Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[crazyhomo]

well for survival and producing an offspring, thats the main purpose of life of humans.

and to reproduce, you need a female and a male. two males cannot 'naturally' reproduce, which makes them unnatural... somewhat.

not trying to be offensive, but just speaking reality.

i totally agree. also, all sterile guys and barran chicks are unnatural. they should not be allowed to marry or adopt. this is what nature intended

 

[Mr Lovepony]

lol, so true.

sure you might say who cares or why not? it doesn't effect me.

but have you ever thought of a gay couple making out in front of you.. or just being gay? how would you feel then? or perhaps your kids are in a gay relationship, would you coupe?

or what if you were a child of a gay couple.. just think of what kind of life you would get through..IMO pretty rough one.

i find it disturbing and unnatural, metros are equally as bad.. "im not gay, i just act gay".... wtf?!?

Life would only be hard if others make it hard for me.

 

[Calculon]

Ofcourse they can't, the same way your car cant run on anything but petrol, marriage = 1 man + 1 woman - thats the simple, unavoidable truth - "gay marriage" is a oxymoron becuase it implies the union of two same sex indaviduals which must be a man and woman.

You're right, definitions are unchanging. Happy people should never be allowed to marry. >:/

 

[kami]

Ofcourse they can't, the same way your car cant run on anything but petrol, marriage = 1 man + 1 woman - thats the simple, unavoidable truth - "gay marriage" is a oxymoron becuase it implies the union of two same sex indaviduals which must be a man and woman.

The concept of marriage was altered so that people could become divorced - one can argue that this is as big (or bigger) a change than allowing same-sex marriage as 'till death do us part' is a rather integral part of what it means to be married.

sure you might say who cares or why not? it doesn't effect me.

but have you ever thought of a gay couple making out in front of you..

And what problem exactly is there with a gay couple making out that isn't there with a straight couple? Or do you find affection and desire repulsive?

or just being gay? how would you feel then?

I can honestly tell you there is nothing bad in being gay, any problems usually come about from how other people see it.

or perhaps your kids are in a gay relationship, would you coupe?

Why not? I would be happy they had met someone they cared for.

or what if you were a child of a gay couple.. just think of what kind of life you would get through..IMO pretty rough one.

If it were rough, it would be because of someone else's inability to deal with their bigotry rather than any intrinsic problem with being raised by two men or two women.

two males cannot 'naturally' reproduce, which makes them unnatural... somewhat.

Your mother, perhaps sometime soon, will undergo menopause after which she will be unable to 'naturally' reproduce. Does this make any relationships she have an abberation to the natural order?

 

[hscamper]

Not only is divorce legal, but there existed restrictions on inter-racial marriage and women are no longer considered the 'property' of the male.

How can a gay rights push lead to inequality? They don't have the civil right to marry the person they are attracted too and love, not the other way round. They aren't saying they want to oppose heterosexual marriage, just want equal civil rights in relation to their own relationships.

The argument against 'tradition' is blind in my view, but if we assume Howard wants marriage to be just between a man and a woman there is no logical explantion for denying same sex couples equal civil rights in relation to inheritance, superannuation etc. that legal recognition should provide i.e. in the form of a civil union. But he opposes them also, that's just plain unfair discrimination in my view.

 

[dieburndie]

I think it's all about rights. I see marriage as a religious union essentially, and i don't really think it matters whether or not homosexuals have the right to something called marriage as such. I just think there has to be some means for them to obtain the same rights that anyone else would by marrying. the inability to do that unless they enter into a heterosexual relationship surely minimises their sexuality's importance socially somewhat.

 

[wafflesnsorbet]

Marriage, is previously stated (many times), in my view, is the union between a man and a woman. I think homosexuals should get the right to a civil union, but not marriage, because marriage is marriage. Society-defined concept or not, I don't think gay marriage really should be an issue.

Life is unfair. And I hardly think that the achievement of gay marriage would help that. After all, Australia is a multicultural country, right? That doesn't stop cultural conflict. Just as homosexuals won't gain complete social acceptance, even if the marriage law is passed through.

Marriage has never been about love, period. It has always been first and foremost a legal union. Sure, it is nice if love had something to do with it... but how long will it last, anyway? Homosexuality would be just as commercialised, false and fickle as heterosexuality. Whoops. My bad. Romance.

The issue at hand is really the social acceptance of homosexuality. I'm not against it. Love is love, right? But what I am saying is, don't hold your breath. It won't happen. And if it does happen... it will happen long, long after our time.

