Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[dagwoman]

People don't choose to be gay. It's not about "wanting" to be gay. Why don't you support equal rights for gay people?

 

[Dougie]

People who truly care about society dont want their kids growing up in a world where a man can marry a farm animal, another man, a toaster etc.

Thats why marriage is still marriage and will stay that way for however longer humanity exists on this planet, becuase there are more intelligent and far sighted people in this country then there are moronic leftist whiners who just want to legalize everything without putting any thought as to why it was illegal in the first place.

I couldn't resist replying to this one. So do you think marriage has never changed throughout the history of humanity? We've had everything from multiple wives to mix-race marriages. And judging by your statment that "there are more intelligent far sighted people then there are moronic lefttist whiners," wouldn't that mean that over the course of history, it's those "far-sighted people" who have changed the meaning of marriage. Why would the evolution of what a marriage is all of a sudden stop evolving to fit the world around it. Marriage will not stay how it is for how ever long hunanity exists, because it is always changing. And i'd love to know why it is you think a gay marriage is illegal.

 

[Dougie]

yep, it's now the anti-bshoc thread. i mean, trying to argue with waf is hard enough, but argueing against all of us when we talk sense and back it up, and he just calls ppl wrong and calls them names is stupid. And i love how he can throw everybody under the same steriotypical banner just cause we all agree on one small issue. bshoc, try replying to a post by at least adressing the issue in it, unless you think you're above that.

 

[bshoc]

Says he who was happy that the donkeys swept the house.

[/doubleentendrowned]

I don't mind many of the elephants either.

Actually that reminds on some interesting ballot initiatives in last nights US elections, Gay Marriage ban passed by landslides in every state that held it:

Colorado, Idaho, S. Corolina, S. Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin

 

[bshoc]

To be honest guys, I have no idea why everyone is still arguing with bshoc. I got bored of hearing him spout the same, unevidenced prejudice thirty pages ago. He has demonstrated limited capacity to read and understand arguments, limited capacity to synthesise intelligent responses and has been generally behaving like a giant boob. This thread has not seen real political or philosophical debate for a while (although I must say there are some truly perceptive members in here with some fantastic responses). It just seems to me that this thread has become an exercise in 'what does bshoc find revolting and can't explain'.

I know. Absolutely right. But we have to keep shit stirring bschoc for the conservative/narrow minded numbnut he is don't we?

bshoc, its about time you acknowledged you're clutching at straws, and can't back up shit.

yep, it's now the anti-bshoc thread. i mean, trying to argue with waf is hard enough, but argueing against all of us when we talk sense and back it up, and he just calls ppl wrong and calls them names is stupid. And i love how he can throw everybody under the same steriotypical banner just cause we all agree on one small issue. bshoc, try replying to a post by at least adressing the issue in it, unless you think you're above that.

I really give up, theres no point arguing with people too stupid to realize that they're guilty of the things they're accusing me of, I HAVE BACKED UP MY ARGUMENTS WITH SOURCES, SHOW ME WHERE YOU HAVE DONE THE SAME and then maybe I'll take you seriously, and lefties aren't just a bunch of single minded drones with no real reasons for your collective opinions? Stop drinking your own kool aid, you're the ones who are claiming random facts, like "gays have married before in history," but wheres the proof? Just like all lefty causes its sorely lacking.

I've already made clear why I oppose gay marriage, and yet the only responses I have gotten is "homophobe" , "moron" and "idiot," if you call that a valid argument then you're just morons who dont realise it.

Just face facts, gay marriage bans pass anywhere and everywhere they are proposed, and it happens for a reason, everyone knows that the married family is the best environment for raising future generations, when you cheapen and weaken it with your rediculous social fads you're only weakening the future of the country, and thats why virtually every US state on the ballot banned it yesterday. Even after all my sources, society's verdict is the one that counts.

