preference...
if it's genetic, my mum would be a lesbian and my dad a homosexual, as they both have gay relatives, and i guess in turn there's every chance me and my brother are gay...but we aren't...i dont even thnk there's a direct link between genetics and homosexuality..
and....im so lost on this thread, is there still an argument or is everybody just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing??
 

Beaky

You can read minds?
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,407
Location
Northen Beaches Pos
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
MoonlightSonata said:
It seems to me that this 'devaluing the institution of marriage' argument is a thin public veil over an overwhelming repugnancy and prejudice, conscious or not.
If the gay parents had a kid:

I would put this question to you, if you were the kid would you rather having gay parents or "straight parents." Please think of the kids sake, its not fair for them to be brought up in a gay marriage. I'll give you reasons:

- We live in a judgemental society and the kid would be ridculed in school/out of school because of his parents choices, not his. This would lead to depression. The poor kid did not choose to be in this situation. Ultmately he could blame the government for allowing gay marraige to be even thought of in the first place.
- The family unit has lost meaning, therefore distorting the roles of the parents. What I mean by this is that the kid would be unfairly bought up by a single sex and would not learn and practice traits of the other sexual partner (i.e if two women bring up a boy the kid cant spend father son time discussing male problems (etc) )

Ultimately this issue is a two sided argument (like any good debate) on one hand we have people that belive in free choice and rights and the other we have people arguing that something should not be legalised if it is not natural/moralistic. I believe we have to fall into the line (or sit on the fence). Personally we need strong moral bindings to keep society from anarchy, however on the other point we need to give people choices and let them deal with their actions.

I have no concearns if the government banned gay marriages as it would not steal any gain from soceity.
 

crazyhomo

under pressure
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
1,817
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2003
katie_tully said:
lol genetic wtf
i didn't think amino acids were programmed to have a sexual preference...
if it's genetic, my mum would be a lesbian and my dad a homosexual, as they both have gay relatives, and i guess in turn there's every chance me and my brother are gay...but we aren't...i dont even thnk there's a direct link between genetics and homosexuality..
and....im so lost on this thread, is there still an argument or is everybody just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing??
so basically, because you don't have one thing in common with your relatives, that conclusively proves that no one ever could inherit that aspect?
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Beaky said:
We live in a judgemental society and the kid would be ridculed in school/out of school because of his parents choices, not his. This would lead to depression. The poor kid did not choose to be in this situation. Ultmately he could blame the government for allowing gay marraige to be even thought of in the first place.
The whole point of this argument is that being judgemental of gays is irrational and morally reprehensible. Once again, I mention that an appeal to majority is a fallacy of argument. What is popular does mean what is right. But even if what you say has merit, the government should be supporting the education of children into acceptance of gay individuals so that that sort of thing doesn't happen. That would be a much more logical and moral approach to the situation.

Beaky said:
The family unit has lost meaning, therefore distorting the roles of the parents. What I mean by this is that the kid would be unfairly bought up by a single sex and would not learn and practice traits of the other sexual partner (i.e if two women bring up a boy the kid cant spend father son time discussing male problems (etc) )
A child needs love above all things. If a child was deprived of one parent 'role' or another, it does not follow that they will be disadvantaged or develop abnormally. Indeed, it is more the chance that gay parents would be more open minded, ergo producing a more free spirited, unbiased child with an unshackled mind.

Beaky said:
Ultimately this issue is a two sided argument (like any good debate) on one hand we have people that belive in free choice and rights and the other we have people arguing that something should not be legalised if it is not natural/moralistic. I believe we have to fall into the line (or sit on the fence). Personally we need strong moral bindings to keep society from anarchy, however on the other point we need to give people choices and let them deal with their actions.
I applaud your open-mindedness - it is always good to have a balanced voice in any dispute.

Beaky said:
I have no concearns if the government banned gay marriages as it would not steal any gain from soceity.
That is most likely because you are not in the minority group. Somehow I think that, if you were gay, you would want to have the opportunity of being married, just like everyone else. If I were gay I would certainly want the same, equal rights that every other citizen is entitled to.
 
Last edited:

400miles

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
379
Beaky said:
If the gay parents had a kid:

I would put this question to you, if you were the kid would you rather having gay parents or "straight parents." Please think of the kids sake, its not fair for them to be brought up in a gay marriage. I'll give you reasons:

- We live in a judgemental society and the kid would be ridculed in school/out of school because of his parents choices, not his. This would lead to depression. The poor kid did not choose to be in this situation. Ultmately he could blame the government for allowing gay marraige to be even thought of in the first place.
- The family unit has lost meaning, therefore distorting the roles of the parents. What I mean by this is that the kid would be unfairly bought up by a single sex and would not learn and practice traits of the other sexual partner (i.e if two women bring up a boy the kid cant spend father son time discussing male problems (etc) )

Ultimately this issue is a two sided argument (like any good debate) on one hand we have people that belive in free choice and rights and the other we have people arguing that something should not be legalised if it is not natural/moralistic. I believe we have to fall into the line (or sit on the fence). Personally we need strong moral bindings to keep society from anarchy, however on the other point we need to give people choices and let them deal with their actions.

I have no concearns if the government banned gay marriages as it would not steal any gain from soceity.
Previously it was not socially acceptable for a white man or woman to marry and have a family with a black man or woman. This was unjust and wrong but that's how society judged it. It's similar to your case about gays bringing up a child. Just because it's happening doesn't make it right.
With the black/white marriages, they were initially frowned upon by society but they're completely accepted now because we grew (most of us) as a society and as people and we're able to accept that the racist attitude we once held was wrong.

I believe the same thign should and hopefully will happen with homosexuals. It's a hard tradition to break, frowning upon them, but it's becoming increasingly accepted around the world and I hope we keep growing as a society until it's not abnormal to be gay and they have the same rights as everyone else.

That's why I feel so strongly against teh ban against gay union... It's decisions like that which are preventing society moving away from this oppressive and unjust stage that we're stuck in. But for it to go away there has to be a huge push for the oppression to be abolished,and I think that will only ever happen with time. I just hope it's sooner rather than later.

So yeah, we're thinking about the kids, but remember as well you can't value one human being over another. Everyone should be thought about.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
neo_o said:
Are you racist? Because i don't understand how interacial marriages devalue marriage.

Are you a bigot? Because i don't understand how inter-faith marriages devalue marriage.

Last time i checked polygamy was illegal, same deal with polyandry. Do you support these practices?

Defacto relationships dont devalue marriage, because obviously the couple involved aren't married?
Are you homophobic? Because i don't understand how homosexual marriages devalue marriage.

As for being a bigot, then i'd spose you know that 2 persons of different faiths can't marry... unless they marry outside of a religious celebration.Otherwise one person has to convert. Also while monogamy is the mode of choice in australia it is a supported religious and legal practise in other countries. And yes i support the couples choice to a monogamous or ploygamous marriage (despite its illegality here). But a defacto relationship is considered in every way but religious a marriage (of sorts), it is even publicly perceived as a couple living together as if they were married. So wouldn't this imply that they could outwardly look as if they were married yet devalue the institution because they might not act like it.. mutiple sex partners etc etc. That would devalue marriage.. even tho they weren't in a marriage.

Well, I could say the same thing about gay marriage couldn't I.

