Homosexuality in Australia (17 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

No homosexuality is not natural, we've discussed this at length actually.

It is natural. I did not choose to be a homosexual, nor did I take any medication or take any steps which would lead me to become a homosexual.

I simply am.

There are limits as to who you can marry however. You can't marry a child, someone in your family, an animal, or a person of the same sex.

Marraige is basically a contract. A child does not possess mental capacity to sign one. Nor does an animal, though if the time comes where an animal and a human both have mutual desire to get married, then far be it from me to deny them that.
As for a family member, I trust by now that you can understand the repercussions when 2 relatives mate.

Homosexual marriage would only benefit homosexuals, and even so, it deosn't actually give them anything they don't already have, since their unions are already recognised as de facto regardless. You yourself asked, what have I got to lose by the introduction of gay marriage, I ask you this, what do I (or society at large) have to gain? One never introduces an law because there is nothing to lose, laws are made becuase implementing them will bring benefits

People dont get married to benefit anyone else but themselves. that is not the point of marraige. And of course there would be a benefit when homosexual marraige is allowed. A minority gains more recognition? The ends of discrimination?

Government recognises marriage for a very important reason. It is not because two people love each other, or because they commit to each other, for this can be achieved through a private contract. It is because they have the ability to procreate children and raise them. The creation and development and well being of children is very important for society, and so the government is rightly justified in providing additional benefits and privledges to married couples, but not other private relationships.

Is that in the defition of marraige? That the couple MUST have the ability to reproduce?

 

[Name_Taken]

No one loses anything from gay marriage. Gays gain from gay marriage, so overall there is a positive effect o nsociety.

Eurgh, I provided a massive article on the negative effects of the deteoriation of marriage, in part caused by the acceptance of homosexual unions a few pages ago.

This point is void. I could say that people who are attracted to animals have something to gain if we legalised human-animal marriage, and it doesn't affect you, so why not eh?

Same goes for incest, and polygamous marriage.

I hope you can see the futility of this line of thought.

Just becuase the state doesn't gain anything, it doesn't mean that homosexuals should miss out. After all, why not make other people happy when you have nothing to lose? Are we so selfish tthat we deny people a right to happiness just becuase we don't get anything from it? Despite the fact that we would lose nothing if it did happen?

Becuase gays won't be happier if they have gay marriage, simply becuase their unions will never, ever be equal to heterosexual unions, regardless of what laws are made or however much people delude themseleves into thinking they are.

Gays can already be together. They can already get married (as in private marriage - the ceremony), they just need a church willing to do it, they can already adopt kids (tho this sickens me), they can already live in life long defacto unions recognised by the state.

What they want is the recognition of being equal, which they can never have, whether we call them equal or not is irrelevant, it is evident that there are things a heterosexual union can do that gay can't, i.e. kids.

Also, how is homosexuality not natural? It's based on love. How is love not natural?

Its based on lust. Homosexual sex is very unnatural, and is the main thing which is objected to, in regards to the religious stance (as well as marriage, obviously and adoption).

Yes, homosexuals tend to have brains wired differently (literally different nerve connections, I'm not implying they're psycho), but once again this is a ntural occurence, meaning that we have to cater for them.

This hasn't been proven at all, and if so, please provide a citation.

I am Christian, my scripture teaches me that sex and marriage are very important, and are gifts, but are only "used" in appropriate contexts, i.e. monagomous heterosexual unions.

Anything but this, is a perversion of what sex is and what marriage is. Sex has become something for pleasure, not for life or love.

Opposition to homosexuality shold not be confused with opposition towards homosexuals. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" etc.

So in regards to whether or not it was actually shown that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition to wanting to have sex with another of the same gender, this isn't an excuse for actually engaging in the behaviour itself. People have a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse and violence, but neither of these behaviour are, nor should be tolerated. My genes made me do it, isn't an excuse.

 

[mirakon]

Eurgh, I provided a massive article on the negative effects of the deteoriation of marriage, in part caused by the acceptance of homosexual unions a few pages ago.

This point is void. I could say that people who are attracted to animals have something to gain if we legalised human-animal marriage, and it doesn't affect you, so why not eh?

Same goes for incest, and polygamous marriage.

I hope you can see the futility of this line of thought.

Just becuase the state doesn't gain anything, it doesn't mean that homosexuals should miss out. After all, why not make other people happy when you have nothing to lose? Are we so selfish tthat we deny people a right to happiness just becuase we don't get anything from it? Despite the fact that we would lose nothing if it did happen?

Becuase gays won't be happier if they have gay marriage, simply becuase their unions will never, ever be equal to heterosexual unions, regardless of what laws are made or however much people delude themseleves into thinking they are.

Gays can already be together. They can already get married (as in private marriage - the ceremony), they just need a church willing to do it, they can already adopt kids (tho this sickens me), they can already live in life long defacto unions recognised by the state.

What they want is the recognition of being equal, which they can never have, whether we call them equal or not is irrelevant, it is evident that there are things a heterosexual union can do that gay can't, i.e. kids.



