Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

NO to Gay Marriage.

If the Gay Lobby want changes, bring on a referendum to the people.
Gays have their Union, it has been sorted for them.

I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage.

Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.

 

[sydboy007]

Male and female of course.



Why do you ask silly questions?

So what term would you use to describe a same sex couple? Considering the level of homosexuality in the population is roughly the same level of left handedness I'll be quite interested to see your response. Interesting to note that the left handed were for a long time equated to have been touched by evil, hence the English version of sinister from the original Latin sinistra. Just born that way but it was normal to view them with suspicion or see them as evil. As some of the comments in this thread show, homosexuals still have to put up with these kind of prejudices.

I've always been told there's no silly questions, just silly answers. I ask to try and show you the bias you are presenting.

You seem to think asking an inappropriate hypothetical question based on a same sex couple as reasonable, but then say you'd never consider asking it of a heterosexual couple.

 

[sydboy007]

I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage.

Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.

Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.

I'd be quite happy for a referendum on the issue. I'm relatively happy now that most Commonwealth and State legislations no longer discriminate against same sex partners, but I do understand the power of words and why some people want to have their relationships recognised with equal weighting as what the majority in society already get.

If you believe that the love a same sex couple have for each other is the same as that within a heterosexual relationship, and leaving children out of the discussion because as far as I can tell there's no plans to allow adoption by same sex couples, what is the harm is allowing same sex partners to be married?

As for being exposed to ridicule, we still face it quite regularly. If Brandis gets his way with the anti-discrimination legislation we might see a lot more of it. Back in 2003 a survey found over 50% of GLBT people had suffered some form of homophobic abuse in the previous 12 months. Heck there's even a gay panic defence for men who claimed to be so offend or frightened of a gay man that they just had to bash them, sometimes killing them - it's still part of common law in some states of Australia. A study in 2010 for SA schools found 61% of homosexual children had suffered verbal abuse, with 18% suffering physical abuse.

When a drunk yobbo wants to yell abuse do they say hetero or faggot?

 

[SirRumpole]

Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.

I'd be quite happy for a referendum on the issue. I'm relatively happy now that most Commonwealth and State legislations no longer discriminate against same sex partners, but I do understand the power of words and why some people want to have their relationships recognised with equal weighting as what the majority in society already get.

If you believe that the love a same sex couple have for each other is the same as that within a heterosexual relationship, and leaving children out of the discussion because as far as I can tell there's no plans to allow adoption by same sex couples, what is the harm is allowing same sex partners to be married?

As for being exposed to ridicule, we still face it quite regularly. If Brandis gets his way with the anti-discrimination legislation we might see a lot more of it. Back in 2003 a survey found over 50% of GLBT people had suffered some form of homophobic abuse in the previous 12 months. Heck there's even a gay panic defence for men who claimed to be so offend or frightened of a gay man that they just had to bash them, sometimes killing them - it's still part of common law in some states of Australia. A study in 2010 for SA schools found 61% of homosexual children had suffered verbal abuse, with 18% suffering physical abuse.

When a drunk yobbo wants to yell abuse do they say hetero or faggot?

If you can leave children out of the equation, then I have no objection to gay marriage, but marriage is a foot in the door to gay parenting which obviously involves people other than consenting adults and should be subject to deeper scrutiny.

 

[Tink]

I've argued with gay people on other forums who say that the overwhelming majority of people support gay marriage.

Strangely though, when the question of a public vote is mentioned, they go very quiet. They say the debate would expose gay people to ridicule or other silly excuses. It's obviously easier for them to harass and badger a few politicians than it is to convince a majority of the population.

Exactly.

My view, PC gone mad.

 

[gordon2007]

I tend not to really advocate one way or the other towards these type of things. However if I did have to choose a side, I'd say go for it.

However I do find it rather strange in a way that most men seem to find it extremely challenging to accept two men being physically intimate with each other, yet will seek out pr0n that is of a female\female intimacy, in deed even searching specifically for this type of pr0n. And of course the women are always gorgeous blondes.

Get two women of physical resemblance to penny wong, and suddenly being gay is morally wrong.

