Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

Originally posted by Josie

Whether it is marriage or not, homosexual couples should get the EXACT SAME legal rights and to the same extent as heterosexual couples.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME : They have EXACTLY the same rights as any heterosexual couple, and can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. THEY WANT ADDITIONAL benefits which allow them to marry someone of the same sex.

 

[neo o]

Oh and for everyone that is carrying on about how homosexuals have no choice about their sexuality.

Your claiming humans have no choice, about anything actually, that a wife beating alcoholic was predestined to become a wife beating alcoholic because he had a predisposition towards booze because of his genes, that a drug user is destined to be a drug user because he has a chemical imbalance caused by his genes. That a murderer is a murderer because of a chemical imbalance caused purely by his genes.

By eliminating 'choice' you are basically saying that we are predestined to do everything we do, thus noone can be held responsible for any of their choices/decisions because of the way they are.

What bullshit.

Genes can never determine what a human becomes, they merely set the blueprint, then environmental factors kick in.

People always have choice and people will always be responsible for those choices.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Oh and for everyone that is carrying on about how homosexuals have no choice about their sexuality.

Your claiming humans have no choice, about anything actually, that an alcoholic was predestined to become an alcoholic because he had a predisposition towards booze, that a drug user is destined to be a drug user because he has the genes for it. That a murderer is a murderer because of a chemical imbalance caused purely by his genes.

By eliminating 'choice' you are basically saying that we are predestined to do everything we do, thus noone can be held responsible for any of their choices/decisions because of the way they are.

What bullshit.

There is always a choice.

yet you claim the people in wheelchairs don't have a choice....they could have chosen not to drive so dangerously while not wearing a seatbelt. make up your mind about which choices we decide to grant 'additional benefits'

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
Genes can never determine what a human becomes, they merely set the blueprint, then environmental factors kick in.

since you added in this little edit: aren't environmental factors beyond your control? aren't you know saying that what makes up a human being is a) genetics (beyond that persons control) and b) environment (beyond that persons control)?

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by neo_o
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME : They have EXACTLY the same rights as any heterosexual couple, and can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. THEY WANT ADDITIONAL benefits which allow them to marry someone of the same sex.

no, heterosexual couples have the right to marry and start a family with the person they love. homosexual want this exact same right

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by crazyhomo
no, heterosexual couples have the right to marry and start a family with the person they love. homosexual want this exact same right

Mmm, yes, I tried to tell him the same thing. He just doesn't seem to be able to comprehend. Or maybe he's realised that homosexuals are being discriminated against here.

 

[steph@nie]

lengstar's right, no one has actually come up with a valid argument as to why they shouldn't be able to marry. Just because the bible says so is bullshit! The bible has little relevance to most people now a days because society has changed, we value different things and this ban on gay marriages is putting us back a step. John Howard is basically being a puppet of the church.

 

[stamos]

I disagree with the motives behind the ban. It's blatant wedge politics and a cynical ploy by John Howard.

Putting a gay marriage ban on the agenda is essentially an invitation for homophobic people to air their prejudice in public. That's evident in this thread. I strongly believe that howard is hoping to polarize voters along those lines. As with the Tampa crisis, this will be of benefit to him at the polls. This can only rend the social fabric of Australia, not reinforce it.

I resent a leader who thrives on acrimony. It's parasitic, and moreover, it poisons the atmosphere of Australian society.

 

[Nick]

did we learn nothing at Gallipoli

 

[eviltama]

-------
Originally posted by katie_tully
So while the Church is saying homosexuality is a sin, it isn't really??
-------
Depends which church you go to, what minister you speak to and which version of the bible you read... and how YOU interpret it. Which is what all religion comes down to in the end.

-------
In fact, the Lord Jesus always spoke of sexual relations in heterosexual terms.
------
Or is it assumed that he does? I don't know since i don't exaclty read that kind of stuff.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Ribbon
Once again, sorry for keeping this offtopic but in regards to the benifits you mentioned (pension, rent assistance) aborigional people to not get any more $$ than anyone else (the only difference is youth allowence is called abstudy ect... the actual $$ amounts don't vary)... I agree alot of people waste it and buy ciggies/alcohol/drugs/whatever but that its not exclusively aborigionals on the pension that waste it, and seek more so they can do less...

I'm not generalising, i'm just pointing out that from my experience with the family next door and their 'brood' thats what it looks like to me.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by neo_o
1) Generalisation
2) Ahh everyone's a bigot aren't they

BTW, alot of bright Aborigines also get cadetships/internships.

1) No, observation about the family next door.
2) I'm not a bigot. I can only judge on what i see, and that is what i see.

BTW, did you know alot of not so bright aboriginies also get jobs? And live like normal working class people... and don't apply for pensions and such. Also there are quite a number of high profile aboriginies who have worked their way to the top. And they deserve to be there, its just the abusers who give aboriginals a bad name.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by neo_o
FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME : They have EXACTLY the same rights as any heterosexual couple, and can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. THEY WANT ADDITIONAL benefits which allow them to marry someone of the same sex.

