Hey, let's get married! [Archive]

Meksilon

June 29th, 2005, 09:43

I'm not talking about homosexuality here, I'm talking about the legality of same-sex mairrages.

That's crap, it's exactly what you're talking about. The entire idea of "same-sex marriage" is based on the false pretense that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. If you don't believe this false pretense to begin with, you're heterosexist - or as gay activists like to call it "homophobic".

How can you ask people who clearly don't understand the very basics of the nature of homosexuality to have any valid input? Homosexuality is a flawed sexuality. Anything associated with it will unavoidably be flawed. Marriage is about family - homosexuality is not. This is clearly demonstrable.

Marriage is a beautiful thing. I don't think there is anything at all beautiful about men having sexual relationships with men, or women having said relationships with women. As defined by Law, Marriage is the life long union of a man to a woman voluntarily entered into for life. Marriage is not something that exists just because two people love each other and want to share that love, and that idea is so shallow.

Every major political party in Australia agrees, so I hope this reply answers your question.

rhianna

June 29th, 2005, 10:11

What does marriage mean? How is marriage defined? Once the concept of the man, woman and [possibly - not every married couple has children] child is not used to define marriage, then can it be anything anyone wants?

What about a bisexual woman who would like to be married to both a man and a woman. Bisexuals have rights too, don't they? What about polyamory? As long as it's consensual then it's okay, right? How about a marriage among three or six men?
How about a situation where a 42 year old man would like to "marry" a 13 year old boy? How about polygamy, that form of "marriage" has been around since the Old Testament, so why not bring that back?

Every child deserves to have one mother and one father. Just think of the ensuing chaos that could happen if societies wipe out the definition of the one man one woman marriage paradigm.

Why are homosexuals adamant about re-defining marriage? Why can't they call it a partnership or cohabitation? If the aim is to get benefits, let them have the health benefits and the probate benefits.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the basic foundation of society, to re-define that is to invite chaos. Probate laws could be altered to encompass cases involving partnership and cohabitation. Change the probate laws and change the benefit/employment laws, but don't call it "marriage."

Meksilon

June 29th, 2005, 10:22

Same-sex marriage should be allowed in the U.S. We need to stop segrating homosexuals. Marriages help our economy (More bank loans for a house, car, etc).

Our President is just stubborn and close-minded."Just" stubborn and close-minded is it? You see that seems to be your argument - it's because and only because he's "stubborn and close-minded" according to you.

Because I'm a man, I'm incapable of marrying another man. We have limitations you know, we are human. I am, however, very capable (and eligible, ladies :wink2:) of marring a woman. Perhaps you should read my page on Marriage:

http://plamdi.com/bing/marry.htm

You may find it very interesting, if nothing else. Just reading over it myself reminds me of how sacred a union Marriage is. Oh and, from your posts it looks like you're the one who's being "stubborn and close-minded" as you put it.

bozley05

June 29th, 2005, 10:32

I couldn't agree more with your page Meksilon. Sums up all my beliefs, would you believe that I'm an athiest? Although, I feel empty without a religion, so I sort of attach myself to Christianity.

Meksilon

June 29th, 2005, 10:35

How about a situation where a 42 year old man would like to "marry" a 13 year old boy?You may be interested to know there is an organization -removed- who works towards securing those exact "rights".
Every child deserves to have one mother and one father.Yes and that's exactly what we tried to tell Stanhope, before he changed our legislation here in the ACT to allow homosexual couples to adopt foster children. There are 2 or 3 babies a year here given up for foster care, and I believe it is only right to provide them with the best possible environment. To deliberately deprive them of either a father or a mother is simply twisted and evil... still since Stanhope has a majority territory government, it's unlikely anything can be done about it now. Howard was talking about over-ruling it Federally ... which he should have.
Why are homosexuals adamant about re-defining marriage?Why's everyone else afraid to say "Your relationship status is not equal to Marriage; your sexuality is not equal to heterosexuality and your lifestyle is wrong"? Talk about a closed dysfunctional non-community we live in!
I couldn't agree more with your page Meksilon. Sums up all my beliefs, would you believe that I'm an athiest? Although, I feel empty without a religion, so I sort of attach myself to Christianity.Thanks. I didn't attend Church the entire first half of this year, but in the end I think, when I went back I knew I was where I belonged. Everything I believe in makes sense to me, but sometimes you will find that believing is seeing - you believe God's word that doesn't make sense now and eventually it will.

rhianna

June 29th, 2005, 11:23

The CATO Institute published an interesting article entitled:
The End of Marriage in Scandinavia (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1)

Do people want something like what's described in the article?

Canuckkev

June 29th, 2005, 11:31

I find it interesting that those who disagree with same sex marriage aren't very "tolerant". Well, those in favour need to "tolerate" the views of others too...

I suppose I don't really care about homosexuals getting the legal benefits of marriage. The use of the word marriage...well, it's a small bother.

But I may have small problem with homosexual couples rasing children. Who knows, maybe it is a baseless concern, but having both a mommy and a daddy is important to me. Of course, what is even more important is having a loving, caring household.

Wojtek

June 29th, 2005, 11:41

Martin wont be getting my vote anymore.
He greatly dissapointed me with that same sex bill crap.

Lets look at it from this angle:
the weed legalisation bill was on the table since around 2000
the gay marriage thing was from? FEBRUARY 2005

5 months later and its passed. What a load of ----.
why? ONLY because martin is in a minoritary govrnment and wanted the support of gays to win majority on the next elections in january.
Go fvck yourself martin

Robert

June 29th, 2005, 12:52

"Just" stubborn and close-minded is it? You see that seems to be your argument - it's because and only because he's "stubborn and close-minded" according to you.

Because I'm a man, I'm incapable of marrying another man. We have limitations you know, we are human. I am, however, very capable (and eligible, ladies :wink2:) of marring a woman. Perhaps you should read my page on Marriage:

http://plamdi.com/bing/marry.htm

You may find it very interesting, if nothing else. Just reading over it myself reminds me of how sacred a union Marriage is. Oh and, from your posts it looks like you're the one who's being "stubborn and close-minded" as you put it.

Since you love to quote the Bible, riddle me this:

If God creates humans, and he's against homosexuals, why does he create homosexuals? Why does he put his own people against others?

Union of Marriage is based on religious beliefs. Some beliefs are you can only have 1 wife, others you can have multiple. Some religious state that Priests cannot marry, as they must devote their entire lives to God. Others allow them to marry and have offspring and spread the word of the Lord.

But we're not talking religous. We're talking morally what is right. To hide the fact that not everyone is heterosexual and to shun those who are homosexual. Is that how our society should live? If you're a heterosexual man, you can do as you please, if you're a homosexual man, you can't. That's the same as whites and blacks. Whites could sit in the front, blacks had to sit in the back. How dare we, as Humans, judge others, when we, ourselves are not perfect. How dare us tell 2 men or 2 women who love each other that they, but law (not religious, but LAW), cannot be married. Cannot join the benefits of a legal marriage, cannot live together like a married couple. And if one of those partners, after years, should die, their death would be as if a single person died.

I'm not sure how I'm closed-minded. I'm not talking about Religous. If you want to go based on Religious beliefs, well, then we need to start changing everything. I'm talking morally. Not everyone believes in God, Not everyone believes in a higher power. If the Church doesn't want to recognize a marriage, FINE, but the government should.

Corazu

June 29th, 2005, 13:23

Amen Robert.

This whole argument boils down to morality, NOT RELIGION. F*** Religion. I'm atheist, I don't believe in a single word of the bible, it's not even God's book, it's MAN'S BOOK. God could exist, but MAN wrote the bible. Therefore banishing homosexuals from our society is what the majority of man wants, not what God wants (if he does exist). If God made everything, then God made homosexuals, and if God made homosexuals and he is as would be interpreted as a God; one who is loving and caring for all His creatures, then he would love and care for the homosexuals he created too. This would mean, that he would allow them, under the sanction of His 'Holy' view, to be married. Religion is Man's interpretation of God, religion is complete bull----.

What's morally right is to further our society by not shutting the door on the very members of it. Canada has passed the law and I'm glad for it, hopefully we serve as a role model for those too ignorant to do so.

*History Repeats Itself*

Canada was the first to abolish Slavery, the US soon followed suit.

Now Canada is one of the first to allow homosexuals to get married, the US will soon follow suit.

This all boils down to morality, in which religion tries to teach, but the thing is, religion teaches morality as it suits themselves. When you were young, did you not learn of this thing called perspective? To place yourself in anothers shoes? To view life as it is seen by a certain person or peoples?

Take into account, the fact that homosexuals have been shunned for years. That they are still being shunned by some of our society. They are, in essence, outsiders. People who are homosexual, FEAR to tell anyone about it, because they do not know if those people, their friends, will accept them as who they are. And they have good right to, because some of those friends and pig-headed, ignorant fools who do not.

We, as human beings, need to welcome them into our society, and it will not be easy. We need to let them have their own sanctity of their own union between each other, they feel comfortable among other homosexuals, so why not let them continue the little comfort they have instead of halting it and taking away the very rights they should be entitled to as a human being in this world.

Who are we to say that Bob and George can't get married? Nothing prevents them from doing so as God would intend. We can say they cannot have children though, that is something that is not naturally right, that is why two men or two women cannot conceive by themselves. That would be God's intention if there ever was one.

I think everyone just needs to step back and take a look at the world as we know it, and think about what it would be like if we stopped shunning those who held different beliefs.

Regards,

Wojtek

June 29th, 2005, 13:54

God made murderers and rapists too.
So we should embrace and love them too because they'r humans. yeah right.

God made people. To whom he gave the power to think and decide.
Some use it well, some not. Is God telling you to eat breakfast this morning? No. Did God tell george to be gay? No.

We can say they cannot have children though, that is something that is not naturally right, that is why two men or two women cannot conceive by themselves. That would be God's intention if there ever was one.

There you go. 2 gays are useless, therefore they should not be together.

Homosexuality is an illness.

jmiller

June 29th, 2005, 14:20

Wojtek,

That only applies to those who believe in creationism though. :rolleyes:

Also, anyone heard of the seperation of church and state?

I am yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that does NOT involve religion.
Once I hear one, then maybe I'll start to care.

jmiller

June 29th, 2005, 14:29

Death Reaper,

You do realize your views are far from athiest right ?

Perhaps you should do some research before you begin running your mouth.

ryza

June 29th, 2005, 14:43

Originally Posted by Robert
Same-sex marriage should be allowed in the U.S. We need to stop segrating homosexuals. Marriages help our economy (More bank loans for a house, car, etc).

Our President is just stubborn and close-minded.

I dont like homosexuals one bit, not only should it be banned; make law to jail them aswell. there not promoting growth of the population, there not doing anything for us except brainwashing kids into thinking its ok.

I think when people were a bit more old fashioned and didnt talk about sex and show it on tv as much those days were better cause we didnt have to listen to dirty fags tell us about it.

Homo's are sick, dirty, disgusting animals and have no place on this earth.

Corazu

June 29th, 2005, 14:49

Death Reaper,

You do realize your views are far from athiest right ?

Perhaps you should do some research before you begin running your mouth.

Nope. Those are views from the religious/godly side, but I am an atheist. If they want to fight battles with religion, then I will fight battles with religion. I can use either side of the argument. Notice how I mentioned *if*

I've considered myself a different sort of atheist anyway..

Regards,

jmiller

June 29th, 2005, 14:52

You sound more agnostic, than athiest.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

niv

June 29th, 2005, 16:29

jmiller, do you really expect a response from the right that doesn't involve religion? That's impossible for them. :rolleyes:

jmiller

June 29th, 2005, 16:41

That's a very good point, Mahoro.

Blank Verse

June 29th, 2005, 19:31

The most telling point about this whole thing to me is that the people so staunchly opposed to same sex marriage are opposed to something that doesn't even affect them. If you're not gay, it's not really your issue, is it.

The notion that homosexuality is un-natural and downright evil is so archaic it makes me sick. What kind of person are you if you go up to a gay man and tell him that every beliefe he has, as well as every natural urge he has in his body, is just inherently flawed, and that he should be persecuted for it? While we're at it, why don't we just herd all the black people together and drop them in a pit.

I always wonder, if everyone has such a problem with same sex marriage and what it means in terms of what the definition of marriage is, how come no one ever tries to put an end to polygamy? Is it because it's all within the guidelines of one religion's documents?

bozley05

June 29th, 2005, 20:13

God made murderers and rapists too.
So we should embrace and love them too because they'r humans. yeah right.

God made people. To whom he gave the power to think and decide.
Some use it well, some not. Is God telling you to eat breakfast this morning? No. Did God tell george to be gay? No.

There you go. 2 gays are useless, therefore they should not be together.

Homosexuality is an illness.
Exactly right, if no-one abused their right to think freely, and conformed to everything that is religiously right, there wouldn't be a need for a place called Hell.

niv

June 29th, 2005, 20:24

Yaay for people that still believe in creationism! :jump:

[edit]
Clearly you guys can't fumble up any argument without bringing your shackles of religion along for the ride. Think freely, and you'll see why we're just completely marking off your opinion. There is another disease that has been mentioned here, and that is religion. Infects more people than AIDS.

[edit2]
I'm waiting for a response that doesn't involve religion in any way...but I guess I'll die before I see one.

rhianna

June 29th, 2005, 21:32

The CATO Institute (http://www.socialsecurity.org/) looks at social trends from an economic point of view. The CATO Institute is not religious at all. The End of Marriage in Scandinavia (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1) is an economic analysis on how gay marriages affect society; the article does not take a religious viewpoint.

Meksilon

June 29th, 2005, 21:49

Since you love to quote the Bible, riddle me this:

If God creates humans, and he's against homosexuals, why does he create homosexuals? Why does he put his own people against others?God did not create hate, but He does hate certain things. Namely those which reverse His design.
But we're not talking religous. We're talking morally what is right. To hide the fact that not everyone is heterosexual and to shun those who are homosexual. Is that how our society should live?You're the one hiding the true nature of homosexuality, and won't admit that homosexuals have a higher drug use, higher spread of STI's, and are more dysfunctional and depressed than the average man in society.
That's the same as whites and blacks.No it isn't, blacks never had the higher drug use, suicide rates and depression we're dealing with here so how can it be the same?
How dare us tell 2 men or 2 women who love each other that they, but law (not religious, but LAW), cannot be married.Again, you assume that Marriage is about love - whereas I believe, as do a lot of NON-CHRISTIANS agree it's about family.
I'm not sure how I'm closed-minded. I'm not talking about Religous. If you want to go based on Religious beliefs, well, then we need to start changing everything. I'm talking morally. Not everyone believes in God, Not everyone believes in a higher power.Just because you refuse to believe in something isn't an indication it isn't there. Still, I've presented you with a solid social argument that isn't based on "religion" - I don't belong to a religion, Christianity - True Christianity that is - is a psychology, not a religion. It's a way of life.

niv

June 29th, 2005, 22:11

Again, you assume that Marriage is about love - whereas I believe, as do a lot of NON-CHRISTIANS agree it's about family.
As if it's impossible for two gay people to raise a family; there's your stereotype right there. There's plenty of dysfunctional heterosexual married couples, so that goes out the window.

You're the one hiding the true nature of homosexuality, and won't admit that homosexuals have a higher drug use, higher spread of STI's, and are more dysfunctional and depressed than the average man in society.Whoa! Homosexuals take drugs! Wow! I never knew that! oh em gee, they get STDs too! Depression! 1/5 teenagers get depressed at some point! And I thought only straight people had these problems! :rolleyes:

Just because you refuse to believe in something isn't an indication it isn't there. Still, I've presented you with a solid social argument that isn't based on "religion" - I don't belong to a religion, Christianity - True Christianity that is - is a psychology, not a religion. It's a way of life. I am so sorry, but... ROTFLMAO
No offense, but the only way of life that has been wrongly labelled as a religion is the original Buddhism, which had no idol or god worship and nothing of the sort. Achieving enlightenment in that "religion" was a sign of how good a person you were.

Peo

June 30th, 2005, 06:00

Spain today also decided to allow homosexual couples to marry.

"The End of Marriage in Scandinavia" mentioned above has so many factual errors that it's almost funny.

Meksilon

June 30th, 2005, 06:33

As if it's impossible for two gay people to raise a family; there's your stereotype right there.I never claimed that, don't create strawmen.
There's plenty of dysfunctional heterosexual married couples, so that goes out the window.Have you seen the results from any study of romantic relationships? Ever heard of the 5 year breakdown limit for homosexual couples? There are far fewer heterosexual couples with the magnatude of problems that homosexual couples have.
Whoa! Homosexuals take drugs! Wow! I never knew that! oh em gee, they get STDs too! Depression! 1/5 teenagers get depressed at some point! And I thought only straight people had these problems! :rolleyes: 18% (or depending on what surveys you look at, up to 30%) of all homosexuals attempt suicide at least once in their life. That's way more than the rest of society. 89% of new HIV infections are attributed to homosexual sodomy - 9% to heterosexual sex. Like I said the contrast is HUGE.

Reply once you've read the argument.

Peo

June 30th, 2005, 06:38

18% (or depending on what surveys you look at, up to 30%) of all homosexuals attempt suicide at least once in their life. That's way more than the rest of society.

Could it possibly be due to how badly people and society treats homosexuals?

niv

June 30th, 2005, 06:58

I'm sorry, but you really have no argument. These social problems can all be fixed, but given the government that we have, and people like you, it won't.

You can pull numbers all you want, the fact remains is that gay couples aren't the only ones that face these problems, but like Peo said, because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help. Ever think about it that way?

And by the way, guess which group of people (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=deployments+divorce&btnG=Search+News) is having divorces soar through the roof?

Robert

June 30th, 2005, 08:38

Meksilon, Wow. Just WoW. I'm not going to reply to any of your closed-minded, incorrect, and stereotyped arguments. WoW, it's sad to see the world we live in, after so many years, we still haven't progressed. Seems like we're going backwards. I hope you get some treatment to understand how to be able to treat people of all natures, of race, religion, sexuality, color, anything. Because right now you're one extremely extremely discriminated towards homosexuals and it's extremely sad and scary that someone could have so much hate in their heart for something that doesn't even affect them.

tandoc

June 30th, 2005, 09:14

Have you seen the results from any study of romantic relationships? Ever heard of the 5 year breakdown limit for homosexual couples? There are far fewer heterosexual couples with the magnatude of problems that homosexual couples have.18% (or depending on what surveys you look at, up to 30%) of all homosexuals attempt suicide at least once in their life. That's way more than the rest of society. 89% of new HIV infections are attributed to homosexual sodomy - 9% to heterosexual sex. Like I said the contrast is HUGE.

All the arguments you have posed are all STATISTICS. Unfortunately, many statistics simply cannot create a model that reflects the true makeup/nature they are designed to. You don't even show where you pulled these statistics from, for all we know you made them up.

You're the exact opposite of what I love about living in Australia, a supposedly multicultural, tolerant society.

Wojtek

June 30th, 2005, 10:09

Homosexuals even got their own version of aids :)

Rare disease that stalks gay, bisexual men confirmed in Canada (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050601/HDISEASE01/TPHealth/)

Plus

Anal Cancer Precursors Common in Homosexual Men (http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=8537)

New Study Shows Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years -- Homosexuality more dangerous than smoking or obesity (http://www.dakotavoice.com/200506/20050606_1.asp)

Cristal Meth and gays -- As 'the ultimate aphrodisiac' grips the party scene, health workers fear a surge in HIV (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/health/3233892)

Meksilon

June 30th, 2005, 10:56

Could it possibly be due to how badly people and society treats homosexuals?In a word, no. We never saw this with aboriginals, Americans never saw it with Negros. If anything, homosexuality seems to indicate lack of direction. Society treats Christians badly, but we aren't more depressed or suicidal.

Oh, and to Robert... I've not shown any hate. My argument isn't based on it at all. I've shown that homosexuality deters from society, and your defense is that I'm "hateful, closed-minded and discriminatory". Well, listen to yourself. You've not even discussed the points I've raised, and ignorance is surely worse than anything else.

bozley05

June 30th, 2005, 11:03

tandoc

June 30th, 2005, 11:16

In a word, no. We never saw this with aboriginals, Americans never saw it with Negros. If anything, homosexuality seems to indicate lack of direction. Society treats Christians badly, but we aren't more depressed or suicidal.

Oh, and to Robert... I've not shown any hate. My argument isn't based on it at all. I've shown that homosexuality deters from society, and your defense is that I'm "hateful, closed-minded and discriminatory". Well, listen to yourself. You've not even discussed the points I've raised, and ignorance is surely worse than anything else.

Society treats Christians badly? Chances are THEY HAD IT COMING. What in particular did homosexuals do to get such harsh views cast upon them? -- How can homosexuality be interpreted as a lack of direction? The fact the person has decided to be homosexual and let their feelings show simply proves they have direction - just one that you don't approve of.

Who are you to say homosexuality deters from society? In the same way, Christianty, in fact, ALL RELIGION, deters from society, making people bicker about trivialities between the different scriptures, instead of just ----ING getting along.

[edit]
AND WHERE THE HELL IS MY TENNIS?!

Meksilon

June 30th, 2005, 11:24

Off topic (I'm Watching The Cricket ATM)Yeah, me too...

Toefur

June 30th, 2005, 11:54

On that topic, we were sitting in our hostel room talking until about 4am in the morning today.

On getting up this morning, the old man who is staying in the room next door to us said, 'Next time if you're going to keep me up with your talking until four in the morning, you could at least talk about something other than mastering the art of gay sex.'

He must have been a homophobe.

I hope other countries jump on the legalising same-sex marriages bandwagon, it's about time we moved out of the dark ages.

Robert

June 30th, 2005, 12:28

In a word, no. We never saw this with aboriginals, Americans never saw it with Negros. If anything, homosexuality seems to indicate lack of direction. Society treats Christians badly, but we aren't more depressed or suicidal.

Oh, and to Robert... I've not shown any hate. My argument isn't based on it at all. I've shown that homosexuality deters from society, and your defense is that I'm "hateful, closed-minded and discriminatory". Well, listen to yourself. You've not even discussed the points I've raised, and ignorance is surely worse than anything else.

I pity you a lot. I won't discuss your raised points because they are not important. I pity you for your closed-minded arrogant view on how the world works and I hope that other people do not share your views. I'm very glad you do not live in the U.S., we have enough problems at it is, your lack of compassion and understanding for the humans is sad. You really think you're the victim here, and that is what is worse. I think you need some therapy and help.

I won't waste my time anymore on your arrogant views. It's sad that we live in the world where people like yourself think you are the higher power and the best of the best. I hope you don't have offspring and teach them your views, it would be sad that you spread your close-minded views. You have no moral or ethics, you're a sad case.

Wojtek

June 30th, 2005, 13:27

What in particular did homosexuals do to get such harsh views cast upon them?
Sucking their fcking thongs off in public.
Ever witnessed that?

Guess not. Its disgusting :p

jmiller

June 30th, 2005, 13:48

And heterosexuals don't ever do such things?

Give me a break.

Bruce

June 30th, 2005, 15:31

Sucking their fcking thongs off in public.
Ever witnessed that?

Guess not. Its disgusting :p...how exactly does one suck a thong? :wtf: :confused2

jmiller

June 30th, 2005, 15:35

...how exactly does one suck a thong? :wtf: :confused2
I was wondering the same thing.

But I think he meant something else..

jmiller

June 30th, 2005, 15:38

Christians per se aren't treated badly, just Christian extremists... But thats nothing compared to the treatment of Muslims, both mainstream and extremist. Al Qaeda really killed that religion.

Off topic (I'm Watching The Cricket ATM)....
The new tree at the Kent Oval sucks, what happened to the old tree? Any Poms here?
The Ku Klux Klan, The National Front, Adolf Hitler's Nazi Regime (when it existed), and other like organizations fall under the category of Christian Extremists.
Let's not forget Timothy Mcveigh (who got his plans from a piece of white supremacist science fiction), or anti-abortion extremists.

Maybe that has something to do with Christian extremists supposedly being treated poorly.

Meksilon

July 1st, 2005, 10:52

I hope this thread tones down a bit... I'll reply tomorrow...

jmiller

July 1st, 2005, 13:16

You have alot of nerve to say that, seeing as you are the one who needs to tone down.

You're the only one replying who can't seem to keep their cool.

Blank Verse

July 1st, 2005, 15:06

I hope this thread tones down a bit... I'll reply tomorrow...

Is that you're way of saying you have no reply?

bigperm

July 1st, 2005, 20:00

All I can think of is that Our Lady peace song.

Doot Doot Doot, Doot Do Do-Do.

And Dave Chappelle:

"You're changing the subject, gay people are getting married... that's disgusting!"

Meksilon

July 2nd, 2005, 09:46

You have alot of nerve to say that, seeing as you are the one who needs to tone down.

You're the only one replying who can't seem to keep their cool.That isn't true, I've not made any personal attacks nor have I flamed. And I've responded well to attacks directed towards me.

But if you want me to point out what I was referring to here it is:

Personal attacks (from a MOD, no less!):
I pity you a lot. I won't discuss your raised points because they are not important. I pity you for your closed-minded arrogant view on how the world works and I hope that other people do not share your views. I'm very glad you do not live in the U.S., we have enough problems at it is, your lack of compassion and understanding for the humans is sad. You really think you're the victim here, and that is what is worse. I think you need some therapy and help.

I won't waste my time anymore on your arrogant views. It's sad that we live in the world where people like yourself think you are the higher power and the best of the best. I hope you don't have offspring and teach them your views, it would be sad that you spread your close-minded views. You have no moral or ethics, you're a sad case.

I hope you get some treatment to understand how to be able to treat people of all natures, of race, religion, sexuality, color, anything. Because right now you're one extremely extremely discriminated towards homosexuals and it's extremely sad and scary that someone could have so much hate in their heart for something that doesn't even affect them.Other hate speech:
I dont like homosexuals one bit, not only should it be banned; make law to jail them aswell. there not promoting growth of the population, there not doing anything for us except brainwashing kids into thinking its ok.

I think when people were a bit more old fashioned and didnt talk about sex and show it on tv as much those days were better cause we didnt have to listen to dirty fags tell us about it.

