Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[bshoc]

Anyway to be honest I'd not give gay's "Same-Sex marriage" but instead give them "Same-Sex Partnerships", what's your problem with that Bshoc?

"Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family ... Someone's values are going to prevail. Why not ours? Whose country is it, anyway? Whose moral code says we may interfere with a man's right to be a practicing bigot, but must respect and protect his right to be a practicing sodomite?" - Pat Buchanan

 

[withoutaface]

"Homosexuality is not a civil right. Its rise almost always is accompanied, as in the Weimar Republic, with a decay of society and a collapse of its basic cinder block, the family ... Someone's values are going to prevail. Why not ours? Whose country is it, anyway? Whose moral code says we may interfere with a man's right to be a practicing bigot, but must respect and protect his right to be a practicing sodomite?" - Pat Buchanan

1. Fails by Godwin's law.
2. Noone's restricting anyone's rights. You have a right to say whatever you wish about homosexuals, so long as you don't participate in bashings or defamation. Allowing homosexuals to become married doesn't affect you, it's not interfering with your liberty and if you have a problem with it you can honestly get fucked, because everyone, and I mean everyone, from the far left to the far right, and everything in between, thinks you're a fucking moron.

 

[bshoc]

1. Fails by Godwin's law.
2. Noone's restricting anyone's rights. You have a right to say whatever you wish about homosexuals, so long as you don't participate in bashings or defamation. Allowing homosexuals to become married doesn't affect you, it's not interfering with your liberty and if you have a problem with it you can honestly get fucked, because everyone, and I mean everyone, from the far left to the far right, and everything in between, thinks you're a fucking moron.

Except that the entirety of the country actually supports my position, as do surprisingly, most libertarians, real ones, not retarded tryhards like yourself.

Guess what, it does effect me, since it impacts on an instution that applies to me and never applies to gays, I can think what I like for whatever reason I like and vote for whatever candidate I like, as with most of decent society in general, and if you have problems with people holding opinions, then you can get fucked, wannabe retard.

 

[ihavenothing]

Except that the entirety of the country actually supports my position, as do surprisingly, most libertarians, real ones, not retarded tryhards like yourself.

Guess what, it does effect me, since it impacts on an instution that applies to me and never applies to gays, I can think what I like for whatever reason I like and vote for whatever candidate I like, as with most of decent society in general, and if you have problems with people holding opinions, then you can get fucked, wannabe retard.

If you have done a survey maybe you have over-represented the hardline Christians, Muslims, retards, etc. So if you think you believe you are speaking for the majority of this country go out there and survey the motherfuckers.

 

[bshoc]

If you have done a survey maybe you have over-represented the hardline Christians, Muslims, retards, etc. So if you think you believe you are speaking for the majority of this country go out there and survey the motherfuckers.

I was talking about the independant poll published in the herald about a year back, not that you even need objectivity, even the most overtly leftist sources come to the same conclusion, although with far more skew

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=86834&region=7

 

[spell check]

homophobes are severely hilarious

 

[withoutaface]

Except that the entirety of the country actually supports my position, as do surprisingly, most libertarians, real ones, not retarded tryhards like yourself.

Guess what, it does effect me, since it impacts on an instution that applies to me and never applies to gays, I can think what I like for whatever reason I like and vote for whatever candidate I like, as with most of decent society in general, and if you have problems with people holding opinions, then you can get fucked, wannabe retard.

1. Argumentum ad populum. Fail.
2. Wow, so I'm not a "real libertarian" now? Who are these "real libertarians" to whom you refer? I would have thought the Cato Institute, the US Libertarian Party, David Friedman, the Von Mises Institute (sourcing direct quotations from Friedrich Hayek) and the only libertarian party in Australia were real libertarians, but obviously you know my own ideology better than I do.
3. It does not impact you. It does not interfere with your access to the institution. You are offended by it, but that is a personal choice made for entirely irrational reasons, and besides there is no such thing as the "right not to be offended".
4. Just because a democratically elected government has the power to commit an action does not make that action right.
5. I have no problem with you holding you opinion or speaking your mind, but when you're blatantly wrong I'll tell you exactly why your argument is irrational and you'll continue to bitch about the Weimar republic and how the homosexuals are out to steal your rights. Freedom of speech is a two way street, sunshine. Deal with it.

 

[withoutaface]

I was talking about the independant poll published in the herald about a year back, not that you even need objectivity, even the most overtly leftist sources come to the same conclusion, although with far more skew

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=86834&region=7

Yeah, 44% is "almost the entirity".

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

So the question I pose is this:

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

I think that any issue about validating the 'genuineness' of homosexuals is really only an issue for those who'd wish to date them, its more a private matter than anything else. After all, if we were obliged to check that all homosexuals felt exclusively homosexual feelings about the same sex and were never attratced to someone of the opposite sex, we would then be forced to check straight people for homosexual feelings.

Which could get very interesting.