Its based on lust. Homosexual sex is very unnatural, and is the main thing which is objected to, in regards to the religious stance (as well as marriage, obviously and adoption).



This hasn't been proven at all, and if so, please provide a citation.

I am Christian, my scripture teaches me that sex and marriage are very important, and are gifts, but are only "used" in appropriate contexts, i.e. monagomous heterosexual unions.

Anything but this, is a perversion of what sex is and what marriage is. Sex has become something for pleasure, not for life or love.

Opposition to homosexuality shold not be confused with opposition towards homosexuals. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" etc.

So in regards to whether or not it was actually shown that homosexuals have a genetic predisposition to wanting to have sex with another of the same gender, this isn't an excuse for actually engaging in the behaviour itself. People have a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse and violence, but neither of these behaviour are, nor should be tolerated. My genes made me do it, isn't an excuse.

Um, if homosexual union is based on lust, then fundamentally so is heterosexual union, so what's your point? You've just proven that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have exactly the same basis, and thus this should lead to equality.


Incest is proven to result in genetic disorders from inbreeding, polygamous marriages are rarely consensual and often have a dominating male and is ahrd o maintain. People-animal sex is too rare to consider, so your exampels are entirely irrelevant to homosexuality.

 

[NewiJapper]

You claim that we're the ones being mean to you, but it is you who is throwing the insults here.

Dude. "Fight fire with fire"

I hardly ever use the word "cunt" in my daily vocabulary, but when I do...I don't mean it lightly and I don't know how else to describe such a disillusioned individual like yourself.

 

[Name_Taken]

It is natural. I did not choose to be a homosexual, nor did I take any medication or take any steps which would lead me to become a homosexual.

I simply am.

In terms of the sin, which is the absude and perverting of sex (and marriage, and then possibly in the near future, parenthood), it is a choice and is always so.

A person isn't a murderer because they want to kill someone, nor is somoene a rapist, becuase they want to have sex with someone who doesn't "want them back".

An alcoholic is not someone who has a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse. Such people may not drink at all.

Marraige is basically a contract. A child does not possess mental capacity to sign one. Nor does an animal, though if the time comes where an animal and a human both have mutual desire to get married, then far be it from me to deny them that.
As for a family member, I trust by now that you can understand the repercussions when 2 relatives mate.

Who said a child doesn't have the ability to sign a contract? It comes down to where we draw the line, but there will always be very mature 14 year olds and very immature 18 year olds.

The fact that an animal can't consent to marriage is irrelevant. Animals can't consent to anything, such as medical surgery, it is up to their owners. As such, it would be up to the owner to decide on behalf of the animal as to whether or not it gets married to a human. It could be legislated tomorrow.

As for incest, its only an issue if the couple has children, since the children may be disabled. This is a fair enough position to take, but if it were made conditionary that for a related couple to be married, that one of both persons must be steralized, would this suddenly make it acceptable?

My point is once you set a precedent that marriage can be defined in terms of love, every sort of sick perverted union (ones even more screwed up than gay unions are) suddently is entitled to it.

Effectively rendering marriage and the family as meaningless will have grave consequecnes on society.

Marriage is the foundation for the family. The family unit has always been the foundation of human societies (except perhaps redical left wing states), past and present.

People dont get married to benefit anyone else but themselves. that is not the point of marraige. And of course there would be a benefit when homosexual marraige is allowed. A minority gains more recognition? The ends of discrimination?

Is that in the defition of marraige? That the couple MUST have the ability to reproduce?

The point of marriage varies greately on the context. Some people get married for money, some people get married for love, some people get married for kids, or because their family chose for them. Marriage doesn't have a single purpose, in that sense.

Why is marriage recognised and protected however, is simply for the benefit of any children that may develop out of the relationship. The reason why two people got married has nothing do with with it. Even if a person only got married because their family made them, has not bearing on whether or not the couple will have kids. Some couples may choose not to concieve, but thats not the point, and these are the minority in marriage. The creation and raising of children is something unique to the monagomous union of a man and women. This family, is what makes such a union so special.

And then there are cultural and religious reasons which may also be relevant to some people, as to its importance.

Um, if homosexual union is based on lust, then fundamentally so is heterosexual union, so what's your point? You've just proven that homosexual and heterosexual relationships have exactly the same basis, and thus this should lead to equality.

I'm not saying that all heterosexual unions are good examples of what they should be, becuase most are not.

Marriage has become a far to flippant affair in our society, and legalising gay marriage will only make it worse, degrading the importance of both marriage itself and the family, which is the building block of society itself.

A heterosexual marriage has the capability to be moral and righteous. A homosexual relationship on the other hand cannot. Heterosexual unions can produce life, and then raise children. Their importance extends beyond the carnal desires of those involved. They are vital for society, let alone to flourish, but to exist at all...

Homosexual unions can achieve nothing, except perhaps meeting the physical desires for those involved, but they benefit nobody else. As such, why should the government bother regulating them under civil marriage, if they do not impact society at all? Keep in mind that the reason governments regulate heterosexual marriage is for the benefit of children, and to ensure that their development is protected by a stable relationship between their parents, protected by the law and provided with support not offered to other private relationships.

