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 > The utilitarian conservative case against gay marriage > Comments

The utilitarian conservative case against gay marriage : Comments

By Andrew Norton, published 23/1/2008

Marriage is a social institution that has evolved considerably over time - it’s hard to see how gay marriage could do it any harm.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
I suspect this piece will also put its author "in the unusual position of receiving praise from the left." But all credit should go where credit is due, as any neoliberal monetarist should remind you.

Perhaps this little avalanche of articles about gay marriage indicates a policy shift is under way on the right post-Howard. If so, even more credit will be due. But I am not getting my hopes up yet.
Posted by Tom Clark, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 9:45:27 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
Homosexuality is a perversion - pure and simple.

Increasingly, however, the perversion is being treated as though it were normal; and by people who are not gay, as well the perverts themselves.

Gay marriage and official recognition of it would be the last straw.

Still, many civilizations have failed a disapperared over the ages because of aberrant behaviour.

It seems that our own civilization is about to go the same way
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 10:35:07 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
I agree with Tom Clarke and the author. The author convincing argues that utilitarian argument against same sex marriage is unsustainable and, in fact, it gives a better case for same sex marriage. I have never understood how two same sex people getting married interferes with a heterosexual couples marriage? I also don’t understand the argument that marriages about re-production – If so – we would have to ban all fertility challenged coupes form marrying!
Posted by Billy C, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 11:22:03 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
Billy,
The answer to your question is in Leigh's post.
Homosexuals are an interference because some people *say so*. Difference is put down to "perversion" which is unacceptable.
To put more plainly: intolerance and failing to love thy neighbor is OK if it is from a sense of "rightness" (I've got to say it, usually fired by religious arrogance).

Leigh. Civilisation fail because they over-consumed their resources, let leaders waste resources or promote division (Howard's game), or lost the bigger context (barbarians over next hill). NOT because they worry about consensual adults sexual variety.
I find the image of gay sex quite disturbing (so I don't imagine it often!), but in the scheme of things it is not important enough to break the bigger rules of respect. Variety is not a sin, nature needs and celebrates it.
Posted by Ozandy, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 12:14:28 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
I cannot fathom being gay nor can i find any reason why a bloke would want to do things with another bloke.

In the case of Gay marriage though, being fair diinkum, who are they hurting? it is great that gay people find love and want to marry, it is far better than having single seedy gay men running around parks etc trolling for sex. If they all where married and shared committed relationships and shared ordinary, parallel lives to the rest of us, there would be no stigmas, no issues and no problems with assimilation.

lets give these people the right to live as decent ordinary citizens, this is all they want and realistically, there would be no problem with the gay community from straight people if they were citizens who shared the same goals in life with the family unit still being the centre. it may take a generation or so for the community to accept it as the norm, but after thism the issues will be over, just like with womens rights etc last century.

By not allowing this to happen we are making them society's inferior class, which further created problems.

Best of luck with making it happen.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 12:17:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Legal recognition of gay marriage is all about acknowlegement that tens of thousands of gay couples should be afforded the same equal human rights under Australian law as enjoyed by the majority of citizens who are heterosexual couples. We pose no threat by changing our marital status from 'single' to 'married'.

The Spanish government recently passed gay marriage laws over the vehement opposition by the Pope. The consequence? Has Spanish civilization been smited for collaboration with Sodomites? No - harmony, inclusion and tolerance has greeted the new order.

Spanish lawmakers have enhanced human dignity by asserting the role of a secular government in up-holding non-negotiable core values of equal treatment in compliance with the UN Charter of Human Rights.

My gay partner and I want the legal recognition of marriage because our relationship rights are important to us. Symbolicly, we may present ourselves to our community as two adults who made a mutual committment to a life long monogamous relationship. I believe that there are broad public interest benefits that accrue in societies where any loving couples make that most personal choice, to share their lives.

At a personal level, marriage may help to minimise risks. For example, if I am ever in a coma at hospital, I want the medical staff to take their instructions from my married partner. Currently, hospital policy will ensure that my partner's views don't count, and at worst, he may be even be refused visiting rights because he is 'not related.'

This situation is an outrage, requiring a strong bi-partisan remedy. It will mean upsetting socially conservative members of various religious organisations because 'gay marriage' is their red line.

Lawmakers may quote the constitition's bar on religious interferance and our UN Human Rights treaty obligations to justify speedy passage of a Bill to Ammend the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 1:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh - western tradition is founded on the roman empire, which in turn derived much of its tradition from hellenism - the Greeks.

Whilst I suppose you can point to the moral depravity of the fall of Rome, this ignores the earlier precedent - the Greek empire started out as gay as can be and became one of the mightiest empires to exist, challenging numerically superior empires for supremacy.
In fact, it wasn't unusual in Greece for men to have other men as lovers and women purely for procreation.

Note that I'm not advocating this, as another poster attempted to pin on me when I stated in a general discussion thread on civil unions. I don't think anyone has the right to be disloyal to their partner and I do believe in monogamy.

But to claim that homosexuality is evidence of a society in decline is just plain wrong - this hatred of homosexuality came about as a derivative of the traditions of the puritans, which in terms of world history is a very recent thing.

Learn a little more history Leigh. Your thesis here is fundamentally flawed.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 1:36:24 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
I agree with Quick response, the utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits is an inadequate moral framework to evaluate this issue, which I believe is about respecting the dignity and autonomy of the individual and the State’s obligation not to discriminate between citizens. It’s good to see the political right moving on this issue – maybe we’ll get some progressive legislation from the new government.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 1:56:01 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
Quick response said : "At a personal level, marriage may help to minimise risks. For example, if I am ever in a coma at hospital, I want the medical staff to take their instructions from my married partner. Currently, hospital policy will ensure that my partner's views don't count, and at worst, he may be even be refused visiting rights because he is 'not related.'"

