Issues of the LGBT community in Australia... (1 Viewer)

[HumanDichotomy]

This thread is for discussion of homosexuality, etc., in Australia, excluding its morality.

 

[funkshen]

What are we supposed to discuss?

 

[Bereie]

Marriage!!

 

[kaz1]

Send all the gays to Tasmania and give Tasmania independence to become the Homosexual Republic of Tasmania.

 

[Lentern]

This thread is for discussion of homosexuality, etc., in Australia, excluding its morality.

I think the usual suspects manage that all right without an allotted thread.

 

[aussie-boy]

The problem with homosexuality is that it is defined as an issue in itself.

Homosexuality is something that can be desireable to just about anyone (e.g. that sad four corners story on Monday), just like heterosexuality.

The notion that you can define a human as 'gay' entity who needs separate rights from everyone else etc is simply ridiculous.

Most people don't care what sex other people get and tbh the only thing worth discussing is the abolition of all mentions to gender in relevant legislation

 

[Tangent]

The problem with homosexuality is that it is defined as an issue in itself.

Homosexuality is something that can be desireable to just about anyone (e.g. that sad four corners story on Monday), just like heterosexuality.

The notion that you can define a human as 'gay' entity who needs separate rights from everyone else etc is simply ridiculous.

Most people don't care what sex other people get and tbh the only thing worth discussing is the abolition of all mentions to gender in relevant legislation

exactly. Having seperate laws that provide the same rights is still discrimination.
Only when it is realised that everyone is human under the law, without discrimination against age, gender, sexuality, race, appearance etc. will we achieve true equality.

The fact is while everyone has the potential to be homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/asexual/pansexual/etc. (yes, etc. is a sexuality now), everyone identifies with one. There is a difference between having the potential, and actually being gay.

 

[Serius]

This thread is for discussion of homosexuality, etc., in Australia, excluding its morality.

You probably picked the wrong forum for this. Most of us are either pro gay or indifferent.

I am not sure what i fit into, i am vaguely supporting of the LGBT movements in that i think they should be allowed to marry, not be discriminated against in the workplace or whatever.

I am also pretty indifferent though, i dont much care what sexuality you are, fuck whoever it doesnt bother me.

 

[Name_Taken]

This thread is for discussion of homosexuality, etc., in Australia, excluding its morality.

We already have a thread about homosexuality...

exactly. Having seperate laws that provide the same rights is still discrimination.
Only when it is realised that everyone is human under the law, without discrimination against age, gender, sexuality, race, appearance etc. will we achieve true equality.

Please list for me the reasons as to why a homosexual union is actualy equal to a heterosexual unions ffs.

We know both are made of 2 people (and all people are equal etc etc.) but that doesn't make the union itself equal.

As we all know gay unions only benefit gays, while heterosexaul unions have the potential (note potential, not that all actually do) to help society, wait, no, more like ensure its existence in the first place.

Pro tip. As the "team" with the burden of proof, in both gay marriage and adoption, you guys have to demonstrate, why both are useful for society. Simply repeating the status quo, "oh we're not treated as equals, oh the descrimination" is not actually an arguement as to why gay unions should be treated as equal.

The fact is while everyone has the potential to be homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual/asexual/pansexual/etc. (yes, etc. is a sexuality now), everyone identifies with one. There is a difference between having the potential, and actually being gay.

Talk to a ex-homosexual (or even an ex-heterosexual).

Sexuality is not at all set in "stone". There is no "gay gene" or straight gene. It is simply a prefernce, which leads to certain behaviours, and preferences can change over time.

And what do you mean by "potential"? Is it that anyone can be gay, even if they have no preference at all to people of the same sex, they can still consent to homosexual sex exclusively? (Hypothetically speaking OFC).

 

[ilikebeeef]

Please list for me the reasons as to why a homosexual union is actualy equal to a heterosexual unions ffs.

Because they are both human.

We know both are made of 2 people (and all people are equal etc etc.) but that doesn't make the union itself equal.

You contradict yourself. If you say that homosexual unions are not equal in value to heterosexuals, then your view is most definitely that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals.

As we all know gay unions only benefit gays, while heterosexual unions have the potential (note potential, not that all actually do) to help society, wait, no, more like ensure its existence in the first place.

Whether or not there are children is irrelevant. This applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Pro tip. As the "team" with the burden of proof, in both gay marriage and adoption, you guys have to demonstrate, why both are useful for society.

They benefit the people in the relationships. It is absolutely none of our business regarding how others have relationships, nor should we discriminate against them based on this.