Incest is proven to result in genetic disorders from inbreeding, polygamous marriages are rarely consensual and often have a dominating male and is ahrd o maintain. People-animal sex is too rare to consider, so your exampels are entirely irrelevant to homosexuality.

So incest is all ok, if one or both of the persons are steralized as a condition to them being married?

Polygamous marriages are all ok if eeryone says yes? The fact that they are hard to maintain is irrelevant, we have the no fault divorce after all, don't we? Marriage means nothing, as soon as it gets dull, give up and move on, right?

People-animal sex might be more popular if it were legalised perhaps? And you say that not enough people do it to make it relevant. May I ask who decides how many is enough to actually make it relevant, you? As only 4% of the population at most is LGBT, I put it to you that such a small minority is totally irrelevant as well.

 

[Name_Taken]

Dude. "Fight fire with fire"

I hardly ever use the word "cunt" in my daily vocabulary, but when I do...I don't mean it lightly and I don't know how else to describe such a disillusioned individual like yourself.

Except I have been nothing but civil to you, and have respected your arguements, but been able to provide legit responses that have evidently left you cluesless and frustrated.

You are not fighting fire with fire, you are simply being rude and immature or are otherwise woefully inarticulate.

C**t, according to Encarta dictionary;

- a highly offensive term for a woman's genitals
- a highly offensive term for a woman
- a highly offensive term for somebody who is viewed with great dislike or contempt, especially a man

Ok, so I'll assume the first two are out, since they don't relate to me at all, unless you OFC mistook me for being female.

Now one wonders why you view me with "great dislike or contempt", both of which I think apply to what you're saying.

It is not becuase I have insulted you, because I haven't. I have been quite civil throughout the entire course of this debate I would say. Even if you beg to differ, I am certinly being more considerate than you are now.

Is it because I disagree with you, in which case does that make everyone who disagrees with you a c**t?

Nobody is forcing you to be in this thread. If you can't handle people who don't agree with you, then you don't have to be here.

 

[NewiJapper]

It is not becuase I have insulted you, because I haven't.

Let me stop you right there. Mutliples of your posts insult me. How do you think I would feel if someone is constantly telling me that me being married to someone i love is unnatural and wrong and that adoption of a child between me and my hubby would be bad for society.

YOUR WORDS ARE INSULTING.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

name taken is just a psychotic fascist basically

+1

 

[Slidey]

Name Taken is just a psychotic fascist basically

Yep.

 

[NewiJapper]

Name Taken is just a psychotic fascist basically

+1. I think this definition shits all over his.

 

[iNegro]

In terms of the sin, which is the absude and perverting of sex (and marriage, and then possibly in the near future, parenthood), it is a choice and is always so.

A person isn't a murderer because they want to kill someone, nor is somoene a rapist, becuase they want to have sex with someone who doesn't "want them back".

An alcoholic is not someone who has a genetic predisposition to alcohol abuse. Such people may not drink at all.



Who said a child doesn't have the ability to sign a contract? It comes down to where we draw the line, but there will always be very mature 14 year olds and very immature 18 year olds.

The fact that an animal can't consent to marriage is irrelevant. Animals can't consent to anything, such as medical surgery, it is up to their owners. As such, it would be up to the owner to decide on behalf of the animal as to whether or not it gets married to a human. It could be legislated tomorrow.

As for incest, its only an issue if the couple has children, since the children may be disabled. This is a fair enough position to take, but if it were made conditionary that for a related couple to be married, that one of both persons must be steralized, would this suddenly make it acceptable?

My point is once you set a precedent that marriage can be defined in terms of love, every sort of sick perverted union (ones even more screwed up than gay unions are) suddently is entitled to it.

Effectively rendering marriage and the family as meaningless will have grave consequecnes on society.

Marriage is the foundation for the family. The family unit has always been the foundation of human societies (except perhaps redical left wing states), past and present.



The point of marriage varies greately on the context. Some people get married for money, some people get married for love, some people get married for kids, or because their family chose for them. Marriage doesn't have a single purpose, in that sense.

Why is marriage recognised and protected however, is simply for the benefit of any children that may develop out of the relationship. The reason why two people got married has nothing do with with it. Even if a person only got married because their family made them, has not bearing on whether or not the couple will have kids. Some couples may choose not to concieve, but thats not the point, and these are the minority in marriage. The creation and raising of children is something unique to the monagomous union of a man and women. This family, is what makes such a union so special.

And then there are cultural and religious reasons which may also be relevant to some people, as to its importance.



I'm not saying that all heterosexual unions are good examples of what they should be, becuase most are not.

Marriage has become a far to flippant affair in our society, and legalising gay marriage will only make it worse, degrading the importance of both marriage itself and the family, which is the building block of society itself.

A heterosexual marriage has the capability to be moral and righteous. A homosexual relationship on the other hand cannot. Heterosexual unions can produce life, and then raise children. Their importance extends beyond the carnal desires of those involved. They are vital for society, let alone to flourish, but to exist at all...

Homosexual unions can achieve nothing, except perhaps meeting the physical desires for those involved, but they benefit nobody else. As such, why should the government bother regulating them under civil marriage, if they do not impact society at all? Keep in mind that the reason governments regulate heterosexual marriage is for the benefit of children, and to ensure that their development is protected by a stable relationship between their parents, protected by the law and provided with support not offered to other private relationships.



So incest is all ok, if one or both of the persons are steralized as a condition to them being married?

Polygamous marriages are all ok if eeryone says yes? The fact that they are hard to maintain is irrelevant, we have the no fault divorce after all, don't we? Marriage means nothing, as soon as it gets dull, give up and move on, right?

People-animal sex might be more popular if it were legalised perhaps? And you say that not enough people do it to make it relevant. May I ask who decides how many is enough to actually make it relevant, you? As only 4% of the population at most is LGBT, I put it to you that such a small minority is totally irrelevant as well.

Just pointing out, that 1,500,000 people is actually quite a bit making it far from "totally irrelevant".

Simply, if it makes someones life happier, why prevent them from doing it?
I understand that this thread is about point of view, but it hasn't really achieved anything besides brewing more hatred.

Being an ignorant twerp is blatantly annoying too. Seriously? Giving little dictionary meanings for "Cunt"? (Who the fuck uses Encarta anyway? It's really dated) and telling people you haven't insulted them? Comparing someones way of life to incest and animal-fucking isn't insulting? Telling people that they have no right to a ritual that makes people happy, just because they don't have the same sexual preference as you?

I think it's a completely ridiculous and narrow-minded view. Sure, this is an opinion thread, but if you're going to make outlandish and obviously offensive comments that are going to upset a large amount of people, is giving your opinion really necessarily? Is it too hard for you to say "I don't approve of gay marriage as I think it's against my religion"?

Now, I'm not gay or religious, but your idea of marriage is taken from a Christian perspective I assume, and I don't understand why you would disregard everything in the bible, a book on peace, love and acceptance and focus on a few little lines about gay marriage.

I don't agree at all with your opinion and I think your entire argument is filled with holes and flaws, if you want to keep justifying your opinion with some proper reason, I'd be glad to participate in debating the topic with you, if you can remain rational.

 

[NewiJapper]

Just pointing out, that 1,500,000 people is actually quite a bit making it far from "totally irrelevant".

Simply, if it makes someones life happier, why prevent them from doing it?
I understand that this thread is about point of view, but it hasn't really achieved anything besides brewing more hatred.

Being an ignorant twerp is blatantly annoying too. Seriously? Giving little dictionary meanings for "Cunt"? (Who the fuck uses Encarta anyway? It's really dated) and telling people you haven't insulted them? Comparing someones way of life to incest and animal-fucking isn't insulting? Telling people that they have no right to a ritual that makes people happy, just because they don't have the same sexual preference as you?

I think it's a completely ridiculous and narrow-minded view. Sure, this is an opinion thread, but if you're going to make outlandish and obviously offensive comments that are going to upset a large amount of people, is giving your opinion really necessarily? Is it too hard for you to say "I don't approve of gay marriage as I think it's against my religion"?

Now, I'm not gay or religious, but your idea of marriage is taken from a Christian perspective I assume, and I don't understand why you would disregard everything in the bible, a book on peace, love and acceptance and focus on a few little lines about gay marriage.

I don't agree at all with your opinion and I think your entire argument is filled with holes and flaws, if you want to keep justifying your opinion with some proper reason

You put my thoughts into words. ^_^.

 

[Titburger]

they can already adopt kids (tho this sickens me)

Orphans don't deserve loving parents apparantly. God made them orphans for a reason

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Gays can already be together. They can already get married (as in private marriage - the ceremony), they just need a church willing to do it, they can already adopt kids (tho this sickens me), they can already live in life long defacto unions recognised by the state.

your use of the word "sickens" shocks me to my very core.

and no, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children as a family.

 

[Name_Taken]

Just pointing out, that 1,500,000 people is actually quite a bit making it far from "totally irrelevant".

In the context, what I said was valid. It was put to me that the only reason we shouldn't legislate for human-animal relationships was because they affect so few people. I replied that that was a totally arbitry measure of importance, as I could say that since gay marriage only affects 4% of the population (including bisexuals who may "act" striaght anyway), it too doesn't merit being legislated for. Who defines how much is enough to justify legislation for?

And 4% of 22 million is around 850 000, not the figure you have cited. The 10% figure has been shown to be a grossly inflated one and was only adopted by gay activist movements as a dishonest means of demanding legitimacy for their cause.

Simply, if it makes someones life happier, why prevent them from doing it?

I understand that this thread is about point of view, but it hasn't really achieved anything besides brewing more hatred.

I put it to you that the law is not to make people happy. A person's happiness is their own responsibility.

