Poll: Gay/Lesbian marriage.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

We can't ruin the 'Sanctity' of marriage by allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry but its alright to systematically cover up the sexual abuse of a large percentage of two generations (baby boomers/gen X) by priests from the catholic church.

Sorry, this was probably my fault with my response to Pis-ton's remark - let's steer the thread back to the poll lest it gets closed.

[Trump]

Normal is very subjective tempted.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by DBourne

I'm actually more interested in WHY some one would be against it. Because I honestly can't think of any reason.

the reason I was against it is quite simple, I am a Darwinist and and Evolutionist, explain to me how homosexuality fits in that line of thinking, when you can understand that thinking then you will understand why some are against it

Of course most religions hate it because it stops a religious couple from reproducing and those producing the next generation of loyal religious sheeple

Now I couldn't give a **** if they get married or not, it just doesn't sit in with my line of thinking

I know lots of homosexual couples, my 'beliefs' don't interfere with how I interact with them, I am sure they would hate my beliefs, but they are MY beliefs

[MercurySilver]

Ironic that the church is against it but has covered up abuse by priests of boys
So its not ok for two consenting adults of the same sex to be together but ok for a priest to molest a child

The church is fhe prob

[SYZ]

I voted primarily as a #4... and a #3 which seems to be an identical option.

Couldn't give a toss about it either way = Meh, each one to their own.

I've never really been concerned with what other people do within their relationships; it's never impinged on my lifestyle in any way whatsoever. My only suggestion to the gay couples would be maybe to give up using the word "marriage", and simply call it a civil union. It seems the marriage word is what causes a lot of angst for the ultra-conservative, hetero busybodies.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Now I couldn't give a **** if they get married or not, it just doesn't sit in with my line of thinking

Trev, I'm not trying to pick on your views at all, so please don't think I am.

But, with the quoted part above, does that not mean that honestly you couldn't care if they do get married?

So, if it means the world to them, and it doesn't have any effect (or affect, I never get the right use) on you, why not let them do it?

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by tempted

I voted no way.
IMO homosexaulity is unnatural, wrong and is a mental illness which needs to be treated. Society has over the years been systematically brainwashed and conditioned by the pc do-gooders into believing that it is normal, however I never have and never will see it this way.

OK now you surely taking this pi$$.

I really dont care either way, I dont know why all the fuss is made but maybe thats because it doesnt directly effect me,

If it makes people happy, no one gets hurt and the world moves on then so what.

I must state I have a complete opposite opinion to adoptions/IVF for homosexual relationships (which I often find myself conflicting even my own opinion) but that's a whooooooooooooole different topic.

NFI why we would stop anyone getting married, the defacto relationship happens pretty quick legally so whats the difference, maybe then the nation can start talking about things to fix the bloody economy.

[Giant Cranium]

delete, quoted deleted post

[GasoLane]

The Topic is Gay/Lesbian marriage.

Not religion, child abuse or what you think of other members and their opinions.

[Giant Cranium]

i say yes, but currently the LGBTI are lucky enough to not have to go through the pain of organising a wedding. but if they want that....

[kezzer]

Against.
Just by calling something marriage, doesn't mean its marriage.
Traditionally for thousands of years in all walks of life, marriage has been a covenant, between husband and wife, which by its own course, propagates procreation and education of kids, unity and also wellbeing of the spouses.

Promotion of gay marriage does the exact opposite. It denies the evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. It flies in the face of the primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

[Franco Cozzo]

Except that you don't need to be married to procreate and educate children.

[Express]

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

the next thing gay people will wont (want) to be "marriaged" in a church with the priests blessing.
it just goes against thousands of years of tradition, arr but that doesn,t matter does it.

As part of this debate this statement is so wrong it needs to be addressed.

I’m surrounded by Clergy both Catholic and Anglican with my father in law having just given up his Sydney Parish during mid last year due to mobility problems and I can say you are very wrong.

Even though I’m not a religious or church going person myself, we as a family spend a lot of time socialising in the world of Clergy and I count a number of them as my friends and in fact I’m driving 2 Anglican and 1 Catholic Priest to a rally this evening at Gosford to protest against returning children in detention to Nauru.

