Gay Marriage and Gay Couples having children (through surrogate, adoption etc) (1 Viewer)

[Spiritual Being]

way to assume that they are male lol

also lol i honestly cannot believe you bothered to type up like a page of stuff when all of it is quite literally bullshit veiled in big words (which actually makes it sound even more retarded cos it takes unnecessary effort to even understand wtf you are saying)

It took 10 minutes.

Great.
Thanks heaps.

 

[Spiritual Being]

way to assume that they are male lol

also lol i honestly cannot believe you bothered to type up like a page of stuff when all of it is quite literally bullshit veiled in big words (which actually makes it sound even more retarded cos it takes unnecessary effort to even understand wtf you are saying)

Well, his profile does state that he is a male and I don't know anyone who would want such an ugly person on their profile picture.

 

[Spiritual Being]

Anyway, I'm off.

Love my life.

 

[classicjimbo]

> -statement fails incredibly-
> "oh forget that, your words are not even impressive anymore, even though they were striking enough for me to previously accuse you of using a thesaurus"
> "I have a small penis, so I hope you are the same" (you're very unlucky there buddy)

being this stupid

it looks like you've used a thesaurus because it is CLEAR you don't know how to use the words correctly and it looks like a copy paste effort from a thesaurus not because they're striking
someone who knows ~~big words~~ and how to actually use them wouldn't BASTARDISE them like you have
how do you not understand that

 

[Graney]

I'm down with this

If you are going to be dismissive of any opposing proposition, and purport opposing opinions as "the dumbest argument" or "this means nothing" in an attempt to falsely present their insubstantial nature, it only serves to highlight the weakness in your reasoning. Not only are you making a rush to judgment and dismissing valid opinions, your evident lack of justification for why it is "the dumbest argument" or "hahaha" or "this means literally nothing" is just as useful as you not contributing at all.

What about when someone is actually making the dumbest argument you've ever read, and everyone else can see this, and you just want to let that idiot know?It could be a useful contribution in bullying and belittling that idiot.

has also created a 'culture of acceptance' surrounding the ideology. The general population are being inclined to sexually explore the same gender, and take it even further to a state of desiring to marry someone of the same gender and continue the progression of their lives on this referred premise. Of course, how wonderful? Anyone who opposes such is the 'inhibitor of freedom', the 'disaster of society', 'in love with an ancient book that stretches back thousands of years ago'.

With the aforementioned provided as a swift response to anyone who opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage (or the ideology itself), society has supported and advertently initiated the growth of the 'gay population'.

Yeah it's really the way to go imo.

This does not occur without implications of the operation of society. Gay marriage reduces the population base in society, and therefore continues to lessen the strength our normative operation... Ultimately, the population base that is produced will be out of civilized order, and this formulates a problematic series of arising circumstances pertaining to the lack of support from both parents.

Yeah the world's in a real population crisis.

It is the fundamental observation from a psychological perspective. The support of both parents are critical to the raising of a child.

No reputable scientific organisation, in psychology, mental health, pediatrics, opposes gay parenting, many have issued strongly supportive statements. So it's a fundamental observation that same sex parenting is basically equitable with heterosexual parenting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

Hypothetically, when a father passes away and leaves a young son, one is always to question "who is the masculine figure in his life?". The father and the mother have differing complementary roles, and no impersonation of either parent, can bring this impersonation to the authenticity of the original paradigm.

orly

Hypothetically, with the given that homosexuality is legalized, I am renting a room in my house. A homosexual applies, and I deny him on a basis that is not pertaining to his sexuality; e.g. large pet and I did not want that in my house. The hypothetical statutory reform would allow him to fabricate a legal issue of 'discrimination on sexual basis'.

m8, if you rent your house with the condition "no pets", some cunt can not sue you when you evict them for keeping a large dog.

This scenario you propose has never happened, are you high right now?

This also does not include the circumstance that I may be religious but I have accepted that people exhibit different forms of sexuality, I still must go to court and ineluctably have financial and emotional strain posed onto me, even if I end up proving in fact that I did not deny him on a sexual basis.