Sympathise with your position here mate, why don't you investigate getting an enduring guardian arrangment in place with your other half, until such time as legislation goes your way? That would give you the ability to choose whom makes your medical decisions. Swap enduring guardianships with your partner... seems an easy temporary fix here to me.

Leigh.. your rubbish post barely deserves a response but agree with what other have said, plus the biological fact that literally hundreds of animal species have been observed to engage in homosexual behaviour. Take your bigotry elsewhere.
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 2:43:50 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 biggest challenge to marriage over the last few decades has been casual sex and cohabitation, since their legitimisation took away one of the strongest reasons to walk down the aisle at a relatively young age.'

I could not agree with the author more. It seems that God has handed many over to a depraved mind. They refuse to accept the facts on disease and sodomy and turn a blind eye to the damage caused to society by dreaming up pseudo science and psychology that this condition is somehow in the genes. No doubt paedophiles would argue the same.

Take God out if the equation and you always end up with total depravity. God help our future generations. Hopefully we will have a few more brave politicians like Fred Nile to bring some sort of sanity to our nations depraved mind.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 3:47:02 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
Predictably the usual sick obsession with gay people's personal lives on the part of religious fanatics everytime the issue of same-sex marriage comes up (someone mentioned Nile - case in point). And the author should note - it is "same-sex marriage" that is the issue and not "gay marriage". "Gay marriage" would be marriage between gay men and lesbians - which would be perfectly okay as per the Marriage Act 1961.
Posted by DavidJS, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 4:25:44 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
"Take God out if the equation and you always end up with total depravity. God help our future generations. Hopefully we will have a few more brave politicians like Fred Nile to bring some sort of sanity to our nations depraved mind."

Jesus wept.
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 5:18:48 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
Those religous extremists who believe in the invisible being, will always deride and mock the reality of life.

Indicating that life is what they believe it should be, without any consideration to others, that may think otherwise.

To Runner and Leigh, at the last election, Family First came last and no one knows where Fred Nile is!
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 5:23:28 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
Interesting UK survey:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008.jan/23/socialtrends
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 5:39:43 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
Kipp, I saw that this morning too. Unfortunately your link went spastic. Hopefully this one will work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jan/23/socialtrends
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 7:03:00 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 term gay marriage is an oxymoron.Marriage is about procreation of the species.Let the gays have their multitudinal sexual unions, but they don't have the right to pervert the foundation of civilsiation ie the family unit,with their unbridled indulgent sexuality .They can have all the legal rights of sexual couples and call their unions all manner of terms,but never santify their deviations from the norm with the title "marriage",that is the cornerstone of all civilisation.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 10:09:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay - no one really cares to hear your opinion about the morality or otherwise of homosexuality, which has been with us forever and ever will be, whether you like it or not. That WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE. If you have some sort of reason to want to keep the actual "institution" of marriage exclusive to heterosexuals, then fair enough, I don't really care about that either.

Do you think your little rant above contributes to societal harmony in any way? Do you think if you keep making hateful statements like the above, gay people will all just disappear? Why can't you just say "I think marriage is for straight people" and then give some reasons which don't denigrate that portion of society? Do you feel better by calling them "deviant" and "indulgent"?
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 24 January 2008 6:00:03 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
We already know gay marriage does the institute of marriage no harm: it's existed in the Netherlands for 7 years (and Spain and Canada for 2), with no evidence that heterosexual marriages have been negatively affected. However I'll allow it does rely on the majority of the population accepting the legitimacy of gay marriages. Polls have shown Australians to be overwhelming in support of gay civil unions, but still somewhat divided on actual marriage, but the trend is indisputable, and I would be highly surprised if within 10 years Australia had not fallen in line with the rest of the world in legitimising official recognition of same-sex unions.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 24 January 2008 6:46:20 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
Its not rocket science.

MALE..+ FEMALE= CHILDREN by natural..normal processes. (medical complications aside.)

Man is built for woman, and woman for man.

To erect social structures alien to this natural order of things is not only dangerous, but foolhardy. Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is often blind.

It's only because of a post modern, amoral social foundation which has been growing in the 'post Christian' West which could ever allow such a thing.

*WARNING*..DANGER AHEAD...
The problem which some may not realize, is that without a moral reference point superior to 'lots of people do it' and 'how can it harm' then just about ANYthing ... is fine, as long as you can get enough voices to promote it. I wont even try to list all those things. You have brains.. USE them.

The Doctrinal perspective with which Christians approach this issue, is clearly based on the common sense/natural order which God created.
It should always be recognized that no matter when it is accepted or not that people are 'born' this way or that, the practice and behavior is not 'normal'... there are many behaviors which we consider 'not' normal and sex which animals and children are 2 of the most obvious.

Imagine this, you lead a pet pig into a Synagoque or a Mosque. Up till the moment you entered the confines of such an institution, your pig is no biggy.. Its all a matter of frame of reference.
But if the frame of reference has no boundaries.. well that's plain scary.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 24 January 2008 7:10:09 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
"Marriage is about the procreation of the species" according to one poster. And yet people don't need to be married to have children. And married couples are not obliged to have children. There's more to marriage than reproduction.

There's also this nonsensical issue that allowing same-sex marriage would be the end of civilisation as we know it. The implication is that gay people are an incredibly powerful force and any further concessions to them would bring on the end of the world. In this regard, anti-gay ideologues contradict themselves. They say there are too few gays to bother about. Then they turn around and say gays are terrible social threat with "unbridled indulgent sexuality" (bit jealous are we, honey?).

The author says in the final paragraph:

"Marriage is a social institution that has evolved considerably over time, as some of its historic rationales weakened, but for that reason has proven to be durable. It’s hard to see the causal mechanism by which gay marriage could do it any harm, which I think swings the utilitarian calculation back in favour of gay marriage."