One would assume that the happiness one obtains from a relationship is the pleasure they get from being in the company of their loved one, and has little or nothing to do with government regulation of their relationship. There is nothing whatsoever stopping two gay people from making the same commitments that heterosexual couples do to each other and living together.

No rights are being denied in regards to gay marriage in the present status quo, however should gay marriage be legislated for, then that will be the case, as relationships such as incest, polygamoy and beastiality are now being denied marriage "rights" for a completely artitrary reason. If you implement gay marriage you have to demonstrate what makes homosexual unions more important than polygamous unions or unions between related people (I think beastiality is a bit too extreme so perhaps don't bother with that one) and why gay unions deserve marriage, but these other relationships still don't.

I, and a lot of other people would be very happy if Austrlia became a Christian throcracy. In fact there are more Christians than there are gays, so in regards to numbers of people alone, this might be considered a more pressing issue than gay marriage. But as a reason as to why we should actually change, simply because it makes me, or 25% of the population (who are Christian, IDK the exact figure) happier, is quite weak.

Being an ignorant twerp is blatantly annoying too. Seriously? Giving little dictionary meanings for "Cunt"? (Who the fuck uses Encarta anyway? It's really dated) and telling people you haven't insulted them?

I was exposing the irony of him calling me a c**t and complaining how I was insulting him, despite the fact that it was he who was hurling the insults, despite how I have always been civil and polite in my posts.

Comparing someones way of life to incest and animal-fucking isn't insulting?

I would ask you to believe that there is usually more to a homosexual than their sex life.

Engaging in homosexual affairs is only one lifestyle choice of the individual.

The comparison to bestiality and incest is justified, because, now religiously speaking, all three are perversions of sex, love and possible in the future marriage and family.

I can appreciate the inherent differences between the three however in practise. However, the point I am making is that we accept that bestiality and incest are not worthy of marriage, but it is being argued (for totally arbitrary reasons) that we should accept homosexual unions.

Telling people that they have no right to a ritual that makes people happy, just because they don't have the same sexual preference as you?

The “ritual” you refer to, the marriage ceremony, is not an aspect of civil marriage and is already available to gays in Australia, at Churches who accept such unions as valid.

I am opposing homosexual unions as being accepted under civil marriage and fighting for the rights of Churches and other religious authorities to reject the legitimacy of homosexual unions should they so which (on this we all seem to be in agreement).

In regards to civil marriage however there has been a heated discussion.

It is not an issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, since they are already able to (to one of the opposite sex). As such it is not an issue of equality at all.

Instead it an issue of;

i) What is civil marriage?
ii) Whether or not a union between two people of the same sex qualifies, and what are the repercussions of this, good and bad?

I think it's a completely ridiculous and narrow-minded view. Sure, this is an opinion thread, but if you're going to make outlandish and obviously offensive comments that are going to upset a large amount of people, is giving your opinion really necessarily? Is it too hard for you to say "I don't approve of gay marriage as I think it's against my religion"?

Friend that was the first thing I did say. Such a statement however obviously begs for justification, especially in light of its strong opposition.

Debate also started in regards to outright lies circulated by BoS’s sodomy squad under the guise of legitimate arguments.

Now, I'm not gay or religious, but your idea of marriage is taken from a Christian perspective I assume, and I don't understand why you would disregard everything in the bible, a book on peace, love and acceptance and focus on a few little lines about gay marriage.

My interpretation of the ceremony of marriage, which I see as a religious sacrament, is rooted in my Christian faith.

I have presented various religious and secular arguments regarding the issue of gay marriage. My opposition to gay unions being accepted under civil marriage however has been dominated by arguments which have no connection whatsoever with the Bible or my faith.

The Bible is primarily a book on peace and love, but it also established some very clear rules for holy living. What it defines as marriage and the appropriate context for sex to take place in is quite clear, as its its stance on homosexual sex.

I don't agree at all with your opinion and I think your entire argument is filled with holes and flaws, if you want to keep justifying your opinion with some proper reason, I'd be glad to participate in debating the topic with you, if you can remain rational.

Ok, that seems perfectly reasonable

However as it is you who is supporting the implementation of gay marriage, while I defend the status quo, I expect that you understand the burden of proof rests solely upon you. As such, I ask you to make the first argument.

Orphans don't deserve loving parents apparantly. God made them orphans for a reason

Not all heterosexual unions work out. Only that they all have the potential to be. Gay unions are not equal from the very onset as they are firstly and universally incapable of conceiving children but they are also not the optimum environment for which a child should be raised.

Note as well, we’re talking about married heterosexual unions, not straight couples living together, even if they have children.

I never claimed that all marriages are great, or that they are all perfect environments for kids to be raised. Some, unfortunately fail miserably, and this can severely affect the development of any children involved. The institution of marriage, provides the secure legal and social framework however that is essential to the cohesion and stability of the family itself.

your use of the word "sickens" shocks me to my very core.

and no, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children as a family.

That’s because whatever it is called, a union between 2 men or 2 women will never be a marriage, and 2 men caring for adopted children, or 2 women caring for adopted children will never be a family.

