Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Gay Marriage

Reply
Created by adolf > 9 months ago, 16 Mar 2012
This topic has been locked
weiry
QLD, 5396 posts
19 Mar 2012 2:22PM
Thumbs Up

SP said...

^




I just don't like that people judge others and not expect others to judge them.


cisco
QLD, 12326 posts
19 Mar 2012 4:27PM
Thumbs Up

japie said...


Britain officially axes husband & wife:

www.presstv.ir/detail/232018.html


Thumbs up for the post but a definite thumbs down for what they are doing over there.

cisco
QLD, 12326 posts
19 Mar 2012 4:39PM
Thumbs Up

Ian K said...

Now that you've all answered that question here's another couple that logically follow on.

1. Should a brother and sister be able to legally marry and adopt children?

2. Marriage in most cultures has been between 2 persons because there are 2 sexes.
Should 3 or more gay persons be able to legally marry if they wish to?





3. Should a person who doesn't like other people at all be allowed to marry their hand or an object like a cucumber.

the truth
QLD, 189 posts
19 Mar 2012 4:46PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote




3. Should a person who doesn't like other people at all be allowed to marry their hand or an object like a cucumber.




can't see the cucumber marriage lasting long


as far as gays are concerned I'm a NIMBY

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
19 Mar 2012 6:31PM
Thumbs Up

Mark _australia said...

Typical Logman

"Oh Mark must be homophobic". Gather you didn't read my post before that one (back on p3) before you make assumptions.
I love gay people and have many gay friends who I also express my point of view to.
Typical leftie Loggie, as soon as I am against something you say I must be a redneck who HATES the people involved - which could not be farther from the truth.

So gay marriage has no implications? Nothing will change? Well why the hell are you fighting for it then?

Yes Mark, gay marriage has implications. Like Showing gay people we no longer want to treat them in a way that is unequal. Like showing young adolescent gay kids that society is proud of them and doesn't want them to hide in the closet. Like validating love between a couple is a universal good for all people to aspire to. Like showing the kids at school that the gay parents of their friend have a relationship that is the equal(there's that word again) of any other. Like demonstrating to ourselves the inclusivity our society is capable of. And that our community is capable of generosity and is not a place where gays are just tolerated. Implications......yep lots of implications. And what are your implications? Oh yeah, that's right some old crap about siblings having children together. Bollocks....on two levels: A. that's a really, really empty argument. :B. do you not see that mentioning incest in an argument about gay marriage is a tad offensive? maybe you should run this whole gay marriage/incest thing past your gay friends and see what they make of it? Implications....I can see nothing but good.

chrispychru
QLD, 7932 posts
19 Mar 2012 6:13PM
Thumbs Up

seabreeze is a breeding ground for freaks aliens and homosexuality and i love it
i love being special

Scotty Mac
SA, 2055 posts
19 Mar 2012 6:46PM
Thumbs Up

I would def vote yes for gay marriage. I can't see how it affects hetrosextual people?

- its probally good for the economy as more money would be spent on weddings
- doubles the chances of non married people to get married

dont know what the fuss is about......

bring it on

Mark _australia
WA, 22380 posts
19 Mar 2012 4:54PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

Mark _australia said...

Typical Logman

"Oh Mark must be homophobic". Gather you didn't read my post before that one (back on p3) before you make assumptions.
I love gay people and have many gay friends who I also express my point of view to.
Typical leftie Loggie, as soon as I am against something you say I must be a redneck who HATES the people involved - which could not be farther from the truth.

So gay marriage has no implications? Nothing will change? Well why the hell are you fighting for it then?

