Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

Kids React to Gay marriage.

There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.

 

[Tisme]

There is no point in posting the opinions of children . They can be manipulated and moulded to do the bidding of whoever has control over them.

Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:

 

[luutzu]

Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:

Man, gay and homosexuality does not equate to child molestation, pedophiles or any form of abuse.

There are good people, there are bad people. Some of the good may be gay, some bad may also be gay; just as some old people are bigots and others are not, some young are dump and bigoted, others are not.

To say or imply that legalising gay marriage or treat homosexuals as equal somehow is child abuse and sex crimes.. .that's like saying that if we permit alcohol, we're permitting drunk driving, and encourage drunk drivers to keep an eye out for children crossing the road and run them over.

 

[galumay]

Yes the only thing missing was the unicorn .... I wonder how the little bigots would react to this:

I know how i would respond to such bigoted nonsense. I would respond by saying if that level of debate is the best you can come up with then you have lost the argument.

The inference appears to be that because some individual sexually abuses a child of the same gender we should not allow gay marriage. That is about as poor an argument as ... well suggesting asia might think less of us.

Lets be quite clear where the vast majority of rape and sexual assault of children by adults has occurred - inside the catholic church, by those NOT allowed to be married to anyone, let alone to another of the same gender.

If we want to reduce the risk of homosexual rape of children then we would do best by stopping men from becoming priests rather than stopping them marrying other men.

It would be more productive to simply stick to the central question, should we continue to discriminate against gay people by not allowing them to partake of the state act of marriage? (which by the way has nothing to do with religion.)

The majority of people do not support the continuing discrimination, our general legal principles of anti-discmination do not allow it, (the discrimination in this case has had to be specifically legislated for in the Marraige Act.) and it is this question which should be considered. Not all the red herrings that the religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives seek to distract the discussion with.

 

[orr]

Nasty post.

That's a Murdoch publication, right?

 

[Tisme]

I know how i would respond to such bigoted nonsense. I would respond by saying if that level of debate is the best you can come up with then you have lost the argument.

The inference appears to be that because some individual sexually abuses a child of the same gender we should not allow gay marriage. That is about as poor an argument as ... well suggesting asia might think less of us.

Lets be quite clear where the vast majority of rape and sexual assault of children by adults has occurred - inside the catholic church, by those NOT allowed to be married to anyone, let alone to another of the same gender.

If we want to reduce the risk of homosexual rape of children then we would do best by stopping men from becoming priests rather than stopping them marrying other men.

It would be more productive to simply stick to the central question, should we continue to discriminate against gay people by not allowing them to partake of the state act of marriage? (which by the way has nothing to do with religion.)

The majority of people do not support the continuing discrimination, our general legal principles of anti-discmination do not allow it, (the discrimination in this case has had to be specifically legislated for in the Marraige Act.) and it is this question which should be considered. Not all the red herrings that the religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives seek to distract the discussion with.

Oh come on, It's OK for you gays to use effete individuals in support, but get upset if the it goes against your entrenched , intransigent views (i.e bigotry)? It's a disgrace using children as exploitive propaganda, but then it just reinforces the concern for minors in the company of certain people..... where are child services when they are needed

 

[galumay]

Oh come on, It's OK for you gays to use effete individuals in support, but get upset if the it goes against your entrenched , intransigent views (i.e bigotry)? It's a disgrace using children as exploitive propaganda, but then it just reinforces the concern for minors in the company of certain people..... where are child services when they are needed

Where to begin? Yours are classic strawman arguments. I am not upset, I am simply pointing out what a poor argument was used and how irrelevant and inaccurate it was. My views are not "entrenched or intransigent" (and by the way that is not what "bigotry" means), if anyone could present an argument that was compelling enough to convince me that discriminating against people based on their sexuality was warranted then I might well change my view.

Spare me the melodrama about using children as exploitive propoganda, that long predates the push for the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.

 

[Tink]

There is no discrimination, so that comment is dead in the water -- they have Civil Unions which gives them all the same rights.

We are standing up for Marriage -- freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

Political correctness is an insidious poison.
It prevents issues of vital importance from being discussed, and lets evil flourish unchecked.

 

[SirRumpole]

Spare me the melodrama about using children as exploitive propoganda, that long predates the push for the removal of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.

So you agree that it's ok to exploit children for whatever reason ?

The argument you seem to use is that because it happens its fine. IMO the use of children in any advertising or promotion should be banned, and I'm not too keen on them appearing in TV series either, especially considering the Hey Dad scenario.

