Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Roboooo]

actually obviously there's no teaching you, you'll just post serveral posts individually to people who disagree with you in an attempt to make it appear that more people are like you.

I'll have one last attempt but.

Your homework is to actually speak to a gay person- because it sounds like you never have, if you had you'd see they are people.

not a group of people trying to steal your tax dollars.

Although it is questionable whether you work, or for that matter even live in Australia again reinforcing my idiot theory.

 

[Xayma]

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.

Well you settle for nothing less than a census but a poll is a good indicator, and I doubt the margin of error was 10%.

I don't see how it is likely, given it was defeated in the Republican controlled senate and the senate is now democratically controlled (and even if all the absentees voted it still wouldn't have passed) and only one of the republican senators who voted against it was defeated in reelection. You have a much harder time convincing people to vote against something that won't effect their state.

 

[coco89]

eww gays! dun hate em coz im religous just coz well.... their gay!
quite simple actually

 

[Xayma]

eww gays! dun hate em coz im religous just coz well.... their gay!
quite simple actually

Such a substantial argument you have there. I don't like people who do not use capitals but clearly have a working shift key since they use exclamation marks. Not because I'm religious, just because they can't, or choose not to type correctly.

Quite simple actually.

Why don't you give a fucking reason why you dislike homosexuals. Your statement says nothing about the quality that homosexuals have that you dislike. Is it because some males you might fancy won't fancy you?

Is it the sex? In which case you are ignoring the straight people who choose to partake in similar activities (such as anal sex) and generalising to all homosexual people who will all have sex that way.

 

[S1M0]

eww gays! dun hate em coz im religous just coz well.... their gay!
quite simple actually

Hey mate, welcome to the politics area of the forum. Some ground rules you need to survive here

1. Consider this like a legal debate. Always provide genuine reasons and provide evidence or else you'll be flamed so hard you wont know what hit you.
2. People will tend to criticise EVERYTHING about your argument. A reflection of real-life politics i guess.
3. Stay the hell away from AryanBeauty.

 

[bshoc]

That bill did not ban gay marriage in Australia (it was never legalised in the first place). That bill was simply an attempt by the Howard government to kick the feet out from under the ALP. The bill, in essence, only re-inforced what was already enacted. Its purpose was to get the ALP to say "no, you're so homophobic John Howard" - hence appealing to the bigoted elements of Australian society (in attempting to portray Labor as their enemy).

The reason why Labor supported it, was because it didn't really offer anything new. It simple confirmed what was already in place.

Thats a common misconception, since the situtation prior may have permitted certain forms of legal and political challenges due to some nature of ambiguity that could be exploited, this is impossbile now.

And since when is being against gay marriage make someone a bigot? You're as much a bigot as anyone else unless you expressly state that all opinions are valid, not that I would expect a scrap of intelligence from leftist retards like yourself, but still ..

 

[bshoc]

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.

Racial identity is in no way the same as personal activity.

sophistry is right

In your case? Absoultely.

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.

Then you must then be respectful and accepting of the democratic verdict of this country? You just sound like a teary eyed leftist who wants everyone to accept your stupid far left opinions.

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

Yes gays don't deserve it, anymore than anyone else deserving anything based on what they choose to f*ck.

 

[bshoc]

actually obviously there's no teaching you, you'll just post serveral posts individually to people who disagree with you in an attempt to make it appear that more people are like you.

There are more people like me, like the prime minister of this country for instance or the ruling government.

See: reality.

I'll have one last attempt but.

No thanks, since *fixing* me means brainwashing people with the same far left bullshit you've been brainwashed with.

Your homework is to actually speak to a gay person- because it sounds like you never have, if you had you'd see they are people.

not a group of people trying to steal your tax dollars.

I have spoken to and know quite a few gay people, that doesen't mean I'm going to support immoral crap people like you preach anymore than I would jump off a bridge if all gay people did or wanted it.

Although it is questionable whether you work, or for that matter even live in Australia again reinforcing my idiot theory.

1. I work
2. I live in Australia

As for you idiot theory, you may have to put some effort into considering the chances of a non-Australian actively discussing Australian politics ON A BOARD MAINLY FOR NSW HSC STUDENTS, and although I know that thinking is not exactly the lefts' forte, lets be honest here for a second: You're a moron.