"gay marriages are illegal because gay marriage is gross... and its wrong to bring a child into the world like that... especially when you know wtf its going to inherit or possibly end up being like"
Err you could say gay marriage is gross etc etc but unless im mistaken a gay couple cannot reproduce without going out of the couple involved to seek a surrogate or such... so inbreeding isn't really an issue here. And its not wrong to bring a child into the world like that etc etc, there is nothing wrong with having gay parents, gay grandparents or even gay aunts and uncles...
 
Last edited:

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
neo_o said:
Oh in an incestuous marriage, is adoption not an option?

And, if as you say, the kid will be a little well retarded, then should we somehow disallow from women with breast cancer having children, since the disease is hereditary? etc etc
Sure if an incestuous marriage was allowed they could adopt. Whats your problem there?
The problem is in-breeding the same genetic line. Its not with them bringing up kids.

Hereditary diseases are unpredictable, there is no way to reliably predict whether their offspring will have the disease. Some hereditary diseases also have an environmental factor (diabetes for example), and while being present in a subject may not cause damage or be noticed at all.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
neo_o said:
Do you propose we forcibly sterilise people with Down Syndrome? Because adults with down syndrome can only raise more kids with down syndrome.

Are you a fascist?
You've gone completely off track here and ended up out in the bush.

Personally i propose all idiots deserve to be sterilised so that i wouldn't have to deal with morons everyday, but fortunately that problem can be simply solved by removing the warning labels off everything i see. *sarcasm*

I'm not saying sterilise people with diseases, i'm not saying lets stop all people with cancer and gods know what other disease hereditary or sexually transmitted from breeding. Re-read my post and get ur point straight.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
neo_o said:
Well, I've been arguing for a while now that homosexuality is based on environmental and genetic factors. However, I'll take 400 Miles' and evil_tama's view of "its all genetic" for this one. Since according to them, homosexuality is 100% genetic, it's a genetic mutation that results in deformity (incorrect chemical levels in the brain etc etc) Do we really want our children being born deformed? According to these two, homosexuals have no choice...so they are born deformed.
YOU have been arguing that 'homosexuality is based on environmental and genetic factors'? wtf is your memory screwed or are you just damn forgetful... so forgetful you go on to say that your so called theory of genetic and environmental factors created a deformity... I believe homosexuality is primarily derived from our genetic structure, yes. But it is NOT a deformity NOR is it a genetic mutation. Being a homosexual does not = illness or disease or deformity or genetic mutation.


They can be gay all they want and nobody cares. They can love each other all they want and nobody cares. Allowing homosexuals to marry is a bad idea however see : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9533603^32522,00.html

@evil_tama and 400 Miles - Homosexuality is either a disease/deformity caused by a genetic mutation or a lifestyle choice with a contribution by genetic factors. Pick one :uhhuh:
No choice there, i choose that you are disease or deformity created by the genetic mutation commonly associated with sexual relations with the opposite sex.
I also choose that your article is a piece of bs, based on a society with different values to our own, based on a country not even relative to ours, based on nothing more than the observations of statistics by someone who is not even in said country. Sure Kurtz has ground to stand on with his observations, but Albrechtsen doesn't. And we also are only hearing part of Kurtz's ideas on the matter... the part Albrechtsen wants us to hear... not to mention that the country in discussion here isn't even close to our own culture or social values... there is nothing to say that what is seen to occur in that country will happen here if gay marriage is allowed, the way i read it the article seems to point out that marriage isn't strong enough as an institution so it needs its men on white horses to defend it from the evils that are a progressive society. But then again maybe i just read differently to you.

As long as you agree that if gay marriages are allowed, incestuous marriages should be allowed.. :uhhuh:
Different issue... not even an issue within this thread. But sure let them marry, someday you gonna do it...
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Beaky said:
If the gay parents had a kid:

I would put this question to you, if you were the kid would you rather having gay parents or "straight parents." Please think of the kids sake, its not fair for them to be brought up in a gay marriage. I'll give you reasons:

- We live in a judgemental society and the kid would be ridculed in school/out of school because of his parents choices, not his. This would lead to depression. The poor kid did not choose to be in this situation. Ultmately he could blame the government for allowing gay marraige to be even thought of in the first place.
Personally i'd rather have parents... i don't care if they were gay, straight, bisexual or transexual.. its better than having no parents at all. 'its not fair'? Its not fair that i had a foster care kid come here with a fkn iron print in his back, its not fair that he was malnourished, he had no education, his 10yr old brother looked after him and his mother and its not fkn fair that that child probably didn't live past the age of 12 because of everything his mother did to him. How is it fair what parents do to their kids? It doesn't matter what sexuality they are... compare that to ur 'its not fair' idea. We DO live in a judgemental society and blow me down YOUR CONTRIBUTING TO IT. Every kid gets ridiculed in school for something, kids are cruel to 'difference' but is that their fault.. mostly no 'we live in a judgemental society' and you gotta train little jr young.. so he knows whats right and whats not.. YOU CANNOT go home and tell your kid all your dirty little thoughts and expect him or her to know that those sorts of things (racism, sexism etc) aren't right.. or aren't accepted.. kids say the darndest things.. and they damn near repeat what they hear perfectly. Parents are role models for their kids until they become of the age when they can think for themselves, by that time tho all that stuff from dads misogyny to mums racism has already sunk in and settled... and its hard to break that sort of stuff. 'this poor kid' could grow up to be the next jack the ripper... 'this poor kid' could get depressed because society tells him his mum n dad are wrong, and what he thinks is wrong... who does he blame? the government for making sexism and racism discriminatory practises?

Homosexuality is not wrong, it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you. Kids have to learn through life experiences or other what homosexuality is, what it means and what it involves. Having homosexual parents is no different from having straight ones (other than the obvious 2 mummies or 2 daddies), it doesn't mean that every kid that has homosexual parents is going to get depressed because they got teased about having 2 mummies, it doesn't mean that all people are as unaccepting as you. No kid chooses their parents, or their situation and just cause they got a bad one (regardless of gender, or sexuality or anything else) it doesn't mean that their life will be bad and they'll commit suicide or be a manic depressive.

- The family unit has lost meaning, therefore distorting the roles of the parents. What I mean by this is that the kid would be unfairly bought up by a single sex and would not learn and practice traits of the other sexual partner (i.e if two women bring up a boy the kid cant spend father son time discussing male problems (etc) )
The family unit lost its meaning a fair while ago, but that doesn't mean the role of the parent/s was distorted or tarnished. 'Unfairly brought up', i'm sorry there is a fair way? So you also don't like single parents, widowers or such like.. because their children only get too see how one sex works? Did you not go to school at anytime? Watch the tv? Talk to your neighbours.. or even people on the street...? Kids don't learn what a mother is just from their mum.. they learn it from everywhere, same as for what a dad is. And guess what kids brought up by a single parent are just as well adjusted as kids brought up by 2 parents! WoW. *sarcasm* As for your example, what about kids who have both a male and female parent but yet don't feel able/or are unable to talk to either about fe/male problems? Hell if i had problems i would never have gone to either of my parents and i still don't. So do i fit into this category or just because i have a male and female parent it means that i don't get that right (to be able to talk problem stuff to someone i trust).

