AusCelebs Forums

View active topics It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:08 pm



Reply to topic 
 [ 72 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
 Same sex marriage vote 

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Yes 68%  68%  [ 117 ]
No 32%  32%  [ 54 ]
Total votes : 171

 Same sex marriage vote 
Message Author

Postby dizzan » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:29 am


phunkyfeelone wrote:
HIPPYD wrote:
Funny how the religious point to the bible for their reason against, yet the bible also says gays should be killed...they don't seem to mention that part. In any event, marriage has nothing to do with religion despite what they think, it's a legal contract. A wedding in a church is just ceremonial religious garbage which means jack squat until you sign government paper work. Even if gays could never marry there will still always be gay couples with kids living as a family so that in itself defeats their argument. The no camp really has no rational point, they are either ignorant of the issue or fundies.


No rational point - the belief that a valid and complete base for a family consists of a man and woman for physiological reasons is a pretty solid reason.
No religion, no ant-gay bullshit. And it is the natural construct that is consistent across all animal species. The male and female of a species pair off, we have legalised this pairing by way of marriage because of the complicated social structures that exist with humans.

I also think IVF should be a lot more restricted, I personally believe there's only 1 way to have children, which is via a man and a woman having sex.
I find it very selfish and unnatural to make babies in a lab. Particularly for same sex couples, it's not the way humans are designed.

And the classic argument is "there's plenty of shit hetro couples", you're right, if anything I think marriage laws should be tightened, with a minimum 2 year co-habitation requirement, pass legal tests for violence and anti-social behaviours etc.

But under this construct, have civil unions for those in a committed relationship, which provides legal rights to an extent.

I think we all agree that wasting $122m on this is so fcking stupid, we had an election, where two parties had different views on a range of issues. If same-sex marriage is your most important issue, then use your vote to say so. For me, the environment is a much bigger issue, so I cast my vote accordingly, and accept that it may come with a couple of laws that I don't like but have to accept.

Bitching and moaning because shit doesn't go your way only creates a divide, as we currently have.


Wow.

I didn't think people with your attitude to life still existed.


2
Monty Burns

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:34 am
Posts: 64
Karma: 9.38 (6 thanks)
Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:29 am
Profile

Postby thebatdude » Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:13 am


phunkyfeelone wrote:
HIPPYD wrote:
Funny how the religious point to the bible for their reason against, yet the bible also says gays should be killed...they don't seem to mention that part. In any event, marriage has nothing to do with religion despite what they think, it's a legal contract. A wedding in a church is just ceremonial religious garbage which means jack squat until you sign government paper work. Even if gays could never marry there will still always be gay couples with kids living as a family so that in itself defeats their argument. The no camp really has no rational point, they are either ignorant of the issue or fundies.


No rational point - the belief that a valid and complete base for a family consists of a man and woman for physiological reasons is a pretty solid reason.
No religion, no ant-gay bullshit. And it is the natural construct that is consistent across all animal species. The male and female of a species pair off, we have legalised this pairing by way of marriage because of the complicated social structures that exist with humans.

I also think IVF should be a lot more restricted, I personally believe there's only 1 way to have children, which is via a man and a woman having sex.
I find it very selfish and unnatural to make babies in a lab. Particularly for same sex couples, it's not the way humans are designed.

And the classic argument is "there's plenty of shit hetro couples", you're right, if anything I think marriage laws should be tightened, with a minimum 2 year co-habitation requirement, pass legal tests for violence and anti-social behaviours etc.

But under this construct, have civil unions for those in a committed relationship, which provides legal rights to an extent.

I think we all agree that wasting $122m on this is so fcking stupid, we had an election, where two parties had different views on a range of issues. If same-sex marriage is your most important issue, then use your vote to say so. For me, the environment is a much bigger issue, so I cast my vote accordingly, and accept that it may come with a couple of laws that I don't like but have to accept.

Bitching and moaning because shit doesn't go your way only creates a divide, as we currently have.


Sir, you’re an embarrassment. Why should you care or have an opinion at all on what is essentially someone else’s private business? How does it affect you if 2 people who can’t conceive naturally get help?

People like you are what’s wrong with the system. Not what’s right about it.

Morality serves its purpose - but has no place when it comes to someone’s personal right to love and marriage let alone conception.

What’s important is that the child is raised in a loving, supportive environment. Not how it got here.

I guess you avoid any mass produced or genetically altered food as well based on your argument?

You must grow all your own food if you feel that strongly about science interrupting what’s “natural”.


