Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Gay Marriage

Jump to new
Thanks Calliope :)

It just amazes me that people would sign on the dotted line without reading the fine print.

Time will tell ;)
 
"In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]"

There are a number of similar studies on the google machine.

Saying homosexuals are more likely to be or become paedophiles is akin to saying straight guys who like redheads/blondes/whatever are more likely to do the same. It is simply a furfy, and the fact it is being discussed on a board like this is embarrassing - it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Your average paedophile does not have a pre disposition for adult males or females - he or she is attracted to kids. Which makes him or her a paedophile. Most paedophiles are heterosexuals.
 
French protest against gay marriage

TENS of thousands of opponents of a gay marriage bill have thronged the streets of Paris in a last-ditch bid to block the legislation, under the watchful eye of police after recent violence over the divisive issue.
Paris police estimated the march attracted 45,000 people but organisers said 270,000 turned out on a sunny Sunday afternoon in the French capital.

The mass protest comes just two days ahead of a decisive parliamentary vote on the bill - which also allows adoption by gay couples - that would make France the 14th country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage.

Clutching French flags, dressed in pink and blue, the colours of the movement, carrying children or pushing buggies, protesters shouted slogans against President Francois Hollande as they made their way through the city.

"We've been to all the protests," said a 32-year-old mother who only gave her first name Camille, as she breast-fed her four-month-old son.

"We're here for children's rights. We don't want the state to be complicit in a child being deprived of a father or a mother," she said.
Click to expand...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nst-gay-marriage/story-fn3dxix6-1226625539550
 
drsmith said:
If I've commented on this topic in the past, my views haven't changed.
Click to expand...

I'm the same.

People have brought children into the argument but to me that is a separate issue.

Don't gay couples already have ways of adopting or "having" children through various means?
In my daughters school year at her school there are at least 3 gay couples (2 female, 1 male) that have children going to the school. So if there is 3 gay couples with children in such a small sample it can't be all that uncommon for gay couples to already have children even though they can not get married.

So surely saying letting gay couples get married affects the children is a mute point as they already have the ability to adopt or have children? Surely gay couples being married does not make it any easier for them to "have" children considering there are ways for them to "have" children already?

Some of the bigoted views in this thread amazed me 12-18 months ago and sadly they still do.
 
I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot.

If gay marriage is so well accepted, then put it to a referendum.
 
nomore4s said:
I'm the same.

People have brought children into the argument but to me that is a separate issue.

Don't gay couples already have ways of adopting or "having" children through various means?
In my daughters school year at her school there are at least 3 gay couples (2 female, 1 male) that have children going to the school. So if there is 3 gay couples with children in such a small sample it can't be all that uncommon for gay couples to already have children even though they can not get married.

So surely saying letting gay couples get married affects the children is a mute point as they already have the ability to adopt or have children? Surely gay couples being married does not make it any easier for them to "have" children considering there are ways for them to "have" children already?

Some of the bigoted views in this thread amazed me 12-18 months ago and sadly they still do.
Click to expand...

Very well said and the content in this post should be read carefully by those doubting or having concerns at gay marriage.

It is not going to mater a hoot, there are more important things to discuss elswhere, like child and family abuse but it has nothing to do with actual topic here. Want to talk that then go to or start a thread on it.
 
The greatest implications of gay marriage relate to the family structure and adoption. It would be bizarre to suggest that these are two issues. If we are discussing if we are for or against gay marriage one of the strongest reasons would be in relation to this area. If you want to start another thread called "pro gay marriage - only those welcome" then do so.

As for the bigot comment. Cannot you see the immense irony? You are being a bigot against those who want to preserve the family structure of a mother, father and kids. And preserve the right of adopted children to have a mother AND father.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you're view is automatically labelled a bigot. Talk about the absolute height of intolerance!!!!!
 
Logique said:
I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot.
Click to expand...
Good question. I wonder why it's necessary for a few people to apply pejorative labels to members whose view doesn't happen to coincide with theirs.
 
Julia said:
Good question. I wonder why it's necessary for a few people to apply pejorative labels to members whose view doesn't happen to coincide with theirs.
Click to expand...