This seems to contradict the title "The untilitarian conservative case against gay marriage."
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 24 January 2008 8:59:23 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
From Stephen Fry’s autobiography, Moab is My Washpot
“There are plenty of other things to be got up to in the homosexual world outside the orbit of the anal ring, but the concept that really gets the goat of the gay-hater, the idea that really spins their melon and sickens their stomach is that most terrible and terrifying of all human notions, love.
That one can love another of the same gender, that is what the homophobe really cannot stand. Love in all eight tones and all five semitones of the word's full octave. Love as agape, Eros and philos; love as romance, friendship and adoration; love as infatuation, obsession and lust; love as torture, euphoria, ecstacy and oblivion (this is beginning to read like a Calvin Klein perfume catalogue); love as need, passion and desire.”

What a beautiful, charitable thing religion is, as it spews forth from the posters on OLO. I particularly enjoy it when they couple moral meanspiritedness with wholly unwarranted patronage — “You have brains. USE them” — and prophecies about the “end of civilisation.”

As I understand it, the religious types have four main points:
* a few Christians find homosexuality unnatural and yucky
* Australia should ban all things that a few Christians find unnatural and yucky
* if gay marriage is legalised, poofs will soon run the world and have enormous power in government, which they will exploit to rape children and practice their perversity on unsuspecting (but, let’s face it, quite saucy) Clydesdales and Cocker Spaniels
* Christians demonstrate their goodness by wallowing in prejudice and loathing like pigs do in mud, while those posts advocating tolerance and common sense are penned by heathens with no moral grounding.

If you believe these things, good luck to you. But it sounds suspiciously like stuff that would generally blow out of the orbit of the anal ring to me.

May your children all lip-synch to disco. And marry each other. And live happily ever after.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 24 January 2008 5:47:10 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
Don't you love Stickmans reponse."No one really cares about your opinion here," since this is a gay autocracy.Well Stickman,the evolutionery genetic reality is here,which has enabled our civilisation to excel way beyond our capacity as individuals,and the hetrosexual family unit is responsible for at least 90% of this reality,what right have the gays to overturn the formula which has brought us such success?You are a minority group,and like the fanatical Muslims,must learn you place in the reality of successful evolution.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 24 January 2008 8:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay.

1. Not only are you a bigot, but you apparently can't read. I said: "no one really cares to hear your opinion about the morality or otherwise of homosexuality, which has been with us forever and ever will be, whether you like it or not. That WAS NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE." I never said no one cares to hear your opinion, just that you might try to keep ON TOPIC. The topic raised by the article was not "is homosexuality immoral?" though I am sure your eyes lit up when the chance came to poofter-bash, didn't it?

2. How could you possibly have construed that I am gay? My girlfriend and I have a 4 1/2 month old baby and we are very happy. Or is it just inconceivable to you that a straight guy could feel compassion and sympathy for the position of gay people?

3. If you have read anything else I have posted you will note that I am firmly in the non-believing, pro-evolution, Islamo-sceptic camp - much as it pains me to agree with you about anything.

4. Learn to spell or use spell checker so I don't have to wade through your tortured attempts at English

Vanilla - great post, thanks for that, a lovely counterpoint to the idiocy that followed.
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 24 January 2008 9:12:30 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
Since every human being should be treated equally...

and since homosexuality is in most part innate...

And since it’s about sex between consenting adults (dogs and kids cannot consent or sign an important contract, so that slippery-slope argument has no ground)...

And since SSC (same sex couples), in countries where SSM (same sex marriage) is legal do accept the sanctity of marriage to the same extent that heterosexuals do...

And since religions won’t be forced to marry SSC; religious freedom will remain protected...

And since the numbers of homosexuals remain stable whether we do or don’t allow SSM...

there doesn’t seem to be a threat to religious freedom or society.

So I find it quite irrational to oppose SSM.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:13:25 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
Arjay says: "You [gays] are a minority group and like the fanatical Muslims must learn you place in the reality of successful evolution."

But non-Muslim anti-gay bigots in Australia are expressing opinions on gays similar to JI's or Al-Qaeda's. In fact, it is hard to find an oppressive regime in the world, Muslim or otherwise, which IS NOT anti-gay.

In terms of "the reality of successful evolution" it does seem that gay couples are out of the loop in that they can't reproduce (together). My theory is (probably not original) is that gays and childless non-gay couples are here to slow the population down. Other mammals instinctively stop reproducing in scarce times. If they didn't, they would all die. To use a car analogy, in the human world heterosexuals are the accelerator and homosexuals are the brakes. Even then it's not cut and dried. Plenty of gays have children.

As for the throwaway term "minority group", a cliche often used in a pathetic attempt to discredit people, I can live with that. I'm not only gay but male and understand the reality of gay lives - three minority groups.
Posted by DavidJS, Friday, 25 January 2008 8:36:20 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
Believe it or not, Arjay wrote: "Well Stickman,the evolutionery genetic reality is here,which has enabled our civilisation to excel way beyond our capacity as individuals,and the hetrosexual family unit is responsible for at least 90% of this reality,what right have the gays to overturn the formula which has brought us such success?"

Quick Stickman! The champagne!

This is *officially* the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Posted by Vanilla, Friday, 25 January 2008 5:30:07 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
Vanilla - I know, and he has some stiff competition on these boards as well... the high priest of proselytism himself (you know who you are Boazy) has made some strong contributions.. but yeah, that little spiel by Arjay was pretty "special" ;)
Posted by stickman, Friday, 25 January 2008 9:34:12 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 reason why the gay/lesbian movement want to assume the title of gay marriage,is that of adoption.Now how can two mothers of lesbian decent,objectively raise a male hetrosexual child whose sexuality they utterly distain?The same can be said for two homosexual males rearing a hetrosexual female child.There is no balance or role models for either sex to find security or stability.Not all homosexuality is genetic.Sexual imprinting at a young age also affects children.The paedophiles know this,and paedophiles beget more paedophiles.There are many hetrosexual men who were abused as children,get married and as old men,revert to the perversion that destroyed them as child,yet the homosexual lobby persists in wanting to lower the age of consent to 14 or lower.

