The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics > Comments

Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics : Comments

By Lyle Shelton, published 24/2/2017

That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
Dear Alan,

I am well aware of the discovery of several such genes, toward the bottom of the DNA spiral, which contribute to homosexuality.

Can you please point me to any scientific evidence that the genes in question cause people to become gay (rather than homosexuals, which is an established fact)?

This would be a fantastic and sensational claim, akin to finding genes for communism, capitalism or any other political tendencies, but if this is the case, then it is surprising and requires an explanation, how come these same genes have only began to express themselves some decades ago. Why have they failed to show for thousands of years earlier? Do we have any earlier records showing that people with the above genes hated religion and wanted to harass its followers?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 February 2017 4:12:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philips:

“They’re denied the same privileges as straight people when it comes to marriage.”

So are straight people who want to marry someone of the same sex or who want to marry more than one person. It can hardly be discrimination on the grounds of sexuality if both homosexuals and heterosexuals are denied the same privileges.

“Polygamy is usually a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest.”

It does not have to be a religious arrangement. Heterosexual marriage can also be a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest should that be banned? Rape/incest does not happen in homosexual marriages where it is legal?

“Who says non-whites have the right to not be discriminated against?”

If they are being discriminated on the grounds of race then of course it is wrong. What are the grounds for discrimination when marriage is denied to couples who are not made up of one man and one woman? It can’t be sexuality.

“By assessing whether the denial of “support” (as you put it) to a particular group constitutes discrimination.”

What are the grounds for discrimination in this case?

“Because, apparently, some still don’t get it.”

What does it matter whether they get it or not if the argument has successfully been made? Surely ‘successfully’ means that it has achieved its aim of the legalisation of same-sex marriage. There is no point in arguing if you have what you want.

“What paranoid web is that?”

That is a very paranoid question.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 24 February 2017 4:50:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The country's sinking fast, and the best a Senate Select Committee can come up with is SSM! The Senate would have to be the most useless political entity in Australia: a total waste of money that frustrates the working of government to the extent that elected governments cannot get their 'promised' policies into action.

And what about Shorten's warning that continuing to talk about SSM after he and Left had knocked back a plebicite would cause sensitive queers to top themselves left, right and centre? How irresponsible of the Senate Select Committee to ignore Mr. Shorten's concerned warning!

The whole SSM business is complete rubbish. Australian politicians wasting time on it when we are going down the gurgler are also complete rubbish, not worthy of anybody's vote.

History can, and often does, repeat itself, thanks to human stupidity. A re-run of Sodom and Gomorrah is only a matter of time.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 24 February 2017 5:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, when you talk about " gay genes" I presume you are referring to the recently discovered epigenetic changes that have been found in some gay people, however you forget to mention that epigenetic changes can occur in response to stimulus that occurred AFTER birth, and as such are not present at birth, so no, scientists are not saying people are born gay, rather, that they can have life experiences that may make them gay.
As for the lack of equal marital rights for gay people, as has already been stated, many people are not allowed to marry who they want. Not only polygamous couples but siblings and other close relatives.
To demand equality for all people means all those currently banned from marriage would mean that everyone, siblings, parents and children, groups and threesomes should be allowed to marry.
Which is fine but it renders marriage meaningless.
Posted by Big Nana, Friday, 24 February 2017 5:58:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

I find it ironic that you tell me to grow up, and then immediately proceed to slag off at a minority group using the most offensive possible term that you can think of.

<<If I share a home with one or more people of any sex, they can't "Inherit" any super I may have, why should a poofter.>>

They shouldn’t be able to. Unless they’re in a committed relationship with you, that is.

--

phanto,

If polygamists want a form of marriage that encourages the exploitation of poor people and favours the upper classes, then they can leave the country.

Attempts compare gay people to polygamists, relatives, pets, or inanimate objects is a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy#False_analogy).

<<It can hardly be discrimination on the grounds of sexuality if both homosexuals and heterosexuals are denied the same privileges.>>

It has everything to do with sexuality, because the only form of marriage that is not allowed is the form that gay people would feel romantically and sexually satisfied in. The fact that straight people cannot enter into same-sex marriages either, is a technicality.

<<Heterosexual marriage can also be a religious arrangement that involves rape and incest should that be banned?>>

No, because heterosexual marriage is not (or is at least no longer) based on exploitation. Crime script analysis surveys of rapists do not reveal marriage as a modus operandi.

<<If they are being discriminated on the grounds of race then of course it is wrong.>>

Thank you.

<<What are the grounds for discrimination in this case?>>

Sexuality. See above.

<<What does it matter whether they get it or not if the argument has successfully been made?>>

Because you said earlier that same-sex marriage advocates need to present a good argument if they want the changes made. Remember?

--

Big Nana,

That wasn’t me who raised the issue of genetics. I don’t see the point because it is already well established that all behaviour is the result of a complex interplay between genes and environment.

The rest of what you’ve said in your post to me is essentially the Slippery Slope fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html).
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 25 February 2017 1:08:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why not develop a new word and act of law with similar meaning and purpose to marriage and the marriage act?

Some people are born with both male and female genitalia and so can be regarded as handicapped, though some such persons may not like that word. I think they are handicapped in that they are unable to naturally give birth. Then there are people that just have the hormone imbalance that usually usually a handicap in some way.

Most of us understand handicapped people should not be victimised nor suffer discrimination.

Marriage is an already well established situation bound by law between a man and a woman and I think it should stay that way.

Why not just accept there is need for a marriage-type of new law and vow and situation between two homosexual people?
Would gay people accept that and if not, why not?

Perverts and/or paedophiles also come into the picture because they can turn a young male toward having sexual feeling toward other males, and perhaps it's vice versa with some females.
I think such people can be turned back if they receive counselling.

I think there are a lot of older homosexuals that have lived very lonely lives, especially later in life, a sad situation just because they were born or turned homosexual.

I think there is need for open debate and a new word and act that would satisfy gay people.
Posted by JF Aus, Saturday, 25 February 2017 10:57:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy