Gay Marriage revived. (2 Viewers)

[girlanachronism]

I was expressing support, something people generally appreciate in debates

 

[tWiStEdD]

welcome back, gylc.
pity about your getting banned.
i reemmber when you had that avatar last time... ahh.. .the good days.

 

[girlanachronism]

yeah, i want my old account back, i miss being oldskool
i just thought it'd be funny to go back to my roots

 

[tWiStEdD]

Sophie,
i think the likelyhood of bullying would be less likely if people readily accepted homosexuality. My opinion has nothing to do with it.

 

[tWiStEdD]

glyc,
you seem slightly calmer than i've seen of the 'old' you. have you turned over a new leaf?

 

[girlanachronism]

nope, i am still ready to call you a retard just like the good ol days, but i'm so pissed off about the abortion thread (ok, mainly the death penalty stuff) that i cbf going off at you in here too

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

I don't see why they can't marry.........
I'm as right wing as anyone but i have absoblutely no objection to gay marriage.

i object to it.. on a defintion basis..
i think Gays and Lesbians should hav their own version.. to separate them not being the EXACT same things.. i believe that they should hav the same rights and all.. and then so their divorces should be too..

but marriage has been defined a heterosexual union...
like we call it anal sex and oral sex.. u should use protection too... but sad fact is.. it aint sex lolz
otherwise gayarriages all around

 

[LadyBec]

I agree
By giving it a different name (but still in effect being the same thing) it might even get by many of the conservatives etc. who are anti-gay marriage/union/whatever...
You're a smart one, +Po1ntDeXt3r+

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In america most conservatives are in favor of giving gays etc civil unions or something but not marriage, same thing?

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

yer but im saying more marriage-like than civil unions.. cos lik civil unions could pretti much mean me n a pet :S there are lil to no rights....

if i were gay i would lose out hence why the conservatives lik them..

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Who are you to judge whats a right or wrong relationship? Not wanting to discuss only shows your inability to back it up...

It doesn't need backing up. I can judge whatever I want.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I find that gay marriages, or even unions, are contextually inappropriate. Perhaps later, yes... but they will never have the same rights as a heterosexual couple for the simple reason that heterosexual couples have the ability to have children, to procreate. While it seems like something more of a symbolic thing and some of you will respond with "who cares?" you'll find that many of the rights and responsibilites in a marriage relate to children.

1. Banning slavery was once 'contextually inappropriate.' I hardly need mention that with changes in society, it is possible for the community to accept currently dissapproved plans.

2. "Many of the rights and responsibilities relate to children" -- heard of adoption?

I do not beleive in the discrimination of minorities. This is NOT discrimination. The Australian legal system provides for "Girls only bars" up until men are allowed in. After men are officially allowed in, it cannot reverse its policy. Therefore, legally, it is not discrimination. Its just a bunch of men trying to get into the ladies only bar, but the bar wishes to stay ladies only. Therefore, no discrimination.

Legally it is not discrimination, but it is still inequality.

I have, time and time again, attempted to look at this objectively as I believe you can, with great effort. It comes back to the arguement of "Why shouldnt we?" versus "Why should we?"
There is NO answer when you get to that stage.

Well the same point can be said for heterosexual marriages.

What right do we have to provide a child with two mothers? or two fathers? Indeed, what right do we have to subject a child to a violent relationship? or to circumstances that could result in the sexual abuse of the aforementioned child? Hell, what right do we have to allow a child to exist without one parent in a single parent family?
It comes back to Rorix's idea of probability. What are the chances, if born to a heterosexual couple, that the child will be subjected to potentially damaging conduct? Too high for my liking, but that's why we have certain laws.

Where is your authority for this deeply controversial and unjustified statement? Can you show us studies that have proved the probability of a child being subjected to "damaging conduct" is higher with gay parents? I think not.

