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

[Durga]

This is just astonishing. Here he is, unable to admit that his 'secular' arguments have been completely and utterly crushed. I'm stumped as to how to reason with him, as reasoning does not work. He just keeps saying the same thing, again and again. Wow...

 

[Name_Taken]

Because they are both human.

This is not an argument, unless you also assert that polygamous unions, and all manner of relationships composed only of humans are also equally valid.

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.

But a heterosexual union represents something which is more valuable to the state than the sum of its parts. It (not saying all of them, but the vast majority) are able to procreate.
Without heterosexual unions there would be no state to begin with, while homosexual unions only benefit homosexuals.
OFC in terms of the relationship themselves, both are as meaningful (I would imagine at least) for the individuals involved in them.
Civil marriage however does not concern itself with love or commitment, merely the advancement of a vital social interest which is not met by gay unions.

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

In regards to the state as a whole, this is woefully incorrect.
A community of people who only engage in homosexual behaviours will inevitably die out, a victim of its own indecent behaviour and craving for the carnal, despite having the ability to procreate and continue into the next generation. A community of straight people, however will continue.
Children are sorta important 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.

Civil marriage is not about love.

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

I’m not. I’m arguing that in regards to the state, heterosexual unions represent something greater than the sum of its parts, while homosexual unions can only benefit homosexuals. Not that gay unions should be outlawed or w/e (however....) just that they should not be thought of as being equal to heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that they are not and no amount of liberal BS will ever be able to cover this simple truth up.

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

That’s like saying in response to a baby born with 3 arms, when enquired why does the baby have three arms, to respond with the question, well why do you have 2?
In a species which reproduces by sexual reproduction, heterosexuality is the norm. There isn’t a “reason” why someone is heterosexual, just like there isn’t a reason as to why we have 2 arms, other than we’re human and humans have 2 arms.
The flaw with this admittadly limited example, is that the baby didn't choose to have 3 arms, but people who engage in immoral homosexual practises do so willingly.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

people dont have to marry to produce children fyi

 

[Name_Taken]

people dont have to marry to produce children fyi

Married couples tend to be more committed to staying together and the upbringing of their children compared to people living together but who are not married.

Marriage simply provides legal protection and financial support to increase the stability of the relationship, supporting the unity of the family unit as a whole.

 

[Tangent]

marriage simply provides legal protection and financial support to increase the stability of the relationship, supporting the unity of the family unit as a whole.

bingo!!!!!!!

 

[Slidey]

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.

Bravo!

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

bingo!!!!!!!

LOL you got him there

 

[NewiJapper]

Problems. Ok.

1. There are too many LGBT threads in NCPA.
2. People such as Name_Taken should be locked away for life or have their mouths stitched up so they cannot spread profanities or hands cut off so he can't type his way into belittling gays.

 

[Name_Taken]

bingo!!!!!!!

Ahh, but why should the state care about regulating a relationship, in order to create stability, if not for the protection of the children which may be born as a result of that relationship?

The government doesn't care if you fall out with your friends, or even if you fall out with your mother (as long as you're over 18). But when you're still a child, it seeks to protect you, i.e. DOCS which may interevene depending on the circumatances.

Problems. Ok.

1. There are too many LGBT threads in NCPA.

QFT. Nothing wrong with a gay thread, but when the top like 5 are about homosexuality and descend into the same arguements all over again, one has to wonder, why do you bother?

2. People such as Name_Taken should be locked away for life or have their mouths stitched up so they cannot spread profanities or hands cut off so he can't type his way into belittling gays.

LOL

Typical f**cking liberal. Democracy and free speech is fine, but if you disagree with me, I'm going to punish your sorry arse. You like to think your the champion of some higher just cause, but you are not only as deluded as you think I am, you are more draconian.

Keyboard warrior why don't you grow up and learn to respect other peoples opinions? I'm listening to you here, even tho I disagree with you, and I haven't felt the need to resort to insults as you have (remember the little c**t affair previously?).

 

[ilikebeeef]

This is not an argument, unless you also assert that polygamous unions, and all manner of relationships composed only of humans are also equally valid.

I have done this at least 10 times.

But a heterosexual union represents something which is more valuable to the state than the sum of its parts. It (not saying all of them, but the vast majority) are able to procreate.
Without heterosexual unions there would be no state to begin with, while homosexual unions only benefit homosexuals.
OFC in terms of the relationship themselves, both are as meaningful (I would imagine at least) for the individuals involved in them.
Civil marriage however does not concern itself with love or commitment, merely the advancement of a vital social interest which is not met by gay unions.