It goes against social conventions, and too many people are comfortable with social conventions. Homosexuality may not equate with morality, but to an extent, it is about self discipline. Society likes conformity. And conformity is all about the society thriving and growing in its existence. And existence is about procreation.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think homosexuals should get the right to a civil union, but not marriage, because marriage is marriage.

I think everyone should get a civil union from the government then and 'marriage' shall become nothing but a religious concept - fair?

 

[bshoc]

I think everyone should get a civil union from the government then and 'marriage' shall become nothing but a religious concept - fair?

Only the second one, there is no way the government should recognize any form of same sex "union", what the churches do is their problem.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

there is no way the government should recognize any form of same sex "union"

Why not?

 

[sam04u]

i'd like to hear how u justify that homosexuality is "radical" or "socially destructive"

I probably couldn't prove it was "Socially destructive" or "radical", but I could easily prove it was unnatural.

I could also show using evidence other effects of it (which aren't particularly beneficial to society and inface 'detrimental')

But, alot of things like this exist, and it's a benefit of living in a 'free' country. You're allowed to be homosexual, or muslim, or jewish, or straight, or black, or any number of things. The fundamental thing is that all people should have access to human rights. Unfortunately no where in the U.N (internationally accepted) declaration of Human Rights, does it say. "Right to marry". If it did then homosexual 'civil unions' would more than likely be imposed.

The biggest issue which arises with homosexuality though, is that people are beggining to think that it is normal (eg; Natural) when infact it isn't. It's a process which occurs when 'living creatures' are taken out of their 'natural' environment and as a result their perception is changed. I'm not saying it's bad, all I'm saying is it's unnatural, and we would be 'better off' if homosexuals didn't exist. (I'm not implying all homosexuals shouldn't exist).

My opinion is that, they should be allowed 'civil unions'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I probably couldn't prove it was "Socially destructive" or "radical", but I could easily prove it was unnatural.

Go ahead then, please.

I could also show using evidence other effects of it (which aren't particularly beneficial to society and inface 'detrimental')

Please do.

Unfortunately no where in the U.N (internationally accepted) declaration of Human Rights, does it say. "Right to marry". If it did then homosexual 'civil unions' would more than likely be imposed.

Orly?

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.

Do you actually check your statements before you make them man? It's not that hard to google 'universal declaration of human rights' then search for the word 'marry'.

 

[sam04u]

Go ahead then, please.

I said I could, I just don't have the time or effort to actually do all the research and present it logically. (It's there for those who wish to find it.)

As to the 'Human Right', I didn't mean a right to 'Marry', it needs to state in 'detail', that 'gay secks' is included. I guess however, you're right in that according to U.N Declaration of Human Rights, homosexuals are being denied their Human Rights. (I guess we Just found a way for homosexuals to argue their case.) Go forth homosexuals! Gain your right to marry by presenting the breach in U.N Declaration of Human Rights to the Government! (case closed)

 

[*Ninny-mole*]

wafflesnsorbet -> "Marriage has never been about love, period. It has always been first and foremost a legal union"

What the hell? Sure back in the 18th century, marriage was regarded as being of economic and social importance, but would you deny the fact that society has evolved? Would you marry someone just because it is a legal union, or would you rather marry for love?
And the issue of homosexual marriage isn't just about social recognition, but the legal recognition as well. Would you like to be denyed the right to marry the person you love? Or in your case, be denyed the right to enter into a legal union with someone? It is simply not fair, and is disgustingly discriminatory.
Although "existence is about procreation", I hardly think allowing gay marriage is going to affect the population. Even without being allowed to marry, gay people will still be gay. It's not like homosexuality is an infectious disease and will spread if gay marriage is allowed. Gay marriage wouldn't do anything but make our "existence" better and more fair.

bshoc -> "Ofcourse they can't, the same way your car cant run on anything but petrol, marriage = 1 man + 1 woman - thats the simple, unavoidable truth - "gay marriage" is a oxymoron becuase it implies the union of two same sex indaviduals which must be a man and woman."

No offence, but that was one of the stupidest things I have read. You do know that cars have been and are still being produced, that don't need petrol don't you????..... and gay marriage isn't an oxymoron just because you say it is. What you said was really illogical, sorry.

And no offence to those who cite religious reasons as excuses for their denial of homosexual marriages, but it is my belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that every religious tradition, in some form or another, recognises the importance of equality. If not, what is so bad about everyone being treated equally anyway?

And if the UNDHR doesn't state that every human being has a right to marry, then why do heterosexuals have that right all over the world, and not homosexuals.