What I can say is the majority both Anglican and Catholic support Gay Equality and would be more than willing to marry them in their Parish Churches as these are people who preach compassion and love and just because the heads of some of these religious institutes may preach against it, it doesn’t mean the rank and file agree with them.

Like Politicians many are forced into toeing the company line but when you get to know a few and you’ll find they are a cross section of society like the rest of us.

For instance if you knew anything about the Anglican Church you would also know almost no Clergy in Australia outside of Sydney supports the Sydney Diocese in it repressionist teachings.

There is actually wide spread support within the Anglican Church for marriage equality and in recent times even the Pope has been working towards softening the Catholic Church’s stance against Gays.


.

[Stefan]

I'm in the live and let live category.

No strong feeling either way so 3 and 4.

Dunno why people get so freaked out about this.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Against.
Just by calling something marriage, doesn't mean its marriage.
Traditionally for thousands of years in all walks of life, marriage has been a covenant, between husband and wife, which by its own course, propagates procreation and education of kids, unity and also wellbeing of the spouses.

Promotion of gay marriage does the exact opposite. It denies the evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women. It flies in the face of the primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

So you're against infertile couples marrying then? Old people cannot remarry if they're widows etc?


Addressing some other points in this thread, gay people may not want to marry (just as some straight people dont), what they want is the choice!

Calling it a union, is still discriminating (you can marry, but it wont be the same as our marriage).

And banging on about tradition or 'the sanctity of marriage' loses all momentum when people get married for a few hours, then get it annulled. Or anyone who has ever gotten a divorce. 'Traditional' marriage is til death do you part. None of this 'i found someone better' crap.

Luckily for the planet, with each passing day, another bigot dies off, and so does their way of backwards thinking. (I bet these same people think that blacks are slaves, and women shouldn't be out of the kitchen...). Its not 1900 anymore ;)

[LoudPipes]

Those members who believe marriage as an institution has been around for thousands of years need to read more and maybe get a little background in Theology while they’re at it.

Marriage came about as a legal means for a man to force a woman to obey (in other words to have sex without repercussions).

Marriage and I’m not talking about historical male and female unions, I’m talking about a legally binding Marriage was invented by men to oppress women, marriage meant that women were the property of men, it had nothing to do with love nor did it have anything to do with binding a family unit.

Marriage as we know it today is a very modern interpretation and from what I can see in the free world, it is a bond that is continuing to evolve.

Forced marriages still exist in some cultures that hold onto ancient concepts.

If marriage is so sacred then why is divorce so rife?

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

(I bet these same people think that women shouldn't be out of the kitchen...). Its not 1900 anymore ;)

Exactly where ELSE should they be???

[superyob]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

So you're against infertile couples marrying then? Old people cannot remarry if they're widows etc?

normal

Addressing some other points in this thread, gay people may not want to marry (just as some straight people dont), what they want is the choice!

abnormal

Calling it a union, is still discriminating (you can marry, but it wont be the same as our marriage).

If you are gay, you are outside the normal operating range of biological and societal behaviour. You are even proud of your differences. You cannot have 'marriage' in its traditional form. Show me someone who espouses the 'virtue' of anti discrimination and I'll show you a hypocritical liar...

And banging on about tradition or 'the sanctity of marriage' loses all momentum when people get married for a few hours, then get it annulled. Or anyone who has ever gotten a divorce. 'Traditional' marriage is til death do you part. None of this 'i found someone better' crap.

Agree. Been happily married for 24 years with successful grown up children. Despise the people who cheapen the institution.

Luckily for the planet, with each passing day, another bigot dies off, and so does their way of backwards thinking. (I bet these same people think that blacks are slaves, and women shouldn't be out of the kitchen...). Its not 1900 anymore ;)

Calling people bigots because they uphold thousands of years worth of beliefs and then wishing them to die is far worse than me opposing a perverted, contradictory ideology. Progressive thinking is not necessarily positive or well thought out...

Apologies for butchering your post Stealthy, I am not quite that good with a computer...

[MercurySilver]

Not in the ******* shed getting in the way for starters




Joke btw

[Carrion]

Did somebody break talk back radio today. LOL

Voted 4.

