Poll: Gay/Lesbian marriage.

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by superyob

Adamz Ghia, deflecting my arguments as hetero problems does not make them less valid.

'And before anyone tells me to provide evidence of my own just look at the countries where it's legal. They're all happy, healthy and their sky hasn't fallen in.'

Yet, or that you know about...

I'm not deflecting anything. I'm saying you have said a whole bunch of stuff and provided nothing to back them up. They did the same when a black man wanted to marry a while woman and again, we're all still here.

[raised by monkeys]

Originally Posted by Sox

True. But is there any evidence which shows this has any negative affect on the childs life?

I wrote a paper on marriage equality years ago. It concluded with substantial research, albeit in the context of children with 2 mother figures, demonstrating that child development was not hampered by having gay (lesbian) parents, but in some instances, the children flourished so much that their overall social and emotional wellbeing and outlook on life was more positive than other children the same age raised in a heterosexual family; as well as higher school grades.

Contrary to those opposed based on a homophobic bias redneck agenda who cry procreation and family values, children can thrive raised by gay parents.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by tempted

The majority of the population is heterosexual and believe that marriage should be between a man and woman.

And you personally know the views of these millions of people?

[olfella]

The other argument in this topic is what is recognised in law. For example, would a same sex couple get the same spouse tax rebate as married couple do? I know Centrelink treat them as a couple for means testing. Then there is the super if one carks it. Does the 'unmarried' spouse get the same benefits? I think it is more than just a piece of paper and community acceptance.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by tempted

Of course not, but I don't need to as it's pretty obvious.
We'll let the plebiscite do the talking.

That's the kicker, I don't see either team triggering a plebiscite.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Rodp

As I've already posted, that child is more likely to be healthier and happier. But, will someone please think of the children...!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-0...-finds/5574168

apples with apples? I'm assuming same sex families would be skewed by higher rates of adoption and the checks and balances inherent to the adoption system, versus hetero couples, with no such requirements.

that said, I don't think it matters who makes better parents. we don't require anyone having their own kids to demonstrate their fitness to parent, so its a bit rich to expect same-sex couples to justify why they should be allowed to do the same.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

And you personally know the views of these millions of people?

I don't think anywhere near as many people care one way or the other as the media and vocal minority would have us think. bigger fish to fry and all that.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

i haven,t heard of that stuff, that, that guy said, however it has been accepted for thousands of years one man, one woman = marriage, and equals a balanced off spring.

Have a look at the link again. It's not a guy, it's essentially a whole field of science, who specialise in studying human societies, saying that a century of research shows that families that are built upon same sex partnerships have contributed to stable viable societies over time and cultures.

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

woman + woman and man + man = unbalanced environment for off spring, is that not a fact?

Doesn't seem to be, according to the psychologists:

American Pychological Association:
"In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

"Being denied the right to marry reinforces the stigma associated with a minority sexual identity. Researchers have found that living in a state where same-sex marriage is outlawed can lead to chronic social stress and mental health problems. Psychologists are particularly concerned that such stigma may undermine the healthy development of adolescents and young adults. Marriage bestows economic and social support to couples in committed relationships, which can result in substantial health benefits. Taken together, the research shows that there's no scientific basis for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and doing so can adversely affect them as well as their family and friends."
http://www.apa.org/topics/divorce/sa...-marriage.aspx

Australian Psychological Society:
"Decades of psychological research provides the evidence linking marriage to mental health benefits, and highlighting the harm to individuals’ mental health of social exclusion. The APS supports the full recognition of same-sex relationships, on the basis of this evidence.”
https://www.psychology.org.au/Newsandupdates/22Dec2011/

It is not helpful for children when their parents really want to be married but can't.

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

did the op think this question is black and white, these so much more to it than answering a poll. i,m speaking out for the children too of these backward situations.

As is clear here, marriage means different things to different people. It means the world to some people, doesn't mean much to others. It becomes a problem in a secular liberal democracy when you try to treat people differently before the law, based on something arbitrary like gender, religion, socio-economic status, orientation. Better that everyone is treated equally, and if you want a different flavour of marriage for yourself, you can seek that elsewhere at a church, mosque, or wherever. I say this as a Christian myself.