Homo's are sick, dirty, disgusting animals and have no place on this earth.
Strawmen arguments (a strawman has no brain, strawmen arguments do not argue against raised points, and avoid them by creating "strawman points"):
Who are you to say homosexuality deters from society? In the same way, Christianty, in fact, ALL RELIGION, deters from society, making people bicker about trivialities between the different scriptures, instead of just ----ING getting along.
All the arguments you have posed are all STATISTICS.
You can pull numbers all you want, the fact remains is that gay couples aren't the only ones that face these problems, but like Peo said, because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help.
I'm sorry, but you really have no argument. These social problems can all be fixed, but given the government that we have, and people like you, it won't.
As if it's impossible for two gay people to raise a family; there's your stereotype right there.
I always wonder, if everyone has such a problem with same sex marriage and what it means in terms of what the definition of marriage is, how come no one ever tries to put an end to polygamy? Is it because it's all within the guidelines of one religion's documents?

Further reply to follow ....

Meksilon

July 2nd, 2005, 10:04

Is that you're way of saying you have no reply?Not at all, it's my way of saying I have no time, but I do intend to reply.

"I pity you a lot."

Do you Robert? Why is that then?

"I pity you for your closed-minded arrogant view on how the world works and I hope that other people do not share your views."

Oh I see. I believe in what makes sense to me Robert. If 89% of HIV infections are being attributed to gay sex, I say "wow, there must be a reason for this". Whereas you say "well that's insignificant". Did you know, possibly by your so-called acceptance you are surely working to have AIDS spread even more among homosexuals? Less homosexually-active men means less HIV infections. If anyone's arrogant it's you.

"I'm very glad you do not live in the U.S., we have enough problems at it is, your lack of compassion and understanding for the humans is sad."

Personal attacks are out of order. What can you possibly achieve through them, honestly? You're the one venting hate, you're the one who's playing the victim and it's sickening.

"You really think you're the victim here, and that is what is worse."

Dude I'm no victim, I don't play the victim. If there's something that effects me I'm not going to throw up my arms and complain about it! I'm going to get involved in changing the situation. The exact opposite of what you've done here, and the exact opposite of what a victim would do.

I may not have said what you wanted to hear. But I have shown the inherent problems homosexuality poses in our society; I have shown it isn't natural and that it's associated with several negative social trends. You've done nothing to challenge these arguments, nor has anyone else here.

Oh and what on Earth prompted you to call me hateful? There is no possible way you can find anything I've said here in this thread to be hateful.

http://www.idoexist.com/ - Will you hear their voice?

tandoc

July 2nd, 2005, 10:05

Yeah, real smart. Simply by calling these arguments strawmen arguments, you have now created a strawman argument. Bravo.

I'd believe your arguments have substance when you provide references to them, and aren't some results achieved the same way phrenology was. You haven't even stated WHEN the sample was taken.

Meksilon

July 2nd, 2005, 10:28

You haven't even stated WHEN the sample was taken.Dude I look at tonnes. Here's one on a university site:

http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/nchecr/

I quote new infections, BTW not newly discovered old infections.

jmiller

July 2nd, 2005, 15:06

You do realize the irony in claiming you have made no personal attacks, when you are calling people "strawmen", right? Good on you.

jmiller

July 2nd, 2005, 15:10

By all means, please show us proof that 89% of all HIV infections are from homosexual sex. (The link you posted above only applies to Australia.)

You are doing nothing but throw around rhetoric, and that is what is making others call you hateful.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 00:06

"You do realize the irony in claiming you have made no personal attacks, when you are calling people "strawmen", right?"

Dude, I'm calling the argument a strawman argument. The strawman is the person with no brain invented by those creating the argument. The entire point of calling an argument a strawman is to say to the author "I know you're smarter than that, don't answer to a strawman answer to me". How that is insulting I don't know.

"By all means, please show us proof that 89% of all HIV infections are from homosexual sex. (The link you posted above only applies to Australia.)"

And Australian infections are all I care about, and all I claimed they apply to. Seriously, if you want to look at the spread of HIV in Africa, where there's just as many women with AIDS as there are men (for instance) I would remind you of the huge difference in lifestyle and environment that results in this change. For instance, in Africa the main form of contraception is sodomy.

Again, I'm not here to manipulate facts - I'm here to report on the truth of the situation, based on an observation of the facts. I've not seen any of you pro-gays attempt to do this with your arguments. Earlier Mahoro said:
I'm sorry, but you really have no argument. These social problems can all be fixed, but given the government that we have, and people like you, it won't.

You can pull numbers all you want, the fact remains is that gay couples aren't the only ones that face these problems, but like Peo said, because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help. Ever think about it that way?Notice the following:

1. He claims "these social problems can all be fixed", but has done nothing to back-up this claim; or to try and disprove a connection to homosexuality.

2. He then blames this on me, again with nothing to substantiate this claim.

3. He then notices that gay's aren't the only ones with these social problems. I say to him "well done", but that doesn't disprove a relationship there; as the magnitude we're talking about goes way beyond the scope of normal social trends.

4. He then has an assumptive-conclusion in a circular argument: "because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help" which makes sense only to him and his Strawman, but not to any person he's arguing against. And in fact I've shown this is not true before (not here). The exact same claim was once made (in America) about divorce - that "children would not be negatively affected by it if it was normalized" (well the actual claim was that because divorce was frowned upon that's why it had a negative effect on children). Now that it's happened it's become plainly obvious this was never true. Divorce has proven negative effects no matter how it is handled, regardless of whether the parents fight, regardless of whether the child thinks it's normal or not.

5. His argument is based on the assumption that he knows better than I do.

The entire argument is conjecture. Based on assumptions he's made himself, and not on the facts he knows to be true. He's done no research, he's not produced any claims with substance. His argument did not address any of my raised points, nor did anything he say challenge my claims.

That's why the argument is a strawman. He's produced a hollow argument that contains no proof, disproof or discussion of facts and the truth of the situation.

And one last edit, erm thing... Every major party agrees the Marriage is between a man and a woman. The majority of Australians also agree, the majority of Australians also think homosexuality is morally wrong.

jmiller

July 3rd, 2005, 00:14

Well, last I checked this argument has nothing to do with Australia.

Perhaps provide statistics for the world as a whole, instead of statistics you choose to make your point seem more credible.

This thread isn't about homosexuality in Australia, but instead about homosexuality in the entire world.

bozley05

July 3rd, 2005, 00:15

I have a suggestion, how bout this thread gets locked/closed? No one is gonna win.

jmiller

July 3rd, 2005, 00:32

And here's another suggestion:
If you're not interested in the topic at hand, don't bother posting.

bozley05

July 3rd, 2005, 01:08

LOL! I was interested, but I'm just observing this petty bickering is turning what was a good topic and argument into a catty ----- fight. The topic at hand is really an off-topic verbal fist fight. 'Nuf said.

jmiller

July 3rd, 2005, 01:18

I wouldn't say it is off-topic, other than Meksilon trying to sway it entirely towards homosexuality in Australia.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 01:31

And here's another suggestion:
If you're not interested in the topic at hand, don't bother posting.I do agree, but it's not my place or yours to tell people where they can and can't post. The fact of the matter is that I've shown the very high spread of HIV and other STI infections to be a characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle. The truth of the matter is that this is based against a standard first world society.

I'm not going to compare where environmental conditions are so radically different, like in Africa. I live in Australia, I love Australia and I know so much more about Australia than I do about other nations, that's why I look at Australia. There may be other countries in which gay sex makes up more than 90% of HIV infections. But as I said earlier, I know so much about Australia that I know exactly what it means, and have shown this.

89% of new infections, total infections 13,500ish in Australia. Total gay (men) population is around 1% of Australia's population. This is a bottle-neck, have you ever heard of 80:20 ratios? Where 80% of staff in large corporations earn 20% of the profit and vice versa? sometimes it's 90:10.

I don't want homosexuals to contract HIV, even if they are homosexually active. I wouldn't wish such an infection on anyone. It saddens me deeply that people can just sit by and not care. That people can put their so-called "acceptance" ahead of the well being of this group. we have a 1:90/99:10 ratio here. That's where 99% of our population make up 10% of new infections, and 1% of the population makes up 90% of new infections.

We already have so few HIV infections in Australia, and I for one would like to see it decrease to zero. This is achievable. But it's not if awareness that gay men are at the highest risk of infection isn't spread. I mean, where only .06% of our population has HIV, 6%-7% of gay men have HIV! Here, look at the surveys here:

http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/research%20projects/periodic.html

It's an excellent resource, one of the best I've encountered. ALL of the numbers, all of the stats do tally up correctly. They make perfect sense. They appear accurate compared to: census data, best estimates for the actual number of people who identify as gay, lesbian and bisexual, and other studies.

While it may not be "exactly" 6 or 7%, it does appear to be very close to this, and regardless it is an excellent ballpark to go off. For instance, Sydney is much higher in the 15% ballpark, which does seem excessively high. 6 or 7% agrees better with the rest of the information available, including the surveys in the rest of Australia.

This isn't off topic, it's discussing the truth of the situation.

tandoc

July 3rd, 2005, 02:08

So you're saying that due to the so-called homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals shouldn't be given the right to marry/raise a family?

jmiller

July 3rd, 2005, 02:18

I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm merely making a suggestion, one that follows the forum rules.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 08:41

So you're saying that due to the so-called homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals shouldn't be given the right to marry/raise a family?I'm saying that adoption is about children's rights, not about adults rights. That children aren't pawns to be used for political leverage. That children's rights come before ours. So do women's rights I believe come before men's rights. If a ship sinks women and children are the first to be given the life rafts. If we're invaded men are drafted to defend the women and children - their rights to safety and security come before our rights.

That's just the most basic level. As I said though, breaking it down as far as possible I believe children's rights come before adult's rights. This doesn't mean taking children away from their natural parents, unless it's necessary because it's in the child's best interests.

I'm not advocating taking away any rights. We all have equal rights. I'm not about withholding any rights either, rather upholding the rights I believe in. To "give" these so-called "rights" as you put them to everyone for the purposes of homosexual relationships breaches so many other fundamental rights. There's no balancing of rights - you can't tell me that homosexual couples deserve to have a right to adopt children if you believe that adoption should be in the child's best interests.

The most important thing for a child to be raised in a loving environment - this comes before the relationship status of the parents. But the relationship status is still hugely important for the child, and the proven best environment for a child to be raised in is with a mother and father who are Married to each other, and remain so until they die/child moves out.

Breaking this down further it's been proven children have distinct and separate needs for both a mother and a father. So even an unmarried mother and father would be a better choice than a single person or a homosexual couple. You can raise a child with only one parent, or with parents of the same sex; however there is a proven and unavoidable developmental gap as a result. If the government is given the burden of foster children, then it's their responsibility to respect these needs that the foster child has, and place the child with the best possible parents. To put the "rights" of adults before this is simply evil.

Therefore foster children should be placed with Married couples. We have so few adoptions in Australia this poses no problem. If it were some other country with too many foster children, I would suggest un-married men and women come before singles who come before homosexual couples. Even though un-married men and women who live together in a sexual relationship are living a lifestyle I disagree with, and singles are not - I know they are able to meet the needs of foster children better than singles (who are living a lifestyle I have no problem with).

tandoc

July 3rd, 2005, 09:57

So discrimination is up your alley?

Purely because a person/couple is homosexual, you automatically assume that they are worse as people and aren't worthy of raising another human being, or can't do it well? I wouldn't want you raising me, and my parents are devout (perhaps not as much as you) catholics.

Just because something can potentially happen, or is probable, doesn't mean it will.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 10:17

So what you're saying is that you'd rather see children used as pawns, and their rights neglected so as not to "discriminate"? What I said I believe is that I don't think anyone should be allowed the right to adopt children, I think it's the foster child's right to be placed in the best possible environment for them. In Australia this has traditionally meant only Married couples can apply.

Need I remind you a majority of Australians believe homosexuality is wrong?

tandoc

July 3rd, 2005, 11:56

I never said that adoption was a right, but deciding the best people to raise a child shouldn't be simply decided by the couple's sexuality.

Need I remind you that you don't speak on behalf of all Australians.

Larger numbers doesn't make you right, it just makes it easier to apply pressure to whatever you want.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 20:02

I never said that adoption was a right, but deciding the best people to raise a child shouldn't be simply decided by the couple's sexuality.Well again, I don't really believe in different sexualities. I believe in true sexuality, and that's it. Anything that differs from it is a flawed, deviant sexuality. If the relationship status of the parents has been shown to be important to the child's best interests (which it has) - why would you be against deciding due to the couples relationship status?

tandoc

July 3rd, 2005, 21:05

I'm against it since it isn't the only factor that affects the child's best interests. There isn't always one way to do something correctly.

And with that, I leave the thread, I'm simply bored of arguing with a rock.

pdrucker

July 3rd, 2005, 21:21

dont married couples pay higher taxes? lol let everyone get married, less stress on me.

Meksilon

July 3rd, 2005, 21:23

Hey, thanks for the compliment!

Meksilon

July 4th, 2005, 03:12

This probably is going to offer nothing at all to those who think I'm wrong, but for those who don't and can't understand why others can honestly believe homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality please look at it this way maybe it'll make sense.

Children are taught from an early age that Red Blue and Yellow are the three primary colours, and as a result it's very difficult to convince them otherwise. You could mix their blue and red paint and show it produces a dark yellow like mixing black and yellow... but they'll want to believe what they were taught.

To try and convince someone who honestly believes that homosexuality is a true sexuality that it is not is a similar endeavour. It's exceedingly difficult. Because they were taught wrongly, when you tell small children that the primary (subtractive) colours are cyan, magenta and yellow it doesn't make sense to them. If they were never taught wrongly to begin with, then it's easy to show them that cyan, magenta and yellow are the primary colours, and it makes perfect sense to them. But just as blue and yellow are completely opposite colours, so too are heterosexuality and homosexuality.