4
Selma Bouvier

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:19 pm
Posts: 42
Karma: 140.48 (59 thanks)
Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:13 am
Profile

Postby phunkyfeelone » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:29 am


thebatdude wrote:

Sir, you’re an embarrassment. Why should you care or have an opinion at all on what is essentially someone else’s private business? How does it affect you if 2 people who can’t conceive naturally get help?

People like you are what’s wrong with the system. Not what’s right about it.

Morality serves its purpose - but has no place when it comes to someone’s personal right to love and marriage let alone conception.

What’s important is that the child is raised in a loving, supportive environment. Not how it got here.

I guess you avoid any mass produced or genetically altered food as well based on your argument?

You must grow all your own food if you feel that strongly about science interrupting what’s “natural”.


I'm vegan, eat organic produce and do grow a lot of my own food FYI. The only fish I'd like to eat is Rhiannon Fish... :lol:
I'm not anti-gay or anything like it, it is in most cases a case of a natural occurence where the wiring is different, and causes inter-sex attraction. The default animal state is attraction to the opposite sex for purposes of procreation.

Noted that i don't revert to making comment or criticizing your view. Everyone has an opinion, and the great thing about an opinion is it's just an opinion. I'm entitled to a view on this issue, just as everyone is, as it impacts the social structure and laws of the country i live in. Just as I'm entitled to a view on the environment, economic policy, or any other change of law.


Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 2095
Karma: 166.35 (3485 thanks)

Location: The Land of Chocolate
Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:29 am
Profile

Postby Gurc439 » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:45 am


Its a yes from me

Why should us Middle aged straight blokes be the only ones that have to suffer.

.


6
Maggie's Pacifier

Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:33 pm
Posts: 1
Karma: 600.00 (6 thanks)
Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:45 am
Profile

Postby SKaVeN » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:54 am


One section of the community having to ask the rest of the community for simply the right to do something they can do doesn't seem very democratic to me...