Simply repeating the status quo, "oh we're not treated as equals, oh the descrimination" is not actually an arguement as to why gay unions should be treated as equal.

Yes it is. Because they are human. You cannot argue against that.

Talk to a ex-homosexual (or even an ex-heterosexual).

Sexuality is not at all set in "stone". There is no "gay gene" or straight gene. It is simply a prefernce, which leads to certain behaviours, and preferences can change over time.

And what do you mean by "potential"? Is it that anyone can be gay, even if they have no preference at all to people of the same sex, they can still consent to homosexual sex exclusively? (Hypothetically speaking OFC).

Whatever the "reason" for being homosexual, it doesn't matter. It's just like whatever the "reason" for being straight doesn't matter.

I'm pretty sure I've said this in the Homosexuality Thread.

 

[Slidey]

The problem with homosexuality is that it is defined as an issue in itself.

Homosexuality is something that can be desireable to just about anyone (e.g. that sad four corners story on Monday), just like heterosexuality.

The notion that you can define a human as 'gay' entity who needs separate rights from everyone else etc is simply ridiculous.

Most people don't care what sex other people get and tbh the only thing worth discussing is the abolition of all mentions to gender in relevant legislation

One of the most fucking insightful posts I've ever read on this forum.

 

[ilikebeeef]

the problem with homosexuality is that it is defined as an issue in itself.

Homosexuality is something that can be desireable to just about anyone (e.g. That sad four corners story on monday), just like heterosexuality.

The notion that you can define a human as 'gay' entity who needs separate rights from everyone else etc is simply ridiculous.

Most people don't care what sex other people get and tbh the only thing worth discussing is the abolition of all mentions to gender in relevant legislation

+1.

 

[scarybunny]

That's very true. Defining anything as between a man and a women doesn't take into account the broader spectrum of gender (something that was not recognised at the time of making the law, but society has changed markedly since then). Laws shouldn't be about men and women, they should be about people, and apply equally to all people.

 

[Durga]

We already have a thread about homosexuality...



Please list for me the reasons as to why a homosexual union is actualy equal to a heterosexual unions ffs.

We know both are made of 2 people (and all people are equal etc etc.) but that doesn't make the union itself equal.

As we all know gay unions only benefit gays, while heterosexaul unions have the potential (note potential, not that all actually do) to help society, wait, no, more like ensure its existence in the first place.

Pro tip. As the "team" with the burden of proof, in both gay marriage and adoption, you guys have to demonstrate, why both are useful for society. Simply repeating the status quo, "oh we're not treated as equals, oh the descrimination" is not actually an arguement as to why gay unions should be treated as equal.



Talk to a ex-homosexual (or even an ex-heterosexual).

Sexuality is not at all set in "stone". There is no "gay gene" or straight gene. It is simply a prefernce, which leads to certain behaviours, and preferences can change over time.

And what do you mean by "potential"? Is it that anyone can be gay, even if they have no preference at all to people of the same sex, they can still consent to homosexual sex exclusively? (Hypothetically speaking OFC).

Name_Taken, as you've said, we have another thread about homosexuality. If you've seen those same arguments of yours refuted, then wouldn't common sense tell you that since this is the same board, this thread will just be a repeat of the last? Although, that is the definition of insanity...repeating the same action yet expecting a different outcome. Insanity definitely ties in nicely with your wish for an authoritarian theocracy that mimics the Bronze Age.

 

[Name_Taken]

If you've seen those same arguments of yours refuted, then wouldn't common sense tell you that since this is the same board, this thread will just be a repeat of the last?

...But I haven't seem them refuted.

I've seen them sidestepped, and dismissed for completely arbitrary reasons, but not actually refuted.

Although, that is the definition of insanity...repeating the same action yet expecting a different outcome.

P. sure thats not actually it.

Insanity definitely ties in nicely with your wish for an authoritarian theocracy that mimics the Bronze Age.

8D

 

[ilikebeeef]

...But I haven't seem them refuted.

I've seen them sidestepped, and dismissed for completely arbitrary reasons, but not actually refuted.

You don't see them refuted because you refuse to see them refuted.

 

[Name_Taken]

You don't see them refuted because you refuse to see them refuted.

Repsonse =/= refuted.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Repsonse =/= refuted.

Please do explain what you mean by that.

 

[Name_Taken]

Please do explain what you mean by that.

Simply responding to something is not indicative of actually refuting the point made in the original post.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Simply responding to something is not indicative of actually refuting the point made in the original post.

Can be said right back to you.