Yes Mark, gay marriage has implications. Like Showing gay people we no longer want to treat them in a way that is unequal. Like showing young adolescent gay kids that society is proud of them and doesn't want them to hide in the closet. Like validating love between a couple is a universal good for all people to aspire to. Like showing the kids at school that the gay parents of their friend have a relationship that is the equal(there's that word again) of any other. Like demonstrating to ourselves the inclusivity our society is capable of. And that our community is capable of generosity and is not a place where gays are just tolerated. Implications......yep lots of implications. And what are your implications? Oh yeah, that's right some old crap about siblings having children together. Bollocks....on two levels: A. that's a really, really empty argument. :B. do you not see that mentioning incest in an argument about gay marriage is a tad offensive? maybe you should run this whole gay marriage/incest thing past your gay friends and see what they make of it? Implications....I can see nothing but good.



I see all those good things and I agree.
I did not raise the incest thing somebody else did, and it was in answer to those posters who say "it doesn't affect me so I'm all for it" which is a cop out and sitting on the fence. Thus somebody raised siblings as an example of something that doesn't affect others. I certainly do not liken gay couples to incest.
Implications? as I said back on p3:

"Changes to marriage laws have the potential to have effects upon society as a whole forever.

Many people lament the breakdown of traditional family, which has led to crime issues etc. Not that it is the sole cause, but it has had an impact. For example, about 80% of recidivist juvenile male offenders come from a single mum household. No male role models..... exacerbated by lack of males in teaching incidentally but thats a different thread...

It is well established that children learn a great deal from the differing viewpoints, habits etc of both a male and a female parent.

No I am not saying all kids living with a single mum are destined to be crooks, or all kids raised by a gay couple will be forever hindered in their development - just that the general principles society has worked by for thousands of years have worked and it bears thinking about.

Legalising gay marriage (and calling it such) will lend validity to that family unit. Once it is more 'normal' then it is guaranteed the gay lobby will be calling for equal rights to have kids.
Give it 100 years and it will be normal for all same-sex couples to have a kid or two and then things have changed a lot and it does affect greater society.

Laws are passed for the greater good, not to pander to the 1% of the population who makes the most noise.

No I am not homophobic, just a realist."

choco
SA, 4032 posts
19 Mar 2012 7:27PM
Thumbs Up

let me get this straight if 2 gays are allowed to marry


they'll end up being twin chocs?

adolf
1862 posts
19 Mar 2012 5:21PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...


Like Showing gay people we no longer want to treat them in a way that is unequal. Like showing young adolescent gay kids that society is proud of them and doesn't want them to hide in the closet. Like validating love between a couple is a universal good for all people to aspire to. Like showing the kids at school that the gay parents of their friend have a relationship that is the equal(there's that word again) of any other. Like demonstrating to ourselves the inclusivity our society is capable of.


Maybe if the gov't rubber stamped gay marriage it may go a little way towards this goal. Maybe, it will backfire. Gay marriage is just such a low priority on my radar, lots of far bigger problems in society that I'd like to see us tackle first.

I can't see it getting up, under Liberal or Labor, the issue is too divisive. It's like half the population are all for it and the other half are against it.

I think most of us are all for equal rights, call it a civil union, recognize same sex marriage conducted in another country maybe, and leave it at that.

I'd like to see the republic debate become part of the agenda again.

SP
10979 posts
19 Mar 2012 6:03PM
Thumbs Up

Mark _australia said...


"Changes to marriage laws have the potential to have effects upon society as a whole forever.

Many people lament the breakdown of traditional family, which has led to crime issues etc. Not that it is the sole cause, but it has had an impact. For example, about 80% of recidivist juvenile male offenders come from a single mum household. No male role models..... exacerbated by lack of males in teaching incidentally but thats a different thread...

It is well established that children learn a great deal from the differing viewpoints, habits etc of both a male and a female parent.

No I am not saying all kids living with a single mum are destined to be crooks, or all kids raised by a gay couple will be forever hindered in their development - just that the general principles society has worked by for thousands of years have worked and it bears thinking about.

Legalising gay marriage (and calling it such) will lend validity to that family unit. Once it is more 'normal' then it is guaranteed the gay lobby will be calling for equal rights to have kids.
Give it 100 years and it will be normal for all same-sex couples to have a kid or two and then things have changed a lot and it does affect greater society.

