• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Same-Sex Marriage (4 Viewers)

Are you for or against same-sex marriage?


  • Total voters
    122

Riproot

Addiction Psychiatrist
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
8,228
Location
I don’t see how that’s any of your business…
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
Clownfish change genders.
Dolphins partake in casual sex.
Monkeys have shown homosexual acts and have causal sex.
You showed a video of interspecies oral sex
Some species of fly are exclusively bisexual.

1st: ur dumb, that makes complete sense
2nd: ur dumb again. Unorthodox: "Contrary to what is usual"
3rd: Yes, that is true. If you change somewhere down your life you were born bisexual. Not every person born straight is 'susceptible,' as ur basically putting it, to have a random gay vibe... Attraction is chemically stimulated... And you are either born with it or you are not
please dont be so stupid next time
I'm bi and I'm not changing "down the track" I just have sex with both genders now.
What you're talking about it when I person realises they are gay, and this is probably because they didn't experiment until later in life and didn't know, meaning that they should've "tried it out" earlier, which is opposed to what you said earlier. So, really you don't know what you're talking about and you're making no sense.
Hormones can also change over time, changing many chemical activities in your body (which could include attraction).

Surpirsed this thread has gone on for so long. Gay marriage isn't a big deal - whether they can have children is the major issue, and one that should be strictly prevented. You make the choice to be gay, well knowingly that you cannot naturally reproduce therefore you shouldn't be, tough luck busters
How is it a major issue?
It's not a choice.
Some hetero couples choose to be in a relationship knowing they can't naturally produce, but have sperm/ova donours/surrogate mothers/IVF/etc. why are they allowed and homos not?

i agree that they should not be allowed to have children as it isnt a natural part of their sexual orientation
but i dont believe they "choose" to be gay
but other than that i agree
Why? What is your actual reason? Sexual orientation is one facet of a person's life and shouldn't influence anything else.

they are gay due to various influences
Clear juxtaposition to what you said before.

this thread really needs to be in ncap
and that shithole really needs to be moderated properly (not banning for swearing, just deleting unsubstantiated shit posts etc)
I got banned in NCAP for saying shit that wasn't that bad... Leave this here.
 

cheese_cheese

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
403
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Name one legitimate non-biblical reason against same-sex marriage.
I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.
 

pony_magician

townie for worst user
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
1,044
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.
While maybe not stated that eloquently, it still is true that the one of the only, and certainly the most popular, reason against it is because of religion/the bible.
And most people who take the bible literally and follow every point are stupid.
 

Lina3

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
507
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
Clearly, everyone will have their own view on the matter as with most things. This is just my opinion: First up, I am atheist so my views are not manipulated by personal religious beliefs in any way but nevertheless I do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Marriage is should be between a man and a woman, however that does not mean relationships have to be. Clearly marriage is regarded by religious people as a sacred union and according to the scriptures it should be between a man and a woman. I do not see why other people's beliefs should be tampered with for the sake of a minority. This whole question is obviously ruffling the feathers of many religious people so why not leave it and look for other alternatives? Homosexuals should have some kind of an official union, similar to marriage but not 'marriage' in name. Clearly, in this case there is a lot in a name but surely, if a same-sex couple love each other they would want to get together by the easiest means possible.
 
Last edited:

Riproot

Addiction Psychiatrist
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
8,228
Location
I don’t see how that’s any of your business…
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
"should be between a man and a woman" why?
"Shouldn't change for minority" What about civil rights in America?
"Religious practice, etc." Marriage was around before religions institutionalised it. (read earlier posts in this thread)
 

Lina3

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
507
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
"should be between a man and a woman" why?
"Shouldn't change for minority" What about civil rights in America?
"Religious practice, etc." Marriage was around before religions institutionalised it. (read earlier posts in this thread)
1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
2. Of course homosexuals have a right to be together but why should the definition of marriage be changed? Modern society is one that has a clear separation between church and state. Although I do not agree with it, it must be acknowledged the religion is a barrier for many believers that refrains them from doing certain things despite them having the civil rights to do them (such as sex before marriage, going to parties etc). To me those beliefs are rather antediluvian but for many they are the foundation on which people build their morals and values and that should be respected.
3. Of course it was, but what matters is now. We are having this debate in the present and just because marriage had nothing to do with religion once upon a time doesn't mean we are at liberty to make it so again. And we wouldn't be able to even if we tried.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
3,411
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2013
but religion is dumb, definitions aren't sacred or set in stone and marriage is only religious if you want it to be (celebrants / non religious folk can marry people)
 

pony_magician

townie for worst user
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
1,044
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
Which is what I said. The only reason people provide against samesex marriage is based off of religious reasons.
Which is fucking stupid.
 

Riproot

Addiction Psychiatrist
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
8,228
Location
I don’t see how that’s any of your business…
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uni Grad
2017
1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
2. Of course homosexuals have a right to be together but why should the definition of marriage be changed? Modern society is one that has a clear separation between church and state. Although I do not agree with it, it must be acknowledged the religion is a barrier for many believers that refrains them from doing certain things despite them having the civil rights to do them (such as sex before marriage, going to parties etc). To me those beliefs are rather antediluvian but for many they are the foundation on which people build their morals and values and that should be respected.
3. Of course it was, but what matters is now. We are having this debate in the present and just because marriage had nothing to do with religion once upon a time doesn't mean we are at liberty to make it so again. And we wouldn't be able to even if we tried.
1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.
Baptism is a religious practice and priests were clad to baptise me and I was an unwilling baby and now I am an atheist.
I got my first communion and confirmation when I clearly had no interest in the catholic faith.
I don't see your point.
2. The definitions of words change all the time and new words are formed. Still don't see your point.
3. Celebrants that aren't religious. You're not making any sense at all.
 

Lina3

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
507
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.
Baptism is a religious practice and priests were clad to baptise me and I was an unwilling baby and now I am an atheist.
I got my first communion and confirmation when I clearly had no interest in the catholic faith.
I don't see your point.
2. The definitions of words change all the time and new words are formed. Still don't see your point.
3. Celebrants that aren't religious. You're not making any sense at all.
Clearly, we are not on the same page here,but it's ok. I didn't post here to try and change people's opinions I have my views and I am sticking with them .
However, in answer to your post, I do not see what the nature of other religious practices has to do with changing the definition of marriage. Redefining marriage would not be the same as changing the definition of 'gay' from meaning happy to meaning homosexual it would mean redefining Christian faith. Hey, the church has a hard enough time accepting contraception, let alone same-sex marriage. To me a greater freedom is being able to have the right to your own values without other people pressuring you and trying to change what you believe. I do not see why a separate legal union couldn't be invented specifically for homosexual couples. And also, many same-sex couples live together happily content, raising their children and living their lives without marriage so it is not like marriage is the ONLY way they can be together and raise a family. Heck, I even know people who live in a de facto relationship, perfectly content without marriage vows.
In all honesty, I do not see such a major problem. If anything, homosexuals here do not realize how lucky they are to express themselves without being completely rejected by society. At least, those who do do not take it upon themselves to complain.I lived in Russia and homosexuality was a taboo, and it still is.People like that are shunned and any protests are quietened before they come out of obscurity. Just saying, many have it much worse and it is for those people that I reserve my wholehearted sympathy.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top