Quote:
The following is a response to some of the arguments I have seen people attempt to make in opposition to marriage equality in recent weeks. I have kept it as civil as possible, so as to remove the chance of being called a bully. If you are offended by simply being told you are wrong, try to imagine how offended you would be if you were told you deserve fewer legal rights than the rest of the country.
They are not my arguments, so please feel free to share them with any opponents you know. Also please feel free to tell me of any I’ve missed.
I’m sure there are more, but this is a start:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. "My religion says it's sinful"
If your religion regards equality as a sin, your religion cannot claim moral superiority.
If your religion regards homosexuality as a sin, that is irrelevant to the postal survey. Homosexuality is perfectly legal in Australia. However, in Australia it is not legal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of their sexuality.
Besides this, many of the archaic religions had a much broader idea of marriage – including child brides and/or multiple brides, or the execution of brides that have insufficient bleeding on their wedding night. Get your story straight.
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. “My church/business will be forced to marry/provide service to the gays”
Churches are able – and will continue to be able – to refuse to marry any couple they deem as having lifestyles outside of their teachings (i.e. have been divorced, have had an abortion, have had sex/children before marriage).
Churches do not have - and never did have - a monopoly on marriage. The majority of weddings in present day Australia are already conducted outside the church i.e. by a secular celebrant. Do you really think people who are regarded as abominations by the church will be rushing to churches to get married?
Businesses are already unable to discriminate on the grounds of a person’s sexuality.
Allowing same sex couples to get married will not change any of these facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------
3. "It's not natural"
This one has several versions, all of which are predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of ‘natural’. There is not one aspect of Western human existence that could be accurately described as natural – unless, of course, you are a nudist, living without electricity or shelter, who still squats to poo and doesn’t clean up afterwards. Anyway, I digress…
If you mean it in the 'it disgusts me' sense, you are a bigot, plain and simple.
If you mean it in the 'it doesn't happen in nature' sense, you are just wrong. Homosexuality occurs in around 1500 animal species, whereas marriage (and homophobia) only occurs in one.
If you mean it in the 'they can't produce offspring' sense, you are being selective. Many heterosexual couples can't have kids. Many others don't want to. Past a certain stage in life, it’s not even possible. Are you advocating that these people be excluded from marriage as well?
----------------------------------------------------------------
4. "The penis fits in the vagina perfectly"
Again, the postal survey isn't about sex. Like it or not, homosexual sex is already legal in Australia. But since we're here...
Genitalia come in all shapes and sizes actually.
Some penises don't fit in some vaginas. However, some penises can fit in anuses. Penises can fit in mouths. From personal experience, penises fit very snugly in a clenched fist.
Some vaginas can’t fit anything in them. However, some vaginas can fit fingers. Vaginas can fit sex toys. Vaginas can even be stimulated without being penetrated.
If your sex life is so dull as to only involve fitting a penis into a vagina, I feel sorry for you, but it's simply not the only form of sex. As you’re already online, I suggest broadening your horizons a tad.
----------------------------------------------------------------
5. "The sanctity of marriage is the foundation of civilised society - any redefinition of it will cause society to collapse"
Same sex marriage has so far been legalised in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Columbia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the UK, the USA, and Uruguay. I don't think that really needs any further explanation.
Note: This one is also often reworded as a fallacious ‘slippery slope’ argument – usually along the lines of “If we allow same sex marriage, what will be next? People will marry children, dogs, bridges, etc…”
In Australia, marriage can only be entered into voluntarily. Dogs, bridges etc cannot give consent, only adult humans can.
----------------------------------------------------------------
6. "Children need a mother and a father"
This may come as a surprise to you, but divorce is legal in Australia. Single parenting is legal in Australia. Furthermore, same sex parenting is already legal in Australia. The postal survey will not affect any of this.
So yes, while there is some research suggesting that children benefit from having strong female and male role models in their lives, there is nothing to say those females and males must be the mothers and fathers of those children. They can be siblings. They can be grandparents. They can be aunties and uncles. They can be neighbours. They can be teachers. They can be clergy.
On the other hand, there is research suggesting that the children of same sex parents are just as healthy and happy as otherwise.
Most research concludes that the health and happiness of children depends on the security and stability of their home environment. If you actually care about The Children, you would want their parents to have the security and stability that is provided by the legal protections of marriage.
----------------------------------------------------------------
7. “Straight friends/housemates will get married to ‘rort’ the legal/financial benefits of being married”
Yes, I have really seen this argument.
Firstly, this can already happen between straight friends/housemates of the opposite sex. This means your objection only applies to straight friends/housemates of the same sex, which completely undermines your concern on the grounds of ‘rorting’.
Secondly, the question implies that you understand that there are legal/financial benefits of being married, and that you are willing to deny certain people those benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------
8. “It might teach children that it’s okay to be gay”
And..? If they’re gay, they’re gay, whether you like it or not.
As a little test, ask yourself when you realised you were straight. When you realise that you never actually realised, you always just knew you were straight, you should have another realisation.
Would you prefer they grew up being ashamed of whom they are, with a greater likelihood of depression or suicide? If so, it’s you who should be ashamed.
----------------------------------------------------------------
9. "Redefining marriage will damage our freedoms"
As well as being preposterous, this overlooks two things:
i) Marriage has been constantly redefined throughout the ages. Traditionally, marriage was designed to expand the wealth of families – by increasing the amount of land and livestock belonging to those families. The concept of love within marriage was deemed irrelevant, and is a fairly recent development.
More recently however, marriage was redefined in 2004 – without consulting the Australian electorate, and without impacting our freedom.
ii) Your demand for freedom comes at the expense of other peoples’ freedom. Wake up to yourself.


6
Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:51 pm
Posts: 2066
Karma: 2.52 (52 thanks)

Location: Adelaide
Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:54 am
Profile

Postby phunkyfeelone » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:11 pm


SKaVeN wrote:
One section of the community having to ask the rest of the community for simply the right to do something they can do doesn't seem very democratic to me...

Quote:
I’m sure there are more, but this is a start:
----------------------------------------------------------------
1. "My religion says it's sinful"
No comment, religion is total shite
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. “My church/business will be forced to marry/provide service to the gays”
Any organisation should be able to choose who they trade with based on their own principles.
If the majority of people disagree with their principles, they won't be very successful.

Having said that, see answer 1.

----------------------------------------------------------------
3. "It's not natural"
Homosexuality is not the default sexual state of sentient beings. It is a natural anomaly that exists in humans, and may exist in other species.
But as you mention in another question, this is about marriage, not about homosexuality per se.

----------------------------------------------------------------
4. "The penis fits in the vagina perfectly"
The penis is designed to fit into the vagina, that is an undeniable physiological fact, inherent in all species. Even flowers have male and female attributes required for pollonation. Non-impregnating sex for pleasure is a social construct of humans - if it didn't feel good, we wouldn't do it and the species would decline. No other species pull out, give a rub and tug for a bit of fun, bum-fuck their best mate, or get a quick gobby in the carpark of the pub. If there are homosexual animals in other species, they just don't breed.