 

[Tisme]

My views are not "entrenched or intransigent" (and by the way that is not what "bigotry" means

. In fact the church has been an artful exponent of exploiting children for propoganda, as has just about every marketing company in history and polititians of all colour and ilk.

Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.

Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable. The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).

 

[Tisme]

Of course there is a whole generation out there that probably can't figure out why they have a strange affection for gays:

http:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXIbRjpQMNY//

the run on video is worth watching too.

 

[sydboy007]

Bigotry is driven by entrenched and intransigent views that make no provision to listen to a counter argument. You are guilty of that in your desire to promote your lifestyle choice that feeds on the destruction of established norms.

Insofar as the church, you are guilty of using the hackneyed strawman excuse yourself to justify one wrong making another wrong acceptable. The opening scenes of Tropic Thunder make an obvious statement about how many in the roman (and probably other chaste orders) church apparently behave. Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).

There is a distinction between homosexual acts and a person's sexuality.

To give you an idea of what I mean, there were straight men who used to frequent the taxi bar in Sydney. They'd go there because you'd get a lot of trans guys there. Even though they were technically having sex with another man ie homosexual - their own view of themselves was they were not gay / homosexual but in fact straight / heterosexual.

Could you expand on what you mean of the below:

Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old

Rape is rape, whoever perpetuates it. Non consexual sex is repugnant. To try and link homosexuality and rape, now that's a straw man argument. Why is it that religious people are generally the least likely to report the rape of a child???

 

[sydboy007]

sounds similar to some of the arguments presented in this forum



and it's just amazing how worked up people are over a single word.

 

[Tink]

Why do we need to know your sexuality? Who cares.

No one walks around introducing themselves as hetero female, hetero male.

These labels are getting ridiculous.

Male, female, that's enough.

 

[sydboy007]

Why do we need to know your sexuality? Who cares.

No one walks around introducing themselves as hetero female, hetero male.

These labels are getting ridiculous.

Male, female, that's enough.

So you never tell someone you're Catholic. People never ask or tell what their occupation is.

i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height. It definitely doesn't define a person.

That said, religious people tend to claim that homosexuals are evil, child molesters, rapists, sinners, cause earth quakes, tornadoes and flooding.

For some reason religious people want to define "gays" based purely on their sexuality. Are you able to explain why they do this?

 

[Tink]

No, no reason to mention things that are private, but the gays are making sure that all this is now public.

Nothing like hair colour, you see it.

 

[sydboy007]

No, no reason to mention things that are private, but the gays are making sure that all this is now public.

Nothing like hair colour, you see it.

Actually i think it is those against same sex marriage, and homosexuals in general, that are the ones bringing all kinds of ideas out of the bedroom.

Wasn't it Bernardi who brought beastiality into the debate?

Haven't you on many occasions brought up polygamy as to reasons to block same sex marriage?

I actually don't remember reading any gays actually broadcasting what they do in their bedrooms to further the debate on same sex marriage. It's generally conservative and / or those of the Christian right that seem to be the ones talking most about what goes on in a same sex marriage bedroom. believe me it's probably not as nearly as exciting as what some of the religious conservatives get up to.

here's a little of the hypocrisy out there

http://www.oddee.com/item_99094.aspx

politicians caught with male prostitute, religious leader caught fondling little boys, president of young GOP members performs unconsentual sex on sleeping man, an evangelist who says he's heterosexual with complications , another anti gay crusader caught with a male prostitute, republican candidate who used to work as a drag queen, the bishop who liked the young boys of the church to call him "Daddy", the republican lawmaker who reported a male prostitute to police because he failed to pay for the liason.

If sexuality isn't important, as you claim, why is it the main reason your against same sex marriage?

 

[Trembling Hand]

Men fiddling with boys behind the pulpit is male on male, it is logically homosexual behaviour, without mutual consent, a depraved act that for some magical reason becomes acceptable when a boy is still a boy at 18 years or so old (we males all know the true age when we become mature and it isn't in our teens).

Tisme are you saying that molesting a child and homosexuality are the same thing?

 

[Tink]

If I didn't explain myself properly the first time.

i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height

How can sexuality be the same as hair colour when it is a private thing.

I see your hair colour, I don't need to know your sexuality.

We don't need labels.

 

[sydboy007]

If I didn't explain myself properly the first time.

i agree, sexuality should be at the same level as hair colour or your height

How can sexuality be the same as hair colour when it is a private thing.

I see your hair colour, I don't need to know your sexuality.

We don't need labels.

Because it tells you as much about a person as their hair colour. It does not define a person, though plenty wish to define "gays" based on their sexuality.

What labels are you talking about?