So you see, just because something is so convincing and makes so much sense to you, does not mean it's actually true. Believing is seeing, if you believe that cyan magenta and yellow are the primary colours then it makes sense, if you don't then you can make the wrong idea (that the primary colours are red blue and yellow) make sense.

These are parallel truths, you should be able to see cyan and magenta in blue, magenta and yellow in red, cyan and yellow in green as well as see red and blue in magenta, red and green in yellow and blue and green in cyan. Because both sets are primary, but opposites. One starts in darkness and ends in light, the other starts in light and ends in darkness.

Corazu

July 12th, 2005, 17:40

So you're saying that people are wrong for loving someone of the same sex? I have 1 question for you: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?

Gay people getting married affects you in NO way. I'd also like to point out the fact that you've derailed the entire topic to being about raising children, when the topic at hand is homosexuals being allowed to marry. Just because homosexuals get married, does no way say that they are automatically going to raise children. This is called prejudice. Stereotypes are NOT facts, just because when most people get married they end up raising children, does not mean that it is always the case, I know of several couples who have been married and not have children.

The thing is, none of these homosexual couples are protesting for the right to have raise children, they are fighting for what is a god-given right (for those who believe in god) or a right as a human, to be able to join with someone you love in a union based on LOVE.

Take a look at this dictionary reference (yes, a dictionary reference):

http://merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0

Main Entry: mar·riage
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

I think I recall someone stating that marriage means between man and woman? Might not, been a while since I read the thread. Anyway, this seems to be a good definition.

However, we cannot act like we are surprised, there are always going to be stubborn people who are against anything that differs from their PERSONAL CHOICE OF LIFESTYLE.

Happened with the black equality, happened with women equality, happening with homosexual equality. The reason the world is so horrible is because of all this division.

I see 2 reasons for this:
1) Different Religions (beliefs) <-This is starting to break down as people accept other religions (for the most part)
2) Not are people are treated equally

It is #2 that is affecting us right now. Whose right is it to say that someone who chooses a different lifestyle is a lesser being?

Many people have said that they have been conversing with a homosexual (without knowing) and never knew until the person told them. There are many jokes about how 'dangerous' homosexuals are because they blend in and you never see them coming. This is very true, they blend in because they are HUMAN. They are no less of a human than you or I. Giving them this simple right to marriage is something that they should already have. They shouldn't need to be fighting for something they should already have as a human right.

This has to be about one of the only issues that I support with the Liberals, and I give them a pat on the back for putting this through.

Regards,

Meksilon

July 13th, 2005, 01:31

I don't believe in online dictionaries. And at any rate here's the Law:

Marriage Act 1961 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/framelodgmentattachments/CDDABFC72506C6ECCA256F71004E1052?OpenDocument)

And the definition is contained within:
marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.I also draw your attention to section 88EA:
Certain unions are not marriages

A union solemnised in a foreign country between:

(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;

must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.Your "dictionary" definition, is from an online dictionary. They don't have a reputation for being accurate. My definition is from the law, and the law here is defined in order to protect the meaning of Marriage.

This isn't about "rights". All Australian citizens share the same rights. Every person is entitled to marry if they choose. The fact that a man cannot marry his tractor does not mean he has less rights than other men. You are trying to equate this with racism and sexism... but it's nothing like the two. Racism denied rights to persons based on their skin colour, not based on their choices. The same with sexism.

There are men who would like to marry their sisters, do you feel this should be legalized? Before you shout "no, because of the increased possibility of recessive genes meaning their children are far more likely to be deformed" let me ask you:

1. Why would you consider the issues involved with children now when you ignored them for homosexual couples...

And

2. Are you aware that two 45 year olds have roughly the same chance of producing deformed offspring as the incestuous brother-sister couple?

If you're willing to deny brothers and sisters the "right" to marry and allow 45+ year olds to marry, then that choice must be based solely on your morals, since (as I explained) they are equal in terms of producing deformed offspring. It would also be hypocritical of you since you said:
So you're saying that people are wrong for loving someone of the same sex? I have 1 question for you: WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?

Gay people getting married affects you in NO way.Which infers you should feel the same way about "discriminating" against incestuous couples.

If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality. Otherwise please tell everyone here how you believe brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry each other. It's your call. I hope I've answered that one question "WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY THAT?" to your satisfaction.
The thing is, none of these homosexual couples are protesting for the right to have raise children, they are fighting for what is a god-given right (for those who believe in god) or a right as a human, to be able to join with someone you love in a union based on LOVE.I disagree, every homosexual I've talked with has believed that homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children. When we had our public rallies in favour of children's rights over adult's rights against Stanhopes (at the time) proposed changes to allow homosexual couples to adopt, there were homosexuals there "in protest" claiming such crap as "two dads are better than one".

PS: When I've bought this up on previous forums (religious forums), in previous arguments people on your side have tended to choose the option "brothers and sisters should be allowed to marry, who are we to judge?" over the alternative (which as I've explained is solely a MORAL judgement).

PPS: Failing that they've also tended to choose option 3 "how dare you compare homosexuality to incest" - my reply to you if you choose this option is "how dare you compare homosexuality to heterosexuality".

Canuckkev

July 13th, 2005, 11:38

Racism denied rights to persons based on their skin colour, not based on their choices.
But that is assuming homosexuality is a choice?

Corazu

July 13th, 2005, 17:13

Well, that is merriam-webster, a pretty trusted dictionary in print that has a version online. I have an oxford somewhere around, but I don't know where it is since we moved..otherwise I'd look it up.

Moving on, you're assuming that I would have the same stance against incestuous couples. Yet I never even once mentioned them, so I don't see why you're attacking me on that. If incestuous couples were wanting to get married, then I'd see their rights and probably side with them or stay neutral, as there are certain issues with that, completely different from homosexuals.

Now, you're bringing back the damn child issue. Did you not read where I said this is NOT about raising children? They are fighting to get married, not to have children. I have different views about homosexuals raising children than I do about their right to marriage.

Perhaps I stated it badly in my post above, yes, homosexuals are protesting for it, but that is not what this bill is about. This is about marriage, not raising children, so it's COMPLETELY off-topic.

What I want to know, is why you keep bringing related, but off-topic points in to argue this? Have you ran out of actual valid points to bring up and just relying on your pig-headed stubbornness on this issue to keep going?

Give it up, the only reason people don't want homosexuals to marry is because of their own personal views. Views which are not always correct.

Regards,

Meksilon

July 13th, 2005, 23:22

Perhaps I stated it badly in my post above, yes, homosexuals are protesting for it, but that is not what this bill is about. This is about marriage, not raising children, so it's COMPLETELY off-topic.Marriage is about family and family is about children. Therefore it is completely on-topic.
Give it up, the only reason people don't want homosexuals to marry is because of their own personal views. Views which are not always correct.Then perhaps you'd like to clarify your position on incestuous couples, sitting on the fence is not good enough... are you: 1. in favour of brother-sister and similar incestuous relationships... or 2. Morally opposed?

I bring this up because the vast majority of the population is 2. morally opposed, and because it's very similar to homosexuality. There are plenty of brother-sister couples who want to be allowed to marry each other. If you choose option 1 you are proving me right in my argument. Look for yourself:
Moving on, you're assuming that I would have the same stance against incestuous couples. Yet I never even once mentioned them, so I don't see why you're attacking me on that. If incestuous couples were wanting to get married, then I'd see their rights and probably side with them or stay neutral, as there are certain issues with that, completely different from homosexuals.In your own words you first attacked me for assuming that you "would have the same stance against incestuous couples" ... and then conclude that it's true.

And finally homosexuals are not "fighting to get married" as you put it. For to do so they would fight within the definition of Marriage. They want marriage re-defined to allow for their immoral and damaging relationships. The divorce act in Australia is a rape of the Marriage act. There are 13 (I believe) clauses for divorce, and then they added the "no-fault" divorce for when the legitimate clause couldn't be proven. "Irreconcilable differences" has never been one of the recognized clauses, and according to the divorce act divorce is still only permitted to dissolve marriage where at lease one of those 13 clauses exist. To make matters even worse they reduced the separation period for the no-fault divorce from 5 years to just 12 months.

You only have to look at the damage that those "changes" to the legal definition of Marriage has caused. I have had people on your side in this day and age tell me that it is absurd to define Marriage as life-long. America which has the loosest divorce laws in the world, has the unparalleled highest divorce rate.

I shouldn't have to explain all this, because I've already proven before that changing the definition of Marriage to allow for homosexual couples does affect heterosexuals. The divorce laws have affected it. This has been proven, it affects marriage because now those entering into it don't see it as an irreversible life-long commitment... but rather as a union they can always back-out of.

And it doesn't matter if you don't accept Marriage as a sacred religious union created by God, no matter what you believe divorce came from Moses - there is no other known origin. With God's intention of annulling "impure" marriages only - that is where the bride was found not to be a virgin. Otherwise known as pre-marital unfaithfulness - it was not intended for any other reason, including adultery. It too was abused and used more loosely than this.

In closing let me remind you, that all divorces are caused by sin - by what is immoral. All homosexual relationships too are caused by what is sinful, what we know is wrong, and what is immoral.

jmiller

July 13th, 2005, 23:31

What about married couples who don't have children ?
In that case, marriage wouldn't be about family.

Meksilon

July 13th, 2005, 23:43

What about married couples who don't have children ?
In that case, marriage wouldn't be about family.It's like an apple tree without apples. It's still an apple tree, something is missing, but it isn't an orange tree just because it doesn't have apples.

Not all married couples CAN have children. But it doesn't change the fact that Marriage is still about family.

jmiller

July 13th, 2005, 23:53

Yes it does.

I could choose to get married, and not start a "family". I know many couples who have done that.

So marriage isn't always about family and children.

Meksilon

July 14th, 2005, 00:03

Yes, and those in arranged marriages prove it's not about two people who "love each other".

jmiller

July 14th, 2005, 00:14

This has nothing to do with arranged marriage though.

Corazu

July 14th, 2005, 01:13

Why do you insist on bringing in points that have nothing to do with the debate?

How does getting married automatically mean you raise children? Please explain this to me. Not everyone wants kids, whatever reason they may hold it for.

"If this isn't the case you have no right to say that I can't use my morals to be morally against homosexuality."

For the incestuous couples point, this is why I said that my opinion would not be against it necessarily. I'm not proving any of your points by saying that my stance would be similar to what I hold on homosexuals. I'm merely disproving your above point, which, btw, you can be morally against homosexuality all you want, but homosexual marriage does not involve you whatsoever, and it does not affect you either.

I need not state my stance on incestuous couples, because that is completely another debate. Let me just say that it is a different issue, not in any way the same as homosexuals as you seem to think.

Anyway, you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?

Yes, divorce rates have become steadily higher over the years, and yes, I hate it. My parents divorced 4 years ago and it has scarred me for life, but I live with it, because it happens. If I was using your mindstate, I would totally be against marriage altogether (which, actually, for a while I was, thinking that it can only lead to disaster) but even though I was, I didn't take it out on other people. I didn't protest that people shouldn't be allowed to marry because I have some stupid belief.

Divorce rates are rising, and you say this has a correlation to gay marriage? How so I ask? Divorce rates have been rising for a long time...and gay marriage isn't even legal in much of the world yet. This has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, this has to do with the current state of society; cheating, assaholicness; and sex. Lots to do with sex. This is not the fault of homosexuals, this is the fault of whoever is getting the divorce. Something in the marriage went wrong, and as such, they get divorced, I'm sure before divorce laws they lived together, and HATED each other. This is where some things like murdering your spouse comes in...not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares. Another reason being that most people aren't finding true love, and only think they love the person and then marry w/e. Mostly due to the ease of it, and then as they get older and eventually cannot stand the person, they want to get divorced.

So the divorce laws being allowed has little to do with divorce rates besides actually allowing there to be a divorce rate, rather than say, an unhappy marriage rate, or a murdered spouse rate.

I'd also like to point out that a lot of your arguments are based on religious beliefs that you hold, or your group of people hold. Well, not everyone believes in them, and the world is modernizing, we are creating a society in which everyone is equal. This society revolves around people, not 'god'.

In fact, Society never has revolved around 'god', because man wrote the bible, the w/e and the w/e of w/e religion. Society has always revolved around people, it's just back in those days, it revolved around the greedy misguiding people (in my mind) we call the church.

Take a look at another thread in here by NetMaster:
http://freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72206

This talks about a religion which is really a scam, as stated such here:

He told me and a lot of other people that the way to make a million was to start a religion.

Look at the church, BILLIONS of dollars are in it's treasury. Seems as if it worked no? But not only millions my friend, POWER. The church had power for a long time, and they used it as they wished, sinning against their own religion and justifying it as 'holy' acts. Killing intelligent people who held different beliefs than the church, labeling them as heretics. You tell me this is right? To kill someone because they believe not in Christianity? If you do, please, go kill about 3/4ths of the worlds population and then come tell me it's a good idea.

Note: Sorry for this brief off-topicness, which I'm sure Meksilon will bring in to point and attempt to call me a hypocrite for, but I am linking it to argue the validity of his arguments being based solely on his own personal beliefs that not everyone else holds.