You're right though, the survey in it's absolute form, is about same-sex marriage, but is becoming a defacto litmus test of pandering to minority groups.

----------------------------------------------------------------
5. "The sanctity of marriage is the foundation of civilised society - any redefinition of it will cause society to collapse"
Society won't collapse, we all know that, but it will be adjusted to hybridise such that opposite gender relationships are "one option".
Heterosexual attraction is the default species state, homosexual relationships are a minority in their natural state, but there are plenty of teens who "think" they are same-sex attracted, confusing love as a friend with sexual attraction.

----------------------------------------------------------------
6. "Children need a mother and a father"
Yes there are single parents for a variety of reasons, statistically children of divorced parents are much more likely to have relationship difficulties themselves.
There is a balance of behaviours learned from female and male parents (or parental influence)

----------------------------------------------------------------
7. “Straight friends/housemates will get married to ‘rort’ the legal/financial benefits of being married”
Clearly agree, although there was a case in NZ where 2 mates married legally for a radio stunt and it caused a shit fight.
Apparently, they were "taking the puss"

----------------------------------------------------------------
8. “It might teach children that it’s okay to be gay”
You don't need to ask yourself whether you're straight - it is the default natural behaviour.
There are a lot more teens these days who "think" they are gay, because it's edgy or provocative to their peers.
They're too young to understand their sexual attraction fully.
Clearly there kids who are "born gay", and they shouldn't be bullied for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
9. "Redefining marriage will damage our freedoms"
In general terms, it won't. There are 26 pieces of legislation that need to be adjusted if the decision is made to change the Marriage Act.


In summary, we had an election where this was an issue - if it means that much, vote for a party that supports the change.
And donate the $122m spent to social support services for all Australians, straight, gay, young, old, black, white.

All this whinging about marriage, meanwhile hundreds of people commit suicide every year (straight and gay). Priorities people, priorities...



Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 2095
Karma: 166.35 (3485 thanks)

Location: The Land of Chocolate
Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:11 pm
Profile

Postby phunkyfeelone » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:18 pm


dizzan wrote:

Wow.

I didn't think people with your attitude to life still existed.


People that believe in the natural order of things? Yeah there's a couple...


Ned Flanders
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 2095
Karma: 166.35 (3485 thanks)

Location: The Land of Chocolate
Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:18 pm
Profile

Postby dizzan » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:03 pm


phunkyfeelone wrote:
dizzan wrote:

Wow.

I didn't think people with your attitude to life still existed.


People that believe in the natural order of things? Yeah there's a couple...


No, ignorant and selfish. Who are you to be the judge of someone else's morality?

So IVF should be abolished because you don't believe in it? Get a life mate. There are thousands of families out there that haven't been able to conceive naturally and IVF has allowed them to have kids.

When the world has moved on from attitudes like yours it will be a better place for everyone.


4
Monty Burns

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:34 am
Posts: 64
Karma: 9.38 (6 thanks)
Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:03 pm
Profile

Postby atefooterz » Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:30 pm


#4 above, in nature it is quite interesting how many homosexual animals, not just limited to mamals, exist. A lot of that behavior puts to question that only humans have sex for fun'
I do see the yes voter extremsts starting to tire the general population sympathy., remembering this whole issue affects (benifits) a small number of folks in the big picture.
For me the "gay" community, that were excellent customers, of my company back in the 80s, started to lose it when it started to separate to be gay & lesbian... then all the other letters of the alphabet thereafter.

At least some groups are showing their true colours with desparate lies. And serial liars like Tony Abbott proving with his recent Tasmanian adventure, that many folks hate him because his values reflect a stuck up wallet, not Australians as a united group!
“I decided I was never going to get the opportunity to head-butt that c*** again, so I seized the moment."


2
Santa's Little Helper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 13848
Karma: 167.27 (23163 thanks)

Location: #nowhereman
Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:30 pm
Profile WWW

Postby legman » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:52 am


Marriage is between a man and a woman.
They can have their own union, it has nothing to do with them.
What about those who claim to be of no gender, where do they fit in,
and on it will go with the LGBTQI alphabet community.
This is a new phenomena sweeping the world and we should adopt
the wait and see how it turns out attitude.
The next generation will be the ones who will have to deal with this obscure
concept, after all it is only 2% of the population who are homosexuals
and they should not dictate to the rest of the community how society
is constructed. :smoke:


Monty Burns

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:32 pm
Posts: 73
Karma: 47.83 (33 thanks)
Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:52 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic 
 [ 72 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
.