 

[Dougie]

I really give up, theres no point arguing with people too stupid to realize that they're guilty of the things they're accusing me of, I HAVE BACKED UP MY ARGUMENTS WITH SOURCES, SHOW ME WHERE YOU HAVE DONE THE SAME and then maybe I'll take you seriously, and lefties aren't just a bunch of single minded drones with no real reasons for your collective opinions? Stop drinking your own kool aid, you're the ones who are claiming random facts, like "gays have married before in history," but wheres the proof? Just like all lefty causes its sorely lacking.

I've already made clear why I oppose gay marriage, and yet the only responses I have gotten is "homophobe" , "moron" and "idiot," if you call that a valid argument then you're just morons who dont realise it.

Just face facts, gay marriage bans pass anywhere and everywhere they are proposed, and it happens for a reason, everyone knows that the married family is the best environment for raising future generations, when you cheapen and weaken it with your rediculous social fads you're only weakening the future of the country, and thats why virtually every US state on the ballot banned it yesterday. Even after all my sources, society's verdict is the one that counts.

you find me where i said gays have married in the past, then i'll believe you actually properly read out post

 

[Dougie]

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

just found this one, i found it a good read.

 

[bshoc]

you find me where i said gays have married in the past, then i'll believe you actually properly read out post

Well if you cant prove that gays haven't married in the past, and its in no way a natural institution, I dont even see how you can be arguing for it from a perspective other than tearjerking sympathy.

Governments recognize things like jobs, families and marriage because they were in existance before we had paper to even write it down, everyone knows gay marriage is just a temporary social fad as the last of the major lefties begin dying off, all of the arguments I made were ofcourse for a social utility and surivial perspective, that and the state should never be in the business of legislating against majority opinion, period. As far as I'm concerned, tell ya what, they can have "marriage" when one of the men can crap out a baby to justify the tax benefits. Just because a minority of hetrosexuals don't do it either, is no reason to make it worse.

 

[Dougie]

Well if you cant prove that gays haven't married in the past, and its in no way a natural institution, I dont even see how you can be arguing for it from a perspective other than tearjerking sympathy.

Governments recognize things like jobs, families and marriage because they were in existance before we had paper to even write it down, everyone knows gay marriage is just a temporary social fad as the last of the major lefties begin dying off, all of the arguments I made were ofcourse for a social utility and surivial perspective, that and the state should never be in the business of legislating against majority opinion, period. As far as I'm concerned, tell ya what, they can have "marriage" when one of the men can crap out a baby to justify the tax benefits. Just because a minority of hetrosexuals don't do it either, is no reason to make it worse.

so is it a temporary fad like mix-race marriages. that was a no go zone in earlier humanity, but now it's recognised as completely normal. why would a gay marriage be any different. "everyone knows gay marriage is just a temporary social fad" Who are you to say what everyone thinks and knows. And in the end, who cares about social utility and survival, in the end it comes down to morals and personal feelings, and if they want to they should be allowed. Also, what's wrong with adopting a child, would that not justify any benefits?

There are more places world wide that allow same-sex marriages now than a decade ago, and that is a continueing trend. everybody knows that.

 

[bshoc]

so is it a temporary fad like mix-race marriages. That was a no go zone in earlier humanity, but now it's recognised as completely normal. why would a gay marriage be any different. "everyone knows gay marriage is just a temporary social fad" Who are you to say what everyone thinks and knows. And in the end, who cares about social utility and survival, in the end it comes down to morals and personal feelings, and if they want to they should be allowed. Also, what's wrong with adopting a child, would that not justify any benefits?

Mixed race marriages were a temporary taboo in the slave era, most other times people freely married between race, heck most countries and nations today have a whole host of racial genus, even things like Alexander and his Persian wife. Gay marriages on the other hand HAVE NEVER naturally existed, thats the difference, becuase whilst they may be capable of expressing love, they're not capable of facilitating a proper family, and marriage must never be relegated to a simple freedom to have sex or something worthless like that.