Marriage is something that isn't defined by society, but recognised by it. Likewise with the family. Both existed before organised soceity.

Food is not defined by what we call food or what we put into out mouth, but by what we can actually digest as food. Substitutes such as gay unions will never be the same as the real thing.

Gay unions will never be equal to heterosexual unions, and cannot be, by the very nature of what they are. Not to say that gays are not people or w/e, becuase they are, but homosexual unions will never be able to do what heterosexual unions can.

And yes it is sickening. If you promote 2 men as being just as suitable "parents" as a heterosexual couple, you are effectively denying a child the right to a mother, and also sending the message, that mothers are not required for a childs wellbeing during their "growing up".

Most kids up for adoption, are from couples which irresponsibly had sex, while aware of the fact that should a pregnancy occur, they would be unable to care for the resulting child. That said, at least they didn't have an abortion, but solving the resultant problem of one sexual immorality with the encouragement of another is not the answer.

 

[mirakon]

In the context, what I said was valid. It was put to me that the only reason we shouldn't legislate for human-animal relationships was because they affect so few people. I replied that that was a totally arbitry measure of importance, as I could say that since gay marriage only affects 4% of the population (including bisexuals who may "act" striaght anyway), it too doesn't merit being legislated for. Who defines how much is enough to justify legislation for?

And 4% of 22 million is around 850 000, not the figure you have cited. The 10% figure has been shown to be a grossly inflated one and was only adopted by gay activist movements as a dishonest means of demanding legitimacy for their cause.



I put it to you that the law is not to make people happy. A person's happiness is their own responsibility.

One would assume that the happiness one obtains from a relationship is the pleasure they get from being in the company of their loved one, and has little or nothing to do with government regulation of their relationship. There is nothing whatsoever stopping two gay people from making the same commitments that heterosexual couples do to each other and living together.

No rights are being denied in regards to gay marriage in the present status quo, however should gay marriage be legislated for, then that will be the case, as relationships such as incest, polygamoy and beastiality are now being denied marriage "rights" for a completely artitrary reason. If you implement gay marriage you have to demonstrate what makes homosexual unions more important than polygamous unions or unions between related people (I think beastiality is a bit too extreme so perhaps don't bother with that one) and why gay unions deserve marriage, but these other relationships still don't.

I, and a lot of other people would be very happy if Austrlia became a Christian throcracy. In fact there are more Christians than there are gays, so in regards to numbers of people alone, this might be considered a more pressing issue than gay marriage. But as a reason as to why we should actually change, simply because it makes me, or 25% of the population (who are Christian, IDK the exact figure) happier, is quite weak.



I was exposing the irony of him calling me a c**t and complaining how I was insulting him, despite the fact that it was he who was hurling the insults, despite how I have always been civil and polite in my posts.



I would ask you to believe that there is usually more to a homosexual than their sex life.

Engaging in homosexual affairs is only one lifestyle choice of the individual.

The comparison to bestiality and incest is justified, because, now religiously speaking, all three are perversions of sex, love and possible in the future marriage and family.

I can appreciate the inherent differences between the three however in practise. However, the point I am making is that we accept that bestiality and incest are not worthy of marriage, but it is being argued (for totally arbitrary reasons) that we should accept homosexual unions.



The “ritual” you refer to, the marriage ceremony, is not an aspect of civil marriage and is already available to gays in Australia, at Churches who accept such unions as valid.

I am opposing homosexual unions as being accepted under civil marriage and fighting for the rights of Churches and other religious authorities to reject the legitimacy of homosexual unions should they so which (on this we all seem to be in agreement).

In regards to civil marriage however there has been a heated discussion.

It is not an issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, since they are already able to (to one of the opposite sex). As such it is not an issue of equality at all.

Instead it an issue of;

i) What is civil marriage?
ii) Whether or not a union between two people of the same sex qualifies, and what are the repercussions of this, good and bad?




Friend that was the first thing I did say. Such a statement however obviously begs for justification, especially in light of its strong opposition.

Debate also started in regards to outright lies circulated by BoS’s sodomy squad under the guise of legitimate arguments.



My interpretation of the ceremony of marriage, which I see as a religious sacrament, is rooted in my Christian faith.

I have presented various religious and secular arguments regarding the issue of gay marriage. My opposition to gay unions being accepted under civil marriage however has been dominated by arguments which have no connection whatsoever with the Bible or my faith.

The Bible is primarily a book on peace and love, but it also established some very clear rules for holy living. What it defines as marriage and the appropriate context for sex to take place in is quite clear, as its its stance on homosexual sex.



Ok, that seems perfectly reasonable

However as it is you who is supporting the implementation of gay marriage, while I defend the status quo, I expect that you understand the burden of proof rests solely upon you. As such, I ask you to make the first argument.



Not all heterosexual unions work out. Only that they all have the potential to be. Gay unions are not equal from the very onset as they are firstly and universally incapable of conceiving children but they are also not the optimum environment for which a child should be raised.

