Poll: Gay/Lesbian marriage.

[raised by monkeys]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

if you want to rile me, use that stupid word

Lets look at the word 'phobia'
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

Didn't mean to offend. The use of the word was used (although a poor choice?) given its heavy use and blanket meaning, rather than its accurate definition

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

There is a difference between freedom of speech and vilification.

And yet expressing a contrary view sees one vilified.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by b0son

And yet expressing a contrary view sees one vilified.

This is a consequence of political correctness. What once was merely an opinion has now morphed by the PC brigade into something sinister.

[FairmontGS]

Originally Posted by FGX-351

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.

It's how our thinking evolves and progresses - the digital soapboxes are no different to the pamphlets that were distributed by the suffragettes when campaigning for the right to vote or the legal challenges made by Mabo in the courts. It's just a different media. They annoyed plenty of people as well at the time but looking back now we see what they were doing.

You can't object to people pushing for change (be it right or wrong) else we may as well still be living in caves and yelling at bears.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by b0son

And yet expressing a contrary view sees one vilified.

In this thread there are two distinct sides. One on the whole is using historically proven fact, the other basing argument on opinion. Much of the tone and language of the no side is derogatory and undermines the no argument and in my opinion reeks of bigotry. It would appear that others also see this link and stand against it. Some synonyms for vilification are, condemnation, criticism and censure which is, in the case of an opinion, is fair and appropriate, especially when that opinion is so far outside the norm. The vilification so oft discussed relates to racial vilification, religious vilification and social vilification and describes behaviour that INCITES hatred, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule. The no side in my reading of this thread are the ones vilifying a segment of society. The yes side vilifies as in condemns these outdated opinions I don't see many yes proponents inciting hatred or fear.
Playing the freedom if speech card and now the being vilified card are not good tactics in a debate, not even a good fallback strategy unless the right definition is known. And i don't think your use of the word is correct.
JP

[Trump]

Originally Posted by tempted

Not normal, unnatural, wrong, abberation?
In the eyes of most heterosexual people that is exactly what it is.

You've cited sources for your other dot points, where's your source for this one?

[sprintman1]

Can't think of any forum that has as many poorly educated, blinkered folk as this one.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by tempted

Well let me see...

Many of those things are true and correct

Mentally ill?
http://thenewsspike.com/new-study-fi...ental-illness/

Not normal, unnatural, wrong, abberation?
In the eyes of most heterosexual people that is exactly what it is.


Paedophiles? Damaging to children?
Here is a horrific example of why children should not be allowed anywhere near homosexual couples.
https://www.rt.com/news/pedophile-sy...ssian-boy-481/

AIDS carriers?
It's common knowledge that gay men have the highest proportion of h.i.v/aids infection in the population.

You can't label people an aberration of nature, then play the poor little victim card when people rightly have a crack back at you. Don't expect to get any sympathy with an attitude like that.

[SYZ]

It would seem that same-sex parents produce more well-adjusted children:

Longitudinal studies have also followed the psychological adjustment of young people approaching adulthood who were raised in lesbian-parented families. In the National Longitudinal Lesbian Families Study in the US, the young people being followed have now reached early adulthood. Their psychological adjustment throughout early childhood was found to be similar to normative samples of American children raised in all kinds of heterosexual families.

The 17-year-old young people in the study continued to display healthy psychological adjustment. According to their mothers' reports, the 17-year-old daughters and sons of lesbian mothers rated significantly higher in social and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalising problem behavior than their age-matched peers raised in heterosexual-parented families in a normative sample of American youth.

—Gartrell and Boss (2010)

[Makovic]

What a joke.

Compiled by an online questionnaire and citing Kinsey.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3210350/

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by tempted

Agreed. I don't believe any of that garbage for a second.

So you don't believe a legitimate organisation (US National Library of Medicine) but you'd believe an internet article that is pure satire ? (hint read down the bottom of the page)
http://thenewsspike.com/new-study-fi...ental-illness/

[Express]

Most of the debate in the media over this issue can be linked to Political baiting by journalists to invoke comments from Politicians to hopefully set them against each other.

That makes good copy and sells.

Most of the recent attention on the issue came about when marriage equality was being passed in overseas countries and the local media used the views of Abbott and his religious conservatives to stir the pot.

Again some interest was shown when there was a change of leadership as the media knew Turnbull’s stance on the issue and he pushed it away by continuing with the plebiscite route as set by Abbott.

This issue is not new and there has been a strong but silence lobby for marriage equality working in the background for over 20 years and to be honest, I’ve hardly seen anything about it in the media in the past month or so.

Yes it does get a mention from time to time but it’s not dominating coverage as the anti-brigade in this thread would like us to believe as the current focus is on the GST and Nauru.

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

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

If this issue is settled and the media moves on to champion another cause to do with equality then good, equality is what makes us civilised which humans are far from.