Our society is confused enough as it is,without all the confusion of sexuality that gay lobby wants to thrust upon us.Sexual discipline without all the puritan overtones of guilt is needed,rather than this unbridled sexuality that puts pleasure before responsibility,no matter what your sexual orientation.

Sex today in the popular media is used a a tool of power,so even children are encouraged to display sexual prowess way beyond their innocent years.

The gays have set themselves apart by virtue of their aggressive war of attrition on the traditional family unit.Their argument is that it has failed,therefore they should be able to replace it with a concept of their choice.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 26 January 2008 12:28:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If there is a problem with sexual relations today, it has nothing to do with the prospect of same-sex marriage. It has more to do with the subordinate role women play in even relatively liberated societies such as Australia. Women are overrepresented in prostitution, on the receiving end of domestic violence and rape and as sex objects in Who Weekly etc. Of course, in African or Asian countries the situation is even worse. Nothing whatever to do with same-sex marriage or even its remote possibility.

In fact, here's food for thought: any country where women are treated atrociously, so are gays. And any country where both women and gays are severely oppressed, human rights overall are shocking.

Anybody appalled by the prospect of same-sex marriage might like to move to a country where it's least likely to happen. Sudan comes to mind.

And for goodness sake, if you are going to be proudly HETEROSEXUAL at least spell it correctly.
Posted by DavidJS, Saturday, 26 January 2008 8:59:27 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
It seems that both stickman and DavidJS can only revert to ad homiem arguments and ridicule,to advance their case.Just refute my arguments and refrain from personal attacks on my spelling prowess.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 26 January 2008 5:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay. To refute your arguments:

“The reason why the gay/lesbian movement want to assume the title of gay marriage,is that of adoption.”
No, it isn’t. That’s one reason, but gay partners want to marry for the same gamut of reasons that straight people do.

“how can two mothers of lesbian decent,objectively raise a male hetrosexual child whose sexuality they utterly distain?”
Gay people don’t disdain heterosexuality. They just don’t share it. You might just as easily ask how can a widowed father raise a daughter, when he does not share her sexuality.

“There is no balance or role models for either sex to find security or stability.”
There is a responsibility on gay parents to make sure their kids have role models of the same sex.

“There are many hetrosexual men who were abused as children,get married and as old men,revert to the perversion that destroyed them as child…”
You are talking about child sexual abuse, not homosexuality.

“...yet the homosexual lobby persists in wanting to lower the age of consent to 14 or lower.”
No they don’t. The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby want the homosexual and heterosexual age of consent to be the same.

“Sex today in the popular media is used a a tool of power,so even children are encouraged to display sexual prowess way beyond their innocent years.”
I agree. This is a valid critique of culture, but nothing to do with gay or straight sex.

“Their argument is that it has failed,therefore they should be able to replace it with a concept of their choice.”
No it isn’t. Their argument is that they love their partners in the same way as straight people do, so they should be allowed to marry them. They believe in marriage — that’s why they want to be able to marry.

If you have any serious arguments, let’s hear them. But if you merely want to express your hatred of gay people, I, for one, could care less.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 26 January 2008 6:25:36 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
Arjay there have been some studies which found that children raised by lesbian couples are just as well adjusted as children in heterosexual parent families. Children need a loving family regardless of what the sex of their parents is.

Vanilla et al are right; I still haven’t seen any reasonable arguments against SSM.
Their arguments don’t seem to differ much from the arguments in the past about interracial or interfaith marriage. (God put us on different continents…it’s unnatural…children of interracial couples will suffer…) Next!
Yeah we’ve heard it all before but the arguments were moot then and are moot now.

Why do opposers of SSM act as if marriage has always been the same without any change? That’s either ignorant or ridiculous.
There have been quite some changes to the ‘traditional marriage’ image throughout history already. More change is due- change has happened in other countries and all remains well. Australia will eventually catch up, wait and see :)

Is it only the people who are completely obsessed with other people’s sex lives or with nonsense from the Bible that protest the most?
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 26 January 2008 7:45:12 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
Arjay said: "It seems that both stickman and DavidJS can only revert to ad homiem [sic] arguments and ridicule,to advance their case.Just refute my arguments and refrain from personal attacks on my spelling prowess."

You made arguments? Sorry I must have missed them.. and I think you meant "RESORT to ad homiem [sic] arguments by the way.

Well Arjay, poor little delicate soul that you obviously are, I made 4 points in that previous post, precisely one of which was ad HOMINEM, ie, that you should use spell checker. And if you don't have enough respect for the people that have to read the drivel that you spout, to use spell checker, then how aboout reading what you write before you post it?? C'mon, I know you can spell better that that!

And since you insist upon making blatantly bigoted and offensive anti-gay statements without any basis in fact (ad homonem??), knowing they will be read by gay posters to this site, then I will continue to meet stupdidity with ridicule - let's just consider it a little balancing of the ledger, shall we?
Posted by stickman, Sunday, 27 January 2008 12:34:01 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
Well, Arjay I think I refuted your arguments and threw in one or two personal attacks as well. However, I maybe should "play the ball and not the man". Much like Leigh, for example, who opposes my arguments and yet never stoops to slander.

One argument I will expand on is to do with democracy and gay rights. It is virtually impossible to find a country today or in the past where not only gays were treated badly but human rights overall were regularly violated. Islamic fundamentalist regimes, communist regimes, non-communist one party states and fascist regimes all seem to have this in common. In other words, gay freedom appears to be a marker for greater freedom overall.

So, in countries where same-sex marriage is valid in law, the state has effectively backed off (to a degree) from regulating sexual relations between consenting adults. And that is how it should be.
Posted by DavidJS, Sunday, 27 January 2008 9:33:21 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
You lot can think all you like.Gays have an inordinate amount of political power due to their affluence in our society and want to turn the world into an image of their own liking.You buggered the word "gay" which once meant happiness and now you want to bugger the word "marriage' to suit your own selfish ends.