Note as well, we’re talking about married heterosexual unions, not straight couples living together, even if they have children.

I never claimed that all marriages are great, or that they are all perfect environments for kids to be raised. Some, unfortunately fail miserably, and this can severely affect the development of any children involved. The institution of marriage, provides the secure legal and social framework however that is essential to the cohesion and stability of the family itself.



That’s because whatever it is called, a union between 2 men or 2 women will never be a marriage, and 2 men caring for adopted children, or 2 women caring for adopted children will never be a family.

Marriage is something that isn't defined by society, but recognised by it. Likewise with the family.

Food is not defined by what we call food or what we put into out mouth, but by what we can actually digest as food. Substitutes such as gay unions will never be the same as the real thing.

Gay unions will never be equal to heterosexual unions, and cannot be, by the very nature of what they are. Not to say that gays are not people or w/e, becuase they are, but homosexual unions will never be able to do what heterosexual unions can.

And yes it is sickening. If you promote 2 men as being just as suitable "parents" as a heterosexual couple, you are effectively denying a child the right to a mother, and also sending the message, that mothers are not required for a childs wellbeing during their "growing up".

Most kids up for adoption, are from couples which irresponsibly had sex, while aware of the fact that should a pregnancy occur, they would be unable to care for the resulting child. That said, at least they didn't have an abortion, but solving the resultant problem of one sexual immorality with the encouragement of another is not the answer.

In the context, what I said was valid. It was put to me that the only reason we shouldn't legislate for human-animal relationships was because they affect so few people. I replied that that was a totally arbitry measure of importance, as I could say that since gay marriage only affects 4% of the population (including bisexuals who may "act" striaght anyway), it too doesn't merit being legislated for. Who defines how much is enough to justify legislation for?

And 4% of 22 million is around 850 000, not the figure you have cited. The 10% figure has been shown to be a grossly inflated one and was only adopted by gay activist movements as a dishonest means of demanding legitimacy for their cause.



I put it to you that the law is not to make people happy. A person's happiness is their own responsibility.

One would assume that the happiness one obtains from a relationship is the pleasure they get from being in the company of their loved one, and has little or nothing to do with government regulation of their relationship. There is nothing whatsoever stopping two gay people from making the same commitments that heterosexual couples do to each other and living together.

No rights are being denied in regards to gay marriage in the present status quo, however should gay marriage be legislated for, then that will be the case, as relationships such as incest, polygamoy and beastiality are now being denied marriage "rights" for a completely artitrary reason. If you implement gay marriage you have to demonstrate what makes homosexual unions more important than polygamous unions or unions between related people (I think beastiality is a bit too extreme so perhaps don't bother with that one) and why gay unions deserve marriage, but these other relationships still don't.

I, and a lot of other people would be very happy if Austrlia became a Christian throcracy. In fact there are more Christians than there are gays, so in regards to numbers of people alone, this might be considered a more pressing issue than gay marriage. But as a reason as to why we should actually change, simply because it makes me, or 25% of the population (who are Christian, IDK the exact figure) happier, is quite weak.



I was exposing the irony of him calling me a c**t and complaining how I was insulting him, despite the fact that it was he who was hurling the insults, despite how I have always been civil and polite in my posts.



I would ask you to believe that there is usually more to a homosexual than their sex life.

Engaging in homosexual affairs is only one lifestyle choice of the individual.

The comparison to bestiality and incest is justified, because, now religiously speaking, all three are perversions of sex, love and possible in the future marriage and family.

I can appreciate the inherent differences between the three however in practise. However, the point I am making is that we accept that bestiality and incest are not worthy of marriage, but it is being argued (for totally arbitrary reasons) that we should accept homosexual unions.



The “ritual” you refer to, the marriage ceremony, is not an aspect of civil marriage and is already available to gays in Australia, at Churches who accept such unions as valid.

I am opposing homosexual unions as being accepted under civil marriage and fighting for the rights of Churches and other religious authorities to reject the legitimacy of homosexual unions should they so which (on this we all seem to be in agreement).

In regards to civil marriage however there has been a heated discussion.

It is not an issue of whether gays should be allowed to marry, since they are already able to (to one of the opposite sex). As such it is not an issue of equality at all.

Instead it an issue of;

i) What is civil marriage?
ii) Whether or not a union between two people of the same sex qualifies, and what are the repercussions of this, good and bad?




Friend that was the first thing I did say. Such a statement however obviously begs for justification, especially in light of its strong opposition.

Debate also started in regards to outright lies circulated by BoS’s sodomy squad under the guise of legitimate arguments.



My interpretation of the ceremony of marriage, which I see as a religious sacrament, is rooted in my Christian faith.

I have presented various religious and secular arguments regarding the issue of gay marriage. My opposition to gay unions being accepted under civil marriage however has been dominated by arguments which have no connection whatsoever with the Bible or my faith.

The Bible is primarily a book on peace and love, but it also established some very clear rules for holy living. What it defines as marriage and the appropriate context for sex to take place in is quite clear, as its its stance on homosexual sex.