Single parents have it tough, but they're victims of circumstance... its bad luck and we cant really protect ourselves from that, can we? Not even the parents have a choice.
Homosexual couples provide children with two parents but one type. Two parents, two female/male rolemodels. To grow up normally a child needs a mother and a father. As long as we have the choice we should promote this idea. Never should we choose for a child that they'll have only one parent or they'll have two of the same sex. We should allow them the opportunity to have a mother and a father to the best of our ability until they reach the magical age of 18.

Again, evidence? Studies? You assert a very controversial opinion there.

Yes, homosexual couples can provide the role model that they're missing through consistent contact with friends who can fulfill that role. It is, however, fundamentally different for the child who does not live with two types of role model who can teach them two different sides of the great story of life.

Well that is some wonderful rhetoric, but again, you lack any evidence.

Furthermore, what are the chances that a child of a gay couple will be subjected to abuse by their peers? Dont tell me it would be low, because it wouldnt be. The emotional strain that stands to cause is extreme. Once again, how can we make that choice... how can we choose that a child be subjected to emotional trauma during their school years?

However I would think that having two parents of the same gender would make them much more tolerant and mentally flexible, giving them a compassionate supremecy over their peers. This is surely a boon to the mental and moral development of a child.

Perhaps my final, more controversial, arguement against it is simply that a gay couple with children (assuming they attempt to add children to their family) is more likely to mould the child in their image, thus giving them less choice as to their sexuality. Now while I do not have evidence for this, I would suggest that a a traditional heterosexual couple will allow for the choice more so than a child of a homosexual couple would. I base this on the notion that a child would recieve more harassment at school should they have gay parents. Thus they would grow up lacking confidence and being ostracised (spelling?). This makes them more impressionable as they try to find an identity in the only place that provides stability, home.

Please! That is a highly dubious and unjustified theory, as others have pointed out.

I have assumed that gay marriage will result in a debate on children, and i dont think i'm far off the mark. Gay marriage will be equal, or it wont happen... that's what the pressure groups want. With equal rights come these rights to children. I do not believe for a second that they should be allowed to bear children nor should they be allowed to adopt children for the reasons i have mentioned.

The reasons you have mentioned are not backed up at all, and therefore seem to me like an unconscious smokescreen for a more sinister prejudice.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

It doesn't need backing up. I can judge whatever I want.

Of course you can, it's just no-one will take your opinion seriously.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

--------

At least we are united in our feelings on pacific hills christian school...

messages from their new school captains

"Pacific Hills has always been a community which has cemented this belief in my mind, that through God I can achieve great things. Ever since I entered into this school, in Year 1 to Mrs Gasser’s class, I have had the influence of the Bible and Godly people evident in my life, and for this I am thankful to Pacific Hills.

My initial feelings towards coming to this school were of course of angst. Even in my short time at my old school in kindergarten, I had established for myself a reputation and gotten to know many students and staff. However, these initial worries were overcome mere days after arriving here, for Pacific Hills is truly a different school.

The most lasting memories I am sure I will have of this school is the quality, closeness and godlike nature of the relationships I have formed with students and staff here. The school has harvested my love of music and acting, encouraged my efforts in schoolwork and extra-curricular activities, and built and strengthened my love of Jesus Christ. Many people speak of the community feeling here being very close and loving, and I am sure I will miss this in my day to day life.

Schooling is a very significant part of your life, not only in the time it takes but also in the values and morals it defines, the skills it develops and the knowledge that is gained. For me, Pacific Hills has more than excelled in nurturing these elements in my life, in giving me various opportunities to live and learn in Christ. Paul writes in Philippians a love and faith for God that I to respond to and desire for my life, and encourage all others of us to continue living our life totally and completely for Christ, to the glory of his name. "

bloody hell!

 

[Generator]

Logic and evidence... They have their uses, but life in its entirety cannot always be so functional.

 

[tWiStEdD]

1. Banning slavery was once 'contextually inappropriate.' I hardly need mention that with changes in society, it is possible for the community to accept currently dissapproved plans.

2. "Many of the rights and responsibilities relate to children" -- heard of adoption?