As previously stated, I don't care what you call your "gay unions". You can have all the legal rights of heterosexuals,that is your business,but do not try to assume the title of marriage,that is not your domain.We don't try to steal Lesbian or Gay logos to pervert or distort your sexual image,so how is it your right to encroach on an institution that traditionally has the balanced union of both sexes?

The Gays were once really happy not to be abused or bashed,now they want total power and have become like those who were once their oppressors.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Gays have an inordinate amount of political power". Too true. Can you believe we even have a openly gay elected senator in federal parliament? That's like, almost 2% representation - and everyone knows gays make up like 0.00001% of the population, and they hardly even qualify as human beings anyway.
Posted by wizofaus, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:31:12 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
"You lot can think all you like."

Cheers Arjay. We will. I might suggest you join us sometime.

Or you could keep spewing forth paranoid, bigoted diatribes.

Your call.
Posted by Vanilla, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:38:16 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
Arjay. Not wanting to upset you, but marriage is a secular word.

It is a public committment of two people too each other.

Marriage is only about those two people only.

Even Levitcus ( who ever he was!) would have no argument on that.

BTW. Arjay are you married?
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 28 January 2008 6:24:11 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
Arjay said:

"The Gays were once really happy not to be abused or bashed,now they want total power and have become like those who were once their oppressors."

So there you go, gay folk.. just think yourselves lucky you aren't getting smashed to pieces by thugs any more for having the temerity to love someone.

No need to be getting all uppity and wanting to be treated equally or anything like that.

By the way Arjay, not sure if your choice of the word "buggered" was deliberate or not but that was a nice touch ;)
Posted by stickman, Monday, 28 January 2008 6:33:14 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
Happy New Year Arjay.

I see you've lost none of your venom.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 28 January 2008 8:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a gay man in a relationship, I find it amusing how everybody seems so fixated on what label you'd apply to a same-sex relationship.

That's because whatever "common purpose" of a so-called gay marriage/union/relationship registry might be (examples: the hope of civility, acceptance, comfort, etc.), "the experience" I have of gay relationships is one of "striving together" through the daily grind. I've no doubt many straight couples can relate to having gained the same experience from a relationship.

In one of the books of The Bible - Ecclesiastes - comes my favorite Bible quote, which I do not believe I am taking out of context:

"Two are better off than one, because together they can work more effectively. If one of them falls down, the other can help him up."

It seems the whole debate is focused on where gay relationships might be "rising" to, rather than focused on the basic dependency of one person being prevented from "falling" by the other.

In the case of my current gay relationship, my boyfriend has advanced diabetes. That's why we call the relationship "striving together".

So call it whatever you want. More important is whether or not you can relate in some way to the experience.

...From Justin
Posted by BearCave, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 3:50:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn, Arjay just uncovered our evil plan for world domination...

Back on planet Earth, I'd like to address this idea of marriage as being "traditional" and somehow "bringing balance" to the sexes.

In previous eras, marriage could consist of one man and several wives as is still the case in some areas of the Middle-East and Africa. Adult-child marriages were not unusual in Mediaeval and early modern Europe. King John and Richard II of England had children as wives. In Australia, these two traditions have been outlawed. Marriage has been fundamentally transformed. If marriage survived these changes, I hardly think same-sex marriage will make much difference. Besides, as we know, there are only a few gays so how can it possibly make a difference?

As for this "balance" the idea of uniting the masculine and the feminine worries me. Those two concepts can be extremely oppressive and used against men and women who don't exhibit "correct" ("politically correct"?) gender stereotypes. Men and women marry because they love each other and not to satisfy some ideologue's sense of "balance". Ditto gay men and lesbians.

Btw, is there anything wrong with being buggered? Maybe if you're not doing it right...
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 9:20:22 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
The author notes: "opposing gay marriage actually strengthens this challenge to marriage, since unless conservatives also support enforced celibacy they are conceding that casual sex and cohabitation are acceptable."

That casual sex and cohabitation are (or appear to be) acceptable, in practice, is due to the relatively recent legal invention of 'de facto' marriages/relationships and widespread adoption of pre-marital sex/cohabitation, and the complete breakdown in female behaviour (ladettes!). Clearly, whilst tolerant of people's choices, conservatives would generally not be supportive of such choices.

The general societal 'advantages' of marriage - supported mothers, stable parental couples, children from a single biological father, property rights etc, are essentially as much to do with affirmative public policy and social contract, rather than rights.

Marriage has purpose in providing a basis for a special status that recognises the duties associated with the development of families and a more civilised/stable community.

The amelioration of very negative judgemental approaches associated with terms like 'bastard child', 'slut' and 'homosexual' etc, has seen modern society's desire to be non-offensive overtake the very real need to be instructive and rewarding beneficial choices.

That we are now more likely to applaud someone denigrating a smoker or carbon excessive individual means that we have not removed taboos merely changed them.

I see little benefit in encouraging people to make poor lifestyle choices, and government policy and state laws shouldn't either.

Promiscuous casual sex and repeated irresponsible cohabitation should not be acceptable on a number of levels - health, economic, social - but, we have that freedom, however, I don't think we have such liberties in redefining lawful marriage for additional groups such homosexuals, siblings or polygamists.

So creating another 'lawful' class alongside 'de facto partner' may be a solution, except for the 'political agenda statement' that appears to be part of the issue - as many other legal arrangements can be made to cover all but some adoption/IVF issues. see part 2...
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 5:40:10 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
Oooooh, David JS, you cheeky devil!

But now I want to share something that the guys who are so vehement in their homophobia are in no position to refute. In fact, given their feelings, its impossible for them even to comment:

I have found that the best men in my life - the ones who absolutely adore women and are in turn adored by women, the ones who know how to pleasure a woman and love to give pleasure, the real men - are never in the slightest bit threatened by homosexuality, and they never make any differences between my homosexual friends of both genders or my straight ones.