 

[KFunk]

... Since when is being against gay marriage make someone a bigot? You're as much a bigot as anyone else unless you expressly state that all opinions are valid, not that I would expect a scrap of intelligence from leftist retards like yourself, but still...

Whether or not a person is a bigot depends on the justification they have for their seemingly bigoted comments. Taking a wikipedia definition "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." Of course, I have little to say about your arguments based on religious rules (that being, as usual, between you and your god) however, most of your other arguments have presented as relatively unconvincing, and when pushed you tend to come out with statements like these:

I value social conhesion over petty social crusades. Plus the very nature of homosexuality is disgusting and subhuman, who the hell wants to give rights to people just because they fudgepack for a living?

Homosexuality is no better than screwing animals or pedophilia, it disgusting, its wrong, violates countless religions, and will never under any circumstances be something acceptable. People aren't allowed to to do certain things for reasons, just because someone wishes to screw another man, or evade taxes, or deal drugs, doesen't mean it should be accepted by society or allowed, hasn't history taugh this lesson already? If you dont set limits, society is destroyed.

I apologise for throwing these at you (especially after having already dug up some statements you made in the abortion thread) but can you not see how statments like "homosexuality is disgusting and subhuman" are bigoted? Being against gay marriage is not, in itself, enough to make one a bigot but when backed up with claims like the ones quoted above I find that the 'bigot' description, as taken from wikipedia, starts to match.

 

[bshoc]

Whether or not a person is a bigot depends on the justification they have for their seemingly bigoted comments. Taking a wikipedia definition "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." Of course, I have little to say about your arguments based on religious rules (that being, as usual, between you and your god) however, most of your other arguments have presented as relatively unconvincing, and when pushed you tend to come out with statements like these:

I apologise for throwing these at you (especially after having already dug up some statements you made in the abortion thread) but can you not see how statments like "homosexuality is disgusting and subhuman" are bigoted? Being against gay marriage is not, in itself, enough to make one a bigot but when backed up with claims like the ones quoted above I find that the 'bigot' description, as taken from wikipedia, starts to match.

This makes everyone a bigot, because everyone is prejudiced and everyone is intolerant or dissmissive of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. Your intolerance for conservative opinions being one, and our disagreement with nazis on the final solution would make us both bigots already.

Hence my earlier point on the fact that bigot is a catchphrase that means nothing.

 

[KFunk]

This makes everyone a bigot, because everyone is prejudiced and everyone is intolerant or dissmissive of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from their own. Your intolerance for conservative opinions being one, and our disagreement with nazis on the final solution would make us both bigots already.

Hence my earlier point on the fact that bigot is a catchphrase that means nothing.

This is probably the most I've agreed with you for a while. Yes, we are all bigoted to an extent. To quote the broadway muppet musical Avenue Q "Everyone's a little bit racist". However, I still stand by my point that bigotry depends largely on justification. Yes, I am intolerant of conservative view points but that they frustrate me sometimes makes no good logical case against them. When I take issue with your arguments it is generally on logical grounds. The thing I take issue against is when arguments boil down to bigotry. I can accept a conservative view if it is well justified and I am willing to overcome my prejudices to do so. That we are all bigoted in some way isn't really under question, rather the issue is using bigoted views as the basis for arguments. I will never be able to stand for human rights issues being 'solved' using bigoted premises. The thing I always find it hardest to tolerate is intolerance itself.

 

[bshoc]

This is probably the most I've agreed with you for a while. Yes, we are all bigoted to an extent. To quote the broadway muppet musical Avenue Q "Everyone's a little bit racist". However, I still stand by my point that bigotry depends largely on justification. Yes, I am intolerant of conservative view points but that they frustrate me sometimes makes no good logical case against them. When I take issue with your arguments it is generally on logical grounds. The thing I take issue against is when arguments boil down to bigotry. I can accept a conservative view if it is well justified and I am willing to overcome my prejudices to do so. That we are all bigoted in some way isn't really under question, rather the issue is using bigoted views as the basis for arguments. I will never be able to stand for human rights issues being 'solved' using bigoted premises. The thing I always find it hardest to tolerate is intolerance itself.

Bigot is simply a word to protray differences in opinion in a negative way, thats all.

Any time we disagree, you see my arguements as illogical, which is the same way I view yours, I expect you commonly find yourself thinking "If only person x could understand or look at the issue the same way as me - he/she could understand." Thats the way its has always been, but in our democratic society your opinion on its own does not matter, only if there are more people who agree with KFunk or more people who agree with Bshoc. And if the proof truly is in the pudding, this is reality or law, it must be logically derived that more people agree with Bshoc.