People can pursue frivolous legislation for any reason, why exactly are you singling out sexuality when there are a million fraudulent and frivolous reasons someone could take you to court?

I also have the prospect of wrongly being found to discriminate on sexual means, even if it was authentically not on that basis; therefore inhibiting the administration of just outcomes.

Why is that worse than being wrongly found guilty of other crimes or acts of discrimination? Why are you singling out sexuality? Should we abolish all crimes where there is the possibility of someone being wrongly found guilty?

This cannot occur within present statutory bounds; in fact, the law itself is treated as discriminatory in the perspective of a homosexual (or an advocate thereof), as the law in Australia still holds that marriage is inseparable from its heterosexual institution.

Discrimination on the basis of sexuality is presently illegal, I don't understand why you think a change to the marriage act will affect this, it 100% won't.

Let's also assume (for argumentative purposes) that I am religious and I did in fact 'sexually discriminate' on such an individual, and for me to be legally subject to repercussions inhibits the brimming expression of religion, thereby compromising a human right. This is because, religion sees homosexuality to be immoral, and if it were to be instated by the law, it amplifies in to the issue that the law is inhibiting my expression of religion.

What about religious edicts that command homosexuality/adultery/apostasy as grounds for killing someone, should this be legalised to avoid inhibiting the expression of religion?

Why do you draw the line on the reasonable expression of religion as ending at discrimination, and not other measures such as outright violence, imprisonment, etc? Should I be able to open a public register listing the names and addresses of known homosexuals so I can avoid offering services to them?

 

[SylviaB]

it is quite literally bullshit

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Of course Gay people should be able to raise kids. Whether they will good parents or not doesn't fucking matter at all. There's shit/good straight parents coupled and single, and I'm pretty fucking sure the same is true for gay parents coupled and single. No one is perfect for the job, being a parent is hard. In some places being a good parent means your child didn't die or go to jail before the age of 16.

And fuck people who bring up relegion. You shouldn't be able to dictate how other people live their lives period, whether it's your own view or a relegious one.

Common sense don't need an essay on it.

 

[LANADELREY]

I am not aware of homosexuality having some sort of genetic basis tbh. Either way, that is irrelevant. How is something being genetic even a problem lol? Almost everything is? Is it because its uncommon? Should we discriminate against blue-eyed people too?

"How is something being genetic even a problem lol?" - no, that's the problem. people are convinced that it has a mostly genetic basis and have come up with hypotheses (that haven't worked out) like the "gay uncle hypothesis" to explain how homosexuality could be selected for. the problem is that something that reduces reproductive fitness at such a level should no way stay around in a population unless it gives some other fitness advantage. you also don't see homosexuality in hunter gatherer groups. some have considered the idea that it's actually caused by a pathogen/germ. people refer to this as the "gay germ" theory. there are a bunch of links out there about it i could point you to.

Homosexuality was actually removed in 1977 or so iirc from the DSM, so no, it is not classified as a mental disorder because after extensive research scientists and doctors concluded it wasnt.

if i remember correctly the dsm's classification of homosex was stupid: it was said to be a sociopath disorder caused by trauma from bad parenting or something.

Defining the worth of your life solely by your capacity to have offspring, how sad. I dont mean to get all philosophical about the meaning of life, but the purpose of an individual's existence shouldn't just be the creation of other individuals

i don't really do that, but from the point of view of biology and evolution, that is the point of life. if something biological interferes with that i'd consider it a disorder.

 

[SylviaB]

Whether they will good parents or not doesn't fucking matter at all.

Yeah! Raising kids is a right, not a responsibility!

 

[SylviaB]

No reputable scientific organisation, in psychology, mental health, pediatrics, opposes gay parenting

But as if they realistically could though.

 

[Graney]

"How is something being genetic even a problem lol?" - no, that's the problem. people are convinced that it has a mostly genetic basis and have come up with hypotheses (that haven't worked out) like the "gay uncle hypothesis" to explain how homosexuality could be selected for. the problem is that something that reduces reproductive fitness at such a level should no way stay around in a population unless it gives some other fitness advantage. you also don't see homosexuality in hunter gatherer groups. some have considered the idea that it's actually caused by a pathogen/germ. people refer to this as the "gay germ" theory. there are a bunch of links out there about it i could point you to.