It seems to me there is a reason why most (please note the qualifier "most" there: I am not casting aspersions or making "ad homium" attacks here)opposition to gays comes from boorish ocker-types: the three-minute men. You know, the ones who gave rise to those jokes like "The Aussie males version of foreplay is the question "Are you awake"?

It is also noticable that the majority see the word "Homosexual" referring to men only, and are quite happy to indulge in the old three-some daydream. (In fact the "homo" in the word homosexual comes from the Greek homo meaning "same", not the Latin homo meaning "man").

So my own feeling has always been that the people who protest the loudest are the people who struggle with their own sexuality: especially those who are not quite up to par in the bedroom themselves.

Any other women found this?
Posted by Romany, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 5:50:11 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
"That we are now more likely to applaud someone denigrating a smoker or carbon excessive individual means that we have not removed taboos merely changed them."

Thanks to science, our understanding of the world is constantly changing, and indeed improving. We now have solid scientific evidence of the harm caused by smoking, or by excessive quantities of greenhouse gases. The evidence, however, that the nuclear family is the optimal arrangement for the raising of children is, to say the least, thin on the ground. This is hardly surprising, given it's a rather recent invention anyway, and certainly not representative of the social structures that existed for 99% of our evolutionary existence.

However, I certainly agree that humans also have an innate tendency to latch on "taboos" that are handed down by those in authority, even when there is little scientific basis behind them: e.g. the idea that illegal recreational drugs (cocaine, cannabis, ectasy) are somehow more harmful on average than legal ones such as alcohol or nicotine*.
The best we can hope for is to continually strive to improve levels of education and understanding of the power of the scientific method to better distill genuine knowledge about the world, especially among those in authority who make decisions that influence public opinion on various such matters.

* For instance, the idea of walking through the streets watching people shoot themselves up with needles makes me thoroughly uncomfortably. And yet I can walk by people smoking cigarettes, doing themselves (and importantly, others around them) potentially far more damage, without thinking much of it at all. This is obviously somewhat irrational, but an important clue into the way that the human brain works: we've had the association of "shooting up" with overdosing or being part of the criminal underworld firmly imprinted in our minds, and this is far more powerful an effect than tables of statistics proving that nicotine is actually more harmful than many injected drugs.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 5:58:24 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
part 2.

By creating the fiction that monogamous, heterosexual marriage can be equated to any and all relationships, I don't see the utility of limiting the perception of one couples circumstances by undermining anothers.

Sure, it all about perception; I want to 'protect' my version of marriage, others want to protect their "relationship rights" too.

Let's just get rid of any advantages in law that marriage currently provides and then we can see just how much popular support will be engendered by our social engineers!

Years ago, such requests would not have mattered as, logically, non-reproductive relationships would, well, not reproduce. The advent of scientific solutions to get around natural processes and demographic outcomes has created a very new, perhaps not so level, playing field.

Anyway, if they want the legal protections (relationship rights) as consenting adults, but, without parental rights and we pick another term, I can't see any problems, but, is this about the needs of the adults or our society's children?

If marriage is made to look easy/disposable/anything goes, then it won't be long until families are seen as mere fashion items - perhaps this has already happened in more affluent societies already!

As I once read: children are economically burdensome, culturally optional and technologically preventable. Why would you want more than one (or two)? The family of old is already passing at so many levels, so where do conservatives make a last line in the sand?

Perhaps on this one...
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 5:58:41 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
Yep.Rainer is right. I always like stirring the pot.Lots of venom and passion.There should always be conflict and argument when venturing into unknown territory.No one on this planet when moving from traditional concepts that in the past have ensured communal survival,should be assured of an easy passage.The gays or heteros are not above satire or criticism.

Just as a deviation from the present topic,see my general discussion entitled,"Quick ,get the Silver Out Dr Hg".If you have amalgams still in you mouth,consider the consequences.This topic has serious health consequences for all of us.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 8:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, you stated: "This topic has serious health consequences for all of us."

Please elaborate, I am at a complete loss as to what you mean by this statement. The topic is about gay relations not drinking water.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 6:42:01 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
Arjay, you claim "No one on this planet when moving from traditional concepts that in the past have ensured communal survival, should be assured of an easy passage".

The Mum, Dad & kids concept of a family has never ensured communal survival. For the vast majority of human existence, we lived in small to medium tribes where children were very lucky to have both parents survive their most formative years, and were largely raised by whatever adults happened to be around.

In more modern times, we've had the luxury of being able to choose our preferred family arrangements, with minimal concerns about mortality, and clearly a substantial portion do choose the nuclear family option (though less than half of us actually live in such families). But a great number of studies have been done on how well children cope with various family arrangements, and about the only thing the conclusions seem to have in common is how well children cope and adapt to all sorts of combinations and permutations.
It's true that there is evidence that among lower socio-economic groups, the lack of a positive adult male role model can be an issue for boys (this is especially a problem in communities where a large number of adult males end up in prison), and there is something to be said for ensuring that when such boys are brought up by women only, whether through choice or not, or where the only adult males around are obviously negative role models, that attempts are made to expose those boys to adult males capable of fulfilling the positive role model position.

However this really has little to do with gay marriage, seeing as same-sex couples frequently take on the responsibility of rearing children already. No doubt this will increase with time as it becomes more accepted, but even if evidence did surface that this was causing issues in a percentage of cases, there's certainly no cause for assuming the only solution is to universally disallow such arrangements.
Posted by wizofaus , Wednesday, 30 January 2008 7:15:15 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
David & Stickman,

Arjay wrote: "No one on this planet ... should be assured of an easy passage."

