Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

The Democrats may unfortunately have dwindled, yet it is nonetheless unacceptable to spell epitomise with a 'z' in Australia. How well do you know your own country? To conclude that these are my only arguments is specious.

I don't know exactly how well I know Australia, but probably alot better than anyone who thinks that gay marriage will actually happen here and not be repealed overseas, for example its very likely that gay marriage will be repealed in Massachusetts next year, the conservative party in Canada was elected by a great majority partially as a response to the Canadian gay marriage bill, its not a trend, its just a concentrated social fad from a group of people who have always been a minority of the population.

I presented the data from the poll as initial evidence. If you would like, I could find results from other polls on this topic to corroborate.

I'm not the one who made a stupid statement and didn't back it up, theres a certain level of proof one has to present when making such unfounded statements, and I'm sorry but your far-left gayfest simply does not cut it.

If it is a 'pretty well documented phenomenon', then where is your documentation? Contentions must be examined.

Find any election statistic for past elections you want, Labor and the Greens have a large youth vote that they eventually lose, although even that is declining now.

There is a clear global trend for the legal recognition of same-sex unions, with a number of states and countries adopting this resolution in the past decade.

Its nowhere near a "clear global trend," it is at best a clear social democratic trend in countries where people lean that way, mianly northern and parts of western Europe, outside that, nope.

 

[Roboooo]

I don't know exactly how well I know Australia, but probably alot better than anyone who thinks that gay marriage will actually happen here and not be repealed overseas, for example its very likely that gay marriage will be repealed in Massachusetts next year, the conservative party in Canada was elected by a great majority partially as a response to the Canadian gay marriage bill, its not a trend, its just a concentrated social fad from a group of people who have always been a minority of the population.

Phuff denying marriage to homosexuals is a direct violation to the rights of humanity.

I don't have to be gay to say this because of course it is true. Like the White Australia policy before it the ban on homosexual marriages in Australia will not last.

I trust australia will make the right choice sooner or later.

 

[bshoc]

Phuff denying marriage to homosexuals is a direct violation to the rights of humanity.

Homosexuals have the same access to marriage rights as you, me or anyone else.

I don't have to be gay to say this because of course it is true. Like the White Australia policy before it the ban on homosexual marriages in Australia will not last.

Homosexual marriage is not illigal just because of the ban, that ban was to mainly prevent any sort of creative tampering by activist judges, in truth the Australian legal system at no point in time has ever paved the way for them.

I trust australia will make the right choice sooner or later.

Australia has already made the right choice, and the age of overt liberalism is coming to an end, grow up.

 

[Roboooo]

1

 

[bshoc]

1)you say homosexuals have access to the same marriage rights? Can they get married? If not then no they don't. So we argree they don't...yet.

Yes homosexuals can get married as easily as anyone else, there's nothing preventing gay bob and dyke jenny from marrying.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage&x=0&y=0

mar·riage
–noun 1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

2) You say something about the legal system not paving the way for homosexuals. Well if i knew more about the details I could argue this point more. However Here's the declaration of human rights, does not Australia claim to follow it?

Relevant points from the declaration of human rights

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

I could post more but you won't read it. the whole document screams for homosexual marriages to be legal but. Is this not a pavement? I understand there are many situation in the world when this document is not followed. But this is Australia and if there is any place where such ideals cam be held i believe it to be here

No you're being creative:

1. Because marriage IS the union of a man and a woman, thats just the plain definition of the word, and thats what the writers of the document you site had in mind. There is no such thing as a "gay marriage," its an oxymoron. That clause only paves the way for marriage in the normal sense of the word, there is no "without any limitation based on gender," "man and man," or "woman and woman" specification, nor can homosexuals found families anyway. Ever see a gay man crap out a baby? When you do maybe you can seriously start whining about the subject.

2. International declarations and laws are non-binding in the proper sense of the word, our local law and constitution supercede it entirely, international law is at most a point of referece, nothing more. Not that it matters since the document you site doesen't recognize gay marriage as a form of marriage anyway, the ultimate giveaway is that it was written in 1948, at a time when liberals were not yet brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality was indeed something positive or worthy of recognition.

