Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[dagwoman]

Perhaps it's because your argument has no good reasoning behind it. I've asked you several times to state the grounds for why you disagree with gay marriage, the basis of the discussion right now, and you've refused to answer.

 

[bshoc]

Perhaps it's because your argument has no good reasoning behind it. I've asked you several times to state the grounds for why you disagree with gay marriage, the basis of the discussion right now, and you've refused to answer.

I did so many times on the last few pages, maybe if you learned to read and have an intelligible discussion rather ignoring whole slabs of my post just so you can say "you never stated any grounds" .. and thats why I've lost interest.

Now as the victor I must present concluding statements ..

Most importantly, you probably dont care about why the majority of people oppose it, hence your reason for ignoring all the arguments, the same way I don't care why a minority are for it. All I can say as a concluding statement is - hey guess what, gay marriage is illegal and laws exist for reasons.

 

[dagwoman]

"as the victor"-how arrogant do you want to be??

No, you didn't. You'd say things like "marriage is the way it is for a reason" and you never answered how YOU personally think gay marriage could be bad for society or you personally. If you want to leave the argument because you've got nothing more to say, fine, but don't act as if you've "won" the discussion. It just makes you look bad.

 

[ur_inner_child]

bshoc, obviously you are not arguing about a right to marriage and its definition.

Moreso, whether homosexuality is a natural human condition, rather than some random fetish.

Marriage has changed over the years, legally and socially, but I feel that marriage in a modern day sense, its very core of it, marriage is for love.

Thus we must discuss, is homosexuality natural?

Is homosexuality love?

 

[dagwoman]

Yes, it is natural. There was a documentary recently about the incidence of homosexuality in nature, which apparently blasted a bunch of people's misconceptions that it was unnatural. It was called "Out in Nature":

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0422898/

And hell yes it's love!

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Hey why are we debating how many gays and lesbians there are? I actually think Bshocs figure is about right. It's just that now that it has become so cool and alternative every second person thinks they're bi- screws with the statistics.

Homosexuality is natural.

Bshoc the reason people say you have not given proper arguments is that you make claims, such as the one aobut homosexuals being 5 times more likely to be paedophiles, and then you ignore the replies in favour of 'it's wrong, its not normal, the government disagrees with you'

 

[dagwoman]

I think basically everyone is bi to some degree. I agree with Kinsey's theory with his scale of 1 to 6, 1 being exclusively heterosexual in preference and practice, and 6 being exclusively homosexual, with the majority of the population lying somewhere in the middle. It's just a matter of the experiences you have in life, who you meet and are attracted to etc. to realise it.

 

[Bricktop]

I think basically everyone is bi to some degree. I agree with Kinsey's theory with his scale of 1 to 6, 1 being exclusively heterosexual in preference and practice, and 6 being exclusively homosexual, with the majority of the population lying somewhere in the middle. It's just a matter of the experiences you have in life, who you meet and are attracted to etc. to realise it.

Yeah*








*no.

 

[townie]

I love this:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in Australia.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

QUOTED FOR FUCKING TRUTH

 

[dagwoman]

Huh? I haven't really gotten a grasp on the "QFT" function/purpose/reasoning.

 

[dagwoman]

You're saying that homosexuality originates from some kind of trauma or abuse? That's homophobic bull.

And as for the second bit, if homosexuality was going to be attractive to someone for any reason, its acceptance would not be it. Whywould someone pretend they were gay if they weren't? They'd have absolutely nothing to gain except homophobia from society and sex from people they aren't attracted to.

 

[blue_chameleon]

...It's just a matter of the experiences you have in life, who you meet and are attracted to etc. to realise it.

Before posting comments regarding this, realise this is only a theory I have been considering, and im in no way shape or form claiming its one that I hold. I have simply been considering it based off nothing more than first hand knowledge and interaction with a sample of the gay community.