Fnar Fnar!
Posted by Vanilla, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 8:39:24 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
Vanilla - cheeky girl

Arjay - I really want an answer on this:

Explain how two people of any gender or sexual persuasion, declaring love and committment to each other, constitutes a health hazard to others?

You can't make statements like: "This topic has serious health consequences for all of us."

Without anything to back up your claim.

Do you mean to say that marriage is unhealthy for all people?

Or just straights?

Please explain.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 10:28:26 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
Johnny, don't worry too much about anything Arjay says, but I think he was talking about having amalgam in your mouth constituting a health hazard (as in dental work) - nothing to do with the topic.

Hey speaking of off topic, I went and saw Rufus Wainwright last night in Sydney.. I mention it here because there are a few people who might be interested.. fabulous! Arjay - you probably don't know him but he is very gay and very talented.. going to hell in a handbasket of course but having a lot of fun doing so.

cheers
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 8:45:23 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
I think that the hate and venom by many displayed by many gays on this forum says it all.Just a few well chosen words and they launch into a rabid orgy of personal attacks and hate.You only hate what you fear and cannot control.Your words speak volumes about your insecurity.I do not hate or dispise,I am just revealing the sneeky underhanded social engineering that is your agenda.
You have no concept of the hardship and sacrifice of many ordinary heterosexual families endure every day.The educated gays are indeed a spoilt,affluent self indulgent lot.They have intelligence that can justify almost anything.Our legal fraternity is oozing with this equivocating,mentality that can justify all manner behaviour.

Why was Franka Arena silenced by the the Labor Party,when in now becomes apparent that we have so many paedophile judges and a legal system that is soft on this growing debauchery?Most paedophiles pray on young boys who are still sexually maturing.They also have sex with adult males.Are they homo or hetero or just conveniently ignored?

I do not see an honest portrayal of intent with many pushing this high profile gay agenda.They hide behind the mantra of victim status just to push their hidden agendas.

I think that most males need the moderation of the female psyche,since they lose the plot without some form of discipline both sexually and intellectually.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 9:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, if that is your idea of a rational discusion over what arguments there may be for and against permitting same-sex marriages, then I see little point in engaging in further debate.

FWIW, I personally find the idea of sexual intercourse with another man offputting in the extreme. The same-sex couples I know well are all lesbians, and I would trust them with the raising of my own child any day.
Posted by wizofaus, Thursday, 31 January 2008 6:16:04 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
"[Gays] have no concept of the hardship and sacrifice of many ordinary heterosexual families endure every day" according to Arjay.

Well, how ignorant. As if gays don't sacrifice to bring up their children or do community work or remain in the closet for the sake of their parents and other loved ones. Gays know more about sacrifice than well-heeled parliamentary seat-warmers like Fred Nile.

As for Franca Arena being silenced - what bollocks! That coward was too scared to utter her slanders outside the Parliament where she didn't have parliamentary privilege and she was too lazy and cowardly to take her concerns to the police. Actually people like Arena make harder to combat child abuse because they "cry wolf" and make absurd allegations.

As for hidden agendas, that is more rubbish. Gay lobby groups are quite open about their agendas which include same-sex marriage. If anyone needs more information look up the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby's website www.glrl.org.au or Australian Marriage Equality www.ame.org - it's all there for public viewing.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:14:22 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
Stickman, it bothers me when someone is completely incapable of making cogent posts which relate to the topic.

Now Arjay is waffling on about paedophiles - he is attempting to create links between issues where there are none. Mentioning public health on a thread about gay marriage and now he has brought in the topic of paedophilia; abuse of children has nothing whatsoever with being gay.

People who wish to claim the same rights as straight couples with regard to superannuation, illness et cetera, have every right to do so in a true democracy.

Arjay's intent is to create hatred for people by linking them to irrelevant issues. The same tactics are used to discredit other minorities. While the more astute of us can see through these puerile efforts, it is still offensive to have to wade through. I generally ignore these diatribes, however, it is worthwhile to point out to the hatemongers that they aren't fooling anyone.

All people have the right to declare long term commitments to each other if they wish - surely solid relationships are the foundation for our society rather than the end of it.
Posted by Johnny Rotten, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:17:29 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
Arjay said: "I think that the hate and venom by many displayed by many gays on this forum says it all.Just a few well chosen words and they launch into a rabid orgy of personal attacks and hate.You only hate what you fear and cannot control.Your words speak volumes about your insecurity."

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Actually, I think you were spoiling for a fight and you're a bit disappointed that we greeted your silly, paranoid arguments with the ridicule they deserve. You asked everyone to refute your position - when we did, comprehensively, you went resorted to insults. By the way, as far as I've deducted, there's only one out gay here - David. You've mostly been arguing with heterosexual men and women.

I am truly sorry you hate gay people so much. (And I gather it's gay *men* you object to, not women?) It must make it hard, to be in the world, carrying that around. Hate away - it's a free country. But don't be fooled into thinking that there is some conspiracy. Gay people don't want to change your life one iota. They're not interested in you. They just want to live lives with the same rights and responsibilities that you have.

And stop connecting homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Child abusers are pedophiles - they're attracted to children. Most pedophiles are heterosexual in their adult relationships. Some are homosexual. It doesn't matter. What matters is that they're *pedophiles*.

Homophobia. I just find it all so comprehensively silly. Gay people are not victims, Arjay, and they want nothing from you. Just calm down.

Stickman - I'm jealous about Rufas. I've just discovered another great poofy musician - Stephin Merritt. If you haven't discovered him yet, he's my tip.
Posted by Vanilla, Thursday, 31 January 2008 9:18:53 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
Gee, I always thought Arjay was a repressed Gay!
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 31 January 2008 11:35:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Johnny Rotten said:
"Stickman, it bothers me when someone is completely incapable of making cogent posts which relate to the topic."

Yeah.. well he irritates me too - all I am saying is don't expect much better from him, he doesn't appear capable.
Posted by stickman, Friday, 1 February 2008 6:10:26 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
"Gee, I always thought Arjay was a repressed Gay!"
I second that. I'd love to inspect his hard drive....