Laws are passed for the greater good, not to pander to the 1% of the population who makes the most noise.

No I am not homophobic, just a realist."


Mark your logic to my mind seems off, the system is like it is with 100% hetro marraige, gays have nothing to do with the info you put up, it relates to hetro people who have children naturally and raise them.. Gay people can't do this... So I fail to see how gay couples add to this problem,

they can't breed so they are less likely to be a broken family as they can't have random encounters that produce children with partners that they don't wish to marry. I'd say this is we're the largest proportion of single mums come from and hence the children you speak of. They have nothing to do with gay people.

To my mind a gay couple married and approved for adoption would be less of a risk. They are already married likely to be employed and in a position both mentally and financially to raise children. How is this worse than some skank getting knocked up so she can get the dole or some pregnant 15 year old who got knocked up in the drain after school.

As for your raising children with both role models, where are the results of the other study that shows that a gay couple will raise a bad child, surely that is the study we need, not a study done on hetero people who probably shouldn't have kids in the first place?

Your intelligent so don't take this as me inflaming you. I just didn't understand your point. maybe we're starting from different points of view

myusernam
QLD, 6123 posts
19 Mar 2012 8:07PM
Thumbs Up

myusernam said...

theDoctor said...

youngbull said...

^^^ not funny doctor don't go there..


if it was NATURAL, homosexual intercourse would produce an offspring, as ol' dave has told me via a many a nature doco, a natural intercourse would do.....


many of my friends are of the queer persuation, including my current house'mate', tolerance doesn't make it natural, my best mate, painfully straight as a dye earns his keep dancing in gay clubs... axelandra the great was apparently great at tossing the male salad, our current pm keeps a beard on hand for the mainsteam media...

on a conspiracy/protical bent, we are (in totality) our chemical make up, which is/can be influenced, via diet, or vaccine, our brain chemistry, which is influenced (determined) by our chemical bent. we are a big bag of chemicals, controlled by our influences, which are introduced chemicals. pre determined introduced chemicals.
ergo: homosexuality (as a norm) is an unnaturally influenced chemical bent

welcome to agenda 21

here we go , queue peter mac with some BPA chemical theory aon how plastic makes you gay!



no props for this? He was the VERY NEXT POST! complainging about what? BPA's make you gay. Green thumb me u fkkrs. Picked like a dirty nose.

As for gay marriage, call your life partner whatever you want except marriage, because that connitates a family (kids) etc. Whats wrong with partner/ life partner/ etc. They should not have the same recognition as married hetro couples when it comes to childeren. (many gay couples would agree) Heaven forbid we get aboriginal same sex married couples. Can you imagine the bleating? "yer give us dem kids we was ere first" blah blah blah

FormulaNova
WA, 14676 posts
19 Mar 2012 6:39PM
Thumbs Up

FlySurfer said...

Personally I'd prefer homos to get married and have kids vs stupid.
Like everybody who believes steal buildings implode with small office fires must be sterilized, simple as that.


As should those that can't spell steel. (now I have to check my own spelling really really carefully...)

I don't know though... if it was only stupid people that were allowed to breed, it would resolve any problems we may think we have. As long there were no troublesome 'intelligent' mutations, it would all be good!



japie
NSW, 6869 posts
19 Mar 2012 9:50PM
Thumbs Up

cisco said...

japie said...


Britain officially axes husband & wife:

www.presstv.ir/detail/232018.html


Thumbs up for the post but a definite thumbs down for what they are doing over there.




Here is a concerned Christians take on the issue, California 2008:

Did ADL Influence CA ?
Gay Marriage? Ruling?
By Rev. Ted Pike
5-19-8


After the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage, the Anti-Defamation League rejoiced:

"We are pleased by the court's decision supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry, and welcome this reaffirmation of equal protection for all.


We are also gratified that the court agreed with our assertion that the law raised privacy issues, exposing gay individuals 'to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large."