It wouldn't be additional, it would be an extension on the current law because the change would affect heterosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals and any other kind you'd like. So its not as if it'd be one chunky block of law only giving homosexuals the right, the right would be given to everyone.

 

[lengstar]

Originally posted by neo_o
Genes can never determine what a human becomes, they merely set the blueprint, then environmental factors kick in.

i suggest you read Brave New World then. you may well and truely have the best genetics, but you could also be oxygen starved in the uterus as a foetus rendering you brain dead. that means the brain gets no oxygen so it is underdeveloped or doesn't develop at all. its not just about genetics, its also about whether the mother had a healthy diet during pregnancy or smoked pot or breastfeed or not.

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by neo_o
Oh and for everyone that is carrying on about how homosexuals have no choice about their sexuality.
------
Did you have a choice? Did at some stage in your life did you say "I want to be heterosexual."? There is no choice, you can choose who you relate with but you cannot choose something which is a chemical reaction that occurs in your body.

--------
Your claiming humans have no choice, about anything actually, that a wife beating alcoholic was predestined to become a wife beating alcoholic because he had a predisposition towards booze because of his genes, that a drug user is destined to be a drug user because he has a chemical imbalance caused by his genes. That a murderer is a murderer because of a chemical imbalance caused purely by his genes.

By eliminating 'choice' you are basically saying that we are predestined to do everything we do, thus noone can be held responsible for any of their choices/decisions because of the way they are.
-----
Our genetic make up defines who we are when we are born. No one is entirely sure what that entails and what it doesn't. So maybe your wife beater was genetically predisposed to be aggressive, and the booze just makes it worse. The same could be said for anyone with a temper, alot will say they get it from their dad or their mum.. which implies a genetic inheritance of some sort. Its how some people can resemble long gone relos that come from way down the track. "Oh you're just like aunt marge with that <insert characteristic>"

-----
What bullshit.
-----
Tell that to the researchers who dedicate their lives to learning more about it. And tell that to the people who believe in them and fund their projects. Tell that to the people such research has saved.

-----
Genes can never determine what a human becomes, they merely set the blueprint, then environmental factors kick in.
-----
They set a blueprint... but as of yet no one can tell you what that blueprint says or does not say, so don't count it out yet. And yes environmental factors count, these factors too are something that we can't control. And at the times we can (or we think we can) often the choices we make seem the right ones, or the obvious ones and are not neccessarily the choices we would have made if we had been given another choice.

-----
People always have choice and people will always be responsible for those choices.
------
Sure, but nothing ever said that those choices weren't already made for us, or haven't been affected by who we are around or where we may be or any other number of factors. Choice may seem infinite, but in truth its not.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by 400miles
Mmm, yes, I tried to tell him the same thing. He just doesn't seem to be able to comprehend. Or maybe he's realised that homosexuals are being discriminated against here.

Maybe he just doesn't want to listen?
Ignorance is bliss and such nonsense.
If you're insecure about your position then regardless of what proof you're given you'd stick to your position even more?

Meh who knows.

 

[eviltama]

oh u posted it here too.. i'll make sure i c&p my reply to the other thread as well.

 

[jase_]

They should have the right to get married. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a f***tard.

 

[Josie]

Originally posted by jasee
They should have the right to get married. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a f***tard.

Simple. Yet effective.

 

[AsyLum]

Editorial: RE:Where is the line? – Gay marriages.

By Michael Virata (June 21, 2004)

Equality is not generally a term which is used within the context of society as it is originally intended. It derives from the extreme focus of the word equality, upon which the stance against certain issues is achieved. The flaw with this is that it exposes the very essence of the term 'equality' as meaning something which is is exactly the same upon, or connotations within.

The basis for the debate about gay marriages is not solely based upon religion, it is not solely based upon a socio-political argument, and it is not solely based upon the legal or moral rights or beliefs of a society. Rather it is based almost solely upon this word equality. For one need only see that the basis within religion is highly contextualised. Whilst the argument for the legal aspect seems to be in breach of the Genevan convention for equal human rights. And coupled together we see the shortcomings of not only one, but of both critiques.

Firstly, the religious stance, this is extremely touchy and sensitive, and i coming from a Roman Catholic faith can see where they are coming from, but i believe that this marriage that homosexuals seek is not rather based upon the religious marriage held aloft within many religions, but rather of the symbolic equal 'consideration' for which they are recognised within society. It can be paralleled with women's right to vote, the recognisation of African American's to citizenship, and the right of a sentient being to the same basic consideration as humans. It would be foolhardy to suggest that marriage is strictly religious in this day and age, and the many machinations of marriages within society are quite evident with the laws and 'relationships' which fill our societies.

Secondly, upon the legal matter. The very essence of denying homosexuals, nay human beings, for it is a much more basic premise than of merely sex, is not only a gross injustice but also a direct violation upon the rights of not only a sentient being, but alsoa fellow human being. More or less this violation basically undermines every notion of justice and equality, two aspects which the law is based upon.

In closing, the above editorial has merely strengthened the need to become much more open minded and understand the full connotation of both sides. One cannot merely focus upon one stance or we risk not only being prejudiced but also ignorant of the facts and changing facet of life.