What are the main causes of homophobia? A few causes:

* Repressed homosexuality (this is no joke- there has been a study that strongly indicated that this can be a cause. I can't find the link right now but will search for it later.

* Unhealthy obsession with other people's sexual behaviour and needs.

* Unhealthy obsession with certain Holy book texts which are especially cherry-picked to back up a homophobic stance
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:31:53 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
I don't think you can leave out the fact that because many heterosexual men (myself among them) have such a viscerally unplesant reaction to the idea of two males engaging in sexual intercourse, they assume that the strength of this reaction is somehow indicative of the objective immorality of men engaging in intercourse.

It requires a certain clarity of mind to separate oneself from this emotional reaction and accept that there is no harm in allowing other other informed adults to engage in consensual private activities (and indeed, considerable harm comes from attempting to disallow it).

Marriage is a slightly more complex argument, but Arjay, like others here, can't even seem to get past the first hurdle of accepting that a personal distaste for the sexual behaviour of others, however strong, is not reasonable grounds for determining morality.
Posted by wizofaus, Friday, 1 February 2008 8:51:08 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
Wizofaus,it has nothing to do with my personal tastes.Everyone on this topic has made it personal.Celvia"Arjay is a repressed homosexual."Another personal attack.It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it.

Homosexuals are presently happily co-existing in our society,but now they want to be the leaders in social engineering since their educated socio-economic status is disproportional to the reality of numerical percentages.It is all about power.They'll push the boundaries because they can.Now they get all uppity with name calling and character assination,just because they cannot get their own way.Well two yr olds reflect the same pre-disposition to immaturity.Expect a monumental fight!
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:04:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay, all homosexuals want is equal rights. that's all. Why should a group of people be discriminated against just because of their sexual preference?
They 'push' the boundaries because these unfair boundaries should not be in place to start with.

You say "It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it."
Anti-abortionists use the same argument to tell women how they should behave: they want to force women to give birth because of 'our survival'. Yes it all boils down to power and control.

Homophobes use the amusing population argument and claim that homosexuality is a 'wastage of sperm' (every sperm is sacred :)) argument.
Oh dear- as if heterosexual males haven't wasted millions of sperm.

Yes! We should be concerned with population numbers!
Even though homosexuality has always existed, women have always looked for and often found ways to control their fertility, and heterosexual men have always wasted sperm... voila! we managed to increase the population to over 6 billion!

It would be more logic to say that we need MORE sperm wasters to save our species because life may well become unsustainable if we keep breeding like this.
We need less, not more people on earth to be able to survive as a species.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:45:04 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
Arjay,

<<It is about the survival of the species and homosexuality won't do it. >>

Not necessarily.

It has been found that, apparently, younger siblings are more likely to be homosexual.

The advantage that this would provide, is that there would be some in the pack (heard, or whatever the group is referred to, depending on what species you're talking about), that would spend time taking care of the young, rather than competing with the other siblings (born first) for mating partners.

It could/would be like a backup system, rather than wasting life on 'sibling rivalry' that came about from the competition for mates.

Now, of course I cannot prove this, but it's food for thought, and it shows that nature may not be as simple as it seems. It would certainly make evolutionary sense in certain species though, and it would prove to be a good survival technique as well.

One example of this was the Meerkat they named “Shakespeare” in the show 'Meerkat Manor'. This particular male showed no interest in mating and spent his time looking after the young in the mob.

That's not to say that he was necessarily homosexual. But it's examples like these that could potentially support the theory behind Homosexuality in nature - which is more common than you'd think.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 February 2008 11:24:15 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
Arjay, why would I expect a monumental fight? I expect Australia to peacefully follow in the the footsteps of nations such as Denmark (where gay unions have been legal for almost *20* years ago now), the Netherlands (where gay marriage has been legal for 7 years), Canada, etc. etc.

What makes Australia different to every other western developed nation (other than the U.S.) that is gradually moving towards full acceptance of gay marriage?
Posted by wizofaus, Sunday, 3 February 2008 7:11:23 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
I have the solution.We shall call "Gay Marriage", "Garriage" then everybody will be happy.

Instead of having the movie "Meet the Fockers" With Gay Lord Focker,we could have "Meet the Buggers" with Straight Lord Bugger.Straight Lord has a gay father and one day he brings home a woman with intentions of marriage.However his father only believes in Garriage.Straight Lord's father brings in the Gay Police to sort out his son's deviant behaviour.

Who would like to add to this satire?
Posted by Arjay, Sunday, 3 February 2008 8:46:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In terms of satire, Arjay's posts can't be topped. Well, maybe anything uttered by the Jensen sisters and Fred Nile.
Posted by DavidJS, Thursday, 7 February 2008 12:43:24 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
Of course Arjay.

By the same token, by allowing cola to be legal, we do run the risk of having a generation of caffeine-addicted fascists who would rule out drinking orange juice. Unless we move NOW! to ban cola, we'll be regretting it in future, mark my words.

Also, we ought to be careful about allowing people to use this crazy contraption called 'the internet.' If people favour it too much, there's a chance they'll ban books.
This will not stand! Damned if I'll let people stand in the way of my book reading! Ban the internet, and quickly!

Why heck, has anyone given serious thought to the risks we face in relation to the teaching of language?!
If we teach another language, like say, Italian in our schools, how long before these heinous linguists are trying to foist their language on us! Fiends! Ban the teaching of Italian! And any other language, come to think of it! And while we're at it, ban geology! Why? I dunno anymore! I'm caught in Arjay's web of illogicality! Is that a word? Yes? No? Who cares!

That count sufficiently as satire, Arjay? I'm assuming your last post was also satire in that it pointed out the stupidity of banning one thing simply because you're afraid it will lead to the banning of the opposite.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 7 February 2008 5:02:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

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