One theory I propose is that a large majority of the bisexual/gay/lesbian community have been heavily influenced through life experiences, rather than the notion of homosexuality through genetics. Issues such as abuse, neglection, loneliness, and trauma resulting from relationship breakups, are some of the reasons that I propose lead some people to dramatically alter sections of their personality or lifestyle in order to prevent such experiences from occuring again.

So the question I pose is this:

If homosexuality is becoming more of a lifestyle choice made attractive through its alternativeness and acceptance from all (within the homosexual community), does this pose an issue in regards to validating exactly who is genuine about their orientation and feelings?

 

[blue_chameleon]

You're saying that homosexuality originates from some kind of trauma or abuse? That's homophobic bull.

And as for the second bit, if homosexuality was going to be attractive to someone for any reason, its acceptance would not be it. Whywould someone pretend they were gay if they weren't? They'd have absolutely nothing to gain except homophobia from society and sex from people they aren't attracted to.

I deleted the other post I made, but ive added something which was important to everyone that read it. And no, im in no way homophobic, dagwoman.

 

[dieburndie]

Now as the victor I must present concluding statements ...

Hey has this ever happened before?
I think this is just a game now, that you consider yourself the victor proves once again that you are insane. You're above admitting fault at all in any given argument ever.
Narcissism has it's place when it is justified in some form, but it is blatantly obvious when you appeal to stereotypes and contradictory reasoning to make your points that you're retarded and all you are within this forum is an absolute fucking joke. That's all.

"no you are you homo-loving hippie lefty scum"

 

[dagwoman]

Why is your post now after mine? The one above yours is in response to it...

 

[dagwoman]

blue chameleon, I don't see what you've changed. Regardless of whether you believe your theory or have just considered it, the idea that homosexuality is often in response to a trauma or abuse is a homophobic one. It implies homosexuality is not a natural thing, but a defence mechanism of some sort.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

One theory I propose is that a large majority of the bisexual/gay/lesbian community have been heavily influenced through life experiences, rather than the notion of homosexuality through genetics. Issues such as abuse, neglection, loneliness, and trauma resulting from relationship breakups, are some of the reasons that I propose lead some people to (in some cases) drastically alter sections of their personality or lifestyle in order to prevent such experiences from occuring again.

But hasn't this shown to be wrong in many tests which were posted much earlier in the life of this thread? I'll try to dig them up for you.

If homosexuality is becoming more of a lifestyle choice made attractive through its alternativeness and acceptance from all (within the homosexual community), does this pose an issue in regards to validating exactly who is genuine about their orientation and feelings?

In what way exactly is this an issue? Even if people are merely feigning their homosexuality (something I truly doubt happens on any wide-scale) what does this matter ?

 

[dieburndie]

I think calling that homophobic is a stretch. Are you saying that homosexual inclinations can never be the result of trauma and such?
Being sexually abused in childhood can cause a lot of confusion. And I don't think saying that there can be other determining factors in someone's sexuality makes someone homophobic at all.

 

[townie]

Huh? I haven't really gotten a grasp on the "QFT" function/purpose/reasoning.

it's used to reaffirm a statement made by another person, and to say their words speak for themselves.

whilst i realise it;s satire, it's funny, and makes u think

 

[blue_chameleon]

blue chameleon, I don't see what you've changed. Regardless of whether you believe your theory or have just considered it, the idea that homosexuality is often in response to a trauma or abuse is a homophobic one. It implies homosexuality is not a natural thing, but a defence mechanism of some sort.

No, I stated that there are indeed people that are natural homosexuals through genetic makeup. Although im suggesting that not everyone that says they are infact homosexual, has the natural genetic makeup. Rather, that there is a percentage of the homosexual community that instead through life experiences, be them good or bad, have been influenced into changing their lifestyle "coming out of the closet" to one they are more comfortable with. Im asking that with this in mind, would this group pose a threat to the validity of genetically natural homosexuals in the community.