Regards,

Meksilon

July 14th, 2005, 07:52

Strawman arguments:
I need not state my stance on incestuous couples, because that is completely another debate. Let me just say that it is a different issue, not in any way the same as homosexuals as you seem to think.That's a strawman. If you can't reply to my question you're showing that you're giving up on the argument. Just to claim it's a different issue and not explain why isn't good enough my friend, it's a hollow argument.
Anyway, you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?Strawman. Nope, I'm saying it will effect the definition of marriage, in the same way that divorce effected it. Ie - now many don't define it as life-long, soon it won't be defined as being about FAMILY, if homosexual unions are included.
If I was using your mindstate, I would totally be against marriage altogether (which, actually, for a while I was, thinking that it can only lead to disaster) but even though I was, I didn't take it out on other people. I didn't protest that people shouldn't be allowed to marry because I have some stupid belief.Strawman. Please explain my mindset.

Can't? Remember I believe Marriage is a sacred institution fundamental to our society. I believe, for instance, that if you make same-sex marriage legal you cause society to become even more withdraw, people will be even lonelier and communities will disappear as people choose not to interact with each other. There a these fundamental issues you don't accept, that you don't acknowledge my beliefs are based on, that your "understanding" of my mindset is nothing but another strawman argument.
Something in the marriage went wrong, and as such, they get divorced, I'm sure before divorce laws they lived together, and HATED each other. This is where some things like murdering your spouse comes in...That's a STRAWMAN.

"not sure of the statistics on that, but who cares."

I care. You've pulled an argument out of the air, not based on evidence, or morals, but on mere conjecture. Are you so sure that you're right on this? Because I ask you to explain to me why it is that all over the world arranged marriages are statistically more fulfilling, and very rarely result in divorce.

I'll save time and just tell you. In an arranged Marriage the two partners have right from the get-go the mindset that they'll have to work to ensure their marriage is stable and fulfilling. They don't expect the marriage to do it for them, they have discipline. Because of this they're more likely to resolve their disputes rather than to let them break the marriage. This does not make them unhappily married, it makes them happily married. Disputes arise, but they're dealt with in the interests of strengthening the marriage, not in self-serving interests which would result in breaking it.

Self-healing marriages are the direct-result of a lower divorce rate. Yes, in that order.
So the divorce laws being allowed has little to do with divorce rates besides actually allowing there to be a divorce rate, rather than say, an unhappy marriage rate, or a murdered spouse rate.Rubbish, I've just disproven that rather shallow strawman argument.
I'd also like to point out that a lot of your arguments are based on religious beliefs that you hold, or your group of people hold. Well, not everyone believes in them, and the world is modernizing, we are creating a society in which everyone is equal. This society revolves around people, not 'god'.Not true, it's based on the best interests of society.
In fact, Society never has revolved around 'god', because man wrote the bible, the w/e and the w/e of w/e religion. Society has always revolved around people, it's just back in those days, it revolved around the greedy misguiding people (in my mind) we call the church.Strawman. Have you heard of Cromwell? He wasn't a saint, but his example shows that of the governments they tried in England the one that lasted was a Christian government.
Take a look at another thread in here by NetMaster:
http://freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?t=72206

This talks about a religion which is really a scamStrawman. Scientology is a cult, not a religion. You know that, I know that. True Christianity is a philosophy, not a "religion". Also, the validity of one religion in no way affects the validity of other religions.

All you've done in posted a whole series of strawman arguments. You've completely dodged the points I've raised in my arguments.

conkermaniac

July 14th, 2005, 08:47

Your overuse and misuse of "strawman" is beginning to get quite tedious. Now, I'm sure you know the dictionary definition of a "strawman" as well as I do. But you've applied it incorrectly to so many situations. For example, Death Reaper asked, "you say that allowing homosexual marriage *will* in fact affect you because of divorce rates or something?" That is not a strawman argument. That isn't even an argument at all! He's asking you a question in order to elicit a response. He doesn't take it any further so as to attack that position. So it is not a "strawman". Neither is stating that "incestuous couples are a different matter". Perhaps you may disagree, but DarkReaper only references your argument once. That would be the phrase "as you seem to think"; in context, he is stating that you believe that gay and incestuous couples belong in the same debate, while he doesn't. That's not a strawman. I think he characterized your argument rather well, unless you agree that the two are different and should not be considered together.

Please be more careful before throwing out logical fallacies at every turn. The "strawman" is one of the most common fallacies, but not every statement that your opponent makes is necessarily a strawman.

I would also like to question your reference to Cromwell. Cromwell overthrew a Catholic king (Charles I) to become dictator. His Puritan regime fell in a decade. What came back was a monarchy that increasingly moved toward secularism. How exactly does that show that "the [government] that lasted was a Christian government"? Not only did his own reign fall, but he overthrew a Christian government to setup a Christian government, and the long-term effect of his failed experiment was the secularization, not the "theocratizaion", of Britain.

Corazu

July 15th, 2005, 00:13

I'll be back with a more indepth response to that Mekilson, but I'd just like to throw out there that in real debates (IE: Debating tournaments) statistics do not matter, and the general consensus is that "90% of statistics are made up". It is much better to reference an individual than it is to address a statistic. Statistics are generally unreliable. Not everyone is used in statistics, as you do not know how they chose to survey, and if they even did survey everyone, I guarentee at least a third of those people refused. This is why statistics are unreliable.

Anyway, I'll debate it more later, too late right now and I will be better able to formulate arguments tommorow.

~EDIT: I think Meksilon should be given a custom title ;) I think the mods would know what I'm inferring here :P~

Regards,

Meksilon

July 15th, 2005, 07:34

Statistics are generally unreliable. Not everyone is used in statistics, as you do not know how they chose to survey, and if they even did survey everyone, I guarentee at least a third of those people refused. This is why statistics are unreliable.Statistics are not fool proof. They can often vary and they're dependant on - how you select your sample population, indeed. However, they can be a very good resource, and a reliable source.

I've used several sources. Census data - 100% of the population by law has to answer it. Government-founded research spaning a decade... HIV/AIDS registry (where just 2% of infections are marked as "unknown" - not the 1/3rd you claimed). Also, Australia has a different mind-set to many other countries, because legally you are required to vote. Due to this Australians are far less likely to refuse to fill in surveys.

Around 95% of the adult population votes in elections. In America it's close to 50%, and steadily decreasing.

bozley05

July 15th, 2005, 08:05

For someone who loves their stats so much, you should do some research.

In regards to the American election:
"According to the Census, 46.7% of 18-24 year olds voted in 2004 as compared to 36% in 2000, an 11 percentage point increase. In contrast, 63.8% of the general population voted in 2004 as compared to 60% in 2000, a 4 percentage point increase."
Source: http://www.newvotersproject.org/youth_turnout_increase

Meksilon

July 15th, 2005, 20:58

Toefur

July 19th, 2005, 01:27

I lied on all my census questions.

Meksilon

July 19th, 2005, 09:12

I lied on all my census questions.That's not good.

Corazu

July 19th, 2005, 18:25

Perhaps not, but it proves that statistics are usually heavily flawed. If he lied on his census questions, I've never gotten any, nor know anybody..that makes a pretty big percentage of flawed census statistics or w/e....let's throw out a percentage of 61%, because it doesn't really matter if it's correct or not, it's just some stupid statistic.

You need to stop thinking about statistics and numbers, and think about rights and ethics. Nobody cares if 91% of marriages end in divorce (w/e the stat is), they care about having the right to do so.

Regards,

Canuckkev

July 19th, 2005, 19:41

Statistics are indeed very important. Of course, they are only valuable if they are collected in a controlled scientific manner. No one gives much weight to the daily poll on the nightly news, but when a professional polling firm gives results, you better listen.

It is much better to reference an individual than it is to address a statistic.
I was never on a debate team, as it seems you were, but that seems very flawed. What one person has to say should have little to do with anything. What a scientific survey has to say should be worth much more in a debate...

Meksilon

July 20th, 2005, 09:37

Statistics are indeed very important. Of course, they are only valuable if they are collected in a controlled scientific manner. No one gives much weight to the daily poll on the nightly news, but when a professional polling firm gives results, you better listen.

I was never on a debate team, as it seems you were, but that seems very flawed. What one person has to say should have little to do with anything. What a scientific survey has to say should be worth much more in a debate...Hear Hear.

jmiller

July 20th, 2005, 22:59

One a more related note:

The bill received royal assent today, and is now official.

Corazu

July 21st, 2005, 01:42

jmiller

July 21st, 2005, 01:43

Yup.

It passed with a vote of 46-22.

Robert

July 21st, 2005, 08:45

I think it's safe to say that since the Houce of Commons, the Senate and the Queen are fairly intellignet and ethical people, that them passing it shows something, no? Now it's just time to get the US, and the rest of the world to tag along.

Regards,

We have to wait until 2008 until we can pass anything similiar. While Bush is in office, he will not change that and has stated he'll veto any bills that go through him. And now that we have one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court Panel, it'll be a tough time passing any law.

Corazu

July 21st, 2005, 17:40

Unless America comes to their senses and impeaches him..or assasinates him..whichever gets the job done quicker.. :P

Regards,

jmiller

July 21st, 2005, 17:45

Unless America comes to their senses and impeaches him..or assasinates him..whichever gets the job done quicker.. :P

Regards,
I'm sure he's a prime candidate for a Darwin Award. :P

Meksilon

July 22nd, 2005, 00:25

The problem is you all think you're always right. "What's wrong with homosexual couples getting married, discrimination it is blah blah blah it doesn't affect you blah blah blah since when was marriage about family? blah blah blah".

I've presented solid reasons against the idea. You've said: "Peh, statistics mean crap to me blah blah blah discrimination blah blah blah hate blah blah blah blah blah blah blah". Well done children, live in your own little delusions. You clearly don't understand either the institution of Marriage, or the fundamental nature of homosexuality. And as you don't, and refuse to learn your input is worthless.

Don't you have any intelligent arguments? I mean come on, I'm not going to just sit here and say "I win, I win, I win!" Just because you refuse to acknowledge arguments doesn't mean you know better. In fact it shows a lack of understanding. I've answered every question thrown at me. I've provided factual, truthful answers. You've provided the argument based on "morals" namely that under your morals homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.

Well is this a moral argument or not? Make up you're damn minds. If it's not a moral argument, as you've all said before then you have to prove it's equal otherwise other than your "morals" you have not shown any evidence, or any reason why it could be considered equal.

My head is spinning. I can't work you out. You attack me for my morals, and all you base it on is your "morals" which you've been brainwashed to believe are better.

Provide some socially relevant reasons. Or are you all together unable to do so? Come on, every one of you is at least as intelligent as I am, I fully believe that so use your minds, don't waste them, and provide some evidence for your arguments. I don't care one bit what you want to believe. You choose to believe what you do only because you're refusing to look honestly and humbly at the true reality of the situation.

Corazu

July 22nd, 2005, 00:30

Ethics, not morals. Ethics is what IS right, moral is what you think is right.

Regards,

Canuckkev

July 22nd, 2005, 01:21

Ethics = Morals.

Meksilon, is it not true that Homosexuality is linked genetically? As in, some people are born gay, others not so much, and still others somewhere in between? I am sure there is a large psychological factor at play as well.

Meksilon

July 22nd, 2005, 09:15

Meksilon, is it not true that Homosexuality is linked genetically? As in, some people are born gay, others not so much, and still others somewhere in between? I am sure there is a large psychological factor at play as well.That's just simply not true. There is no genetic link whatsoever. The Human Genome Project proves it. There are environmental (psychological) links.

We fundamentally require heterosexual relations to procreate, the idea that there's a gene which would reverse this is fantasy.

conkermaniac

July 23rd, 2005, 00:50

That's just simply not true. There is no genetic link whatsoever. The Human Genome Project proves it. There are environmental (psychological) links.

We fundamentally require heterosexual relations to procreate, the idea that there's a gene which would reverse this is fantasy.
Untrue. The Human Genome project has neither proven that homosexuality is genetic nor that it is not. I read in an Economist article that most biologists suspect is that it is genetic, but they have not been able to prove it.

stabme

July 23rd, 2005, 03:50

theres evidence showing its not biological/nature. theres evidence showing its not psychological/nurture.

little tidbits:
- homosexual male brain and skills & heterosexual female brains are similar
- cannot change orientation (disproves fully-psychological)
- there's a 1% increase chance increase of a son being born homosexual with every son born to a family, starting at 3%.
- homosexuals tend to have more homosexuals in their family tree than others (not sure on the objective statistical basis for this)

my best bet is that it's pre-natal and hormonal; an unbalance changes the fetus' biology and causes it to be homosexual (and thus later unchangeable). so, there. nature, nurture. we're all happy now.

Meksilon

July 23rd, 2005, 04:35

Untrue. The Human Genome project has neither proven that homosexuality is genetic nor that it is not. I read in an Economist article that most biologists suspect is that it is genetic, but they have not been able to prove it.On the contrary, all evidence supports that there's no genetics involved. There is also no evidence that it's natural behaviour whatsoever. The anus just simply is not a sexual organ and to be used with one is like putting a square plug in a round hole.

Here's a run down of the argument on the side of the pro-gays:

Sexuality is like gender it's "hard-wired"/genetically determined (a biological fact) and impossible to change.