And homosexuality is not unnatural. People don't choose to be gay, they just are. I have gay friends who would be deeply insulted by that remark. That is a cruel thing to say. Denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is also cruel, and I will be fighting for homosexual marriages until the day that they are legal in Australia...and it will be in this lifetime

 

[sam04u]

And homosexuality is not unnatural. People don't choose to be gay, they just are. I have gay friends who would be deeply insulted by that remark. That is a cruel thing to say. Denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is also cruel, and I will be fighting for homosexual marriages until the day that they are legal in Australia...and it will be in this lifetime

It is a 'natural' reaction to an 'unnatural' environment. It is not 'natural', this has been presented many times and I would congratulate you if you provided me with evidence to contradict me. However, it is unlikely and impossible that you will, because naturally we have come about as beings able to reproduce. It's either you believe in evolution or religion or even anatomical science you will find that homosexuality is not natural. In evolution species evolve by being able to 'reproduce' otheriwse they die out.
In religion 'god forbids homosexuality', and anatomicaly, there is no natural mentality or chemical imbalance which definately will cause a person to be homosexual. Therefore, it can be understood that the environment results in a person being homosexual. I'm not saying homosexuals shouldn't have rights, please understand that. I'm an advocate of justice and equality(where it doesn't conflict with justice).

Inshallah people do realise the importance of fairness but also education on such a sensitive issue in Australia. (where 90% of the population are effected or influenced by homosexuality), education can not only assure people understand what 'homosexuality is', but also why people should not discriminate against homosexual people. They deserve every right any one of us do.

Another problem is people will not accept all I say because they don't want to accept the reality of what constitutes homosexuality. It's because of this that they should be treated equally, as people should understand the conditions can occur in any one of us.

And homosexuality is not unnatural. People don't choose to be gay, they just are.

I'm not saying they 'choose to be gay', can you see that? It's not me who coined 'homosexuality' as a sexual preference.

It's hard to accept something which conflicts with your ideals, but sometimes you must.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It is a 'natural' reaction to an 'unnatural' environment. It is not 'natural', this has been presented many times and I would congratulate you if you provided me with evidence to contradict me. However, it is unlikely and impossible that you will, because naturally we have come about as beings able to reproduce. It's either you believe in evolution or religion or even anatomical science you will find that homosexuality is not natural. In evolution species evolve by being able to 'reproduce' otheriwse they die out.

I already answered this. In order to reproduce, we only need to have sex with a member of the opposite sex ONCE in our lifetime (potentially), meanwhile most people will have sex 1000's of times during their life. This explains why it is hard to find a lesbian that is not pregnant.

 

[sam04u]

I already answered this. In order to reproduce, we only need to have sex with a member of the opposite sex ONCE in our lifetime (potentially), meanwhile most people will have sex 1000's of times during their life. This explains why it is hard to find a lesbian that is not pregnant.

Did homosexual dinosaur's exist? Can you show me a natural occurence of 'Homosexuality'? I agree sex only needs to take place ONCE in our lifetime, but sexual attraction needs to take place most of our lifetime. (Lesbian get pregnant in other ways.) You did not answer properly, how can someone who does not find interest in the opposite sex reproduce? How can this evolve into 'nature' it's contradictory, please use logic N-T-B.

If you're arguing that Homosexuality is a natural process then you're wrong, It's been proven through experimentation that it only occurs when the natural environment is changed. (In this arguement you're wrong 100%)

-Read my above posts to see that I am fair person.

 

[townie]

I think everyone should get a civil union from the government then and 'marriage' shall become nothing but a religious concept - fair?

i love you

 

[ur_inner_child]

Did homosexual dinosaur's exist? Can you show me a natural occurence of 'Homosexuality'?

Gay Penguins

I think the weird part for me is that I remembered what year the controversy broke out. :/

I'd give you a more specific link from national geographic, one that I bookmarked but national geographic's site seems to be down or really slow for me

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

 

[sam04u]

Gay Penguins

I think the weird part for me is that I remembered what year the controversy broke out. :/

I'd give you a more specific link from national geographic, one that I bookmarked but national geographic's site seems to be down or really slow for me

But this National Geographic link talks about homosexuality occuring naturally in the animal kingdom or "what" is naturally by means of analysing what may cause it and different perspectives (I think it does)... I've bookmarked a whole lot of homosexuality related articles (because one of my friends destroys himself physically mentally and emotionally for having any homosexual urges but that's another story), but I'm positive this one starts off really broad, and starts dealing specifically with the Gay Penguins media thing that sparked a lot of controversy in 2004, as you can see from the first link.

Oh, this is where they're taken out of their natural environment and put into zoo's. (they're taken out of their natural environment). It's exactly what I was saying earlier.