1. Incorrect. Firstly, I shall assume you refer to the American banning of slavery. During that period (1860's if I remember correctly...) the Northern states were becoming increasingly industrialised. The cost important of agricultural products gave way to that of processed goods.
Incidently, that is most definitely NOT a valid comparision to gay marriages. This point doesnt deserve a mention, to be honest.

2. Yep. How many single parents are approved for adoption per year? As few as possible, keeping in mind that it would be in the best interests of the child to go to a houshold that was more self sufficient.

Legally it is not discrimination, but it is still inequality.

Life is never, ever equal. Do not propose to me that it could be or should be. It is a dreadfully marxist notion that I have no time for.
Legal issues have as much bearing as morals on this issue as laws are supposed to reflect the morals present in society.

Well the same point can be said for heterosexual marriages.

I would love to see you do that and to make a half decent case of it. This, also, does not deserve comment.

Where is your authority for this deeply controversial and unjustified statement? Can you show us studies that have proved the probability of a child being subjected to "damaging conduct" is higher with gay parents? I think not.

I shall assume that you lack common sense, so I will spell it out for you.
Children come to understand what homosexuality is by Year 6 to 8. These are extremely fragile times in any child's life. To be subjected to bullying on the basis of your parents sexuality would first come to fruition around this age.
Children who are subjected to such torment are unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, to be left alone. The scarring that will result, yes WILL, is indicative of some of the side effects of having children in a same-sex realtionship in a society that does not, on the whole, condone such behaviour.
I thought it was fairly obvious myself and I do not believe I need a degree to analyse such effects.

Again, evidence? Studies? You assert a very controversial opinion there.

It is in the best interests of the child to have a mother and a father. How is that difficult? The animal kindom bears examples of this. To be taught the ways of the lion, a cub needs to be trained by his mother and his father in different tasks. The same goes for people.... is it really that hard?

Well that is some wonderful rhetoric, but again, you lack any evidence.

I do not know what sort of sweeping evidence you wish me to procure. I will certainly try to find some figures that vaguely address the issue but I somehow doubt that there is anything. This is, once again, a very basic notion. I have not delved into anything that is so complex as to require studies, statistics etc.

However I would think that having two parents of the same gender would make them much more tolerant and mentally flexible, giving them a compassionate supremecy over their peers. This is surely a boon to the mental and moral development of a child.

For ever child that is fashioned in this way, how many have their confidence shattered? I, for one, do not think that it is in the interests of any child to be treated at a standard less than that of its peers simply because another child is made that much stronger in going through the same ordeals.
You're advocating a leap of faith that will damage as many children as it may help. Lets not throw our credibility away, now.

Please! That is a highly dubious and unjustified theory, as others have pointed out.

Now that, my friends, IS controversial. It DOES require support. Unfortunately i'm not aware of any academic research that would indicate that i am correct in my hypothesis but i think its a valid hypothesis for the meantime.

 

[paper cup]

It is very difficult to determine whether or not being raised by same sex parents is contrary or beneficial to a child's development. Without first hand experience I don't think you can accurately judge something like that.

 

[tWiStEdD]

Difficult, but its not hard to see that it would be fundamentally different to the childhood of a child raised in a heterosexual household. I treat it as a leap of faith.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

1. Incorrect. Firstly, I shall assume you refer to the American banning of slavery. During that period (1860's if I remember correctly...) the Northern states were becoming increasingly industrialised. The cost important of agricultural products gave way to that of processed goods.

The Egyptian slaves. ANY SLAVES. You're missing the point, which is to say that simply because something is currently rejected doesn't mean it always will be (and additionally, it does not mean that it is right).

Incidently, that is most definitely NOT a valid comparision to gay marriages. This point doesnt deserve a mention, to be honest.

Um, why?

2. Yep. How many single parents are approved for adoption per year? As few as possible, keeping in mind that it would be in the best interests of the child to go to a houshold that was more self sufficient.