Because they kept linking homosexuality with paedophilia.

So the ONLY time I have referred to someone as a bigot was when they clearly made that link, otherwise I'm happy to see the free sharing of ideas and points of view.
 
pavilion103 said:
The greatest implications of gay marriage relate to the family structure and adoption. It would be bizarre to suggest that these are two issues. If we are discussing if we are for or against gay marriage one of the strongest reasons would be in relation to this area. If you want to start another thread called "pro gay marriage - only those welcome" then do so.

As for the bigot comment. Cannot you see the immense irony? You are being a bigot against those who want to preserve the family structure of a mother, father and kids. And preserve the right of adopted children to have a mother AND father.
Anyone who doesn't agree with you're view is automatically labelled a bigot. Talk about the absolute height of intolerance!!!!!
Click to expand...

The bigot comment is totally separate to the family and children issues I commented on in the same post and is not related to people discussing the effects of gay marriage on children and/or family structures.

Read through the whole thread and tell me there aren't bigoted views regarding gays in this thread.
 
sydboy007 said:
Because they kept linking homosexuality with paedophilia.

So the ONLY time I have referred to someone as a bigot was when they clearly made that link, otherwise I'm happy to see the free sharing of ideas and points of view.
Click to expand...
I wasn't at all directing the comment at you, sydboy. Quite agree with your point.
Cheers. Julia
 
Logique said:
I support the family values, the law and above all the rights of children. Does that make me a bigot.

If gay marriage is so well accepted, then put it to a referendum.
Click to expand...

Agree Logique. We should have had a poll in here too for the silent majority.

Its causing unrest around the world with this wanting to change the law.

There are plenty of things we should be dealing with more important.
 
nomore4s said:
The bigot comment is totally separate to the family and children issues I commented on in the same post and is not related to people discussing the effects of gay marriage on children and/or family structures.

Read through the whole thread and tell me there aren't bigoted views regarding gays in this thread.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are always bigoted views on every side of every debate/discussion.

But I also think the label is applied by many in relation to their own views of what a bigot is. For example if someone believes that either a) God created man and woman to marry and reproduce and that is a sacred thing that people should not go outside of (I.e homosexuality) or that b) evolution and nature have determined that sexual relations between a man and woman is how we've evolved and nature intends it to be and that homosexual relationships are dangerous (I.e health effects, life expectancy etc...).

Then people are entitled to that view without being called a bigot and anyone who calls them this is ironically incredible bigoted themselves.


Just because people have a generic desire to do something or have been conditioned in this way not everyone has to agree with it. Eg alcoholism. Because someone wants to drink and its not harming anyone other than themself, I wouldn't encourage them to drink until their heart it content

Not everyone has to be pro homosexuality to not be a bigot. Everyone is entitled to their view. I think it becomes bigoted when people then insult and abuse people. People can disagree with it, voice their opinions strongly but then still be polite and love the person even though they disagree with what they are doing. Just like someone can dislike someone's alcoholism and still love and support them (not linking alcoholism and homosexuality, just using an example off the top of my head).
 
stewiejp said:
Will be interesting to see if he backs up that belief with policy.
Click to expand...
Chris Bowen was asked about this on 7.30 this evening. There will be no change. The party has voted on this.
However, given the Labor Party's astonishing propensity to change course, anything could happen.:(
 
Julia said:
Chris Bowen was asked about this on 7.30 this evening. There will be no change. The party has voted on this.
However, given the Labor Party's astonishing propensity to change course, anything could happen.:(
Click to expand...

Rudd certainly can change if there is a minority vote in it that would normally go to the Greens.


Rudd at his most pompous and dismissive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
1K
sptrawler
sptrawler
basilio
Married Sunday, Fired Monday... really?
Replies
18
Views
4K
grah33
G
sydboy007
Combating the stereotypes around homosexuality
Replies
2
Views
991
sydboy007
sydboy007
C
  • Locked
Answers to Islamic Apologism
2 3
Replies
48
Views
9K
doctorj
doctorj
Top