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

all of those examples that you posted, to me that comparing apples to oranges. i thought same sex unions are relatively new, (well i never heard of it when i was a boy)and do you think that if gay rights and co push and shove into the media (just like they do) and push to get it passed in parliament, then gay marriage is acceptable to every body. there are a huge percentage that are against. but if your against, then i get the feeling that theirs some pressure on you, your old fashioned, narrow minded etc. theres one guy on here saying that the against voters are this and that, that type of remark only alienates against voters, and then it can become a control conversation.

It could have been passed in Parliament, easily, quite a while ago when we knew it had majority support. However, thanks to some delaying tactics now we have to go through a $150 million plebiscite including a for & against campaign gab fest "debate" in which you will hear all these same arguments again over and over. We could have been focusing on other things by now.......

I think I understand a little bit about you feeling alienated, some people I care about greatly don't agree with SSM and I can respect them having reasonably considered their position. I wish the discussion was more respectful all round. It's not nice feeling that others are forcing their values on you and you're a minority with a lot of change going on around you. Remember it cuts both ways - some people are tired of strangers being able to control and limit a huge and important part of their lives.

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

well i have to add, when i see a kid with two same sex parents on tv, i think , how is that kid going to get a balanced up bringing? its not normal.

Don't watch TV, go and play outside

[StealthAu]

Some guys are into guys. Some guys are into fat chicks.
I don't get it, but whatever floats your boat.
I don't understand the desire to get married, straight or gay.
If you're in a loving relationship what is the need for a ceremony to signify it?
Having said that, just because I don't get it doesn't mean others shouldn't if that's what they want.
Those who have a problem with gays getting married, you do realise it doesn't change what you have. It doesn't mean you have to leave your wife and marry a man. You don't even have to go to a wedding between two men. Why care what others do?

[Trump]

For one, 167 (as of 11:19pm AEDST) votes is hardly a large enough sample to make any sort of call. Secondly, even if those 167 are the population, the yes vote would have it 93 to 50.

But most importantly, you do realise that even if the mass media could saturate the airwaves with all sorts of gay and lesbian broadcasting and run it 24/7, it will not magically make 51% of the world gay.

[Trump]

So answer me this question:

How does this issue personally affect YOU?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by tempted

That is irrelevant to what I was suggesting.

My point was that out of 50 votes, how many actually posted in the thread detailing their opposition?

It confirms my belief that many people oppose gay marriage but refrain from commenting about it in fear of being attacked and labelled by do-gooders.

I think it just sums up society in general, have a point of view and will whinge about it but too scared to own your opinion, everyone wants someone to do something but too chicken to stand up and put their name down and be seen/heard.

There is also 70 for gay marriage and a fair few who are in the no effs given or meh side and we're talking a cross section of car enthusiasts here who are marginalised themselves by society anyway.

[Sabantien]

Pretty much every opinion poll on the matter has overwhelming support for marriage equality. A plebiscite would show this too no doubt, but once again i'll point out that numerous LNP politicians have said they will ignore the result and vote against it. It's a waste of millions of dollars.

We're already seeing the people here opposing it saying gay people are not normal, tainted, unnatural, wrong, mentally ill, abberations, paedophiles, perverted, damaging to children, twisted, AIDS carriers, and you wonder why they don't want it to go to a plebiscite where anti gay groups will run merciless media campaigns saying the same thing?

Suicide amongst gay youth is already higher than the general population, they don't need people who will in NO WAY AT ALL EVER be affected by gay people getting to marry telling them on tv, on the internet, on billboards, on buses, on the radio.

I think the funniest argument against gay marriage is their children will be bullied. By the same people making those arguments.

Maybe just, ya know, don't?

[Trump]

Originally Posted by tempted

In a nutshell.. It is against all my morals and beliefs.

They believe they have the right to marry.... Well I believe I have the right to live my life without being exposed to their crap and having their views and ideologies shoved in my face on a daily basis.

All the gays in the world should just move to a remote island where they can all **** each other and marry and do whatever they like, far far away from the view of normal society.

So gay marriage violates each and every one of your beliefs?

[Sabantien]

Originally Posted by tempted

In a nutshell.. It is against all my morals and beliefs.