In regards to the state as a whole, this is woefully incorrect.
A community of people who only engage in homosexual behaviours will inevitably die out, a victim of its own indecent behaviour and craving for the carnal, despite having the ability to procreate and continue into the next generation. A community of straight people, however will continue.
Children are sorta important for society.

I said the topic of children is irrelevant. Not all married couples have kids, and not all couples who have kids are married.

Civil marriage is not about love.

-1. So you would only marry to 'further the population of society'?

I’m not. I’m arguing that in regards to the state, heterosexual unions represent something greater than the sum of its parts, while homosexual unions can only benefit homosexuals. Not that gay unions should be outlawed or w/e (however....) just that they should not be thought of as being equal to heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that they are not and no amount of liberal BS will ever be able to cover this simple truth up.

So you oppose the notion of having equal rights for everyone, despite your repeated failed attempts at covering this up. That pretty much sums up your opinion.

That’s like saying in response to a baby born with 3 arms, when enquired why does the baby have three arms, to respond with the question, well why do you have 2?
In a species which reproduces by sexual reproduction, heterosexuality is the norm. There isn’t a “reason” why someone is heterosexual, just like there isn’t a reason as to why we have 2 arms, other than we’re human and humans have 2 arms.
The flaw with this admittadly limited example, is that the baby didn't choose to have 3 arms, but people who engage in immoral homosexual practises do so willingly.

I already said it does not matter what the "reason" is. Only debate in terms of facts.

That being said, it is futile to debate any further on this issue. At this rate, we're just wasting forum space as we're going around in circles. Please just let both of us shut up.

 

[NewiJapper]

You like to think your the champion of some higher just cause, but you are not only as deluded as you think I am, you are more draconian.

But I AM the champion...? I don't see a problem with that though...

Keyboard warrior why don't you grow up and learn to respect other peoples opinions?

Keyboard warrior?! LOL. Your the one on the frickin' crusade. I'll respect your opinions when they aren't morally wrong, you've converted from bigotry, you respect my opinion that I would like adoption and marriage rights.

 

[supercalamari]

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

No such thing, ex-gay programs do not work and have claimed the lives of many young people. Read Anthony Venn Brown's A Life of Unlearning or any article by Peterson Toscano or Christine Bakke to find out more.

 

[katie tully]

Married couples tend to be more committed to staying together and the upbringing of their children compared to people living together but who are not married.

Marriage simply provides legal protection and financial support to increase the stability of the relationship, supporting the unity of the family unit as a whole.

hurrr durrrr durka you knob

that would explain why divorce rates currently sit above 50%

 

[Tangent]

Ahh, but why should the state care about regulating a relationship, in order to create stability, if not for the protection of the children which may be born as a result of that relationship?

The government doesn't care if you fall out with your friends, or even if you fall out with your mother (as long as you're over 18). But when you're still a child, it seeks to protect you, i.e. DOCS which may interevene depending on the circumatances.

You lack emotion. You still don't get what this is all about. It is discrimination. It separates society. even though marriage is there for legalities, it stands for so much more. It seen as a the ultimate display of love.


"There's a picture on my kitchen wall
Looks like Jesus and his friends involved
There's a party getting started in the yard
There's a couple getting steamy in the car parked in the drive
Was I too young to see this with my eyes?

By the pool last night, apparently
The chemicals weren't mixed properly
You hit your head and then forgot your name
And then you woke up at the bottom by the drain
And now your altitude and memory's a shame

What about taking this empty cup and filling it up
With a little bit more of innocence
I haven't had enough, it's probably because when you're young
It's okay to be easily ignored
I like to believe it was all about love for a child

And when the house was left in shambles
Who was there to handle all the broken bits of glass
Was it mom who put my dad out on his ass or the other way around
Well I'm far too old to care about that now

What about taking this empty cup and filling it up
With a little bit more of innocence
I haven't had enough, it's probably because when you're young
It's okay to be easily ignored
I'd like to believe it was all about love for a child

It's kinda nice to work the floor since the divorce
I've been enjoying both my Christmases and my birthday cakes
And taking drugs and making love at far too young an age
And they never check to see my grades
What a fool I'd be to start complaining now

What about taking this empty cup and filling it up
With a little bit more of innocence
I haven't had enough, it's probably because when you're young
It's okay to be easily ignored
I'd love to believe it's all about love for a child

It was all about love... "

 

[ilikebeeef]

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is morally wrong in itself.

 

[Malfoy-Sama]

I hate this term "LGBT"

why do the gays want to lower themselves to the level of transexuals, who can be considered nothing more than people with severely screwed up minds who want to harm themselves.

 

[Name_Taken]

You lack emotion. You still don't get what this is all about. It is discrimination. It separates society. even though marriage is there for legalities, it stands for so much more. It seen as a the ultimate display of love.

You haven't established what is actually unfair about the descrimination taking place.

Now this may seem like an outrageous sort of statement to make, but let me explain.

Descrimination refers to observing the differences between things. Over time, it has come to be known as a more repugnant work, synonamous with ostracisation and abuse etc.

What I mean by that is that if a heterosexual union is indeed demonstratably different to a union between two people of the same sex, then why shouldn't it be treated differently?

Civil marriage refers to government recognition of a union. It entites those registered under the marriage registry to various (rather minor) tax breaks.

As I have repeatetdly stated, civil marriage represents the governments stamp of approval on private unions it deeps to be special and worthy of attention and freebies. I have already established the principle reason why the government does this is that heterosexual marriages provide soceity with and care for throughout adolesence, the next generation of people. The protection of childrens welfare is a vital state interest, hence the judtification for special privledges and status.

Civil marriage, as has been stated by others, is also a sort of contract between the two parties. (However this two, for example the paying of child support in the case of a divorce etc, is intended for the benefit of children that may develop from the union).

Civil marriage is not about love at all.

Private marriage, is the celebration of love. That is what you and your partner organise, at a Church or someplace else, with the cake, the rings and the party etc etc

I can be privately married, so to speak, but not register on the marriage register, and not have my union recognised as a (civil) marriage, by the government. The opposite also holds, I can register as married, etc, without having to exchange rings, or do the marriage ceremony.

Your point about love is moot therfore on two levels.

i) The granting of civil marraige status by the government has nothing to do with a recognition of or a public display of love/committment.

ii) Gays can already celebrate their love, and commit to each other, in marriage ceremonies, which in every way resemble that of heterosexual marriage ceremonies.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You haven't established what is actually unfair about the descrimination taking place.

Now this may seem like an outrageous sort of statement to make, but let me explain.

Descrimination refers to observing the differences between things. Over time, it has come to be known as a more repugnant work, synonamous with ostracisation and abuse etc.

What I mean by that is that if a heterosexual union is indeed demonstratably different to a union between two people of the same sex, then why shouldn't it be treated differently?

Civil marriage refers to government recognition of a union. It entites those registered under the marriage registry to various (rather minor) tax breaks.

As I have repeatetdly stated, civil marriage represents the governments stamp of approval on private unions it deeps to be special and worthy of attention and freebies. I have already established the principle reason why the government does this is that heterosexual marriages provide soceity with and care for throughout adolesence, the next generation of people. The protection of childrens welfare is a vital state interest, hence the judtification for special privledges and status.

Civil marriage, as has been stated by others, is also a sort of contract between the two parties. (However this two, for example the paying of child support in the case of a divorce etc, is intended for the benefit of children that may develop from the union).

Civil marriage is not about love at all.

Private marriage, is the celebration of love. That is what you and your partner organise, at a Church or someplace else, with the cake, the rings and the party etc etc

I can be privately married, so to speak, but not register on the marriage register, and not have my union recognised as a (civil) marriage, by the government. The opposite also holds, I can register as married, etc, without having to exchange rings, or do the marriage ceremony.

Your point about love is moot therfore on two levels.

i) The granting of civil marraige status by the government has nothing to do with a recognition of or a public display of love/committment.

ii) Gays can already celebrate their love, and commit to each other, in marriage ceremonies, which in every way resemble that of heterosexual marriage
ceremonies.

baby im so hot for you right now. you saying stuff like this makes me wanna rip those pants right off you.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I hate this term "LGBT"

why do the gays want to lower themselves to the level of transexuals, who can be considered nothing more than people with severely screwed up minds who want to harm themselves.

mate, wanna do it? you can join me and name_taken

 

[Absolutezero]

I hate this term "LGBT"

I agree with you on LGBT, but for a different reason. There are a whole heap of other things which aren't covered like adrogyny, asexuality, and pretty much anything that falls under genderfuck theory.