As for (your lack of) morals and personal feelings, those kinds of things should never be permitted to govern or have strong influence on a state, true some people oppose gays on religious grounds, I'm not opposing gays nearly as much as I'm defending the basic composite of modern civilization, its demise means ultimate death and the takeover by those with the strenght and structure to do so, heck look at the muslims, at this rate Europe will be dead in a century due to abortion, low birth rates, destruction of family etc., because of nothing more than simple demographics, and gay rights will be a moot point since they'll (the gays) be hanging off the ends of rope.

 

[dagwoman]

You're totally opposing gays. You're completely adhering to the stereotype of ignorant homophobe. You make outrageous statements (such as that Europe will die out, or that "everyone knows [insert inane statement here]") you can't back up, interspersed with inappropriate insults towards anyone you disagree with. You've repeated the same 2 or 3 ridiculous attempts at argument for pages now, and it obviously hasn't gotten you anywhere. Gay marriage will happen. It's just a matter of time.

 

[ichigo.bankai]

yeah man i totally agree with u gay people are and were not available till the new era so i think gay marriages should be banned coz thats just not right

 

[ihavenothing]

yeah man i totally agree with u gay people are and were not available till the new era so i think gay marriages should be banned coz thats just not right

Not available? Read your history, people have been gay since the dawn of time, its just that society that has oppressed it, and just because you think it is not right doesn't mean you should rob people of a fundamental right.

 

[dagwoman]

yeah man i totally agree with u gay people are and were not available till the new era so i think gay marriages should be banned coz thats just not right

1. You're unable to convey coherent thoughts
2. You're unable to construct an argument
3. You disrupt otherwise reasonable debates.

 

[dagwoman]

Its simple actually - I don't like homosexuals and I consider their sexuality to be a personal choice.

Didn't you claim you had "nothing against" gay people?

 

[Dougie]

Mixed race marriages were a temporary taboo in the slave era, most other times people freely married between race, heck most countries and nations today have a whole host of racial genus, even things like Alexander and his Persian wife. Gay marriages on the other hand HAVE NEVER naturally existed, thats the difference, becuase whilst they may be capable of expressing love, they're not capable of facilitating a proper family, and marriage must never be relegated to a simple freedom to have sex or something worthless like that.

so what about the countless gays who want a family and aren’t just in it for the freedom to have sex, etc. Many scientific papers talk about how a gay couple can just as sufficiently bring up a child as anyone else…

Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)

Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)

Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)

And there are many more.

As for (your lack of) morals and personal feelings, those kinds of things should never be permitted to govern or have strong influence on a state, true some people oppose gays on religious grounds, I'm not opposing gays nearly as much as I'm defending the basic composite of modern civilization, its demise means ultimate death and the takeover by those with the strenght and structure to do so,

here we go again, jumping to radical conclusions. And anyway, it sounds like people with more strength and structure will be taking over, which surely would only strengthen modern civilisation.

heck look at the muslims, at this rate Europe will be dead in a century due to abortion, low birth rates, destruction of family etc.,

anti-gays, anti-muslims, dude, what is your problem. Muslims have nothing to do with the declining birth rate, and anyway, the world is over-populated anyway (do you want me to out in links to papers that prove that?)

because of nothing more than simple demographics, and gay rights will be a moot point since they'll (the gays) be hanging off the ends of rope.

most of your arguement is based around the nation that most of society is against it. Stop going by what a few papers say, or what American elections say, and ask the billions of people who live on this planet. Only then can you use figures correctly. And seeing as I doubt your (obviously great) powers can do that, come up with a new argument.

 

[bshoc]

You're totally opposing gays. You're completely adhering to the stereotype of ignorant homophobe.

Ah yes your classic fallback when you cant actually adress anything I said - you cant attack the content so you attack the person. Really you liberals are so unoriginal its not even funny.

Lets be political about this and compromise, I'll admit to being a homophobe when you admit that gays cannot begin to either concieve and compose a reasonable family unit, and that neither of those guys can crap out a baby to justify the tax benefits.