Evidence directly disproving this:

* - Homosexuals make up (about) 2% of the population, whereas left-handed people - a true genetic minority make up 10%. Also, although left-handed people can be taught to use their right hand instead, it will still be more natural to them to use their left hand. You talk to my grandmother, she writes with her right hand because she was forced to do so, but she's really left-handed.

* - Simon LeVay "Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."

A fundamentally flawed study which produced no evidence that genetics are at all involved.

* - Bailey and Pillard's brother study "found" that when a gay man had:

1. An identical twin, 52% of the time the twin was also gay.

2. A non-identical twin, 22% of the time the twin was also gay.

3. An older/younger biological brother, 9.2% of the time the brother was gay.

4. An adopted brother, 10.5% of the time the brother was gay.

Really all this indicates, though, is that there are environmental factors at work here. In identical twins it should have been 100% if it was really genetic. The study was flawed because all brothers were raised together. For a meaningful study you'd have to exclusively look at biological twins and brothers raised separately. What's more adopted brothers were more likely to be homosexual than biological brothers!

Further the only difference between non-identical twins and older/younger brothers is that they were raised at different times. There is an environmental difference, not a genetic difference. If it was genetic these groups should be exactly the same - ie 50% chance if their brother's homosexual that they are too.

If you can look at those results and conclude any other way, well then you're dreaming. There are very few people today who would try to claim it's genetic when there's no evidence for it.

Meksilon

July 23rd, 2005, 04:44

- homosexual male brain and skills & heterosexual female brains are similarThat study as stated above was flawed. There are so many flaws in the study that it's just not worth using the results to mean anything, however for arguments sake:

1. All the homosexual men had AIDS, a condition known to cause this difference.
2. Overall homosexual men still had INAH-3 sizes spaning the same normal sizes for men.
3. The sample size was way too small.

And there were many more problems.
- cannot change orientation (disproves fully-psychological)There are ex-homosexuals, it can be "changed".
- there's a 1% increase chance increase of a son being born homosexual with every son born to a family, starting at 3%.Environmental factors.
- homosexuals tend to have more homosexuals in their family tree than others (not sure on the objective statistical basis for this)I don't know where you heard that, but you'll have to produce some figures. Because as it stands right now it sounds like your saying there are more homosexuals in familles with homosexuals then there are with families of no homosexuals - a no-brainer that proves nothing.
my best bet is that it's pre-natal and hormonal; an unbalance changes the fetus' biology and causes it to be homosexual (and thus later unchangeable).That's conjecture.

Daniel

July 23rd, 2005, 07:29

Man, this thread makes me want to light up a spliff.

Blank Verse

July 23rd, 2005, 15:44

so any guess as to who is the FWS resident dealer?

Gayowulf

July 23rd, 2005, 16:05

I could probably hazard a guess.

Blank Verse

July 23rd, 2005, 16:13

Please do, because I couldn't actually think of anyone off the top of my head.

jmiller

July 23rd, 2005, 16:34

I'm going with the Polish Prince for that one.

Gayowulf

July 23rd, 2005, 17:39

Me too, and not just for herbal remedies. ;)

actually speaking of dealer, when I was crossing the mall parking lot the other day, a couple of kids came up to me and asked me if i could spare them a joint. That's not really the image I want to convey.

I had a good look at myself when I got home and decided that I'm going to switch to carhartts and a mack jacket. Kids'll be asking me where the lumber is.

Canuckkev

July 23rd, 2005, 18:24

Robert

July 23rd, 2005, 18:41

Well, I always sort of thought that the "nature/nuture" would have been the base of the whole debate, but maybe not.

Even if it IS wholly psychological, I don't really have a problem with people choosing to be with someone of the same sex. I think that most Canadians feel this way. There is a large minority who don't, but it seems the majority wins in this case.

But as for "marriage", my honest feelings are that I don't feel the need to officially recognize this "alternative lifestyle". I won't say I'm opposed, but I just don't feel that an overwhelming majority of our society wishes to equate homosexual relationships with heterosexual, so there is no need to go changing things.

Because, after all, it isn't "normal". Whether you choose to be gay, or are born that way, it just is not "normal", and therefore I don't see the need to accept it as normal.

That is the BEST reasoning to why someone would not allow same sex marriage. Notice he didn't use the words "God", "Bible", or "Religion".

While I support same-sex marriage (I believe everyone is equal and entitled to their own sexual preferences), I do not disagree with Kev here as he clearly stated why HE (Not God, not the Bible, Not a Religious Belief) doesn't support it.

Well done! Fantastic response. Clear, to the point, and most importantly, it was YOUR OPINION, not one of a book!

Space Ghost

July 23rd, 2005, 18:55

Gayowulf

July 23rd, 2005, 19:14

Ask Wojtek, NetMaster... I only partake of such vices from time to time. The postman'd probably take it anyways. But if you want, I could send you a postcard from Canada. just PM me your address.

I like Kev's response too, and definately respect Roberts reaction to it. We need more of that.

There's a lot of pressure for people to accept homosexuality as normal, regardless of whether it is or isn't. In the long run it doesn't really effect you unless some homo's got the hots for you.

i treat it like a style. Some people dress funny and I raise my eyebrow, and other people fit in. dress how you want... it doesn't effect me.

so why can't we all just get along. In this case apathy is the solution.

I've noticed that there is definately a "flamboyant minority" that tends to perpetuate the bentwrist lisping flamer queen stereotype. Believe it or not there are a lot of gays out there that act completely normal.

conkermaniac

July 24th, 2005, 04:57

Evidence directly disproving this:

* - Homosexuals make up (about) 2% of the population, whereas left-handed people - a true genetic minority make up 10%. Also, although left-handed people can be taught to use their right hand instead, it will still be more natural to them to use their left hand. You talk to my grandmother, she writes with her right hand because she was forced to do so, but she's really left-handed.
What are you trying to show by juxtaposing 2% and 10%? Different traits appear in different frequencies in a population.

And how do you know that homosexuals make up "about 2%" of the population? You are making a wild estimate, as is everybody else who claims to be the authority. I've heard estimates go as high as 10%. And just like left-handedness, people can suppress homosexual feelings. Many gay people are involved in heterosexual relationships, simply because they fear ostracism. How do you account for that? Until society becomes tolerant of homosexuality as it has become of southpaws, you will never know just how common homosexuality is.

A fundamentally flawed study which produced no evidence that genetics are at all involved.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Your argument is a strawman. I never asserted that scientists have proven that genetics are involved. I said that they have not proven that genetics are not involved, while you claim that they have proven so. Now I want to see evidence that the human genome project proved that genetics is not a factor in homosexuality. You made the assertion, now I want the evidence.

Really all this indicates, though, is that there are environmental factors at work here. In identical twins it should have been 100% if it was really genetic.
I'm not really well-versed in biology, but not all identical twins are exactly alike in seemingly genetic aspects like ear shape. How do you account for these discrepancies?

Archbob

July 25th, 2005, 14:11

I'm a Christian myself but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state. The state is not there to represent the church. We have freedom of religion for a reason in this country. Just because you think something doesn't mean you can enforce it on others. Marriage by a clerk basically means you get a certificate that states you are married and you get legal benefits of being married. I do not see whats wrong with giving same sex couples the legal benefits.

However, a church should not recognize same-sex marriage and should be allow gay or lesbian couples to be wedded on church grounds because homosexuals are disdainful in the eyes of God.

The one trouble with the almight God that I even have is the fact that he is omniscent which contradicts free will. If God already knows whats going to happen in everyone's life, then in fact we don't really have free will. If he does not know what is going to happen in our lives, then he is not completely omniscent.

Corazu

July 25th, 2005, 14:31

Uh...omniscience doesn't mean he knows what WILL happen, he just sees everything that happens. IE: He sees the entire world happening instead of what's just in front of his eyes like a human.

That has nothing to do with free will, the free will comes from God being completely good or w/e

I agree with you though, I'm arguing for the state to legalize it, what the church allows is completely up to it's own beliefs.

It's like in that simpsons episode, the church does not allow it, so homer becomes ordained and does it himself...making 200$ a couple in the process ;P

Regards,

Meksilon

July 25th, 2005, 22:27

I'm not really well-versed in biology, but not all identical twins are exactly alike in seemingly genetic aspects like ear shape. How do you account for these discrepancies?Identical twins start of developing identical features. They have essentially the same finger-prints. But not exactly, because those physical developments can be affected by the position in the womb.
And how do you know that homosexuals make up "about 2%" of the population? You are making a wild estimate, as is everybody else who claims to be the authority. I've heard estimates go as high as 10%.No, I'm simply going with today's best estimates.

Also, the full genome sequence is available on the internet.

Corazu

July 25th, 2005, 22:38

No it's not..the full genome sequence has yet to be mapped...if it has been we would know how to cure all deseases. Still have cancer, aids, etc. We've merely begun to explore the human genome.

Regards,

Toefur

July 26th, 2005, 00:17

Isn't it just that we don't know which genes do what?

Gayowulf

July 26th, 2005, 00:56

I've got a poster of the human genome on my wall (and the mouse genome).

The human one was completed in 2003 after 13 years of research.

Archbob

July 26th, 2005, 01:21

Just because the human genome project was complete, doesn't mean we know the genetics of human entirely. Far from that.

Gayowulf

July 26th, 2005, 01:24

well it depends on what you mean by "know the genetics of human entirely"

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 02:51

No it's not..the full genome sequence has yet to be mapped...No it doesn't, as gaywulf said it was completed in 2003. Some genes have been theorised to affect behaviour, but those that do are so mild that it's almost undetectable. That is to say, that they really only make the slightest nudge in behaviour. BTW, I was wrong - handedness is not purely genetic, but it is "hard-wired".

jmiller

July 26th, 2005, 05:05

I've got a poster of the human genome on my wall (and the mouse genome).

The human one was completed in 2003 after 13 years of research.
That's just to impress girls, right?

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 06:33

I'm a Christian myself but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state. The state is not there to represent the church. We have freedom of religion for a reason in this country. Just because you think something doesn't mean you can enforce it on others. Marriage by a clerk basically means you get a certificate that states you are married and you get legal benefits of being married. I do not see whats wrong with giving same sex couples the legal benefits.

However, a church should not recognize same-sex marriage and should be allow gay or lesbian couples to be wedded on church grounds because homosexuals are disdainful in the eyes of God.As I've demonstrated, time and time again in the best interests of today's society it is right to legislate Marriage as a union between men and women.

Let me ask you something, if the options were:

a. Legally legislate marriage as being between any two persons over a certain age - including persons already married, persons who are blood related (eg siblings) and including between persons of the same sex.

or:

b. Legislate restrictions on Marriage.

Which are you going to choose?

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 06:36

As a matter of fact, you can also choose option C:

c. don't legislate marriage at all.

Peo

July 26th, 2005, 06:42

Please stay on topic, we are discussing gay marriage in this thread. If you wish to start a discussion about sibling marriages for instance, create another thread to discuss that.

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 06:47

Please stay on topic, we are discussing gay marriage in this thread. If you wish to start a discussion about sibling marriages for instance, create another thread to discuss that.It is on-topic. I'm asking if he wants there to be legislated restrictions on marriage or not - or if he wants marriage not to be legally recognized at all for that matter.

Peo

July 26th, 2005, 07:07

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 07:42

Well, that's not what we are discussing here. We are specificly discussing if gays should be allowed to marry. I think he has already answered that question very clearly. You are desperately trying to frame the issue into something else.He's talking about legislation, and in particular marriage legislation. I asked him a specific question relating to that. You don't get more on-topic than that.
but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state. The state is not there to represent the church. We have freedom of religion for a reason in this country. Just because you think something doesn't mean you can enforce it on others. Marriage by a clerk basically means you get a certificate that states you are married and you get legal benefits of being married. I do not see whats wrong with giving same sex couples the legal benefits.You see he said he's in favour of said legislation but doesn't have a reason other than:

1. "The state is not there to represent the church."

That's a very shallow argument because all he hasn't said how the legislation is in the community's best interests, or why we would be better off with it. He's simply saying he disagrees with the restriction imposed on Marriage. All I asked is does he want there to be legal restrictions on Marriage, and does he want Marriage to be legally recognized - or does he want there to be no legal restrictions on Marriage - or possible no legal recognition at all. The ball is in his court. It's a legitimate question.

I've explained now, Peo, how this is fundamentally related to the topic-at-hand, and that it's a direct response to his post.

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 07:47

We are specificly discussing if gays should be allowed to marry.Oh and to clarify, we have never been discussing that. Gays already are allowed to marry, just like any other person. And like everyone else they have to abide by the legal restrictions of marriage, which means they can marry members of the opposite sex.

What we are actually discussing is legally redefining the definition of marriage. This not about social injustice, or about a group not being privileged to rights that others enjoy, I've explained this.

Peo

July 26th, 2005, 07:57

We discuss gay marriage here, only you could misunderstand what I wrote.

He clearly stated that "I'm a Christian myself but I do think the state should legalize same-sex marriages because there's the clause of separation of church and state."

So, he has already answered your question regarding gays. If you want an answer to your question regarding other groups, please start a new thread about that.

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 09:23

All I was saying is that this is not a caged discussion. We are talking about the legal definition of Marriage, not what people are "allowed to do". The two are separate and very different. If you feel the need to split the thread then go ahead. But as you can clearly see I was discussing the topic - that is the legal definition of Marriage. I'm not taking it a "new direction", and I don't plan to discuss whether or not polygamous and incestuous marriages are OK or not.