 

[KFunk]

Thats the way its has always been, but in our democratic society your opinion on its own does not matter, only if there are more people who agree with KFunk or more people who agree with Bshoc. And if the proof truly is in the pudding, this is reality or law, it must be logically derived that more people agree with Bshoc.

Things are not so simple. Can we trust laws which are put in place without female consent (prior to suffrage)? What about elections where politicians own broadcasting companies and are able to exert an unfair advantage through advertising? What about individuals who vote for politicians using a 'lesser of two evils' reasoning when they don't have a candidate who stands for their views? Law does not stand in one to one correspondance with the beliefs of the people. On the notion of 'the popular view = right' see the lefties/greenies thread.

 

[bshoc]

Things are not so simple. Can we trust laws which are put in place without female consent (prior to suffrage)? What about elections where politicians own broadcasting companies and are able to exert an unfair advantage through advertising? What about individuals who vote for politicians using a 'lesser of two evils' reasoning when they don't have a candidate who stands for their views? Law does not stand in one to one correspondance with the beliefs of the people. On the notion of 'the popular view = right' see the lefties/greenies thread.

Democracy can be trusted to create the appropriate outcomes, for example even if you are voting for the lesser of two evils you're still creating the best outcome you can, it all comes down to power, whether its a dictator weighting up options in his head, or 12 million people doing the same thing.

 

[KFunk]

Whether democracy can be trusted to create the appropriate outcomes seems to me to be an empirical matter, as it requires to determine whether, and if so how frequently, democracy creates the appropriate outcomes. I don't think that either of us possess the knowledge required to determine the answer so I'll have to suspend judgement on this one for now.

Once again commenting on your 'majority belief = what is right' proposition:

Such a system allows things like genital mutilation for women which makes it seem dubious to me from the outset. I'd happily debate this further with you if you wish, though I'm unsure which thread to do it in.

 

[bshoc]

Once again commenting on your 'majority belief = what is right' proposition:

"Right" is only subjective, its not "what is right" , its merely "what is"

Such a system allows things like genital mutilation for women which makes it seem dubious to me from the outset. I'd happily debate this further with you if you wish, though I'm unsure which thread to do it in.

Here you go again bringing in irrelevant and unrelated cultures into an argument so clearly being made in a western/european one.

 

[KFunk]

Seeing as our multiple threads of debate seem to be converging towards a similar point I'm going to move the discussion to the abortion thread where I feel discussions of ethics/morality are more appropriate.

 

[isograph]

Yes gays don't deserve it, anymore than anyone else deserving anything based on what they choose to f*ck.

So marriage is only about sex?

Something that really annoys me are people who think sexuality is a choice. Pure ignorance.

 

[terces]

No problem with gays.

P.S - adopting children should be prohibited.

 

[Jachie]

Ridiculous poll options. People who claim they "strongly" or "somewhat" support homosexuality are fools. It's a simple question. You're either okay with it, or you're not. There's no extreme, and there's no real middle-ground.

I understand that religion means some people do not agree with homosexuality, but that's only one portion of who they are as people. Sexuality does not solely define who someone is, and to like or dislike someone based purely on that factor is incredibly ignorant. I mean, surely religion also dictates to hate the "sin", not the person? Surely religions such as Christianity are based on love, not hate?

I know there are many Christians who AREN'T the self-righteous homophobes that some people and medias portray them to be. I have a friend who has grown up in a very strong and devout Christian family, and who has a gay uncle. Obviously her family do not like the fact that he's gay, because according to the Bible it's a sin and what have you, but that doesn't stop them from loving and supporting him. He has been with his "life partner" for going on 20 years now, and my friend insists they're one of the most functional and in-love couples she's ever known.

It's just a shame that there are those fucking religious nutters who want to judge and discriminate people because they're not the ideal human their God had in mind. They make up a small minority, but that still doesn't change the fact they seem to represent the "stereotypical" Christian.

As for gay marriage, no one has the right to take that away from someone. Not you, not I, not the government. I find it disgusting that gay marriage has been banned. What do we think we're trying to accomplish here? I mean, what's next, are we going to ban the Chines from tying the knot with whites because mixed races "aren't natural"?

People suck.