Ultimately this issue is a two sided argument (like any good debate) on one hand we have people that belive in free choice and rights and the other we have people arguing that something should not be legalised if it is not natural/moralistic. I believe we have to fall into the line (or sit on the fence). Personally we need strong moral bindings to keep society from anarchy, however on the other point we need to give people choices and let them deal with their actions.
Okay you can see its a two sided arguement.. congrats now how about seeing the rest of the arguement too. "I believe we have to fall into the line", why just so nothing changes and you can go back to your normal life and think 'wow well thats over now, lets go back to how we were and forget all about this silly issue... letting homosexuals marry what a laugh.' or even better 'oh well now my marriage is safe... whenever i get around to it atleast, those gays won't take that from us good people'. How can a society have strong moral bindings and still surivive without progress.. without pushing those bindings? You push at something its either going to stretch and get stronger (think muscles) or its going to break. Now either you want a society that reflects the people we are, or you want a society that is still back with the hippies when the pill was a bad word and not allowed. Giving people choices and letting them deal with their actions is part of the 'stretch and make it stronger' idea, because it means that over time we learn from our life experiences and gain from them... but we can't gain from sitting on a fence and watching the world pass us by.

I have no concearns if the government banned gay marriages as it would not steal any gain from soceity.
You have no concerns because it doesn't affect you, fact forward. If it did, you might give a rats. And if the government banned gay marriages it would mean that a portion of society would be being denied a basic human right which we all believe in.. which everyone is taught from a young age. How does this 'not steal any gain from society'? It just goes to show how backwater our government is, how elitist they think they are, how out of touch they are and how far they are prepared to go to force their ideas upon everyone else... who knows next they might decide fk the UDHR and everything else ~70% of society is Catholic/Christian.. everyone should be and they're gonna run government as per the bible and everyone has to convert... that is how fkn ridiculous banning gay marriage is.
 

Beaky

You can read minds?
Joined
Apr 5, 2003
Messages
1,407
Location
Northen Beaches Pos
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
eviltama said:
Homosexuality is not wrong, it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you.
Ok well that basically sums up the opposite to my belief. Youve given your side of the story, I really cant be bothered typing mine but am more than willing to orally say it.

It's not me Im worried about, its the adverse effect homosexuality has on soceity. Yes unforunately I am a conservatist which is the binary opposite to your belief.

Really I could back up my claim but I have better things to do than my time that argue on the internet. Ultimately my point is summed up here (i wont reply to any critisicms to my post btw)

If we introduce homosexuality as a "natural thing" then the tendency to debase morals will vanish. First it will be homosexuality then child abuse etc. If we conserve we have rules and morals that allow society not to run in anarchy and live in a safe envirnoment. The only evidence that I would bring in here that homosexuality could lead to distarious consequenes, would be the bible. Unfortuantely most people dont care about it and will laugh and scorn such basic moralistic principles. I dont believe in the Church/Relgious affliations in running a government, just that they have some sort of moralistic bindings to their policies.

ohh and btw, homosexuality is one of the biggest causes of AIDS, HIV and other STD's so somehow I cant see the validity in your statemet that " it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you." I guess those crabs might bite them though
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
evil_tama, before actually commenting on my replies to other posts, please read the entire post I was commenting on first. You seem to have missed what I was saying in half of those.

I will not post in this thread again. Not because i'm giving up, however, this thread has become pointless as I have found myself reiterating my point over and over again.

Just to sum up my argument and make it obvious what I was saying.

In an attempt to be fair i've also included the main arguments for Gay Marriage in this post as well (and reasons why they're incorrect)

MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE

and reasons why they dont really work out

**If i have missed any please PM me and I'll add them in.**

- Why disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?

The major argument here is that by allowing homosexuality the institution of marriage will be devalued

read here : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...5E32522,00.html

- Disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination (and a violation of human rights).

- The Declaration of Human Rights is non-specific towards allowing or disallowing homosexual marriage (and as some people pointed out heterosexual marriage, and yes, the declaration isn't gender specific). However, the agreement allows the state to define family, and leaves the state open to make its own choice as to whether allow gay marriage for example

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 16.3

The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
So in no way is the government violating human rights as defined by the United Nations.

The next argument is that by disallowing gay marriage the government is "discriminating" against homosexuals. However, and this has been repeated time and again. Homosexuals have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS EVERYONE ELSE, yet simply choose not to exercise it. Now, 400 Miles and a few others have argued throughout this thread that providing AN ADDITIONAL right to gay marriage is not an ADDITIONAL right, but I can't make head nor tail of that :rolleyes:.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

SOCIETIES VIEWS

Religion, as we've discussed, is not a valid reply to this point so don't bring that up.
Why is religion an invalid point to raise in this argument? In a country that has a majority Christian population, obviously societies perspectives will be somewhat determined by the dominant religion.

So far, the only rebuttal I have received for this argument is "Well maybe people have converted from Christianity, since the census is soo old". To reiterate, the census is 3 years old, and Australia has a 70% Christian majority. Do you think its likely that that many Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years? I don't.

RELATED ARGUMENTS

Homosexuality and Genetic Factors

You and a few others argued that homosexuality is 100% genetic as opposed to my argument that it was caused both by environmental and genetic factors. God knows why this is relevant but w/e. You argued that it's caused by hormonal imbalances or some such. I remember this clearly as I was insulted by a number of people for not agreeing with you.

Now, for this to have been caused genetically, a mutation would have had to have taken place within some genes to result in this imbalance, the result being bodily imbalances.

SO by your own definition, homosexuality is the result of a MUTATION, which has caused IMBALANCE and a deviation in NORMAL BODILY FUNCTION.

Therefore, according to you, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETIC DISORDER, like say sickle-celled anemia which is caused in basically the same way.

Now, do you still want to go with the argument that homosexuality is 100% Genetic and that homosexuals have no choice, or that there is a choice, and environmental factors also have a role to play.

My Personal Opinions

The thing that truly disgusts me about gay marriage is not actually gay marriage itself, but homosexuals determination to make me accept them.

I don't accept homosexuals as being the same as heterosexuals. You are different. While i believe in tolerance, it's an individuals choice to accept you and this shouldn't be forcefed down anyone's throat.

evil_tama showed this herself. You're either a supporter of homosexuals, or your homophobic (as she so nicely called me).

Marriage is simply political for homosexuals, they want it to advance the gay movement - and this will come at great social cost.

Personally, i'm all for civil unions. Why doesn't anyone else in this thread want civil unions however? Quite frankly, because this isn't about gaining the same legal recognition as heterosexuals - homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals.

YOU ARE NOT.
 
Last edited:

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Beaky said:
It's not me Im worried about, its the adverse effect homosexuality has on soceity.
Tell me something that couldn't possibly have an adverse effect on society. Technology could have an adverse effect, religion could have an adverse effect, education could have an adverse effect...

Really I could back up my claim but I have better things to do than my time that argue on the internet. Ultimately my point is summed up here (i wont reply to any critisicms to my post btw)
I'm sorry but i find it really stupid to say 'Really i could back up my claim but...' either you can or you can't. If you can't back something up then don't bother saying it. If i couldn't back up my opinion i wouldn't bother letting it loose, i don't find it hard to expect that others show the same courtesy.