Yes well i hope i don't cause offence and i simply wanted to argue that 1)homosexuals aren't currently intitled to the same marriage rights because they cannot marry and 2) there is pavement.

Well I hope you now see how your are wrong on both counts.

I'm not suggesting you're a biggoted idiot who is against homosexuals, just arguing a point that they aren't entitled to the same rights. Do you even live in Australia?

Yes, and so do the overwhelming majority in this country who do not support gay marriage, in any country where it was put to a vote, gay marriage failed by margins.

Personally i support gay marriage. One of by best friends is gay and we talk about this subject sometimes.

Wow what a totaly valid reason for supporting gay marriage </sarcasm>, although to be fair you do make an excellent case as to why voting rights should be restricted to certain indaviduals lol

 

[Roboooo]

Look at yourself you are a bigot, who are you? I know actually

Your the haters, the terrorists, the murders, the racists, the blockers and the hypocrites. They like you are jaded.

your defination of marriage is outdated.

your understanding of the purpose of marriage is false. Do all marriages result in children?

Thankfully not everyone is like you, i'm not.

And thank God that i, the free world and the rest of compassionate humanity can vote

Look above you buddy. If this was an bill to be placed through parliament it would have a thunderous approval

211 support! more than double the against.

motion forwarded- and again they cannot get "married" in Australia yet, what planet are you living on?

 

[goldendawn]

I don't know exactly how well I know Australia, but probably alot better than anyone who thinks that gay marriage will actually happen here and not be repealed overseas, for example its very likely that gay marriage will be repealed in Massachusetts next year, the conservative party in Canada was elected by a great majority partially as a response to the Canadian gay marriage bill, its not a trend, its just a concentrated social fad from a group of people who have always been a minority of the population.



I'm not the one who made a stupid statement and didn't back it up, theres a certain level of proof one has to present when making such unfounded statements, and I'm sorry but your far-left gayfest simply does not cut it.



Find any election statistic for past elections you want, Labor and the Greens have a large youth vote that they eventually lose, although even that is declining now.



Its nowhere near a "clear global trend," it is at best a clear social democratic trend in countries where people lean that way, mianly northern and parts of western Europe, outside that, nope.

Sophistry, speculation and prevarication do not amount to an argument. If you should find solid evidence to clearly support your contentions, then you would be worthy of the discussion. Without clearly articulated ideas and evidence to support them, there is little reason to humour you.

 

[kow_dude]

It apparently saved my friend's life.

Really? How so?

 

[KFunk]

BShoc - what if, instead of marriage, we used the term 'civil union'. Why should we deny homsexual couples the right to recieve the same benefits from the state that heterosexual ones recieve?

 

[kami]

BShoc - what if, instead of marriage, we used the term 'civil union'. Why should we deny homsexual couples the right to recieve the same benefits from the state that heterosexual ones recieve?

Why use the term exclusively for homosexual relationships though? Wouldn't that simply denote a separation of what one recieves and experiences in comparison to the other? (and perhaps even societal devaluation of civil union, though not legislative devaluation)

bcoz it conflicts with the family law act

Then it could be amended.

 

[KFunk]

Why use the term exclusively for homosexual relationships though? Wouldn't that simply denote a separation of what one recieves and experiences in comparison to the other? (and perhaps even societal devaluation of civil union, though not legislative devaluation)

The main reason I suggest it is because 'marriage' is tied up with a lot of religious institutions and within those institutions it is often blasphemous to consider a marriage between two individuals of the same sex. As far as I'm concerned, what's acceptable within a religious institution is between them and their god, even if I disagree with their beliefs. I don't think the right to be united before another's god is one that homosexuals can ask for given the rigid belief systems present in most religions. However, I see no good reason why a homosexual couple should not recieve the same state benefits as a heterosexual one. Homosexuals need a way to demonstrate their commitment to their relationship (as with marriage) but which is seperated from those religious institutions which would cast them out of society as sinners - hence I use the term 'civil union'. It saves you from bshocs frequent retort that 'marriage is a ceremony which is exclusive to heterosexual couples, etc.'... it might also save the couples themselves from having their 'weddings/unions' picketed by religious conservatives.

