Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Gosford]

You realise that makes no sense whatsoever and is just a circular argument?

I don't know what would be more sad, that someone genuinely thinks like this or that someone paid money for a premium account just for the lolz.

i dont know wats more sad supproting gays or not able to hold a substantial argument like wat u r doing right now
im not going in circles u r
ive explained to u over and over again
if u dont get my OPINION
then get a life
i dont want to waste my time on people like you
as far as im concerned there is only one legititmate comeback
homosexuality isnt natural...SO what?
that is a fair statement (which some have already said)
but to say it is natural without being able to use physiology to back it up... well
i feel free to to reply to argument that i suggested on tuesday

 

[Kwayera]

not anymore marriage doesnt
i honestly dont see why people like you get married anymore
to have a party
to wear some white dress
i mean
its not to have sex, as u r already havin it
and de facto relationship after lving together for 6mths, same entitlements as if married
so in a sense for people like you marriage is useless and a waste of ur time in reality

Wow, you really know nothing about marriage at all, do you?

Marriage was instituted, long before the Bible was written, to make the husband more sure that any children that were produced were actually his - nothing about ROMANTIC implications of adultery. The practice of virginity before marriage - of females; males never had such a restriction - was to ensure that any children the woman had were those of her husband, and so ensure she hadn't been 'tainted' (either by illegitimate childbirth or sexual diseases) beforehand.

 

[Enteebee]

but to say it is natural without being able to use physiology to back it up... well

You've never explained why we should preference the natural or even why it's only in this case (and not in the case of other things we do which aren't exactly "natural") that it is affectual.

 

[Gosford]

Wow, you really know nothing about marriage at all, do you?

Marriage was instituted, long before the Bible was written, to make the husband more sure that any children that were produced were actually his - nothing about ROMANTIC implications of adultery. The practice of virginity before marriage - of females; males never had such a restriction - was to ensure that any children the woman had were those of her husband, and so ensure she hadn't been 'tainted' (either by illegitimate childbirth or sexual diseases) beforehand.

ur point
i know that
r u tryin to say that it is irrelevent now coz we have technology?
the one that u qiioted me sayin was that wats the point of marriage for u
and trust me the reason u gave may have been a major one but definately not the only one (get ur fact right)

 

[Kwayera]

ur point
i know that
r u tryin to say that it is irrelevent now coz we have technology?
the one that u qiioted me sayin was that wats the point of marriage for u
and trust me the reason u gave may have been a major one but definately not the only one (get ur fact right)

No, I gathered from your posts that you were bemoaning the loss of the romantic demands of fidelity and virginity in marriages. I was simply pointing out that in its original incarnation, romance was never the point in the first place.

 

[Gosford]

No, I gathered from your posts that you were bemoaning the loss of the romantic demands of fidelity and virginity in marriages. I was simply pointing out that in its original incarnation, romance was never the point in the first place.

my citing of romantiscism for marriage was a reason why I was abstaining
not reasons for people getting married

 

[Enteebee]

my citing of romantiscism for marriage was a reason why I was abstaining
not reasons for people getting married

You think your reasons for marriage are romantic? How is getting married for sex romantic? I find it far more romantic to be doing so for a more mutually altruistic purpose.

 

[Gosford]

You think your reasons for marriage are romantic? How is getting married for sex romantic? I find it far more romantic to be doing so for a more mutually altruistic purpose.

i didnt say i was going to get married for sex
im not that shallow unlike some people here
i would be persuaded by the want for companionship and lvoe
all i said about sex and marriage was that i woudlnt have sex until marriage
so there ur argument doesnt even make sense! (*sighs*)

 

[Enteebee]

i didnt say i was going to get married for sex
im not that shallow unlike some people here
i would be persuaded by the want for companionship and lvoe
all i said about sex and marriage was that i woudlnt have sex until marriage
so there ur argument doesnt even make sense! (*sighs*)

Then... why do you say "I don't even understand why you people bother getting married" when you clearly understand that there is more to marriage than sex?

 

[Gosford]

Then... why do you say "I don't even understand why you people bother getting married" when you clearly understand that there is more to marriage than sex?

wat else is their left for u and ur bf
u dont have to get married to live together
i was sayin u can do everything a married couple can do now

 

[Enteebee]

wat else is their left for u and ur bf
u dont have to get married to live together
i was sayin u can do everything a married couple can do now

... To make a declaration of your 'eternal' love for one another in front of your friends, a promise to each other to be faithful etc. All the other (perhaps more abstract, romantic) stuff associated with marriage rather than sex prohibition is still possible if all you've done is had sex before marriage.