If we introduce homosexuality as a "natural thing" then the tendency to debase morals will vanish.
Don't you mean the tendancy to debase morals will increase? Meaning people will degrade morals more... or i think you mean that morals will vanish. Which is silly, either your morals are strong.. or they are weak. If they fail then obviously your morals weren't strong enough to deal with 'whatever' and well that not my problem... thats something you need to sort out for your self. If thinking of homosexuality as a "natural thing" is going to cause you to lose your morals then well really your still living in the past... homosexuality is a natural thing and many people believe it to be so.

First it will be homosexuality then child abuse etc. If we conserve we have rules and morals that allow society not to run in anarchy and live in a safe envirnoment.
I'm not sure how homosexuality links to child abuse (unless of course we are talking abt some priests here...). Society has rules, it has morals but just because one of your 'rules' or 'morals' is challenged doesn't mean that society is going to fall into a heap. Society reflects the morals of the people, the people accept homosexuality.. there wouldn't be discrimination laws otherwise, the people also accept that everyone has the right to live with their partner in peace regardless of sexuality. If it helps, think of society as an ever changing river, over time it moves flowing ever forward making new off shoots and tributaries and when it comes upon an obstacle it wears it away over time or moves around it. Conservatives (from my experience) have this tendancy to think the end is coming the moment their beliefs are challenged. Regardless of whether its in a 1-on-1 situation or on an issue affecting everyone. They think <insert issue> will cause mayhem and disorder and chaos and people will stop being logical and start doing immoral things and start acting abnormal... and all these things threaten their 'safe environment'. The problem with that particular reaction is nothing is a safe environment anymore, the world is full of chaos and disorder and immorality and illogical things... and there isn't a damned thing that you can do about it. So don't pick up the issue of homosexuality and without any knowledge of the issue, without being a part of the issue... without even a rational thought for the lives of those affected by what you're gonna say label it as the next thing thats going to end the world.

The only evidence that I would bring in here that homosexuality could lead to distarious consequenes, would be the bible. Unfortuantely most people dont care about it and will laugh and scorn such basic moralistic principles.
The bible proves nothing. Its a book. Its not historical fact, its not truth, its not even reliable. Its a belief system based on... well the writings of others based on the supposed ideas and thoughts of a person long dead and of a diety that depending on your religion(or lack of) either does or does not exist. I could walk up to my bookcase and pick up any book within it and say 'this is my 'bible', this is my belief system' and what would happen? Nothing, you'd laugh and go 'wtf nutter on the loose'. but yet you expect me and others to go 'omg they speak from the bible BELIEVE THEM!' ?! The bible can only be quoted when everyone you talk to reads from it, otherwise its not worth the paper it was typed upon. And if people, even those confessed conservatives and fundamentalists really gave a shit about their so called 'holy book/s' they'd read the whole thing and interpret it based on the context it was originally written in and the context we live in today... then we might see accurate representations of their so called religions rather than the limited half thought out ultra-defensive make-no-compromise there-is-no-other sort of religions we see floating around today.

I dont believe in the Church/Relgious affliations in running a government, just that they have some sort of moralistic bindings to their policies.
Is that your moralistic bindings? Mine? Theirs? My neighbours? Societies morals are a tad confused at times because so many people believe so many things that while a majority now might say 'yes do it!', later on they might say 'no go away!'.. what then? Whose morals are the right ones?

ohh and btw, homosexuality is one of the biggest causes of AIDS, HIV and other STD's so somehow I cant see the validity in your statemet that " it hasn't got germs and its not going to bite you." I guess those crabs might bite them though
STD's are 'Sexually transmitted diseases'.. any variety of sex can spread them... and as for AIDS and HIV have some reading material http://www.aids.org/info/FAQs.html#how
Homosexuality is not a 'cause', it doesn't have germs.. diseases have germs homosexuality can't be 'passed on' it can't be caught and no a homosexual may bite you.. but homosexuality can't. I'm sorry its not like the flu bug, or a mossie it doesn't bite. Come back when you make sense and when your old enough to understand what homosexuality really is.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Neo_o, it is truly a shame about your prejudice, but its probably not your fault.

I've tried to be reasonable here, and I've tried to shed some light on your views, but neo_o, whoever you are, you have a great prejudice against gays which is unfortunately not going to be removed.

Even with your human ability to use reason and logic it is unlikely that you will ever wake up to the blind irrationality behind your beliefs - at least not in the near future. It is a sad thing to stand from an open-minded standpoint and watch an obviously educated, clever individual persue such narrow-minded views of intolerance. Especially in this day and age. Unfortunately your beliefs are most likely the result of society, and I imagine very hard to resolve what has been hammered into you.

Incidentally, as I pointed out, it has been found that homophobic people are more likely to be attracted to the same sex than non-homophobic people.


neo_o said:
The major argument here is that by allowing homosexuality the institution of marriage will be devalued
This argument is the worst excuse for blind hate and has already been slashed to pieces in previous posts, including mine.


neo_o said:
The Declaration of Human Rights is non-specific towards allowing or disallowing homosexual marriage (and as some people pointed out heterosexual marriage, and yes, the declaration isn't gender specific). However, the agreement allows the state to define family, and leaves the state open to make its own choice as to whether allow gay marriage for example
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 16.3
So in no way is the government violating human rights as defined by the United Nations.
As has been pointed out the law does not necessarily equal what is moral. And what is socially accepted does not necessarily equal what is moral.


neo_o said:
Homosexuals have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS EVERYONE ELSE, yet simply choose not to exercise it.
Let me spell this out to you:
1. Gay marriage is being banned
2. Normal marriages are not banned
3. Therefore they don't have the same right


neo_o said:
Why is religion an invalid point to raise in this argument? In a country that has a majority Christian population, obviously societies perspectives will be somewhat determined by the dominant religion.
Because you must argue logically. Whether there is a God is a hugely controversial premise and therefore cannot contribute to a sound moral argument.

(When you get to uni, I suggest you take a philosophy course in logic because your points are not valid or sound.)


neo_o said:
My Personal Opinions
The thing that truly disgusts me about gay marriage is not actually gay marriage itself, but homosexuals determination to make me accept them.

I don't accept homosexuals as being the same as heterosexuals. You are different. While i believe in tolerance, it's an individuals choice to accept you and this shouldn't be forcefed down anyone's throat.

...they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals. YOU ARE NOT.
This is an utterly perfect articulation of hate and prejudice, and it shines out no clearer than your final sentence. I urge you to reflect on your words and ask yourself, if you were gay, how you would feel if someone said that to you.

You may ask why people argue with each other like this. I ignore the stupid posts, but when I think I see the potential in someone to have the intellect to entertain thoughts and change their views based on reason, I make the effort. Perhaps in time, when you are older, you may change your opinion. I hope so because you are too smart to be stubborn, blind and intolerant.


I close on a quote from Justice Kirby, once more:


[We] should be optimistic and confident that the future belongs to the enlightenment. It does not belong to religious bigotry, legal discrimination, social stigmatisation and personal hatred. In fact, as I shall show, it is the persistence of these phenomena, which can themselves often be traced to deep-seated personal anxieties, that may require psychological and psychiatric attention in the future:treatment for those afflicted, rather than for homosexuals themselves.
.
 
Last edited:

400miles

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
379
neo_o said:
evil_tama, before actually commenting on my replies to other posts, please read the entire post I was commenting on first. You seem to have missed what I was saying in half of those.