Would civil unions make homosexuals equal? No, they wouldn't. As long as doctrines exist which condemn homosexual behaviour/relationships the social status of homosexuals will be diminished wherever those doctrines are most influential. We can't really force people to change their beliefs (in particular their religious ones), but I think we ought to, at the very least, make our legal treatment of people as equal as possible.

 

[Xayma]

I don't know exactly how well I know Australia, but probably alot better than anyone who thinks that gay marriage will actually happen here and not be repealed overseas, for example its very likely that gay marriage will be repealed in Massachusetts next year, the conservative party in Canada was elected by a great majority partially as a response to the Canadian gay marriage bill, its not a trend, its just a concentrated social fad from a group of people who have always been a minority of the population.

A great majority? You must be fucking kidding.

I don't know how anyone can call 36% of the vote a great majority (given it is 14% off a majority). The margin between liberal and conservatives was about the same as that of the 2004 election. They are still worse off then the two independent parties were at the 2000 election in terms of total votes. Also the conservative party is still a minority government.

Also the majority of people in Canada (according to every poll I've seen) don't want the debate reopened. Even in the conservatives a large percentage (although not the majority) want the issue to be left alone. Also those who grew up in Canada are even less likely to oppose same sex marriage.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/poll.html

# 66 per cent say the issue of same-sex marriage is settled and should not be addressed again.

More cared about whether Quebec should become independent (which has been going on for ages).

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050718/same_sex_poll_050718/20050718/

A new poll of 1,000 Canadians conducted by The Strategic Counsel for CTV/The Globe and Mail finds 55 per cent of those surveyed say the next government should let same-sex marriage legislation stand.

Thirty-nine per cent said they would like to see Bill C-38 repealed, and six per cent said they did not know.

Also it isn't very likely that it will be repealed in Massachusetts, a number of court cases have to go and make legislators vote on the issue of it appearing in a ballot and even then has to be agreed to by a number of legislators which is being delayed.

Also republicans the main proponents of overturning the ruling lost seats at the last election (in 04 when Bush was still pretty popular) and also support for same sex marriage has been growing in Massachusetts. Also the legislators opposed an admendment which would have overruled the judgement.

 

[isograph]

Sophistry, speculation and prevarication do not amount to an argument. If you should find solid evidence to clearly support your contentions, then you would be worthy of the discussion. Without clearly articulated ideas and evidence to support them, there is little reason to humour you.

I didnt know what sophistry meant so i looked it up... it describes exactly how bshoc argues. Sometimes i think that he cant possibly believe in what he says.

 

[bshoc]

BShoc - what if, instead of marriage, we used the term 'civil union'. Why should we deny homsexual couples the right to recieve the same benefits from the state that heterosexual ones recieve?

Because they don't deserve them? Governments need taxes and we can't afford to give tax breaks to people who are by choice 100% unable to concieve children and provide suitable family circumstances. Plus the whole concept of a civil union is far too much recognition - hospital visitation rights, access to eachothers super - fine - family tax breaks and child adoption rights - no way.

 

[bshoc]

I didnt know what sophistry meant so i looked it up... it describes exactly how bshoc argues. Sometimes i think that he cant possibly believe in what he says.

Guess that means our legal system is sophistrous too ..

 

[bshoc]

Look at yourself you are a bigot, who are you? I know actually

Your the haters, the terrorists, the murders, the racists, the blockers and the hypocrites. They like you are jaded.

your defination of marriage is outdated.

Bigot is catchphrase that means nothing, everyone is essentially a bigot, including you apprently, since you neither accept or tolerate a centrist or conservative viewpoint.

your understanding of the purpose of marriage is false. Do all marriages result in children?

No, but all marriages are between men and women.

Thankfully not everyone is like you, i'm not.

Good for you.