 

[townie]

why do we even bother arguing with bshoc, his arguments (and i use the term arguments VERY lightly) are based aroud some incoherent view that somehow gay marriage will affect him in some arbitrarily subjective way. i.e. as much as he claims otherwise, he hates gay people and cant stand the thought of having to be assosciated with them in anyway shape or form.

the fact that he could (and god i hope not) get married some day, and that gay people might actually also gets married offends him so because he's so scared that they might ruin his closeted little biggotist world of sunshine and lollypops.

in simple terms, bshoc is probably arguing on the same grounds that people however many years ago argued that there shouldnt be inter-racial marriages (which was a policy based entirley on biggoted views, and skewed and corrupt notions of right and wrong)

bshoc, if you are so insecure in yourself that you cant share marriage with gay people, then, you might as well end your life and hope there isnt a heaven or hell, because no matter where you go, guess what, THERE ARE GONNA BE FUCKING GAY PEOPLE SO GET THE FUCK OVER IT

 

[dieburndie]

Except that the entirety of the country actually supports my position, as do surprisingly, most libertarians, real ones, not retarded tryhards like yourself.

Yeah, most libertarians support everyone except gays doing whatever they want. WAF is a tryhard because he includes faggots as people.

 

[spell check]

i bet he doesn't even have any contact with gay people, or know anyone whose children have been recruited by gay people, or had their marriage break down as a result of gay people existing

his feeling is purely based on being brainwashed

 

[bshoc]

2. Wow, so I'm not a "real libertarian" now? Who are these "real libertarians" to whom you refer? I would have thought the Cato Institute, the US Libertarian Party, David Friedman, the Von Mises Institute (sourcing direct quotations from Friedrich Hayek) and the only libertarian party in Australia were real libertarians, but obviously you know my own ideology better than I do.

Well for starters real Libertarians see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs"

http://www.policyreview.org/apr05/morse.html

A libertarian would also argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. This is mainly because that any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", libertarians would argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

Also I would imagine some libertarians and anarchists would object to same-sex marriage because they are opposed to any form of state-sanctioned marriage, including opposite-sex unions.

For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you sure have a twisted view of the ideology, a real libertarian would be arguing that all government based recognition of marriage stop and this responsibility be placed upon the relevant institutions ie. churches. Instead you sound just like another crybaby social lefty.

3. It does not impact you. It does not interfere with your access to the institution. You are offended by it, but that is a personal choice made for entirely irrational reasons, and besides there is no such thing as the "right not to be offended".

It modifies the instituion itself, people have a right (no, duty) to oppose changes to institutions exclusive to them, the same way one would oppose banks hicking bank fees or modifications to welfare payment schemes.

4. Just because a democratically elected government has the power to commit an action does not make that action right.

No such thing as "right," only such a thing as reason, as in reasons governments get elected ie. policies.

5. I have no problem with you holding you opinion or speaking your mind, but when you're blatantly wrong I'll tell you exactly why your argument is irrational and you'll continue to bitch about the Weimar republic and how the homosexuals are out to steal your rights. Freedom of speech is a two way street, sunshine. Deal with it.

Ofcourse what you consider "blatantly wrong" is no more than a minority opinion.

Yeah, 44% is "almost the entirity".

Notice how SBS loves to spin it though

"community is split on the issue of gay marriage, with 38 percent in favour and 44 percent against gay unions."

So we find out 2 things, how many support gay marriage and how many oppose gay unions, yet how many people oppose gay marriage? What of those missing 18 percent lol .. I would guess it would be alot like the herald poll, 58% against and so forth.

 

[dieburndie]

So we find out 2 things, how many support gay marriage and how many oppose gay unions, yet how many people oppose gay marriage? What of those missing 18 percent lol .. I would guess it would be alot like the herald poll, 58% against and so forth.

I think the poll was about marriage wasn't it?
They were just using the term "unions" as a synonym.

 

[dagwoman]

Marriage hasn't been for the purpose of reproduction for a very long time. Like I said in the (satirical) list I posted "that's why infertile and elderly couples can't marry".

 

[bshoc]

I think the poll was about marriage wasn't it?
They were just using the term "unions" as a synonym.

A marriage and civil union are not the same things.

 

[dagwoman]

HOW would the state and society deteriorate by allowing two people who love each other, and just happen to be the same sex, to marry?

 

[bshoc]

Marriage hasn't been for the purpose of reproduction for a very long time. Like I said in the (satirical) list I posted "that's why infertile and elderly couples can't marry".

Most marriages will concieve given that they last long enough, thats why most people settle down and commit to marriage, even if what you say is true and a minority of hetrosexual couples dont fit such a description, thats no reason to destroy marriage even further to allow even more non-productive marriages.

 

[dieburndie]

A marriage and civil union are not the same things.

They used "union" not "civil union", and I am obviously aware that a marriage and a civil union are not the same thing.
As I said, I think they were using union as a synonym for marriage (you know, a marriage can be considered a form of union, unifying two individuals through unity), to avoid repeating the word marriage. I think they ignored how this could be interpreted though, it is somewhat confusing.

 

[bshoc]

HOW would the state and society deteriorate by allowing two people who love each other, and just happen to be the same sex, to marry?

People who "love" eachother usually aren't married just because of the fact, a marriage mostly serves as a commitment to a stronger union in order to facilitate the creation of a family social and economic unit, and certain lifystyle, in the sense that love alone has nothing to gain from marriage unless there is other motivation (ie. family). If you truly say that gay "love" is real, I dont see how a piece of hetrosexual legislation would make it any more or less so.