I will not post in this thread again. Not because i'm giving up, however, this thread has become pointless as I have found myself reiterating my point over and over again.

Just to sum up my argument and make it obvious what I was saying.

In an attempt to be fair i've also included the main arguments for Gay Marriage in this post as well (and reasons why they're incorrect)

MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE

and reasons why they dont really work out

**If i have missed any please PM me and I'll add them in.**

- Why disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?

The major argument here is that by allowing homosexuality the institution of marriage will be devalued
Crap. Marriage won't be devalued, marriage is a personal thing between two people. By stating that it'd be devalued by allowing gays to join in is going along the lines that homosexuality is abormal, or as you so delicately put it before, 'a genetic mutation, a deformity'. And that's rubbish, there's nothign to back up such a ridiculous claim. Therefore I believe that marriage would not be devalued and I have not been given anything to prove me wrong.

Also, in this section, you missed out that another reason for gay marriage is that it's not negatively affecting anyone. If it were I'd understand the banning of it, but it's not. You continually ignore this point. Why ban something that's not doing anyone any harm?

neo_o said:
- Disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination (and a violation of human rights).

- The Declaration of Human Rights is non-specific towards allowing or disallowing homosexual marriage (and as some people pointed out heterosexual marriage, and yes, the declaration isn't gender specific). However, the agreement allows the state to define family, and leaves the state open to make its own choice as to whether allow gay marriage for example

The next argument is that by disallowing gay marriage the government is "discriminating" against homosexuals. However, and this has been repeated time and again. Homosexuals have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS EVERYONE ELSE, yet simply choose not to exercise it. Now, 400 Miles and a few others have argued throughout this thread that providing AN ADDITIONAL right to gay marriage is not an ADDITIONAL right, but I can't make head nor tail of that :rolleyes:.
I didn't say that adding an additional right is not an additional right I said the concept of additional rights is crap. And the argument that you keep MISSING here is that gays DO NOT have the (and I quote you here, this is heavily emphasised) "EXACTLY" the same right to marry as everyone else BECAUSE everyone else can marry who they love and who they choose... homosexuals cannot. This has been REPEATEDLY ARGUED and you have REPEATEDLY ignored it.

Neo_o said:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

SOCIETIES VIEWS



Why is religion an invalid point to raise in this argument? In a country that has a majority Christian population, obviously societies perspectives will be somewhat determined by the dominant religion.

So far, the only rebuttal I have received for this argument is "Well maybe people have converted from Christianity, since the census is soo old". To reiterate, the census is 3 years old, and Australia has a 70% Christian majority. Do you think its likely that that many Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years? I don't.
Religion is an invalid point because marriage isn't simply a religious institution anymore. So when arguing along the lines of marriage these days you are arguing about a social institution not a religious one.

neo_o said:
RELATED ARGUMENTS

Homosexuality and Genetic Factors

You and a few others argued that homosexuality is 100% genetic as opposed to my argument that it was caused both by environmental and genetic factors. God knows why this is relevant but w/e. You argued that it's caused by hormonal imbalances or some such. I remember this clearly as I was insulted by a number of people for not agreeing with you.

Now, for this to have been caused genetically, a mutation would have had to have taken place within some genes to result in this imbalance, the result being bodily imbalances.

SO by your own definition, homosexuality is the result of a MUTATION, which has caused IMBALANCE and a deviation in NORMAL BODILY FUNCTION.

Therefore, according to you, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETIC DISORDER, like say sickle-celled anemia which is caused in basically the same way.

Now, do you still want to go with the argument that homosexuality is 100% Genetic and that homosexuals have no choice, or that there is a choice, and environmental factors also have a role to play.
Like I previously said (you ignored my whole last post)... the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Whether it's a genetic 'disorder' (stupid word), or whether it's caused by environmental features, it does not prove that there is something WRONG with the homosexual, and definately doesn't give anyone the right not to let them marry...

neo_o said:
My Personal Opinions

The thing that truly disgusts me about gay marriage is not actually gay marriage itself, but homosexuals determination to make me accept them.

I don't accept homosexuals as being the same as heterosexuals. You are different. While i believe in tolerance, it's an individuals choice to accept you and this shouldn't be forcefed down anyone's throat.

evil_tama showed this herself. You're either a supporter of homosexuals, or your homophobic (as she so nicely called me).

Marriage is simply political for homosexuals, they want it to advance the gay movement - and this will come at great social cost.

Personally, i'm all for civil unions. Why doesn't anyone else in this thread want civil unions however? Quite frankly, because this isn't about gaining the same legal recognition as heterosexuals - homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals.

YOU ARE NOT.
You're disgusted???! After I read that shit I couldn't believe that such ignorance could live in society. You saqy homosexuality want to advance the gay movement as though it's a bad thing, "this will come at a great social cost"... that's CRAP... WHAT SOCIAL COST? WHERE'S THE DOWNFALL? WHO IS IT HURTING? WHO IS IT NEGATIVELY AFFECTING?

Homosexuals are determined to make you accept them because there is no reason not to, and it's unfair and unjust that you don't. They're determined to make you accept that gay marriages should be allowed because they feel it unfair that they're banned from marriage. If they weren't oppressed and discriminated against they probably wouldn't be trying to shove anything down your throat.

"homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals."

This part especially disgusted me. "homosexuals nearly have that anyway"... that's right... they NEARLY have it.. so therefore they are not EQUAL to heterosexuals and therefore there must be some sort of deprivation or descrimination!

And OF COURSE THEY WANT TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME AS HETEROSEXUALS... that's what the whole gay issue is... that's what this whole debate is about... equality.. Homosexuals ARE the same as heterosexuals.... they're all human and all entitled to an equal life. I'm glad you finally picked up on what the arguments all about, now all you have to do is realise that homosexuality isn't hurting you, it isn't negatively affecting you and neither is allowing them to get married.

Society needs to move forward. When I was younger I believed oppression was a thing of the past. How wrong I was.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
neo_o said:
evil_tama, before actually commenting on my replies to other posts, please read the entire post I was commenting on first. You seem to have missed what I was saying in half of those.

I will not post in this thread again. Not because i'm giving up, however, this thread has become pointless as I have found myself reiterating my point over and over again.
Right since this will be your so called last post.. my nickname is eviltama. It doesn't have an underscore, and it doesn't need one. And i'm afraid you were the one who missed the point. But enought about that lets talk about this 'reiterating', i've spent.. 30 something pages in this thread reinterating my stand on this issue and as of yet it hasn't sunk in ... i've defended my opinion, i've stood on my soap box and as of yet you have never understood really anything.


In an attempt to be fair i've also included the main arguments for Gay Marriage in this post as well (and reasons why they're incorrect)


- Why disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?

The major argument here is that by allowing homosexuality the institution of marriage will be devalued

read here : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.a...5E32522,00.html
Right you have your point... then you have a reason against and then you have a nonfunctioning url. (i did read the article before tho so i'll ignore that) Where is why its incorrect? You've given me someone else ideas (which i've already gone through and pointed out where the article is flawed) and you give me "the major arguement". I fail to see why we should "disallow two consenting adults who love each other to do something behind closed doors?". The point you bring up is allowing the concept of homosexuality, it doesn't even refer to gay marriage or even to marriage in general. Please correct this or tell me how this links together to make a valid point.