And thank God that i, the free world and the rest of compassionate humanity can vote

Yes you can vote, but apparently, you don't have enough votes to direct you radical leftist views upon society, and I think we can both thank god for that.

Look above you buddy. If this was an bill to be placed through parliament it would have a thunderous approval

211 support! more than double the against.

Ok now you're just getting delusional, afterall the bill to directly ban any notion of gay marriage in Australian society passed through both houses of government with "thunderous" bipartisan approval.

You lose.

motion forwarded- and again they cannot get "married" in Australia yet, what planet are you living on?

Well actually they cannot get "married" in Australia at all and that is very unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

 

[bshoc]

Sophistry, speculation and prevarication do not amount to an argument. If you should find solid evidence to clearly support your contentions, then you would be worthy of the discussion. Without clearly articulated ideas and evidence to support them, there is little reason to humour you.

Where exactly is evidence lacking? Last time I checked you were the one who made an outrageous claim and then failed to present anything other than an irrelevant far left source.

 

[bshoc]

A great majority? You must be fucking kidding.

I don't know how anyone can call 36% of the vote a great majority (given it is 14% off a majority). The margin between liberal and conservatives was about the same as that of the 2004 election. They are still worse off then the two independent parties were at the 2000 election in terms of total votes. Also the conservative party is still a minority government.

Also the majority of people in Canada (according to every poll I've seen) don't want the debate reopened. Even in the conservatives a large percentage (although not the majority) want the issue to be left alone. Also those who grew up in Canada are even less likely to oppose same sex marriage.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/analysiscommentary/poll.html
More cared about whether Quebec should become independent (which has been going on for ages).

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050718/same_sex_poll_050718/20050718/


Also it isn't very likely that it will be repealed in Massachusetts, a number of court cases have to go and make legislators vote on the issue of it appearing in a ballot and even then has to be agreed to by a number of legislators which is being delayed.

Also republicans the main proponents of overturning the ruling lost seats at the last election (in 04 when Bush was still pretty popular) and also support for same sex marriage has been growing in Massachusetts. Also the legislators opposed an admendment which would have overruled the judgement.

a poll of 1000 people does not represent a country of 32 million, especially since every poll oversamples inner city constitutents, to put bluntly, if polls dictated outcomes, Kerry would be in the white house right now.

As for Massachusetts its actually pretty likely, as federal US politics have nothing to do state politics.

 

[kami]

The main reason I suggest it is because 'marriage' is tied up with a lot of religious institutions and within those institutions it is often blasphemous to consider a marriage between two individuals of the same sex.

I understand your viewpoint however no religious institution is required to honour a ceremony against their tenets - an example would be catholics and divorce, as a divorced person has problems wedding within that institution (I believe they can't at all but I'm not absolutely certain). Yet the legal dissolution of that marriage still exists despite its blasphemous nature.

Its also an interesting point that there are religious institutions who endorse and perform same sex marriages - it simply seems pointless (and slightly devaluating) to create a separate institution for same sex relationships.

If we're going to be redressing inequity (which we most definitely should), then I think that we might as well go the whole way.

 

[Roboooo]

Bigot is catchphrase that means nothing, everyone is essentially a bigot, including you apprently, since you neither accept or tolerate a centrist or conservative viewpoint.



No, but all marriages are between men and women.



Good for you.



Yes you can vote, but apparently, you don't have enough votes to direct you radical leftist views upon society, and I think we can both thank god for that.



Ok now you're just getting delusional, afterall the bill to directly ban any notion of gay marriage in Australian society passed through both houses of government with "thunderous" bipartisan approval.

You lose.



Well actually they cannot get "married" in Australia at all and that is very unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

What you say doesn't make sense, jumping about here and there in an attempt to justify your prejudices. Reading through what you've written I find it hard to understand what you are saying, you are obviously an ethnocentric individual who is speciously, however poorly, attempting to justify an opinion that is akin to racism.

sophistry is right

And this isn't about lossing or winning- and if it was you lost a long time ago, it's about equality, justice and a cohesive and acceptive society.

Gays don't deserve it? you're
Laughable!!