Those in society that are not treated as equals need all the help they can get, even if it's only from self-servicing journalists looking for a story.

[Whitey-AMG]

Aside from the rightful humanitarian issue of equality in this debate ( which should be the focus ) - I'm sure there are other "agendas" as well.....

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business...57e5e0a172c237?=

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by tempted

Well let me see...

Many of those things are true and correct


AIDS carriers?
It's common knowledge that gay men have the highest proportion of h.i.v/aids infection in the population.

According to the UN
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw...linspence.html

Across the world, there has been a changing pattern of male/female infections. Early cases in many countries were concentrated in male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, but as the epidemic has spread there has been a progressive shift towards heterosexual transmission and increasing infection rates in females. The reality today is that, globally, more women than men are now dying of ***/AIDS, and the age patterns of infection are significantly different for the two sexes.

looks like the 'common knowledge' used to argue against gay marriage is flawed.
Perhaps your claim should have read of the gay men with aids the majority of them are male!

JP

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by FGX-351

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.

Some people believe others have the right to discriminate. I do not.

No-one is born hating another, that is taught to them. But as i mentioned, people with that backwards way of thinking are getting older, and dying off, current generations are much less discriminatory.

Originally Posted by GasOLane

So you don't believe a legitimate organisation (US National Library of Medicine) but you'd believe an internet article that is pure satire ? (hint read down the bottom of the page)
http://thenewsspike.com/new-study-fi...ental-illness/

Lets not let the truth get in the way here. Quoting satire websites is almost as bad as quoting wikipedia, just after you've edited it ;)

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by tempted

However, here is a little insight into the history of the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness and the real reasons why it was removed.
http://www.equip.org/article/is-homo...ty-an-illness/

Might I suggest that you check your references a little more carefully.

That link is from Christian Research Journal, and it could be said that it's just propaganda being pushed by an anti-gay organisation.

Originally Posted by tempted

My opposition to it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

If this is the case why quote a religious group.

[Elks]

All good. Let em suffer like the rest of us.

Last time I checked, nearly 90,000 good men and women died, and countless others endured immeasurable suffering so that this county could remain free. A place where you can live you life to you own value as long as your not harming others. And free doesnt me free so long as you agree with you and I, free is free.

If two people want to get married, gay, lesbian, straight even Holden supporters. Then go right ahead and get married, it makes no difference to me.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

According to the UN
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw...linspence.html

Across the world, there has been a changing pattern of male/female infections. Early cases in many countries were concentrated in male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, but as the epidemic has spread there has been a progressive shift towards heterosexual transmission and increasing infection rates in females. The reality today is that, globally, more women than men are now dying of ***/AIDS, and the age patterns of infection are significantly different for the two sexes.

looks like the 'common knowledge' used to argue against gay marriage is flawed.
Perhaps your claim should have read of the gay men with aids the majority of them are male!

JP

That UN link is 16 years old!! (2000)
Something a little more current....
http://www.cdc.gov/***/group/msm/index.html

[Elks]

Originally Posted by superyob

So does bestiality and paedophilia? Once again, you can't have it both ways...

Are you serious. The is a massive difference. Gay/LBGTVIWXYZ or what ever they call themselves this week. (I'm still not good at political correctness) are two consenting persons, making informed decisions.

Animals and Children have not given nor do they have the ability to provide consent. To have sex with them is a crime of the most heinous nature and should be punished accordingly.

Just like there is a difference between two consenting heterosexuals getting it on and rape.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

u tell em m8

u left out the bit - where god created adam and eve

not adam and steve

yo shake yo redneck fist at clouds

Just on that...

So assuming there is a omnipotent deity in the sky and as the story goes he created Adam and Eve.

They had two sons, Cain and Abel.

What happened next....

[Smoke Pursuit]

Who cares. Let them get married and move on so we don't have to keep paying for politicians to debate it. Most of these people can't help the way they are and don't go out hurting others so let them do what they want and be happy.

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Might I suggest that you check your references a little more carefully.

That link is from Christian Research Journal, and it could be said that it's just propaganda being pushed by an anti-gay organisation. If this is the case why quote a religious group.

Agreed. The Christian Research Institute claims unequivocally on its site: "On almost every metric imaginable, a child is much better off reared by his married mother and father. This one fact is more important to a child’s well-being than his race, his parents’ education, or his neighborhood".

And their only non-scientific reference to this major claim? A book written by a couple of ultra-conservative family-first apologists and Christian zealots, Glenn Stanton and Bill Maier.

The CRI also says: "We shouldn’t fall for the superficial appeals of individual rights in this debate. No one has a right to marry someone of the same sex. Given what marriage is, two people of the same sex cannot marry each other. Rights come from our nature, and our nature comes from God".

So, ultimately, they dismiss gay marriage based on their belief that nobody has any rights as an individual (WTF?) and that all aspects of human behaviour should be governed by an ancient fantasy figure.