- Disallowing homosexual marriage is discrimination (and a violation of human rights).

- The Declaration of Human Rights is non-specific towards allowing or disallowing homosexual marriage (and as some people pointed out heterosexual marriage, and yes, the declaration isn't gender specific). However, the agreement allows the state to define family, and leaves the state open to make its own choice as to whether allow gay marriage for example

So in no way is the government violating human rights as defined by the United Nations.
We've been through this, The UDHR is genderless in who can marry who, read it as you will. It doesn't say no to gay marriage it is neutral yes.. but it doesn't 'ban gay marriage'. It does say:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
So to break it up for you.. one last time.
"Men and women of full age" - Not a man and a woman, not only a man and a woman, not even some men and some women of full age. It means every man and every woman of full age.
"have the right to marry" - So as per above, every man and every woman "have the right to marry.
"and to found a family" - Now this is the part when it starts to become a little un-neutral, becuase you can view this from the family = nuclear family point of view or the family = whatever your idea of family is or family = what the govt says a family is. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:family
Take a scroll through there and open your eyes to how many definitions of 'family' don't go along with the 'traditional' mum, dad and kids bs.

The 'family' should be entitled to protection from the state... but thats the family in all its definitions not just the one you see, or i see, or johnny howard sees.

The next argument is that by disallowing gay marriage the government is "discriminating" against homosexuals. However, and this has been repeated time and again. Homosexuals have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO MARRY AS EVERYONE ELSE, yet simply choose not to exercise it. Now, 400 Miles and a few others have argued throughout this thread that providing AN ADDITIONAL right to gay marriage is not an ADDITIONAL right, but I can't make head nor tail of that :rolleyes:.
An additional right would be letting homosexuals marry furniture.. but not allowing them to marry each other. Its additional because no one else has that right, but giving homosexuals the right to marry is not additional because heterosexuals have that right already. Its like heterosexuals will obviously want to marry heterosexuals... homosexuals don't want to marry heterosexuals obviously otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. Now by allowing ONLY heterosexuals to marry it is discrimination. Because as the logic goes, homosexuals are not allowed to marry other homosexuals.. but heterosexuals are allowed to marry other heterosexuals.

SOCIETIES VIEWS

Why is religion an invalid point to raise in this argument? In a country that has a majority Christian population, obviously societies perspectives will be somewhat determined by the dominant religion.

So far, the only rebuttal I have received for this argument is "Well maybe people have converted from Christianity, since the census is soo old". To reiterate, the census is 3 years old, and Australia has a 70% Christian majority. Do you think its likely that that many Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years? I don't.
I thought this section was about societies views, not about religion. Society caters for many different religions, so unless you argue religion with someone knowledgeable about your religion then your religious points are wasted. Sure society in parts reflects the dominant religions Catholicism and Christianity. Two different religions you keep referring to as one. But the point here is, religion is a poor foundation to lay your arguement on when argueing against someone not of your religion. As for how many "Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years" i'd personally hope alot, because they'd probably be better off for it. But meh Christianity isn't the only religion out there even all its offshoots can't agree with each other, so its a moot point really.

Homosexuality and Genetic Factors

You and a few others argued that homosexuality is 100% genetic as opposed to my argument that it was caused both by environmental and genetic factors. God knows why this is relevant but w/e. You argued that it's caused by hormonal imbalances or some such. I remember this clearly as I was insulted by a number of people for not agreeing with you.
Your memory isn't as clear as you might like. Your arguement has changed over the duration of this thread. I never said it was 100% genetic either. And it was you who started us all on the topic of what makes a person a homosexual.

Now, for this to have been caused genetically, a mutation would have had to have taken place within some genes to result in this imbalance, the result being bodily imbalances.
SO by your own definition, homosexuality is the result of a MUTATION, which has caused IMBALANCE and a deviation in NORMAL BODILY FUNCTION.
Therefore, according to you, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A GENETIC DISORDER, like say sickle-celled anemia which is caused in basically the same way.
Now, do you still want to go with the argument that homosexuality is 100% Genetic and that homosexuals have no choice, or that there is a choice, and environmental factors also have a role to play.
The defintion of mutation:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=define:mutation&btnG=Search
Now mutations are not all bad, some occur naturally like the mutation of our DNA which causes our gender. I don't think homosexuality is a 'mutation' like a cancerous cell, or such like. Homosexuality is a normal, natural genetically defined attribute. It is not 'a deviation in normal bodily function', i don't believe we are all created to be heterosexuals.. jsut like we all don't have the same eye colour or hair colour or same preference for different types of well anything. Life would be boring if we all loved white, had black hair and blue eyes...
Don't try and tell me what i do or don't believe i know what i think homosexuality is and how i think it comes to exist, don't try to 'read between the lines' that don't exist either. YOU think homosexuals have a choice, i don't. I think it is genetically determined and i think environmental factors have a say in not only how well someone accepts or doesnt accept their sexuality but also in how they grow into that genetic 'truth'. And example being someone who grows up in a strict household where homosexuality is a 'bad word' won't want to accept they are homosexual, they've been brought up with the ideas that its bad. They don't have a choice in their sexual preference, they do however have a choice in whether they wish to practise it.

My Personal Opinions
You have opinions.. the way it seems so far you just borrow others and call them your own without even stopping to really think about the ideas assimilate them and accept what they mean to you.

The thing that truly disgusts me about gay marriage is not actually gay marriage itself, but homosexuals determination to make me accept them.

I don't accept homosexuals as being the same as heterosexuals. You are different. While i believe in tolerance, it's an individuals choice to accept you and this shouldn't be forcefed down anyone's throat.
So homosexuals disgust you because they want acceptance. So your also disgusted by black people wanting acceptance, and disabled people wanting acceptance and women wanting acceptance and the list could go on. You don't accept homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, explain it. How are they different? Do they look different? Smell different? Speak a different language that you will never understand? You can't just say i don't accept you your different and not qualify that statement. Sure its the individuals choice to accept or tolerate or hate or like and it shouldn't be forcefed... just like homosexuals shouldn't have to live like heterosexuals, why should they have to be forcefed your way of life, your way of thinking, your ideas, your ideals, your religions, your way of whatever??? Huh it doesnt only work one way. Why are we being forcefed that marriage is only a 'man + woman' event? thats a heterosexual, christian/catholic/religious idea. And YOU want to force feed that idea to everyone! And you expect us to take it and say 'yes sir' but you can't deal? Double standards.

evil_tama showed this herself. You're either a supporter of homosexuals, or your homophobic (as she so nicely called me).
And i was even nice enough to give you a definition and show why. You've shown that you are a homophobe and its obvious to anyone who reads this thread thats what you are. I support homosexuals, i also support people who can stand up and show me why they don't. I can give you all the reasons i support homosexuals and why i have those ideas, and if you can't give me a valid explaination other than one that hinges on fear or hate then your a homophobe as its defined. It really is that simple.