Peo

July 26th, 2005, 09:47

Ok, I just thought I should clarify what this thread is about, since you went into other topics with your abc thing.

Again, we are talking about gay marriage in this thread and the fact that gays are now allowed to marry the person they love in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and shortly after this thread was started also in Spain.

Archbob

July 26th, 2005, 11:45

The only real restriction on marriage(in terms of the state) should be two consenting adults(adulting being over 18 years of age or 21 years of age).
In terms of the state, there no real reason why it has to be a man and a women.

In terms of the church, its completely different
But the state is not there to represent the interests of the church.

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 20:34

Archbob I'm going to forget that you're American for a moment. Only because the way you think about your legal system can be very different to how others think about theirs.

Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. But legislation is there to help society function. Now I live in Australia, and I'm proud to be an Australian. Recently Howard passed the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill that amended the Marriage Act 1961 to formally include the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. It also added formally that unions solemnised in foreign countries between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Now The Greens and the Democrats both opposed the legislation - or at least some of their members did. But the Liberals, National and Labour all agreed on it - that's every major party in Australia.

You don't so-often see the parties cooperate like this. Why do we need the legislation? Well here's an example. In Australia Bigamy is a crime. However if Bob goes to a foreign country and marries two women at the same time, and brings them back to Australia, unfortunately we have no way of determining which Marriage to recognize and which not to - so we're basically forced to recognize both of them. It technically does not go against our definition of Marriage - but it would be a crime had it happened in Australia.

However, if Bob goes overseas and gets legally "married" to Steve and they come back, we are legally obligated not to recognize said union as a Marriage, because it goes against our definition of Marriage.

Bush, Blair and Howard all identify as Christian. They're not perfect, but they do their best. All three of them are opposed to allowing homosexuals unions to be recognized as Marriage.

The question you need to ask yourself before supporting legislation changing the definition of marriage is what does homosexuality share in common with heterosexuality? Because they're not the same - they're on opposite sides of the coin. And they're not equal.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the penis fits the vagina. It's reproductive purpose is achieved only in heterosexual relationships. Sodomy is not the same or equal to heterosexual sex, neither is fellatio or cunnilingus. Sodomy is in fact extremely unhealthy, whereas heterosexual sex is healthy.

Men and women who have heterosexual relations are the natural biological parents of children.

Corazu

July 26th, 2005, 20:54

Can I point out that heterosexuals also make use of the anal cavity?

Just thought I'd make that point clear before you start singling out homosexuals for being the only one doing that...like you would and I think have already done.

Regards,

Canuckkev

July 26th, 2005, 21:54

I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that there are "deviant" heterosexuals as well. Also, and I don't really know, but what I've heard is that there are many gay couples (men) that don't partake in sodomy at all.

But his point still stands that sodomy is not a "natural" act. Whereas vaginal intercourse is natural. And by extension, romantic homosexual relationships are not natural. And so it doesn't seem fitting to accept homosexual marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages if the relationships are not equal on a sexual level.

And I will add that I really consider myself an open person. I'm not homophobic in the least, and I have friends that are homosexual. It's just that like I said before, I think that more people should be accepting of the view that "It's okay to not accept homosexuality."

Corazu

July 26th, 2005, 22:58

Yes, it's ok to not accept it on a personal level, but not accepting it is still recognizing it. By not allowing homosexuals to be married, society is not recognizing homosexuals as part of society. You can recognize without accepting, but you cannot accept without recognizing.

Regards,

Meksilon

July 26th, 2005, 23:47

Can I point out that heterosexuals also make use of the anal cavity?You most certainly can.

Now do you mind if I point out that homosexuals do not make use of vaginal sex?

Vaginal sex is the only form of sex with a purpose, it's also the only form of sex which is healthy. Now I know fellatio or cunnilingus is not overly unhealthy - I could point out that fellatio is known to increase the risk of cancer though. But that's not the point, the point is the only truly healthy form of sex is heterosexual vaginal sex.

On the other-hand though anal sex homosexual or heterosexual is very unhealthy. The body just is not built to take it. I'll finish this later, my mouse isn't working....

jmiller

July 27th, 2005, 00:40

I'll finish this later, my mouse isn't working....
Unless you're using an on-screen keyboard, you have no reason to use a mouse to finish that off.

That has to be one of the worst excuses I've heard.

Corazu

July 27th, 2005, 00:43

You most certainly can.

Now do you mind if I point out that homosexuals do not make use of vaginal sex?

Now that's just a LIE.

Male homosexuals may not...but I do believe that females do? No?

You are disproven on that one.

Regards,

stabme

July 27th, 2005, 02:23

Now do you mind if I point out that homosexuals do not make use of vaginal sex?flesh lights...?

tandoc

July 27th, 2005, 02:38

flesh lights...?

Can you order me one? I'm not over 18 and I don't have a CC :bandit2:

jmiller

July 27th, 2005, 02:42

Can you order me one? I'm not over 18 and I don't have a CC :bandit2:
Ask your parents for theirs.

That would be the most akward conversation ever.

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 02:50

Now that's just a LIE.

Male homosexuals may not...but I do believe that females do? No?

You are disproven on that one.Vaginal sex = heterosexual sex = man puts penis into vagina.

I have not used the any term containing "sex" to mean a scenario where the penis is absent.

Peo

July 27th, 2005, 05:25

Originally Posted by Meksilon
Vaginal sex is the only form of sex with a purpose

Eh? Since when was the purpose of sex only to have kids?

Peo

July 27th, 2005, 05:29

Vaginal sex is the only form of sex which is healthy.

Heard of condoms?

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 06:52

Heard of condoms?Condomed anal sex somewhat reduces the health hazards as far as hygiene goes, but it it only does so much. Also, condoms are not a fundamental part of sex, using a condom is basically just like inserting any other foreign object - just because it's used in conjunction with sex doesn't mean it's a part of it. Here's a quick run-down, this does not cover everything but it's a start:

1. The anus does not self-lubricate. This causes several problems, but generally speaking damage is caused to the anus.

2. The anus contains harmful bacteria. This causes disease and infection. This is irrespective of the most recent bowel movement because whether or not the faeces are present the bacteria is.

3. The anal lining is much thinner than the vaginal. It tears more easily - this damage causes two things: 3a. STI's to transmit more easily due to the bleeding and 3b. The quarantined waste in the rectum to be in direct contact with the blood system, causing self-harm. That is, harmful bacteria from the anus infecting the blood system.

A small note, even with ample lubrication tissue tearing still occurs.

4. Prevents defecation.

5. Prevents sitting down.

6. Irritation of penile skin.

7. Discomfort/Pain.

That covers the short term effects. There are also some long-term effects.

Now I should note that for two men anal sex represents the "highest form of intimacy". I put that in quotes because it sickens me. The highest form of intimacy for a married, heterosexual couple is - sex.

Peo

July 27th, 2005, 07:05

Anal sex is common among both male homosexual couples and heterosexual couples as I'm sure you know. Female homosexuals do not have anal sex. So, your problem is really with anal sex and not with homosexuals.

And I repeat, since when was the purpose of sex only to have kids?

Corazu

July 27th, 2005, 07:40

The highest form of intimacy is something to be determined on a case by case basis. In other words, each individual couple's fantasies. These differ from other fantasies, and some of them can involve anal sex, whether it be a hetero or homosexual couple.

I agree with Peo, you have a problem with anal sex, once again, discuss it ELSEWHERE. Stop bringing off-topic discussion into this. Just because you're losing on every other point you are trying to argue, pushing you into that much desperation (to quote bozley) "that you must prove yourself right", does not mean that you can go off-topic. Just give up, or actually come up with some on-topic points that might actually work. Though I don't see any on that point of view other than the personal viewpoint which is completely invalid on a social point of view. As I mentioned before, you can recognize without accepting, but you cannot accpet without recognizing.

Regards,

Robert

July 27th, 2005, 08:29

Well then. 5 pages later (based on my vB settings) and we've gotten nowhere. Those who are infavor of same sex marriage, are well.. in favor of it. Those who are not, are well.. not.

The issue here is not whether it's approved or not by certain members of the forum, the issue is how will those who oppose it deal with it once their country starts to recognize same sex marriage. The bottom line is that will happen. And while Bush does not support it, Bush is only president for 3 more years.

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 09:11

So, your problem is really with anal sex and not with homosexuals.No, I'm simply using it to show one reason why heterosexuality and homosexuality are not equal. The most fundamental issue I take to is idolatry/lust/selfishness. This is the first time I've bought this to the argument, it's extremely shallow of you to make that claim.
Anal sex is common among both male homosexual couples and heterosexual couples as I'm sure you know. Female homosexuals do not have anal sex.And as I'm sure you know gays and lesbians are very different, I'm specifically talking about gays. Not everything to do with gays has to do with lesbians as well, and so you know there's actually about twice as many gays as there are lesbians. They're both similar in that they're deviant sexualities which reverse true sexuality - but they're very different. Like different kinds of weeds.

So from time-to-time it's inevitable to talk specifically about one or the other.
And I repeat, since when was the purpose of sex only to have kids?Allow me to restate it then:

Sex serves a purpose: reproduction. The pleasure of sex involves the transfer of fluid for this purpose. Anal sex does not serve this purpose, and if anything the transfer of fluid debases sex as it's unhealthy in this situation.

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 10:01

The issue here is not whether it's approved or not by certain members of the forum, the issue is how will those who oppose it deal with it once their country starts to recognize same sex marriage. The bottom line is that will happen. And while Bush does not support it, Bush is only president for 3 more years.All hail Robert the all-knowing.

You know what Robert, you're always right aren't you - well at least you think you are, and if you think so it must be right.

The bottom line is that it will never happen. Please Robert, tell me how it can happen when every major party agrees marriage is between men and women?

Death Reaper, here's a quick recap of everything I've discussed, none of which has been "rebuked" - but rather ignored by people like you. Feel free to discuss any one of these points since I'm open to examining it in every detail you feel the need for.

#1. Homosexuality is learned pathological behaviour and in no way "hard-wired". And it is now known there is no "gay gene".

#2. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality in any way. There are many points to this but they include:
a. Sexual practices.
b. Relationship purpose.
c. 5-year breakdown a fact proven and used in court.
d. Undeniable links between homosexuality and destructive behaviour/minds.

#3. Marriage is about family.

#4. Children have proven psychological needs for parents of both genders.
a. the parent of the same sex is the most important life-figure in a young child's life.

#5. There are more people in the following groups than homosexuals:
a. Alcoholics.
b. Smokers.
c. Drug users.
d. Problem gamblers.
e. Overweight persons.

Everyone of the above groups are increasingly becoming seen as "normal" - even though the behaviour is demonstrably the cause of bad health, depression and early death. People in the above groups don't need acceptance for being in them, they need encouragement to change.

#6. Gay men make up more than 85% of new HIV infections in Australia, and similar amounts in the US and other western societies. Note: comparing to Africa/Asia isn't fair because the main form of contraception there is anal sex.

#7. 18-30% of homosexuals attempt suicide.

#8. This isn't an issue about rights or social injustice, but rather about redefining a sacred institution fundamental to our society.

#9a. Many of those who believe that homosexual unions should be called marriage also believe siblings should be able to marry and that polygamy shouldn't be outlawed. They fundamentally believe that the law should not "restrict" people getting married "in any way".

#9b. Conversely those who don't believe brother-sister relationships should be married are basing it on their morals because the risk of deformed children due to recessive genes is no higher than the risk that 45 year-old's have of producing deformed offspring.
a. It's hypocritical to be morally opposed to incest and then claim I can't be morally opposed to homosexuality.

#10. Those who believe homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality are basing it on their "morals".

#11. Anal sex is unhealthy.

I've never advocated hate or misunderstanding. All I've done is exposed the inherent problems with homosexuality, and looked at the truth of the situation based on facts and studies. Everyone on the other side of the argument here has argued straight from their mouth with nothing to back-up what they claim except the inherent belief that they know best. They've even refused to discuss the truth of the situation, observations, studies and surveys. What homosexuals need are friends who are strong for them to help them change their lifestyles.

Peo

July 27th, 2005, 10:04

What's your point then?

People who are not able to reproduce should not have sex?
All type of sex that could not result in reproduction is wrong and should not be allowed?
Male homosexuals can't have anal sex, but heterosexuals can?

And since you again avoided the question I repeat, since when was the purpose of sex only to have kids?

Edit: This was in reply to your previous message, not your last message.

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 10:08

What's your point then?

People who are not able reproduce should not have sex?
All type of sex that could not result in reproduction is wrong and should not be allowed?
Male homosexuals can't have anal sex, but heterosexuals can?No. My point is that heterosexual sex serves a higher purpose, and that other forms of sex are not equal to it.
And since you again avoided the question I repeat, since when was the purpose of sex only to have kids?I didn't avoid your question. I originally said vaginal sex is the only form of sex to serve a purpose. I then further explained what I meant by that.

Goodnight, it's bed time.
Edit: This was in reply to your previous message, not your last message.Edit: Yes I realized that you probably hadn't even read my newest post before posting that. It's fine though because that's the post in which I continued my discussion exclusively with you.

Peo

July 27th, 2005, 10:27

Should only people who can reproduce be allowed to marry?

Should heterosexuals not be allowed to have anal sex?

Daniel

July 27th, 2005, 10:32

Even heterosexuals don't always have sex to reproduce.