Yeah... that sounds good LOL.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Sorry mate... Last count men out-numbered women 2-1

In Australia it's a 90/10 Male vs Female and 70% of new infections are homosexual male. Then IV drug users. But we have very very low transmission rates of the disease.

In the USA its 75/25 Male vs Female. Again with heavy bias toward Homosexual males.

Globally the ratio is 50/50 according to the UN 2013. Equal numbers of males and females with Asia and Africa having much greater rates of infection mostly wit straight females.

So you could argue that it's a Gay problem, but you would be wrong because the lowest rates of infection are with Gay females. Owing to the way the infection is transmitted, they are naturally safer.

H. I. V. is a disease. It has no moral, it takes no prisoners and infects any host it can find.

If there was the slightest chance of it being a Gay disease Charlie Sheen would be immune, not infected.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by sprintman1

Can't think of any forum that has as many poorly educated, blinkered folk as this one.

[Express]

For those who think homosexuality is not a part of nature and can be cured you only need to read this earlier post by EVL BOS.

Even if you can’t understand homosexuality or that it’s no different than nature’s toss of the coin like when she hands out red hair instead of blond, you must be able to understand that no-one would inflict this upon themselves in the numbers that are out as homosexuals and God only knows how many more hide it from their peers and probably as many again try to deny and hide it from themselves.

Originally Posted by EVL BOS

......I didn't choose to be gay it's part of me and I was born gay. Who would choose to be subjected too verbal abuse, physical threats of violence and to be discrimated against all because they aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

It’s no wonder suicide is high among our youth as they struggle to come to terms with why they were born different from the majority of their family and friends when on top of that they have it hammered home that they are an aberration by people who hate and discriminate.

[theBlake]

The poll is poorly worded, 1,3,4 are practically the same.
No 2 is dead against it, but there isn't an equally opposite option. The same occurs with most polls on the topic.

How many of the Yes voters are prepared to fight for same-sex marriage? How much will you sacrifice, would you pay money to get it done? There is a huge difference between being a keyboard warrior and actually doing something about it. I suspect many are just in the arguement because they have something against the demographic that objects to SSM rather than the issue itself. This is easily seen in this thread already.

Same sex marriage is not a basic right, its a manufactured right
The law is not discrimatory, gay people are allowed to get married.
Plenty of people can't marry the persons they love for other reasons than being the Same sex. So "love" is not a Good enough reason.
The whole issue is not even about getting married, it's about forcing legal acceptance of the gay lifestyle and silencing any critics and objections.(free speech) Society as a whole is been conned and this has been clearly demonstrated wherever SSM been legalised.

[STEALTHY]

Originally Posted by theBlake

Same sex marriage is not a basic right, its a manufactured right
The law is not discrimatory, gay people are allowed to get married.
Plenty of people can't marry the persons they love for other reasons than being the Same sex. So "love" is not a Good enough reason.
The whole issue is not even about getting married, it's about forcing legal acceptance of the gay lifestyle and silencing any critics and objections.(free speech) Society as a whole is been conned and this has been clearly demonstrated wherever SSM been legalised.

If its a manufactured right, then its the same for marriage. Gay people aren't allowed to marry their partner. So no, gay people aren't allowed to get married. A gay person could marry someone of the opposite sex who they're not attracted to, but that'd be just as pointless as a straight male marrying another male who he's not attracted to (although some in here seem to think that if marriage equality is put through that suddenly they'll marry a guy)

The whole issue is about discrimination, and always has been. I'm sure if it wasn't changed to specifically not allow same sex marriages all those years ago, you wouldn't hear a thing about it!

[mex351]

Wow...So anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xSZUQRFCoc

[SYZ]

Originally Posted by tempted

Well let me see...

Many of those things are true and correct

Mentally ill?

Not normal, unnatural, wrong, abberation?
In the eyes of most heterosexual people that is exactly what it is.

Paedophiles? Damaging to children?
Here is a horrific example of why children should not be allowed anywhere near homosexual couples.

AIDS carriers?
It's common knowledge that gay men have the highest proportion of h.i.v/aids infection in the population.

So it would appear that you're taking a scatter-gun approach to "validate" your negative opinion of married gay couples who have children? Apparently—and known only to you—they're all mentally ill, potential paedophiles, socially aberrant, and carriers of AIDS.

You need to post some accredited citations for each of these claims, and not rely on sensationalist tabloid gossip and unevidenced hearsay.

And finally... how can you explain the fact that ongoing, long-term research (until subject age 17 years) indicates that the children of same-sex parents are generally better socially adjusted than their opposite-sex-parent peers?

[Big_Daz]

I am firmly in the "Couldn't Give A Toss" Camp... Whether Gay/Lesbians can marry doesn't bother me, nor does it affect me...