The lessening of social prohibitions against homosexuality should decrease it's prevalence I guess. If you went back 100 years, queer people would just marry an oppposite sex partner and have kids, due to social pressure.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yeah! Raising kids is a right, not a responsibility!

look at that Straw Man go

 

[SylviaB]

look at that Straw Man go

You don't think that parenting ability matters in being able to have kids, so what does matter?

 

[Kiraken]

"How is something being genetic even a problem lol?" - no, that's the problem. people are convinced that it has a mostly genetic basis and have come up with hypotheses (that haven't worked out) like the "gay uncle hypothesis" to explain how homosexuality could be selected for. the problem is that something that reduces reproductive fitness at such a level should no way stay around in a population unless it gives some other fitness advantage. you also don't see homosexuality in hunter gatherer groups. some have considered the idea that it's actually caused by a pathogen/germ. people refer to this as the "gay germ" theory. there are a bunch of links out there about it i could point you to.


if i remember correctly the dsm's classification of homosex was stupid: it was said to be a sociopath disorder caused by trauma from bad parenting or something.



i don't really do that, but from the point of view of biology and evolution, that is the point of life. if something biological interferes with that i'd consider it a disorder.

ugh, if it really was genetic and a "less fit" gene then surely it would be wiped out by now? If anything the number of openly homosexual people now is increasing. And either way, genetics is quite irrelevant. Homosexuality doesn't increase your risk of cancer etc. nor does it have any negative health outcomes. In an age where even heterosexual couples are opting to have less kids and where the world's population is burgeoning anyway, how many kids you natural reproduce is hardly a measure of your worth to society.

Yes but the fact that homosexuality is not a mental disorder even in the latest DSM released no more than 2 weeks ago means it's not a mental disorder.

Science doesn't deal with "the point of life". As I said earlier, in a world where the population can, in a matter of years, grow to an unsustainable level, reproductive ability is not really a valid "point of life".

And no, it isn't. A disorder by definition is something that impairs a person's ability to function. Homosexuality is not an impairment of any sort, because i highly doubt homosexuals want to reproduce and for them it's therefore not an impairment to their activities. By that definition, a heterosexual couple that chooses not to have children also fall under the umbrella of suffering from a "disorder"

 

[Spiritual Being]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

my neighbour and I are almost dying of laughter

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lolsmith

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[lee337]

Yeah! Raising kids is a right, not a responsibility!

I know what you're getting at, but not all hetero parents are good parents.

 

[Kiraken]

You don't think that parenting ability matters in being able to have kids, so what does matter?

that wasn't really his point lol

if i understand correctly he is saying that it is absurd to not let homosexuals be parents because they might be "bad for the children" because there are heterosexual couples out there that are just as bad yet not prohibited from having kids. Bad parenting is not inherent to homosexuality.

 

[Kiraken]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

my neighbour and I are almost dying of laughter

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

lolsmith

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

i don't think you are proving anything other than the fact your neighbour is probably as intellectually incompetent as you

 

[SylviaB]

that wasn't really his point lol

if i understand correctly he is saying that it is absurd to not let homosexuals be parents because they might be "bad for the children" because there are heterosexual couples out there that are just as bad yet not prohibited from having kids. Bad parenting is not inherent to homosexuality.

then saying "Whether they will good parents or not doesn't fucking matter at all" was really dumb

if he had said "If we're going to restrict parenting on the basis of parenting ability we should prevent a lot of heterosexual couples from being parents", that would have made sense, but it's entirely distinct from what he said.

but not all hetero parents are good parents.

that was note remotely implied by my post

 

[Kiraken]

then saying "Whether they will good parents or not doesn't fucking matter at all" was really dumb

if he had said "If we're going to restrict parenting on the basis of parenting ability we should prevent a lot of heterosexual couples from being parents", that would have made sense, but it's entirely distinct from what he said.



that was note remotely implied by my post

well if you had not isolated the sentence and bothered to read the context of it (i.e. the sentence pretty much right after it) you would have gotten that point anyway.