Marriage is simply political for homosexuals, they want it to advance the gay movement - and this will come at great social cost.
When has marriage EVER been a political process? Marriage is 2 people who love each other. It has nothing to do with advancing the gay movement (for me atleast), what it does have to do with is letting homosexuals marry the people they love. Heterosexuals can do it, why can't homosexuals? Go back to your article writer and ask her that question, ask yourself that question and then come back and tell me that you think its a political agenda for the gay movement. Don't give me a url i want YOUR opinion and why YOU think this is so. I'm sick of people arguing for things they don't fully understand, and for things that don't concern them. Your 'this will come at great social cost' reaks off conservative end-of-the-world bs. 'OMG society will suffer because if gays get married they might be accepted as equals and omg morals will vanish and omg omg' You seem a smart person, but yet you continue to fall back into this bs and not be able to fully explain yourself without trying to rely on some 'thing' which isn't your own.. or which isn't logical or which doesn't fully extrapolate on your ideas as you see them. And it makes your arguements seem faulty and flawed because your ideas don't come through properly.

Personally, i'm all for civil unions. Why doesn't anyone else in this thread want civil unions however? Quite frankly, because this isn't about gaining the same legal recognition as heterosexuals - homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals.

YOU ARE NOT.
HOMOSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS, HETEROSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS ARE EQUAL TO HETEROSEXUALS.
Its that simple. All people are equal regardless of gender, sexality, religion, race or other defining attribute.

Civil unions are a nice idea if you want to continue to label homosexuals as second class citizens. Heterosexual and homosexual couples in de-facto relationships are considered 2nd class citizens compared to married couples.. why? Well who knows really, maybe some idiot went out and told society that marriage is like 'Woah way better and like dude its the ultimate in a relationship' So everyone started to think that way, and now that homosexuals want to be able to attain that 'ultimate' status in their relationship its like 'Woah dude no way fk off' why? because some people don't think homosexuals are worthy of it. That they will devalue 'the institution', but yet they can't tell which institution they are devaluing.. the cultural symbol, the legal institution, the religious institution, the social institution or the institution of the individual. Now it seems silly to me neo_o that you argue that you don't want to be forcefed ideas, yet you want to be able to forcefed others your own. You argue a conservative point of view, yet recind. You argue the bible yet claim to be athiest. You say homosexuals are different yet give no explaination to your idea. You use others ideas to back your own, yet can't fully explain those properly either.

Your in this because its controversial, because you don't like homosexuals and you feel threatened. Your in this because it was a laugh and your 'straighter' than a die and your sympathetic to an elitist point of view. Now given all that, the moment this issue is laid to rest your going to not really give it any more thought you had your fun on the bandwagon and you spread your views around for everyone to see and for you thats the entireity of your involvement. You don't give a shit how this affects anyone else. You don't care at all.
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Ahh crap, I can't help myself. This is going to take forever to reply to though *sigh*.

Ok the first thing i want to clear up here is that there seems to be a misconception about what im trying to say.

eviltama (and others) claimed homosexuality is 100% genetic and that homosexuals have no choice about their sexual orientation. All im trying to point out with that genetic disorder argument that, if this is the case, then homosexuality can be easily considered as a genetic disorder.

I like to think everything comes down to choice however, and genetics only give a predisposition towards homosexuality.
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
So to break it up for you.. one last time.
"Men and women of full age" - Not a man and a woman, not only a man and a woman, not even some men and some women of full age. It means every man and every woman of full age.
"have the right to marry" - So as per above, every man and every woman "have the right to marry.
"and to found a family" - Now this is the part when it starts to become a little un-neutral, becuase you can view this from the family = nuclear family point of view or the family = whatever your idea of family is or family = what the govt says a family is. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:family
Take a scroll through there and open your eyes to how many definitions of 'family' don't go along with the 'traditional' mum, dad and kids bs.
Does it say anything about sexual orientation?

The 'family' should be entitled to protection from the state... but thats the family in all its definitions not just the one you see, or i see, or johnny howard sees.
No, its deliberately ambiguous, allowing the State to define what a family is.

An additional right would be letting homosexuals marry furniture.. but not allowing them to marry each other. Its additional because no one else has that right, but giving homosexuals the right to marry is not additional because heterosexuals have that right already. Its like heterosexuals will obviously want to marry heterosexuals... homosexuals don't want to marry heterosexuals obviously otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. Now by allowing ONLY heterosexuals to marry it is discrimination. Because as the logic goes, homosexuals are not allowed to marry other homosexuals.. but heterosexuals are allowed to marry other heterosexuals.
Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. Just because someone doesn't exercise that right, doesn't mean they don't have it.

I thought this section was about societies views, not about religion. Society caters for many different religions, so unless you argue religion with someone knowledgeable about your religion then your religious points are wasted. Sure society in parts reflects the dominant religions Catholicism and Christianity. Two different religions you keep referring to as one. But the point here is, religion is a poor foundation to lay your arguement on when argueing against someone not of your religion. As for how many "Christians would have given up on their religion in the space of 3 years" i'd personally hope alot, because they'd probably be better off for it. But meh Christianity isn't the only religion out there even all its offshoots can't agree with each other, so its a moot point really.
- Catholicism and Christianity aren't "different" religions. All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics.

- It's irrelevant whether im arguing with a Buddhist/Hindu/Christian/Aethiest etc, i'm pointing out that society generally has a Christian view, since so many people in Australia are Christians.

- Your opinion on how many Christians have converted is rather irrelevant

Your memory isn't as clear as you might like. Your arguement has changed over the duration of this thread. I never said it was 100% genetic either. And it was you who started us all on the topic of what makes a person a homosexual.
Actually it was you i believe who first said that homosexuals have no choice about what they are. I responded.

YOU think homosexuals have a choice, i don't. I think it is genetically determined and i think environmental factors have a say in not only how well someone accepts or doesnt accept their sexuality but also in how they grow into that genetic 'truth'. And example being someone who grows up in a strict household where homosexuality is a 'bad word' won't want to accept they are homosexual, they've been brought up with the ideas that its bad. They don't have a choice in their sexual preference, they do however have a choice in whether they wish to practise it.
While you claim that you don't think homosexuality is 100% genetic you still don't believe in choice. Basically your still saying all homosexuals are born as they are, yet some just try to 'suppress' it.

You have opinions.. the way it seems so far you just borrow others and call them your own without even stopping to really think about the ideas assimilate them and accept what they mean to you.
I have my own opinions. You share the opinions of the gay community. So?

So homosexuals disgust you because they want acceptance. So your also disgusted by black people wanting acceptance, and disabled people wanting acceptance and women wanting acceptance and the list could go on. You don't accept homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, explain it. How are they different? Do they look different? Smell different? Speak a different language that you will never understand? You can't just say i don't accept you your different and not qualify that statement. Sure its the individuals choice to accept or tolerate or hate or like and it shouldn't be forcefed... just like homosexuals shouldn't have to live like heterosexuals, why should they have to be forcefed your way of life, your way of thinking, your ideas, your ideals, your religions, your way of whatever??? Huh it doesnt only work one way. Why are we being forcefed that marriage is only a 'man + woman' event? thats a heterosexual, christian/catholic/religious idea. And YOU want to force feed that idea to everyone! And you expect us to take it and say 'yes sir' but you can't deal? Double standards.
- Homosexuals don't disgust me because they want acceptance. The gay rights movement disgusts me because they want to force me to accept homosexuals.

- Why would I be disgusted by other movements seeking acceptance?