ADL was, in part, congratulating itself.


Last September ADL and ten homosexual organizations submitted a coalition brief to the California Supreme Court urging legalization of homosexual marriage. Authored by law firm Proskauer Rose, LLP, the brief charted 24 pages of the best legal arguments for same-sex marriage in California. On this legal "highway," it may have been easier for the liberal California Supreme Court to go where ADL wanted ­ to decree that it is unconstitutional and discriminatory to bar homosexuals from the privileges, privacy, and protections of marriage. The Supreme Court's 4-3 decision for gay marriage, in fact, largely mirrors ADL's well-known position. ADL argues that anything less than equal marital status makes homosexuals "second-class citizens."


I document in my recent e-alert, "Jewish ABC Celebrates Gay Marriage," that Jewish activists, whether in the media or anti-Christian "civil liberties" attack groups, are demonstrating not only vehement anti-Christianity but spectacularly powerful ability to shape legal opinions and morality.


Predictably, in all the public outrage against the California Supreme Court decision, there is little thought that Jewish activism helped make it happen. As usual, "the gay lobby" draws fire from the religious right. Once again, Jewish activists escape suspicion. Unaffected by the tumult, they prepare for their next blasphemous movie, "hate crimes" law, or perverse court decision. Meanwhile, Christians, wearied by Jewish media corruption, sag beneath yet another empowerment of evil.

Only a century ago, sodomy was illegal, punishable by imprisonment. Then, beginning in the early sixties, the Jewish media led efforts to make it acceptable. (See, <www.truthtellers.org/alerts/jewsconfirmbigmedia.html>;Jews Confirm Big Media Is Jewish ) During the last decade it has been legitimized through same-sex "union." But now, in its arguments to the California Supreme Court, ADL and the homosexuals allege that only the right of marriage for sodomites will end discrimination against them. The California Supreme Court agreed with the final sentence of the coalition's brief: "The way to cure this Constitutional infirmity is to permit same-sex couples to marry."

What Next?

As the mastermind of "anti-hate" laws worldwide, ADL wants to take Christians to the same place of contempt homosexuals occupied a century ago. They want to make it illegal, punishable by imprisonment, for Christians to criticize sodomy. In Canada, under ADL's federal and provincial hate laws, public criticism of homosexuality means a $5,000 fine. Further criticism means contempt of court and prison. That's what California's anti-hate law, S. 1977, created by Jewish lesbian activist, Sheila Kuehl, and signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, is already setting in motion. (See, <www.truthtellers.org/cgi-bin/openwebmail/How%20the%20Bi
ble%20Became%20'Hate%20Speech'%20in%20California>How the Bible Became 'Hate Speech' in California)

Why Are They Winning?

How did America drift so far from God's law? Part of the reason is that for the last century evangelicals have ignored Christ's command that Pharisaic Judaism should remain under perpetual suspicion by the church. He warned, "Beware of the leaven (teachings) of the Pharisees (Talmudic Judaism)." (Mark 8:15) The church, embarrassed by this and many other "anti-Semitic" warnings by Christ and the apostles, effectively omits them. (Refer to endnotes.) Virtually no pastors and Bible teachers read or teach these scriptures with the emphasis and specificity concerning Talmudic Judaism which Christ intended. By such de-emphasis, they mock New Testament warnings, frustrating Christ's intense desire to warn His church. Jewish anti-Christian activism is proving to be one of the greatest enemies the church has ever encountered.

In fact, such teachers and leaders do the opposite of what Christ commanded: They give Jewish activism special protection from scrutiny, identification as Jewish, and criticism. Christ foretold last days' deceptions would be so subtle and persuasive that "even the very elect, if possible, would be deceived." (Matthew 24:24) As a result of doing the opposite of what Christ commanded, evangelicals are now brainwashed by the very group He warned them to be most wary of!

