Homosexuality in Australia (7 Viewers)

[dora_18]

of course, and reproduction still will follow man+woman=baby
its just wont be man+woman RAISE baby

 

[robo-andie]

No becuase it would be near impossible to determine something like that in a normal couple, as opposed to a homosexual couple where the determinants themselves are the iron laws of nature. Its man+woman=baby not man+man or woman+woman.

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

So when a doctor sits the woman down and says "I'm sorry, you can't ever have a child" wouldn't that be a good time to revoke their benefits (those provided by marriage and their previous status as a reproductive heterosexual couple).

So then, we should determine who can be married based on an individuals ability to reproduce. I guess then only people with genuine physical disabilities who are render incapable of reproduction are legitimate candidates for discrimination in relation to marriage.

I'm just following your logic of "they can't reproduce, they shouldn't get married"

 

[dora_18]

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

and yes, that would be a fair assumption, i want kids! but i dont see why my friends who are gay shouldnt be able to have them, i dont see what part of them would make them any worse off of better off raising a child...what becuase they engage in gay sex? WOW?!? how does the render their parental abilities

 

[robo-andie]

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

also, if you're going to assume this, then wouldn't allowing same-sex marriage eventually lead to children?

 

[bshoc]

also, if you're going to assume this, then wouldn't allowing same-sex marriage eventually lead to children?

Remind me again, in homosexual relationship, which one of the men provides the eggs and uterus.

 

[bshoc]

and yes, that would be a fair assumption, i want kids! but i dont see why my friends who are gay shouldnt be able to have them, i dont see what part of them would make them any worse off of better off raising a child...what becuase they engage in gay sex? WOW?!? how does the render their parental abilities

Are you pretending to be stupid or really that way? Since when does gay sex have a reproductive capacity?

 

[robo-andie]

Remind me again, in homosexual relationship, which one of the men provides the eggs and uterus.

We aren't talking about the birth of children in relation to that statement. Just that children will enter into the family situation at some point.

 

[dora_18]

exactly...
so im sorry

Are you pretending to be stupid or really that way?

 

[robo-andie]

Are you pretending to be stupid or really that way? Since when does gay sex have a reproductive capacity?

She isn't saying they would reproduce. She is saying they are no worse as parents than a heterosexual couple. If you would like to see arguments for and against same sex parenting, please refer to the previous pages of this thread.

 

[bshoc]

We aren't talking about the birth of children in relation to that statement. Just that children will enter into the family situation at some point.

No, we are talking about the BIRTH of children, otherwise my logic about why we accord marriage rights would be a fallacy.

 

[robo-andie]

No, we are talking about the BIRTH of children, otherwise my logic about why we accord marriage rights would be a fallacy.

We aren't talking about why we accord marriage rights.

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

That is what we are discussing right now.

 

[dora_18]

Are you pretending to be stupid or really that way? Since when does gay sex have a reproductive capacity?

im not saying it has reproductive potential..just like andy said..children will enter the family anyway! i dont see why they shouldnt

 

[Sleiphnir]

No becuase it would be near impossible to determine something like that in a normal couple, as opposed to a homosexual couple where the determinants themselves are the iron laws of nature. Its man+woman=baby not man+man or woman+woman.

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

I would say that it is not safe to assume or generalise anything about marriages.
I don't believe that 'nearly all' marriages are the result of the eventual aim to have children. There are millions of childfree individuals around the planet that are married without any desire to reproduce. And not 'nearly all' marriages begin with this desire - it may just be an outcome of their relationship.

And on the main topic - its not like hetereosexual marriages are 'sacred' these days - gay marriages in Canada etc tend not to have the blatant disregard that quite a lot of same-sex marriages have for the union. And these are the people missing out on the benefits and recognition of their love - sub standard citizens.

 

[ihavenothing]

Oh, absolutely. A marriage is a marriage this civil union is further discrimination by some other name.

 

[littlewing69]

Gay people couldn't possibly defile marriage more than Britney Spears et al already have.

 

[ihavenothing]

Oh, absolutely, or Jordan and Peter Andre

 

[sam04u]

There is no evidence to prove same-sex couples will raise children any differently then regular couples. I just don't like the Idea of a baby being exposed to It. I'm getting sick of seeing 'homosexuals' in nearly every movie, on t.v, in video games... it's just way to much.

Especially, having a young kid taught 'subconsciously' that "It's fine to be a homosexual" and "Perhaps you're a homosexual". It's unfair to children to be under that impression. Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', I've mentioned it before few argued, even fewer agreed.

In my opinion it depends on your definition of a 'social disorder'.

Disorder:
dis·or·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ds-ôrdr)
A lack of order or regular arrangement; confusion
An ailment that affects the function of mind or body

 

[littlewing69]

There is no evidence to prove same-sex couples will raise children any differently then regular couples. I just don't like the Idea of a baby being exposed to It. I'm getting sick of seeing 'homosexuals' in nearly every movie, on t.v, in video games... it's just way to much.

So man up, stop bitching, and turn the T.V off and don't go to the movies. Don't expect the rest of us to pack the homosexuals back into the closet because of your medieval prudery.

Especially, having a young kid taught 'subconsciously' that "It's fine to be a homosexual" and "Perhaps you're a homosexual". It's unfair to children to be under that impression. Homosexuality is a 'social disorder', I've mentioned it before few argued, even fewer agreed.

Yeah. I'm sure lots of kids are going to catch the gay from non-homophobic pop-culture... Really, that's such tripe. And guess what? Perhaps they are homosexual. A percentage of the population is. It's a reality you need to come to grips with.

 

[robo-andie]

Gay people couldn't possibly defile marriage more than Britney Spears et al already have.

http://www.deviantart.com/view/5294142/

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Its very safe to assume that nearly all marriages are conducted with the eventual aim of children.

What? No.

Just because children often follow after marriage does not mean the aim/purpose of that marriage was to have children. These days often people have children BEFORE they get married

Especially, having a young kid taught 'subconsciously' that "It's fine to be a homosexual" and "Perhaps you're a homosexual". It's unfair to children to be under that impression

And it's more fair to not tell them that they might be homosexual when quite clearly they could possibly be one? I'd rather not lie to children. It's possible that they're homosexuals, it's fine if they are and anyone who says otherwise you can just ignore.