Archbob

July 27th, 2005, 12:22

Ok, the point of sex is not to reproduce. When 17 year olds have sex, it certainly not for the sake of reproduction, its for the sake of pleasure. I'm sure many heterosexual couples have sex for the sake of pleasure also. Pleasure is also a purpose and both homosexual and heterosexual sex serves that purpose.

The state by banning homosexual marriages is not really protecting anyone or anything. Its just upholding certain religous beliefs, which is wrong for the state to do. Its ok, if you don't believe in homosexuality, no one is forcing you to do it. You just can't go around enforcing your belief on others. If two homosexuals get married, it does not effect you in any way since you are not involved in the relationship.

As for the family issues. Nowdays there are many heterosexual couples that get married and never have kids.

Now explain why anal sex is "unhealthy" without religious implications.

I, personally, don't believe in homosexuality, but that does not mean I am going to impose my beliefs on everyone else.

Canuckkev

July 27th, 2005, 12:49

The state by banning homosexual marriages is not really protecting anyone or anything.
Some would argue that homosexuality promotes other deviant behaviour.

Its just upholding certain religous beliefs, which is wrong for the state to do.
No, no religious beliefs need be involved.

You just can't go around enforcing your belief on others.
Which is exactly the problem I have with all of this. It seems that it has become unacceptable to hold conservative views. Conservatives get accused of forcing their beliefs on others by expressing their concern on an issue. But by this "accusing", Liberals are forcing their beliefs on others. You have to see it both ways. If wish to accept gay marriage in your society, you can't say someone is "forcing their views upon you" if they choose to disagree.

Now explain why anal sex is "unhealthy" without religious implications.
I believe that has been done. And yes, it is unhealthy for heterosexuals as well. But the point is the only form of intercourse for homosexuals is unhealthy and unnatural. Whereas, vaginal sex is healthy and natural. So if sex is any part in a relatioship, one cannot equate a homosexual relationship with a heterosexual relationship because intimacy for homosexuals is unhealthy and unnatural.

What bothers me is that it seems people (not on the forum necessarily) think that disapproving of someone's lifestyle makes them a bad person. I don't feel the need to err on the side of being Liberal.

Archbob

July 27th, 2005, 14:20

You can disapprove someone's lifestyle and not practice it yourself. But what you are trying to do is ban them from doing it, and you can't do that. Thats enforcing your will on someone else.

Homosexuals may dissapprove of your heterosexual ways, but they aren't pushing to ban heterosexual marriages. Your trying to ban their lifestyle from them, that is what is wrong.

Its life saying "I dissaprove of you eating beef", "Therefore we are going to make if illegal for people to eat beef".

Sure, you can disapprove of it, but you can't force other people into your belief. I'm not trying to force you to say homosexuality is right or that you should practice it, I'm saying let the people who believe in it practice it.

And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy". If two healthy homosexuals without STD's do it, there is nothing "unhealthly" about it. Your trying to bring in the fact that its "unclean" which is a religious implication.

And about deviant behaviour, sex in general promotes deviants behaviour, but heck, it isn't banned.

stabme

July 27th, 2005, 14:28

You know what Robert, you're always right aren't you - well at least you think you are, and if you think so it must be right.

The bottom line is that it will never happen. Please Robert, tell me how it can happen when every major party agrees marriage is between men and women?

*cough* should this forum be taking place 100 or so years back...

The bottom line is that it will never happen. Please Robert, tell me how it can happen when every major party agrees women shouldn't have political rights?

Archbob

July 27th, 2005, 14:36

Lets not forget now 4 countries have allowed homosexual marriage, I think America will follow in the years to come.

Robert

July 27th, 2005, 14:43

All hail Robert the all-knowing.

You know what Robert, you're always right aren't you - well at least you think you are, and if you think so it must be right.

The bottom line is that it will never happen. Please Robert, tell me how it can happen when every major party agrees marriage is between men and women?

Always right? No. But I believe in equal rights. 100 years ago every party believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Thanks to Martin Luther King and other strong advocates, that has changed. If two men want to get married, I say GO FOR IT. Two women, GO FOR IT. It doesn't affect me. I believe in equal rights, I believe everyone should treated the same, I believe that just because you have a sexual preferance other than what people deem "normal", we shouldn't push you away.

Never say never. 100 years ago someone said that black would never share a bathroom with whites. Never say never. I deeply am sorry for you. The day same sex marriage is legal in Australia, you're gonna go crazy.

You're closed minded. I'm done with you.

Canuckkev

July 27th, 2005, 15:00

Your trying to ban their lifestyle from them, that is what is wrong.

First of all, the issue wasn't "banning" gay marriage, it was whether to allow it. It previously wasn't recognized.

Second, the issue was marriage, not the lifestyle. I don't think anyone has said that the lifestyle should be banned (although there are those out there who think that). Like I said, I consider myself very open and accept homosexuality in my society. But I don't consider it equal to heterosexuality. And therefore I don't feel it necessary to equate homosexual and heterosexual marriages.

And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy". If two healthy homosexuals without STD's do it, there is nothing "unhealthly" about it. Your trying to bring in the fact that its "unclean" which is a religious implication.

I don't need The Bible to tell me that the anus is unclean.

Archbob

July 27th, 2005, 15:02

Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.

Not allowing gay marriage is not the same as banning it. Just like not allowing women to have political rights is the same as banning women from political rights.

A century ago, women's political rights weren't recognized, so in effect, at that time, they were "banned".

Canuckkev

July 27th, 2005, 15:11

Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.

Alright, I hate to do this, but you do know what an anus is?

Not allowing gay marriage is not the same as banning it. Just like not allowing women to have political rights is the same as banning women from political rights.

No, it isn't the same. "Banning" to me means taking rights away. It is not the same as not granting rights.

Archbob

July 27th, 2005, 15:19

Yes, I do know what an anus is and both sex between homosexuals and heterosexuals involve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anus

Both banning and no granting rights has the same effect, that certain group doesn't get those rights. And like political rights for women, like rights for the minorities, state recognition of homosexual marriage should be granted. Its pretty much the same thing all over again, a minority group(ok maybe not women) or a group not in power demands equal rights and the rest of everyone tries to oppress them. But over time,society comes to see that they do deserve those rights.

I don't think the church or any clergymen should ever wed homosexual couples, but there is no reason why the state doesn't recognize homosexual marriage.

Canuckkev

July 27th, 2005, 15:25

Well, I'm glad that we are talking about the same anus. But I still don't understand how you don't believe the anus to be unclean.

Its just that society hasn't come to terms with the concept yet.
Well if the majority haven't come to terms with it yet, then why the need to force through the legislation while it is still controversial?

Corazu

July 27th, 2005, 17:04

Well, first off I'd like to point out that Meksilon has indeed done it again, bringing the discussion off-topic.

Meksilon, who gives a crap about anl sex? It has NOTHING to do with homosexual marriage. Anal sex is performed whether in wedlock or not, by being allowed to marry this rate is not going to increase or decrease. Your problem is with anal sex, not with homosexual marriage here.

Regards,

stabme

July 27th, 2005, 21:05

and.. well.. female homosexuals don't participate in anal sex, as far as i know.. at least not commonly.

in fact, if you want to decrease the amount of anal sex... i think you have a good chance with eliminating all males, and converting all women into homosexuals. ta-da! no (or little) anal sex.

Meksilon

July 27th, 2005, 22:29

Should only people who can reproduce be allowed to marry?I've already addressed this question. Not every Marriage will include children, because not every Marriage is between people who can have children. That's fine, but it doesn't change the meaning of Marriage just because sometimes it doesn't include children.

The main reason I'll point out is that the proven best environment in which to raise a child is a Marriage. Now again, some marriages will be abusive and will not be an ideal environment. But that's not because of the meaning of Marriage it's because of human failure. Marriage is fundamental to a family structure, and as such is the reason I truly believe Marriage is about family - even when children are not present.

To your question about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex just let me say I'm not saying they shouldn't engage in it, but I am saying that it isn't a healthy form of sex.
Even heterosexuals don't always have sex to reproduce.Perhaps not. But from time-to-time they do have sex to reproduce. Something homosexuals do not do.
Ok, the point of sex is not to reproduce. When 17 year olds have sex, it certainly not for the sake of reproduction, its for the sake of pleasure. I'm sure many heterosexual couples have sex for the sake of pleasure also. Pleasure is also a purpose and both homosexual and heterosexual sex serves that purpose.Archbob you're drawing a strawman, because sex is natural and healthy. You're pointing out that "pleasure" is something they share in common and that's fine. But you still have to acknowledge what they don't share in common: 1. Heterosexual sex serves the purpose of reproduction which no other form of intimacy does. 2. Heterosexual sex is natural and healthy, anal sex is unnatural and unhealthy even if it is pleasurable.
The state by banning homosexual marriages is not really protecting anyone or anything. Its just upholding certain religous beliefs, which is wrong for the state to do. Its ok, if you don't believe in homosexuality, no one is forcing you to do it. You just can't go around enforcing your belief on others. If two homosexuals get married, it does not effect you in any way since you are not involved in the relationship.You're arguing here straight from your mouth with no substance to back up your argument.

http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=581180

Try addressing some of my actual points. Anyhow your assumptive-circular arguing is going nowhere. By changing the definition of Marriage you're the one who's imposing your beliefs on others, as Canuckkev put very well.
You can disapprove someone's lifestyle and not practice it yourself. But what you are trying to do is ban them from doing it, and you can't do that.I'm not trying to impose bans, homosexuals are not banned from getting married. Everyone who wants to get married must do so within the law, and within the definition of marriage. You're the one who's trying to impose your proposed legal redefinition of Marriage.
Homosexuals may dissapprove of your heterosexual ways, but they aren't pushing to ban heterosexual marriages.Oh you aren't serious. Please, show me one person who truly finds heterosexuality morally wrong and disapproves of it in the same way that heterosexists disapprove of homosexuality, finding it morally wrong.
Its life saying "I dissaprove of you eating beef", "Therefore we are going to make if illegal for people to eat beef".It's not unhealthy to eat beef. But just so you know, the old Biblical commands given by God to the Ancient Jews not to eat certain meats have today been shown to be in the interests of their health. For instance pork contains many parasites that the Ancient Jews would have been eating if it wasn't for those commandments. Anyhow I'm just showing you why that's not comparable here.
And really there is nothing about homosexuality that makes it "unhealthy".You've clearly not paid attention to anything, and are arguing from your "gut beliefs". The problem is that you think you just inherently know best are not willing to examine the truth of the situation. That's the definition of a "closed mind". The same goes for Robert:
... I believe in equal rights. 100 years ago every party believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Thanks to Martin Luther King and other strong advocates, that has changed.You're talking about people who were denied legal rights based on their ethnicity. How has this got anything in common with homosexuals who partake in a chosen lifestyle demanding we redefine the institution of Marriage?
Well, on the contrary, outside of relgious context, I don't believe its "unclean". And if the anus is unclean then heterosexual marriage is also 'unclean'.Another circular strawman argument.

jmiller

July 27th, 2005, 22:45

Try addressing some of my actual points.Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and quit derailing threads, and address the actual topic at hand. :rolleyes:

Canuckkev

July 28th, 2005, 00:10

I find this whole thread very insulting. Insulting to Meksilon. He has gone through a lot of effort to outline his argument and provide supporting evidence, yet few if any of his points have even been addressed.

I thought I might make a post saying something like "My part in this thread is done". But, those are stupid...

Instead, I think an interesting question on this topic that needs answering is "Why is it important that homosexual couples be allowed to marry?". I'm sure I know some of the reasons people feel this way, I just would like to hear more.

Thanks.

Gayowulf

July 28th, 2005, 00:21

I call for this thread to be locked. We're just hearing the same BS over and over again.

I believe all that's to be discussed (argued about) has been discussed (argued about)

Archbob

July 28th, 2005, 00:44

Melkinson, if there's no law that says homosexuals can't get marriedm then they should legally be able to get married. But obviously, you can to impose your will on them and say that they can't get the legal benefits of being married and therefore you are basically saying that they should not be able to get married.

About your answering the eating beef comment:

It's not unhealthy to eat beef. But just so you know, the old Biblical commands given by God to the Ancient Jews not to eat certain meats have today been shown to be in the interests of their health. For instance pork contains many parasites that the Ancient Jews would have been eating if it wasn't for those commandments. Anyhow I'm just showing you why that's not comparable here

That argument doesn't hold any water because your arguments are based on the fact that 'God gave them the commands'. I'm not argueing it in a religous context, I'm argueing in a legal context.

You said that homosexual anal sex is unhealthy. Sorry, but heterosexual sex also involves anal sex, your argument just completely falls apart there.

I am not imposing my beliefs on you. Having a law that says homosexual can get married is not forcing you to go marry another man. Its simply saying that those who want to marry someone of the same sex can. The law doesn't force you to do anything yourself. It does not force you to change your lifestyle at all. Lets say that I do change the legal definition of marriage, how does that effect your lifestyle outside of religious context? You are still heterosexual. You still practice heterosexuality. You do not have to practice homosexuality. How are homosexuals imposing they're will on you?

Your the one trying to prevent a law being passed that says homosexual can get married and therefore you are the one trying to prevent other people from doing something of their choosing and so are imposing your will on others.

It really looks to me like anything that you can't answer not using religous context your just dismissing as "circular strawman logic".