The Forum > General Discussion > Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?
Isn't it time to allow gay marriage in Australia?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- ...
- 35
- 36
- 37
-
- All
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 3:17:36 PM
| |
CJ Morgan,
Natural law is what homosexual propagandists appeal to when they produce films purportedly showing homosexual behaviour amongst animals. Natural law is what homosexual propagandists repudiate in the face of incontrovertible evidence that male and female are sexually complementary, whereas male on male and female on female sexual relationships are not. The best you can do, really, is to argue that people do it therefore it is natural. This argument can of course be used to justify any behaviour, sexual or otherwise. The push that we’re now seeing is illustrative of what happens when society starts accepting, at face value, peoples self-diagnoses of their own pathologies. "Homosexuality is death. I choose life." I would never say anything so hateful of course. I leave that to former homosexual activist Michael Glatze. http://www.narth.com/docs/nicoglatze.html Posted by HermanYutic, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 4:02:56 PM
| |
"I am amazed none of these blinkered people have advocated stoning for adultery"
The difference being that adultery involves at least one person who did not consent to the decision but who may be seriously impacted by the results. I doubt many of those opposed to gay marriage would want to be married to a partner who's sexual interest was homosexual so gay marriage does not take anything from hetrosexuals except a specific meaning of the idea of marriage which has already been pretty well trashed by the way it's treated by hetrosexuals. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 5:32:56 PM
| |
I'd like to Thank everone for their inputs.
For me however - the thread has run its course. Before I go - here's a few quotes that I came across on the subject, from various websites: 1) "More people have been slaughtered in the name of religion, than for any other single reason. That, my friends, that is true perversion." (Harvey Milk). 2)" If homosexuality isn't natural then neither is ... flying in airplanes, driving in cars, eating food you didn't kill yourself, or wiping your butt ..." (author unknown). 3) "I don't approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance." (Oscar Wilde). 4) "Possibly sometime in the future the day will come where a person's sexuality will cease to be disparaged or victimised. Where gayness or its straight counterpart will at last become redundant. Hurrah!" (author unknown). Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 6:06:42 PM
| |
As far as I can glean from HermanYutic's blather, "natural law" is a meaningless term since she uses it in two contradictory ways in order (presumably) to argue that homosexuality is somehow "unnatural". However, it was HermanYutic who introduced the term to this discussion in the context of claiming that the Marriage Act discriminates against homesexuals because it is linked to "natural law".
I get the general drift though. I think I'll follow Foxy's lead and leave this thread to the unreasonable homophobes and religious fundies, unless someone posts something remarkable. Ciao :) Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 6:56:01 PM
| |
How appropriate that you close off with a quote from Harvey Milk, paedophile.
As a 33yo he had a sexual relationship with a 16yo and other young men. "It would be to boyish-looking men in their late teens and early 20s that Milk would be attracted for the rest of his life." (from his biography, "The Mayor of Castro Street" by Randy Shilts, a homosexual San Francisco Chronicle reporter.) Shilts quoted Milk... "As homosexuals, we can't depend on the heterosexual model... We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don't have to follow it. We should be developing our own life-style. There's no reason why you can't love more than one person at a time. You don't have to love them all the same…" Sounds like a recipe for committed marriage to me. Milk refereed for, and also successfully lobbied President Jimmy Carter in favour of, Rev Jim Jones for custody of a 6yo boy. This child subsequently died in the Jonestown massacre. Milk lied about being kicked out of the Navy due to discrimination because he thought it made "good copy". With all his peccadilloes, it's small wonder that Milk is a hero of the lunatic fringe. Sorry if I'm tampering with your natural ignorance. Posted by HermanYutic, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 7:18:13 PM
|
From ancient times genetic children had civil rights as part of a family or tribal nation not given to imposters or visitors to the country. These discriminatory positions still apply. We decide who gets benifits from our family, our tax and our nation; and how it is applied.
We discriminate on who votes on the basis of age and citizenship.
Adoption is registered by the state to protect the child by acceptable parents as a benificary of the adopting family. This is a committed contract to love and cherish a child by a married man and woman and this contract is not a marriage. Though in the case of step children the other parent often adopts siblings of the partner whos's father is deceased, or abandoned the child.