They believe they have the right to marry.... Well I believe I have the right to live my life without being exposed to their crap and having their views and ideologies shoved in my face on a daily basis.

All the gays in the world should just move to a remote island where they can all **** each other and marry and do whatever they like, far far away from the view of normal society.

You know, they'd stop asking for equality if they had it, and then they wouldn't be shoving anything in your face.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I think it just sums up society in general, have a point of view and will whinge about it but too scared to own your opinion

Is it any surprise? There's no such thing as debate in this country, rather, the vocal minority define the narrative, and anyone who doesn't fall into line is labelled a bigot, racist, whatever-phobe, etc.

Freedom of speech? Pffft. Freedom to agree more like.

[Boosted8]

I think it's hilarious when people argue "Oh but it doesn't occur in nature."

Well, what are humans?

[Express]

Originally Posted by Sabantien

You know, they'd stop asking for equality if they had it, and then they wouldn't be shoving anything in your face.

As long as he keeps his mouth shut he'll be safe.

[FGX-351]

What annoys me is the media discourse which in my opinion encourages the actual bashing of anyone against it(or any other "popular opinion").

From what I've seen anyone who says anything contrary to the cause is subject to ridicule, bullying, mockery and in the end feels pressured to keep their opinion to themselves while the everyday activists stand on their digital soap boxes, patting each other on the back over how enlightened they are.

They mock the church and vilify anyone with a religious opinion as well.
To me that goes against the understanding, unity and "equality" they're supposedly fighting for.

I personally don't think people support this issue as much as the media claims, I honestly believe most people are so warey of being bullied and/or publicly berated to give their real opinion.

Which is such a shame in my opinion.
I'm all for people doing what they like but I'm very much against agendas masquerading as enlightenment.

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by STEALTHY

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 ;)

Here's a perfect example of what I mentioned in my previous post, especially that last paragraph.

Stealthy I respect that you have your opinion but I find the above to be mostly counter intuitive, overly emotive, tripe.

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Bingo....tempted isnt getting a BJ or it seems any crack at the....crack..tough times.

There's a perfect example of the mockery I was referring to(for what it's worth I also find tempted's views a little full on but his views are his to have.)

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

Is it any surprise? There's no such thing as debate in this country, rather, the vocal minority define the narrative, and anyone who doesn't fall into line is labelled a bigot, racist, whatever-phobe, etc.

Freedom of speech? Pffft. Freedom to agree more like.

There is a difference between freedom of speech and vilification. To play the freedom of speech card the opinion should be knowledgeable and wise not vehement rhetoric.
Much of the 'NO' argument is the latter.
Statement without research or some real proof has no place in a serious debate. Anecdote is not evidence, not even trend, and in this case the 'YES' side has provided much more reference and evidence based argument. You may not like the evidence but uts hard to fault especially when faced with the oppositions obvious opinioned bias.
It appears a common fall back position by many people to play the freedoms of speech being quashed card when faced with a wall of evidence or support contrary to their own, and in this case argument only based on opinion.
It would appear to me support for gay marriage in this thread is greater than against, a few individuals are desperately trying to hold back the popular support by a seeming majority. In the face of that majority their language becomes more biased, negative harmful descriptors resulting in not much more than name calling which undermines their argument, that defines their statement not as wise or knowledgeable but as background noise.
I by no means wish to undermine your or any bodies freedom to speak or hold an opinion, but to ask that the same is returned without accusations of bullying. Its tantamount to taking ones bat and ball and going home, shutting down the debate because there is a differing opinion.
I for one am pro human rights, all humans, gay, lesbian, straight, female, black, Asian, white and male and everything in between and beyond. I believe te current hallmark expression of marriage is outdated and far from 'traditional' whatever that is. And I see the institute as a thinly disguised ownership model for privileged men, harking back to a patriarchal society that should have evolved a ling time ago. So arguing fay marriage tarnishes the tradition is an argument that doesn't hold sway with me. To say gay marriage undermines the sanctity, I think there has been more damage done through divorce, infidelity, mock marriages and tv entertainment weddings by mainstream 'hetero' people than allowing committed people labelled as gay ever will
I believe part of the fear of the plebiscite is not the outcome, too me that's a foregone conclusion, but the possible abuse of the process leading to a miscarriage of justice. The incumbent government, many of whoms members have outwardly suggested the plebiscite outcome wont sway their vote, get to not only frame the question but the debate and the process. The plebiscite could be framed to sway the result.
For me this I not a marriage issue but a rights issue. Maybe not as serious at gender equality, race or social equality but it highlights a spectrum of a dark nasty history of our society and culture whose wrongs need righting.
JP
.