It is not surprising, then, that evangelicals are oblivious to the danger to freedom and Christianity posed by Jewish activist fronts. Such blindness allows Jewish anti-Christianity to flourish, especially behind the scenes in the media, government, and law.

Although Christians give "most favored status" to the Jews, they receive no such protection from Jewish activists. Having spurned salty Biblical truth, evangelicals are now spurned by the possibly ADL-assisted California Supreme Court. Without Biblical saltiness, evangelicals, in fulfillment of Christ's prediction, are once again "trodden under the foot of men." (Mat. 5:13)

How long will God's law be trampled? As long as Christians remain ashamed of the warnings of Jesus and His apostles.

What will curtail the corrupting power of Jewish activism? Christians who proclaim Christ's warnings with the faith and boldness He intended.


Endnote

Here are New Testament teachings that Jews consider anti-Semitic and that are usually deprived of full emphasis or significance by evangelical leaders:

1. Christ's extensive and scathing denunciations of the Pharisees (Matt. 23).
2. Christ's description of Judaism as spiritually "desolate" (Matt. 23:38).
3. Portrayal by the Gospels of Jewish leaders as masterminds of the crucifixion.
4. Testimony of the Gospels that the Jewish people shouted, "Crucify him! His blood be upon us and our children" (Matt. 27:25).
5. Assertion that the Jews inadvertently sacrificed Christ as a type of Passover lamb (John 2:13, I Cor. 5:7).
6. Accusation by the apostles that the Jews and their leaders had Christ crucified (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:18; 4:10; 5:30; 8:52; I Thess 2:15).
7. Statement by St. Paul that anti-Christian Jews are "enemies of the Gospel" (Rom. 11:28) and "not pleasing to God but hostile to all men" (I Thess. 2:15-16).
8. St. John's claim that Judaism, not having the Son, also does not have the Father and is "anti-Christ" (I John 2:22, 4:3; II John 1:7).
9. Christ's claim in Revelation that Jews, denying Christ, are liars, the "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9, 3:9).
10. Revelation's description of Jerusalem as "Sodom and Egypt" (Rev. 11:8).

FormulaNova
WA, 14676 posts
19 Mar 2012 8:02PM
Thumbs Up

^^^ summary anyone?

Too much text for me. My attention span doesn't last that long.

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
19 Mar 2012 11:28PM
Thumbs Up

FormulaNova said...

^^^ summary anyone?

Too much text for me. My attention span doesn't last that long.



Lost me at Christian.

Mark _australia
WA, 22380 posts
19 Mar 2012 8:32PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

FormulaNova said...

^^^ summary anyone?

Too much text for me. My attention span doesn't last that long.



Lost me at Christian.


Not very inclusive or openminded, for one who accuses anti- gay- marriage people of being bigoted.
Then again that is what the article talks about in part - that anti-hate legislation encompasses gay, Jew etc etc but it is always OK to vilify Christians and take the p1ss. If you don't believe me, introduce yourself as Buddhist at a party and see the reactions and positive interest. Then at the next gathering introduce yourself as Christian.

(PS I didn't agree the vast majority of the article, just found that one paragraph interesting)

SP
10979 posts
19 Mar 2012 9:07PM
Thumbs Up

Just look at the last 200 years as a start of reasons why I wouldn't.. Then search for Buddhist, don't thnk you'll find any crime against humanity there...And anyway why should someone's religion define them

www.buckcash.com/opinions/temp/Christian_Crimeline.htm

log man
VIC, 8289 posts
20 Mar 2012 12:36AM
Thumbs Up

Mark, don't ya reckon that we've moved past the Christian religion guiding our laws,morals,ethics etc etc. It's a ridiculous idea that somehow the poor old Christian church is claiming victim status in this. It's the same old twisted thinking that comes up with "reverse racism". Ya know when middle class white males claim to be victims in their own country.....PFFFT!

Mark _australia
WA, 22380 posts
19 Mar 2012 9:54PM
Thumbs Up

log man said...