Ok, that seems perfectly reasonable

However as it is you who is supporting the implementation of gay marriage, while I defend the status quo, I expect that you understand the burden of proof rests solely upon you. As such, I ask you to make the first argument.



Not all heterosexual unions work out. Only that they all have the potential to be. Gay unions are not equal from the very onset as they are firstly and universally incapable of conceiving children but they are also not the optimum environment for which a child should be raised.

Note as well, we’re talking about married heterosexual unions, not straight couples living together, even if they have children.

I never claimed that all marriages are great, or that they are all perfect environments for kids to be raised. Some, unfortunately fail miserably, and this can severely affect the development of any children involved. The institution of marriage, provides the secure legal and social framework however that is essential to the cohesion and stability of the family itself.



That’s because whatever it is called, a union between 2 men or 2 women will never be a marriage, and 2 men caring for adopted children, or 2 women caring for adopted children will never be a family.

Marriage is something that isn't defined by society, but recognised by it. Likewise with the family.

Food is not defined by what we call food or what we put into out mouth, but by what we can actually digest as food. Substitutes such as gay unions will never be the same as the real thing.

Gay unions will never be equal to heterosexual unions, and cannot be, by the very nature of what they are. Not to say that gays are not people or w/e, becuase they are, but homosexual unions will never be able to do what heterosexual unions can.

And yes it is sickening. If you promote 2 men as being just as suitable "parents" as a heterosexual couple, you are effectively denying a child the right to a mother, and also sending the message, that mothers are not required for a childs wellbeing during their "growing up".

Most kids up for adoption, are from couples which irresponsibly had sex, while aware of the fact that should a pregnancy occur, they would be unable to care for the resulting child. That said, at least they didn't have an abortion, but solving the resultant problem of one sexual immorality with the encouragement of another is not the answer.

Okay, despite the essays you consistently post, let's face it, this an accurate summary of your entire argument:

1. Marriage is union between man and woman, and gay marriage contradicts your definition.

2. Homosexuals can't make babies naturally, so they shouldn't get married.

3. Gay marriage will open up a loophole for polygamous relationships as both are a perversion of sex and familial relationships

1. This is the exact point, we are arguing to change a narrow-minded definition. If a definition is faulty in a contemporary society they have every right to change it. One can use the example of classical kinematics, giving way for special relativity in physics. Times change, and so should social attitudes. Such medieval conservatism directed to oppress other human beings in the case of gay marriage is inappropriate in present day society.

2. They cant make babies naturally, so they aren't allowed to have a deeper relationship, desptie their love? Dude, love goes deeper than just reproduction, and ultimately marriage is mroe about love than mating to ensure natural growth of the species.

3. Polygamous relationships often result in domestic abuse unlike gay marriage so the comparison is rather absurd. Also, gay people may be attracted sexually, but this is entirely natural, so what's your problem with it.

 

[mcflystargirl]

your use of the word "sickens" shocks me to my very core.

and no, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children as a family.

They can as singles
The Word Sickens is the only word to describe what i feel about this too, if you live a gay lifestyle that is your buisness and you will be judged unless you repent. But to bring a innocent child into that is disgusting and should never ever be allowed.

 

[Titburger]

Once you can provide rational reasons for how homosexual marriage is going to affect you as an individual, only then will I consider your nonsense about "defending the status quo". Please enlighten me on how something that has no effect on the parts has some major effect on the whole.

Food is not defined by what we call food or what we put into out mouth, but by what we can actually digest as food.

wtf??

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Okay, despite the essays you consistently post, let's face it, this an accurate summary of your entire argument:

1. Marriage is union between man and woman, and gay marriage contradicts your definition.

2. Homosexuals can't make babies naturally, so they shouldn't get married.

3. Gay marriage will open up a loophole for polygamous relationships as both are a perversion of sex and familial relationships

1. This is the exact point, we are arguing to change a narrow-minded definition. If a definition is faulty in a contemporary society they have every right to change it. One can use the example of classical kinematics, giving way for special relativity in physics. Times change, and so should social attitudes. Such medieval conservatism directed to oppress other human beings in the case of gay marriage is inappropriate in present day society.

2. They cant make babies naturally, so they aren't allowed to have a deeper relationship, desptie their love? Dude, love goes deeper than just reproduction, and ultimately marriage is mroe about love than mating to ensure natural growth of the species.

3. Polygamous relationships often result in domestic abuse unlike gay marriage so the comparison is rather absurd. Also, gay people may be attracted sexually, but this is entirely natural, so what's your problem with it.

You must spread some reputation before giving it to mirakon again

 

[Titburger]

They can as singles
The Word Sickens is the only word to describe what i feel about this too, if you live a gay lifestyle that is your buisness and you will be judged unless you repent. But to bring a innocent child into that is disgusting and should never ever be allowed.

To bring an innocent child into indoctrinated religion, promoting the surrender of reason and, belief without evidence as an acceptable way of life is sickening to me to be quite honest.