[STINKY NINJA]

I was a groomsman in our friends gay wedding,i have no issues with it at all.

[LoudPipes]

Being gay is not a new phenomenon it has been a part of human existence for as long as humans have existed and is a part of the natural world as there are many studies that show it exists throughout the animal kingdom.

If it wasn’t a part of nature it couldn't exist.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by tempted

It is a simple fact that our anatomies were designed to be compatible with the opposite sex. Any sexual interaction between same sexes was never intended by nature and is just plain wrong.

I oppose gay marriage because it sends a message to society that such behavior is perfectly normal and intended by nature which quite clearly it never was.

Normal, nature?!?!
What does that even mean?

Whatever we are able to accomplish with out bits, is nature.
If nature really didn't want it to happen, our weeners wouldn't fit in our poopers...

A simplified way of looking at it for sure, but sometimes it is that simple.

If these people want to **** each other behind closed doors then so be it, but why does their crap have do be shoved in our faces on a daily basis and negatively influence young children in the process?

I'm guessing it bothers you more than it does children.
Don't forget, adult gays were gay children too...

[Sox]

Originally Posted by Polyal

OK now you surely taking this pi$$.

I really dont care either way, I dont know why all the fuss is made but maybe thats because it doesnt directly effect me,

If it makes people happy, no one gets hurt and the world moves on then so what.

That's the bottom line.
People need to mind their own business.

I must state I have a complete opposite opinion to adoptions/IVF for homosexual relationships (which I often find myself conflicting even my own opinion) but that's a whooooooooooooole different topic.

I don't care about this either, so long as the parents care for children in a proper way, that's all which matters.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Except that you don't need to be married to procreate and educate children.

That is true but I think if you genuinely have the best interests of your children at heart, you will create and maintain a normal heterosexual environment for them. Yes, it is bloody hard work, but when both of you made the same child, that child will be far better off. Homos can not offer that same loyalty, at least one of them can't...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by LoudPipes

Being gay is not a new phenomenon it has been a part of human existence for as long as humans have existed and is a part of the natural world as there are many studies that show it exists throughout the animal kingdom.

If it wasn’t a part of nature it couldn't exist.

We are not arguing about the existence of homosexuality. This thread is about their intention to sully what little sanctity the institution of marriage has left...

[raised by monkeys]

What is the sanctity of marriage? Where did it come from? is it open to interpretation? or is strict in black and white?

Does it include not lying to your wife about the cost of car parts?

The whole debate is hilarious because for so many people who believe in this 'sanctity' view it as black and white. Nothing in life is black and white, there is so much grey area, and im sure you come across grey areas in your own life all the time; willing to admit it or not.

[Giant Cranium]

Originally Posted by tempted

What a load of garbage that some are now trying to justify homosexaulity as being natural.
Our anatomies were created to be compatible with the opposite sex in order to facilitate reproduction. Sticking a ***** into an anus does not result in reproduction. The purpuse of an anus is to expel human waste from the body, nothing more nothing less. A pair of female genitals are also incompatible with each other in much the same way.
Sexual interaction between same sexes completely defies what our anatomies were created for and is nothing more than a perversion.
Next you'll be telling us that pedophillia is natural too?

what would you do if a family member or child was gay? would you accept them or disown them?

[raised by monkeys]

Originally Posted by tempted

What a load of garbage that some are now trying to justify homosexaulity as being natural.
Our anatomies were created to be compatible with the opposite sex in order to facilitate reproduction. Sticking a ***** into an anus does not result in reproduction. The purpuse of an anus is to expel human waste from the body, nothing more nothing less. A pair of female genitals are also incompatible with each other in much the same way.
Sexual interaction between same sexes completely defies what our anatomies were created for and is nothing more than a perversion.
Next you'll be telling us that pedophillia is natural too?

your argument is based on procreation, not marriage.

[LoudPipes]

Originally Posted by tempted

Next you'll be telling us that pedophillia is natural too?

And that is the reason why they say it can’t be cured.

The difference is we are discussing homosexuality between consenting adults which is legal.

With paedophilia there is a non-consenting victim.