Mark, don't ya reckon that we've moved past the Christian religion guiding our laws,morals,ethics etc etc. It's a ridiculous idea that somehow the poor old Christian church is claiming victim status in this. It's the same old twisted thinking that comes up with "reverse racism". Ya know when middle class white males claim to be victims in their own country.....PFFFT!


I do think it is a bit rough that anti-hate crime legislation specifies that it would be unlawful for christians to be anti- homosexuality. That is legislating to ban peopel hating homsexuals (good) but gives tacit approval to hate Christians and they can't state their beliefs!!
That's fookin Irish.


As long as they don't attack gay people, who cares what the Christians do.

They haven't burnt people at the stake for a long time......

petermac33
WA, 6415 posts
19 Mar 2012 10:37PM
Thumbs Up

Hate crime laws are being used to quell dissent.

Example, if you believe the cia were behind 911,you need need to be prosecuted.

theintelhub.com/2012/02/13/fbi-911-truthers-should-be-treated-as-possible-terrorists/

I honestly have to disagree here with flysurfer.It was clear to me from the very outset that those buildings were not brought down by micro-nukes but indeed from the fires and debris.

Scotty88
4214 posts
20 Mar 2012 4:07AM
Thumbs Up

SomeOtherGuy
NSW, 807 posts
20 Mar 2012 9:23AM
Thumbs Up

...errrmm....

To all those rabbiting on about gay marriage and adopting kids... gay couples can already adopt kids. Hell, lesbian couples can conceive their own kids through IVF or finding a willing male (which probably wouldn't be hard).

The adoption isn't an argument against gay marriage.

stamp
QLD, 2770 posts
20 Mar 2012 8:25AM
Thumbs Up

SP said...

Just look at the last 200 years as a start of reasons why I wouldn't.. Then search for Buddhist, don't thnk you'll find any crime against humanity there...



the japanese are a buddhist nation. thailand. cambodia. vietnam. you might find a wee bit of inhumanity in some of the behaviour of those countries in the past 200 years i reckon

petermac33
WA, 6415 posts
20 Mar 2012 7:21AM
Thumbs Up

This is a gay song,could also be described as beautiful,from Nat Geo World Traveller


BulldogPup
6657 posts
20 Mar 2012 7:33AM
Thumbs Up

Can someone PLEASE call a Doctor to pronounce this thread clinically deceased , dead , kaputski ...... farkin depressing who cares live & let live

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
20 Mar 2012 8:58AM
Thumbs Up

God was gay.

He had twelve male disciples pandering to his every whim.
If thats not gay what is.

felixdcat
WA, 3519 posts
20 Mar 2012 10:43AM
Thumbs Up

^^^^^ Gold ^^^^^
It is not often that I agree with PR but........... still laughing!

Beersy
TAS, 753 posts
20 Mar 2012 5:07PM
Thumbs Up

stamp said...

SP said...

Just look at the last 200 years as a start of reasons why I wouldn't.. Then search for Buddhist, don't thnk you'll find any crime against humanity there...



the japanese are a buddhist nation. thailand. cambodia. vietnam. you might find a wee bit of inhumanity in some of the behaviour of those countries in the past 200 years i reckon


I don't think Japan is a Buddhist nation... wasn't their main religion Shintoism?

stuk
NSW, 893 posts
20 Mar 2012 5:40PM
Thumbs Up

Beersy said...

stamp said...

SP said...

Just look at the last 200 years as a start of reasons why I wouldn't.. Then search for Buddhist, don't thnk you'll find any crime against humanity there...



the japanese are a buddhist nation. thailand. cambodia. vietnam. you might find a wee bit of inhumanity in some of the behaviour of those countries in the past 200 years i reckon


I don't think Japan is a Buddhist nation... wasn't their main religion Shintoism?



Zen Buddhism is practised in Japan, you might also mention Burma.



Subscribe
Topic Is Locked

This topic has been locked

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Gay Marriage" started by adolf