- I don't want to forcefeed that idea to anyone, i'm merely expressing my opinion. So your idea of dealing with it on my part is agreeing with you? huh? I'm not saying that homosexuals should live like heterosexuals, heterosexuals don't sleep/live with people of the same sex do they?

- Homosexuals are different to heterosexuals because they aren't heterosexuals. I cant understand how your arguing with that.

And i was even nice enough to give you a definition and show why. You've shown that you are a homophobe and its obvious to anyone who reads this thread thats what you are. I support homosexuals, i also support people who can stand up and show me why they don't. I can give you all the reasons i support homosexuals and why i have those ideas, and if you can't give me a valid explaination other than one that hinges on fear or hate then your a homophobe as its defined. It really is that simple.
Thank you, you've proven my point nicely. You're either all for homosexuals, or you're homophobic. My points are valid, you just don't agree with them, there is a difference ;-)


When has marriage EVER been a political process? Marriage is 2 people who love each other.
Thats your opinion and your welcome to it, I think a marriage is a union of a man and woman. Also, some states like NSW tend to disagree with that :rolleyes:

'OMG society will suffer because if gays get married they might be accepted as equals and omg morals will vanish and omg omg' You seem a smart person, but yet you continue to fall back into this bs and not be able to fully explain yourself without trying to rely on some 'thing' which isn't your own.. or which isn't logical or which doesn't fully extrapolate on your ideas as you see them. And it makes your arguements seem faulty and flawed because your ideas don't come through properly.
Gays have the same capabilities as heterosexuals.
However, gays do not have the same sexual orientation as heterosexuals.

There's your difference.

HOMOSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS, HETEROSEXUALS ARE HUMAN BEINGS THEREFORE HOMOSEXUALS ARE EQUAL TO HETEROSEXUALS.
Its that simple. All people are equal regardless of gender, sexality, religion, race or other defining attribute.
1 is a number
3 is a number

Therefore 1 = 3?

Civil unions are a nice idea if you want to continue to label homosexuals as second class citizens. Heterosexual and homosexual couples in de-facto relationships are considered 2nd class citizens compared to married couples.. why? Well who knows really, maybe some idiot went out and told society that marriage is like 'Woah way better and like dude its the ultimate in a relationship' So everyone started to think that way, and now that homosexuals want to be able to attain that 'ultimate' status in their relationship its like 'Woah dude no way fk off' why? because some people don't think homosexuals are worthy of it. That they will devalue 'the institution', but yet they can't tell which institution they are devaluing.. the cultural symbol, the legal institution, the religious institution, the social institution or the institution of the individual. Now it seems silly to me neo_o that you argue that you don't want to be forcefed ideas, yet you want to be able to forcefed others your own. You argue a conservative point of view, yet recind. You argue the bible yet claim to be athiest. You say homosexuals are different yet give no explaination to your idea. You use others ideas to back your own, yet can't fully explain those properly either.
I thought i explained my ideas rather nicely. So i have a conservative view? Your spouting off leftist dogma. So?

Your in this because its controversial, because you don't like homosexuals and you feel threatened. Your in this because it was a laugh and your 'straighter' than a die and your sympathetic to an elitist point of view. Now given all that, the moment this issue is laid to rest your going to not really give it any more thought you had your fun on the bandwagon and you spread your views around for everyone to see and for you thats the entireity of your involvement. You don't give a shit how this affects anyone else. You don't care at all.
- Bandwagon? I see no bandwagon arguing consistantly throughout this topic against homosexual marriage. It was just me and GWB.

- Spread my views...entirety of my involvement. Isn't that what you've been doing as well?

- I do care about how this affects others. That's why I'm against it. I can't see this affecting homosexuals, since you have never had gay marriage in the first place, therefore everything is going to be the same as it always was for you guys ;)
 

neo o

it's coming to me...
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
3,294
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
400miles said:
Crap. Marriage won't be devalued, marriage is a personal thing between two people. By stating that it'd be devalued by allowing gays to join in is going along the lines that homosexuality is abormal, or as you so delicately put it before, 'a genetic mutation, a deformity'. And that's rubbish, there's nothign to back up such a ridiculous claim. Therefore I believe that marriage would not be devalued and I have not been given anything to prove me wrong.

Also, in this section, you missed out that another reason for gay marriage is that it's not negatively affecting anyone. If it were I'd understand the banning of it, but it's not. You continually ignore this point. Why ban something that's not doing anyone any harm?



I didn't say that adding an additional right is not an additional right I said the concept of additional rights is crap. And the argument that you keep MISSING here is that gays DO NOT have the (and I quote you here, this is heavily emphasised) "EXACTLY" the same right to marry as everyone else BECAUSE everyone else can marry who they love and who they choose... homosexuals cannot. This has been REPEATEDLY ARGUED and you have REPEATEDLY ignored it.



Religion is an invalid point because marriage isn't simply a religious institution anymore. So when arguing along the lines of marriage these days you are arguing about a social institution not a religious one.



Like I previously said (you ignored my whole last post)... the causes of homosexuality are irrelevant. Whether it's a genetic 'disorder' (stupid word), or whether it's caused by environmental features, it does not prove that there is something WRONG with the homosexual, and definately doesn't give anyone the right not to let them marry...



You're disgusted???! After I read that shit I couldn't believe that such ignorance could live in society. You saqy homosexuality want to advance the gay movement as though it's a bad thing, "this will come at a great social cost"... that's CRAP... WHAT SOCIAL COST? WHERE'S THE DOWNFALL? WHO IS IT HURTING? WHO IS IT NEGATIVELY AFFECTING?

Homosexuals are determined to make you accept them because there is no reason not to, and it's unfair and unjust that you don't. They're determined to make you accept that gay marriages should be allowed because they feel it unfair that they're banned from marriage. If they weren't oppressed and discriminated against they probably wouldn't be trying to shove anything down your throat.

"homosexuals nearly have that anyway with recent de-facto relationship legislation and the ability to collect their partners super on their partners death - they just want it all, they want to prove in some way that they are the same as heterosexuals."

This part especially disgusted me. "homosexuals nearly have that anyway"... that's right... they NEARLY have it.. so therefore they are not EQUAL to heterosexuals and therefore there must be some sort of deprivation or descrimination!

And OF COURSE THEY WANT TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE THE SAME AS HETEROSEXUALS... that's what the whole gay issue is... that's what this whole debate is about... equality.. Homosexuals ARE the same as heterosexuals.... they're all human and all entitled to an equal life. I'm glad you finally picked up on what the arguments all about, now all you have to do is realise that homosexuality isn't hurting you, it isn't negatively affecting you and neither is allowing them to get married.

Society needs to move forward. When I was younger I believed oppression was a thing of the past. How wrong I was.
400 Miles, I ignored your last post because it was the same as all your other posts. I have something to say to you now however.

God, but I hate you! I mock and deride your system of belief (please email me a brief summary of your system of belief, that I might mock and deride specific aspects of it). I make fun of your country of origin (or the region of the country from which you originate, in the event that we both hail from the same country) and state that the leaders of said area are incompetent. The food you eat is unsavoury and no one should eat it. You post worse than I do, and, assuming you have other interests, I am better at them than you are also. I throw doubt upon the legitimacy of your birth and make disparaging comments on your familial line!

This post has as much substance as all your posts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top