 

[Gosford]

... To make a declaration of your 'eternal' love for one another in front of your friends, a promise to each other to be faithful etc. All the other (perhaps more abstract, romantic) stuff associated with marriage than sex prohibition is still possible if all you've done is had sex before marriage.

so thats why
doesnt have as many positives as it used to
any other reasons
(if anything it must seem like a drag to all of you,a promise to be faithful, i mean having sex with only one person, man that must be hard for u guys)

 

[poloktim]

Wow, this thread is still going?

Sadly, there will always be disapproving voices. We've seen them in this thread (time and time and time again), but really all we can do is provide moral support to GLBT people. Let them know they have our support. Leave the aggressive in your face tactics to the hardline activists and take a more practical approach and instead of sticking up for GLBT people, let them know that regardless of what old Sandy Vagina thinks, they've not got a problem.

In other words, maybe we should focus more on supporting the gay people in our lives instead of attacking those who hate gay people.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Well that took days to clean up.

First of all, I apologise to Gosford for the abuse that came from other members. Normally such abuse doesn't end up this way. I've just been absent for a little while.

I suggest that you report bad posts that are abusive or irrelevant by using the "Report Bad Post" function (the bottom left of everyone's post), or creating a thread in the Contact Moderators Forum, giving us links and details. Reporting is totally anonymous. We will consider the report and take action if it's necessary. Also, it really helps because suppose that I'm away (which was the case), an admin or supermod can see that it needs attention. It's just nicer (and makes our job easier) if you reported bad posts, rather than responding with equally bad posts.

Secondly,

if u dont get my OPINION
then get a life
i dont want to waste my time on people like you
as far as im concerned there is only one legititmate comeback
homosexuality isnt natural...SO what?
that is a fair statement (which some have already said)
but to say it is natural without being able to use physiology to back it up.

I understand that you were (extremely) provoked, but this post stood out to me a lot. If people do not understand your opinion, you must explain it further so people eventually do. No matter how "obvious" your opinion is, you must have the ability to defend your opinion, back it up with resources (such as reliable links from the net) as well as explain it further. You cannot choose what is a "fair comeback", in which your case, you only accept physiology.

For instance, I would argue that hypothetically, if homosexuality was not natural, and thus in fact a choice to delve into temptation, why would so many people that "choose to be homosexual" also choose a lifetime of marginalisation, possible abandonment by family and peers, as well as abuse? Why? I think that's a fair question to ask in retaliation to your opinion, and none of it used physiology.

I suggest that you have a look at the Politics & Argument Guide.

-----

I'm also really annoyed with some of the other members, who have been here for years, to troll others. I had to delete a whole 2 pages and a half of it. I want to remind you of the Forum Rules. You guys got of easy. You know who you are, and consider yourself warned.

That said, I want to thank those who tried to focus members into actual debate. Thank you for being so patient.

Sorry again for my absence, and the general delay in reopening this thread.

*sigh*

Thread reopened.

 

[Partisan]

There is nothing wrong with gay people. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Most arguments to the contrary are illogical and I do not see much point in this discussion.

QFT, as long as they don't bother me.

 

[ogmzergrush]

First of all, I apologise to Gosford for the abuse that came from other members. Normally such abuse doesn't end up this way. I've just been absent for a little while.

I'd like to apologise to Gosford too, on behalf of some of the posters who are less eloquent than myself. As a community, we are both shocked and outraged at these actions, and the fugitives concerned WILL be brought to justice.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to retract any statements I made which may have been taken as an attack upon Gosford. At the time, it seemed obvious to me that these comments were not intended in this way, but if he, or indeed anyone who read them, somehow got the impression that I was calling him "an absolute fucking retard of the highest magnitude" and accusing him of making "possibly the worst case I have seen in both this thread and the idiot playground that is the abortion thread, combined", then my most sincere apologies are in order, as this is *clearly* not true, and to infer that it is would be nothing more than trolling.

Secondly,

I understand that you were (extremely) provoked, but this post stood out to me a lot. If people do not understand your opinion, you must explain it further so people eventually do. No matter how "obvious" your opinion is, you must have the ability to defend your opinion, back it up with resources (such as reliable links from the net) as well as explain it further. You cannot choose what is a "fair comeback", in which your case, you only accept physiology.

I don't think Gosford should really have to explain himself to anyone, to be honest.

For instance, I would argue that hypothetically, if homosexuality was not natural, and thus in fact a choice to delve into temptation, why would so many people that "choose to be homosexual" also choose a lifetime of marginalisation, possible abandonment by family and peers, as well as abuse? Why? I think that's a fair question to ask in retaliation to your opinion, and none of it used physiology.

Obviously you've missed the intricacies of Gosford's argument, and I mean this as no sleight against you. As I understand it, and I myself may be mistaken, as we are but laymen to ponder these words of wisdom, to have these urges is physiologically justifiable, in the same manner that wanting to wear a baseball cap is. With that said, acting upon this urge (to engage in homosexual intercourse that is, not to wear a baseball cap, that's a different allegory) is *not* physiologically justifiable. It makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I suggest that you have a look at the Politics & Argument Guide.