[Giant Cranium]

i reakon we should be proud of this thread, its a very touch topic and so far its been on track with arguments both ways,

yet if we had a thread on if a silver car or black car is better it would be war with a locked thread

congrats boys and girls

[Giant Cranium]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

i reakon we should be proud of this thread, its a very touch topic and so far its been on track with arguments both ways,

yet if we had a thread on if a silver car or black car is better it would be war with a locked thread

congrats boys and girls

just realised how gay this emoji is

[Makovic]

A bit of historical perspective:
This thread is a continuation of an argument that started in 1948 called the Kinsey Report. The facts in Kinsey's report were fabrications.
Kinsey studied the criminally insane and claimed that they represented a cross-section of American society. Had the American public known this in the fifties, Kinsey would have failed .
The shift from homosexuality as a form of insanity into homosexuality as a form normal behaviour can be attributed to Alfred Kinsey.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by raised by monkeys

homophobic

if you want to rile me, use that stupid word

Lets look at the word 'phobia'

A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Most people who are anti-homosexual are not 'fearful' of them, they dislike them for a number of their own personal reasons, but 'scared' is not something that would spring to mind, just another word hijacked by the pro-homosexual media that has bled out into the general public

What ****** me off about the whole debate is the amount of air-time this minor ripple is causing, just let them get married FFS and move on with far far more important stuff, like getting the country out of the ****

But you can back it in that as soon as the media wins this one they will find another cause to champion, you can back that in

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Boosted8

Well, what are humans?

over-sexed little beings who love getting their rocks off, and sometimes for some it just doesn't matter with who or what

Sex has been used as a power for as long as humans have evolved

[Sabantien]

Originally Posted by FGX-351

What annoys me is the media discourse which in my opinion encourages the actual bashing of anyone against it(or any other "popular opinion").

From what I've seen anyone who says anything contrary to the cause is subject to ridicule, bullying, mockery and in the end feels pressured to keep their opinion to themselves while the everyday activists stand on their digital soap boxes, patting each other on the back over how enlightened they are.

They mock the church and vilify anyone with a religious opinion as well.
To me that goes against the understanding, unity and "equality" they're supposedly fighting for.

I wonder if you consider telling gay people that they are not normal, tainted, unnatural, wrong, mentally ill, aberrations, paedophiles, perverted, damaging to children, twisted AIDS carriers is also bashing and vilifying them?

Or is that just having an opinion?

They're just some of the things people in this forum have called gay people in this thread.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by FGX-351

What annoys me is the media discourse which in my opinion encourages the actual bashing of anyone against it(or any other "popular opinion").

From what I've seen anyone who says anything contrary to the cause is subject to ridicule, bullying, mockery and in the end feels pressured to keep their opinion to themselves while the everyday activists stand on their digital soap boxes, patting each other on the back over how enlightened they are.

I agree 100%. I cannot stand the mainstream media as everything they broadcast that is considered "news" is completely agenda driven and lacking in fact. Goebbels had nothing on this lot; he'd be tipping his hat to the media machine if he were still alive.

[danzvtil]

I used to be involved with a Pentecostal Christian faith, and spent my teenage years and early 20s with them. Can I tell you the hypocrisy and how the ONLY way is drilled into its followers. I stepped away when I realised I believe in a free pluralistic society, and my church was only interested in gaining influence over society through politics, even over people who don't follow or believe. I see danger in lording over all of society "one true" way as loss of freedom is inevitable, look at Islamic extremists....
I see what is happening now is a result of generations of religious power on society forcing anyone who doesn't believe in the wife with 2.5 kids and a picket fence underground. Society is now punishing religion through increased secularism in government schools by anti discrimination laws.