So, it's sexy, cool and a good opportunity to self pleasure oneself watching to hot blondes provide oral sex on each other but morally wrong when men and or non stunningly beautiful women do this?

 

[SirRumpole]

I tend not to really advocate one way or the other towards these type of things. However if I did have to choose a side, I'd say go for it.

However I do find it rather strange in a way that most men seem to find it extremely challenging to accept two men being physically intimate with each other, yet will seek out pr0n that is of a female\female intimacy, in deed even searching specifically for this type of pr0n. And of course the women are always gorgeous blondes.

Get two women of physical resemblance to penny wong, and suddenly being gay is morally wrong.

So, it's sexy, cool and a good opportunity to self pleasure oneself watching to hot blondes provide oral sex on each other but morally wrong when men and or non stunningly beautiful women do this?

Maybe women go for men on men pr0n.

 

[bellenuit]

WATCH: For 8 Years, She Convinced The World She Was A Boy. Now, She's Making Us Rethink Sexuality

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tedtalks/io-tillett-wright-ted_b_5295619.html

 

[bellenuit]

Something to ponder for those who think Gay Marriage would destroy traditional marriage. What IS traditional marriage?

Captive Virgins, Polygamy, Sex Slaves: What Marriage Would Look Like if We Actually Followed the Bible

http://valerietarico.com/2012/03/29...-look-like-if-we-actually-followed-the-bible/

 

[Tisme]

Few hundred years ago the overwhelming majority viewed slavery as acceptable.

The same could be said for traditional marriage, but it still persists regardless of every effort to destroy its legitimacy.

 

[explod]

If you can leave children out of the equation, then I have no objection to gay marriage, but marriage is a foot in the door to gay parenting which obviously involves people other than consenting adults and should be subject to deeper scrutiny.

Seems to be an inference that a gay couple would treat children differently to a heterosexual couple.

 

[Uncle Festivus]

As usual I think the issue is yet another topic blown out of all proportion by the vocal inner city minority and latched onto by the media because they love the 'perceived' controversy. I think generally nobody gives a hoot. Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female. Perhaps they can appropriate another word like they have with the formally innocent word 'gay'?

 

[banco]

As usual I think the issue is yet another topic blown out of all proportion by the vocal inner city minority and latched onto by the media because they love the 'perceived' controversy. I think generally nobody gives a hoot. Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female. Perhaps they can appropriate another word like they have with the formally innocent word 'gay'?

I think you'll find gay people give a hoot but **** them right?

 

[Tisme]

I think you'll find gay people give a hoot but **** them right?

Ménage à trois ?

 

[bellenuit]

Great ad from Ireland on the upcoming referendum.

 

[Value Collector]

Although, I have no objection to them getting 'married' I just think the word marriage shouldn't be used as it has, for me, symbolised a union between male and female.

Why should another word be used?

Marriage should be marriage regardless of thegenders of the individuals involved.

The fact is Gays already have marriages, any committed relationship is a marriage, its just the a lot of government currently discriminate, and won't recognise them.

innocent word 'gay'

Gay is still an innocent word.

 

[SirRumpole]

The fact is Gays already have marriages, any committed relationship is a marriage, its just the a lot of government currently discriminate, and won't recognise them.

Possibly thousands of heterosexual couples live in 'sin' without ever getting married. The practical advantages of marriage are overrated imo.

 

[Value Collector]

Possibly thousands of heterosexual couples live in 'sin' without ever getting married. The practical advantages of marriage are overrated imo.

So, the government should either recognize all marriages between consenting adults, or it should get out of the marriage business and not recognize any

 

[SirRumpole]

So, the government should either recognize all marriages between consenting adults, or it should get out of the marriage business and not recognize any

Well yes, why should the government have any say about who gets married as long as they are consenting adults of sufficient mental capacity ? Tear up the Marriage Act for I care, the only practical advantages seems to be recognition of parentage for children which goes on a birth certificate anyway, so really what is the point of legislation covering marriage ?

 

[Tink]

Interesting that they are having a 'referendum' in Ireland, bellenuit.
I think it's the best way.