Overstepping the mark I think, Gosford needs not assistance in the art of discourse.

I'm also really annoyed with some of the other members, who have been here for years, to troll others. I had to delete a whole 2 pages and a half of it. I want to remind you of the Forum Rules. You guys got of easy. You know who you are, and consider yourself warned.

Frankly I'm ashamed of these people. With that said, however, for the benefit of the greater community, I would like to further emphasise a number of sections within the rules which you linked (emphasis mine).

Section 3: Spam

1. Members may not post spam.

2. Consideration of whether the post constitutes "spam" will be determined with regard to whether the post:

(a) is overly irrelevant to the forum or particular thread topic;
(b) is significantly inhibitive of fruitful discussion;
(c) would unreasonably irritate members by way of nonsensical content;
(d) would unreasonably irritate members by way of repeating previous threads or posts;
(e) would be better suited for the "non-school" forum.

It seems to me that, as highly constructive as the case put forth by Gosford was, and as enlightened as he is, the primary criticism of at least one of the forum degenerates involved here, was that Gosford's contribution in this thread violated at least these bolded conditions. In addition to this, acting as an impartial party on behalf of said degenerates, I should also emphasise the following:

Section 4: Members may not harass other members

1. Members may not harass other members.

2. Harassment involves:

(a) repeated insults towards a particular member or members; and
(b) the insults were made during a period of less than one month; and
(c) the insults would be considered highly offensive, distressing or consistently very annoying by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities; and
(d) the insults are consistently unwarranted and unprovoked.

The case was made I believe, by at least one of the charlatans involved in this heinous affair, that the content of Gosford's posts constituted an affront to the senses, in the candid lack of sense and reasoning which was being showcased. Again, their words, not mine.

Certainly, this is not a view which I would ever presume to put forth myself, but I felt it best to bring this to the attention of the board, so as to ensure that the issue can be clarified for next time Gosford engages in meaningful and intelligent discussion.

That said, I want to thank those who tried to focus members into actual debate. Thank you for being so patient.

Not a problem, I do try to do what I can. Certainly, I'd have tried to steer things in an even more constructive direction on your behalf, if only I'd realised you were unable to attend to the situation personally.

Sorry again for my absence, and the general delay in reopening this thread.

Not at all. I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that we are completely aware of the additional pressures which are inflicted upon you by the responsibility you graciously wield here. We are genuinely thankful for the work you put into making this sub-forum the vibrant and genuinely intelligent, thought-provoking and insightful community that it is.

Thanks once again, for everything you do for us.

EDIT: PS, I think some of my earlier posts have been lost. Maybe there was a database error?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Hmm, quite an effort there.

In fact, probably a little too clever....

Back on topic now

 

[ur_inner_child]

I'd just like to comment on something I had been thinking about recently.

I'm quite open to admit that I normally feel uncomfortable when I'm around transexuals. The most I've been around a transexual (who operated from female to male) was at work. My job never involved him, so no, I never needed to talk to him. Plus I couldn't actually look at him, ever, because I was quite confused with the way he looked and didn't want to make sense of it by looking at him, or catch me trying to make sense of it. It's a bit weird really, because a gay friend of mine shared the same sentiments.

But I think the funny thing is, the longer I had to share the same department with him, the less I gave a shit. I was ten times more bothered with a (straight) lady and the way she talked to me than the transexual's presence. Why would I give a crap about this man's love life or marriage rights, honestly, who cares? Why make such an effort to hate someone? Or limit/prohibit their lifestyle? Additionally, I don't doubt that his transexuality affects his ability to be a friendly person either.

So I often find it's a little silly that people disagree with homosexuality when they know no one gay, and make such an effort and a fuss about their rights.

 

[Iron]

I hate to be that guy, but I think that some of the opinions against homosexuality are valid.

We're beyond the fact that a small amount of people are born with homosexual feelings. Also, we can all probably accept that homosexuality can be different to homosexual acts. But I dont think we've sufficiently dealt with homosexual culture.
The main concern I have is that of community (and perhaps moral) disintergration. Gay culture has established itself as a slap in the face to traditional civilization. I say that because its main concern has been the overt ennunciation of sexual feelings, to the point of extreme vulgarity. In a quest to 'free' themselves from the closet theyve been historically forced into, to express their individualistic repressed and festered desires, they have deliberatley set themselves against all traditional society, especially its sacred attitude towards sex.
The gay movement's devaluation of sex, as an act between two consenting, mature/legal adults expressing themselves to eachother in the most profound way they can, is my major gripe with it. It has served to weaken the foundations of the family unit, marriage, and therefore society.

Controversial, I know, but I agree that the closet was a useful tool for the greater good of civilization.
/Agreement ensues.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

So was segregation.