You make outrageous statements (such as that Europe will die out, or that "everyone knows [insert inane statement here]")

Well look at the demographics, notable scholars like Samuel Huntington and [SIZE=-1]Bernard Lewis, as well a politicians like Pat Buchanan, are all saying the same thing, that demographically Europe will be dead soon, if birthrates are any indication there will be more muslims than any other group in a few decades in counties like Frrance[/SIZE], their economies are stagnant, their demography is dying because of the destruction of tradition, marriage and abortion, ofcourse they're doomed.

you can't back up, interspersed with inappropriate insults towards anyone you disagree with. You've repeated the same 2 or 3 ridiculous attempts at argument for pages now, and it obviously hasn't gotten you anywhere.

I've backed up everything unlike you, heck I even noted authors, scholars, people whose opinions are of value

and you whats been your argument, whining about how much gay love eachother whilst ignoring the simple fact that that alone in no way provides an excuse?

Ignoring the fact that gay marriage was outlawed just two short years ago?

It seems clear that reality is concept that you have no ability or intrest in grasping.

Gay marriage will happen. It's just a matter of time.

No it wont, becuase there will always be too many centrists, nationalists, christians and conservatives to allow it, the left here, in the US and so forth is dying away, I suppose gays could always move to Europe thought, that would be nice.

 

[bshoc]

Didn't you claim you had "nothing against" gay people?

This reflects that I hate gay people how? No I cant say that I hate gay people personally, but people like you surely make it a tempting prospect, I mean at this rate you lefties and agenda gays are going to incur such a backlash if you even touch things like marriage.

 

[dagwoman]

Admitting something evident to everyone but you is somehow a compromise? I've already given you evidence of happy, functional gay families, many pages ago, when I mentioned the Rainbow Babies and gave a link to a website about a project on gay families in the US. Whenever I make a claim I back it up. And we've already discussed the structure of the government and how the Marriage Amendment was passed.

http://www.glrl.org.au/issues/family.html

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

"96 percent of all U.S. counties have at least one same-sex couple with children under 18 in the household, Census 2000 reveals. "
http://www.urban.org/publications/900626.html

http://www.family2000.org.uk/gay & lesbian families.htm

Want more?

 

[bshoc]

so what about the countless gays who want a family and aren’t just in it for the freedom to have sex, etc. Many scientific papers talk about how a gay couple can just as sufficiently bring up a child as anyone else…

Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior 167 (1986)

Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)

Ricketts, Wendell; "Lesbians and Gay Men as Foster Parents" (University of Southern Maine, 1992)

And there are many more.

Yeah agenda scholarship at its finest, plenty of whacko lefties in academia, thats why there must be a habit of actually verifying scholars rather than just quoting random ones.

"Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy 55" LOL I'll take your word for it, no really ..

here we go again, jumping to radical conclusions. And anyway, it sounds like people with more strength and structure will be taking over, which surely would only strengthen modern civilisation.

It will destroy the current structure and turn it into a simple right to have sex, its not a radical conclusion, its a fact of life.

anti-gays, anti-muslims, dude, what is your problem. Muslims have nothing to do with the declining birth rate, and anyway, the world is over-populated anyway (do you want me to out in links to papers that prove that?)

The world is overpopulated in places like India and China which practically house half of the world, here in the west there is underpopulation. Muslims do have something to do with the declining birthrate since they're mainting highly posative ones whilst generations of Europeans are cutting theirs in half.

most of your arguement is based around the nation that most of society is against it. Stop going by what a few papers say, or what American elections say, and ask the billions of people who live on this planet. Only then can you use figures correctly. And seeing as I doubt your (obviously great) powers can do that, come up with a new argument.

Well gay marraige is illigal to most of the world, heck some countries still execute gays, your point is moot. Elections and demographic surveys are the ways we guage opinions, I'm sorry if you cant handle the facts.