Woah... some really bad reasoning there. You assume that because few single parents are allowed to adopt each year, that it is to do with the single gender of the parent? It could be for a million reasons, such as the obvious: far less income, less love and support, and less time for the child.

Life is never, ever equal. Do not propose to me that it could be or should be. It is a dreadfully marxist notion that I have no time for.

Simply because something is not the case does not mean it should not be the case. When there is no reason not to allow equality, you are in a very difficult position of trying to say there should be none.

Legal issues have as much bearing as morals on this issue as laws are supposed to reflect the morals present in society.

1. Law and morality are two different things.
2. Morals present in society are not necessarily right.
3. Laws do not always reflect the morals in society anyway.

I would love to see you do that and to make a half decent case of it. This, also, does not deserve comment.

You: I have, time and time again, attempted to look at this objectively as I believe you can, with great effort. It comes back to the arguement of "Why shouldnt we?" versus "Why should we?" There is NO answer when you get to that stage.

So you're saying why should we allow gay marriages? My response, why should we allow heterosexual marriages? Quite simple.

I shall assume that you lack common sense, so I will spell it out for you.

Worst fallacy of argument, attacking the person. Please do not do that.

(Aside from that, do you know what I study? I don't think you can possibly say I lack common sense. Please calm down and address me with courtesy, as I have you. You are simply reducing your credibility.)

Children come to understand what homosexuality is by Year 6 to 8. These are extremely fragile times in any child's life. To be subjected to bullying on the basis of your parents sexuality would first come to fruition around this age.
Children who are subjected to such torment are unlikely, on the balance of probabilities, to be left alone. The scarring that will result, yes WILL, is indicative of some of the side effects of having children in a same-sex realtionship in a society that does not, on the whole, condone such behaviour.
I thought it was fairly obvious myself and I do not believe I need a degree to analyse such effects.

Translation: "I do not have any evidence of damage to children, no."

It is in the best interests of the child to have a mother and a father. How is that difficult? The animal kindom bears examples of this. To be taught the ways of the lion, a cub needs to be trained by his mother and his father in different tasks. The same goes for people.... is it really that hard?

That is a pretty poor analogy. As humans in modern society we need far different skills than physical survival. With education, and the love of both parents, I don't see how the child would be inhibited in his/her development.

I do not know what sort of sweeping evidence you wish me to procure. I will certainly try to find some figures that vaguely address the issue but I somehow doubt that there is anything.

Thankyou.

For ever child that is fashioned in this way, how many have their confidence shattered? I, for one, do not think that it is in the interests of any child to be treated at a standard less than that of its peers simply because another child is made that much stronger in going through the same ordeals.
You're advocating a leap of faith that will damage as many children as it may help. Lets not throw our credibility away, now.

Love and support can pull children through a lot. There may be some periods of life where there will be some jerks but on the whole, as xayma mentioned, it's a bit of an extreme to say kids are going to be mentally scarred.

 

[Monkey Butler]

If one of your parents is obese, and you get teased for it, does that scar you for the rest of your life? No, of course not. You get pissed off at the bully, continue loving your obese parent, and hopefully get on with the rest of your life. Bullying is always going to happen, and if it's not about a kid's parent it'll be about something else.

I don't agree with the idea of church marriages for gay people, because although we live in a secular state, Christianity does not "permit" homosexuality, and so the state shouldn't be allowed to impose gay marriages upon them. That said, there already exists a system of secular marriage, and there is absolutely no reason in my mind why gay people shouldn't be allowed to use that. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment based on mutual love and respect, despite what the Government says. Whether that love is between two people of the same sex should be irrelevant.

And the issue of adoption/artificial birth of children is entirely irrelevant in this debate. Sure, gay marriages COULD lead to that issue being addressed, but ignoring a contentious issue because it may lead to another contentious issue is ridiculous. As has alreeady been said, adoption and artificial insemination are not processes exclusive to married couples, and so the provision of marriage for gay couples would not necessarily mean that those couples would automatically have to be allowed to adopt children.