- Banned
- #51
Seemed to have relaxed your tune Gimpy. Not as much of a homophobe anymore. Good to see.theGimp said:
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Gay Weddings
- Thread starter busby_18
- Start date
- Tagged users None
bunsen burner said:
Never was. Just bacause Mantis calls you a homophobe or a racist it does not mean you are. Just call it how I see it and most dont like that at all.
Murray said:
Dear Captain Ambivalent,
thanks for that. So when you say something should happen, I'll take it that you couldnt give an Edgar Britt whether its implemented or not.
- Banned
- #54
medusala said:
Nothing ambivilant about it at all.
You place an interpretation on my words that I don't, I see that as an issue for you - what I will not accept, is for you to insist your interpretation must then be mine.
Yes, I do care - hence the reason why I responded.
Is it difficult for you to discuss issues without need use terms such as 'must' and 'force'?
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,861
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
IntheNet said:
It's beyond my ken why homosexuals would wish to gain acceptance from a society which this poster envisions. If I were one of those who were keen to marry, I'd be looking closely at my sanity if I wished to join a club which included people with such views.
Borry
Protected Species
- Aug 15, 2004
- 8,738
- 2,172
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- South Sydney
Monkster said:
Monkster said:
Agree entirely with the above.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
Probably not really relevant to the thread but anyway.
I have always been bemused by the '1 in 10 people are gay' statistic that is usually bandied about by lobby groups.
It seems that this number has been hammered into our subconscious over so many years that people automatically assume that its true.
Just a few things about the figure :
The statistic is from the Kinsey report which has since been widely discredited by most academics.
The data used came from a survey of college aged students on US campuses in the late 1960's. Probably one of the most liberal group of people in history.
The question asked was "Have you ever had a homosexual experience ?".
Not, are you homosexual ?
I have nothing against homosexuals just hate seeing incorrect figures quoted as fact.
I have always been bemused by the '1 in 10 people are gay' statistic that is usually bandied about by lobby groups.
It seems that this number has been hammered into our subconscious over so many years that people automatically assume that its true.
Just a few things about the figure :
The statistic is from the Kinsey report which has since been widely discredited by most academics.
The data used came from a survey of college aged students on US campuses in the late 1960's. Probably one of the most liberal group of people in history.
The question asked was "Have you ever had a homosexual experience ?".
Not, are you homosexual ?
I have nothing against homosexuals just hate seeing incorrect figures quoted as fact.
Murray said:
Suggesting that churches allow homosexual marriage isnt a realistic viewpoint. Thus its a matter of how you would like to see your aims achieved => thus possible govt interference.
I apologise if this corollary seems odd to you. I havent quite caught on to the Bob Brown fairies at the bottom of the garden type thought process whereby there is nil possibility of anything actually happening that should happen.
Monkster said:
I agree wholeheartedly Monkster. Finally, the Brits have got something right apart from comedy!
IntheNet said:
OK, I'm going to fly the confused flag here and ask you what procreative value these marriages have? You've already said that marriage needs to have a procreative value, yet you immediately contrdict yourself and say that infertile couples, career couples and couples who don't want children are ok by you. On which side of the fence are you sitting?
- Banned
- #62
If a hetro union is called a marriage by the govt then ****s gays should also be referred to as marriages. There should be no difference.
Of course non of the churches will recognise gay marriages but that is their perogative. The Govt should not have to appease the church by calling it a different name (civil union). The church does not own the word marriage.
Of course non of the churches will recognise gay marriages but that is their perogative. The Govt should not have to appease the church by calling it a different name (civil union). The church does not own the word marriage.
Daytripper said:
Excellent point Daytripper... the homosexual lobby has been exagerating both their influence and numbers for many years, incorrectly so. I gather that the margin of immoral homosexuals in society far less than 1% total; a minority not worth considering in any legitimate consideration of social planning.
PowerKat
grayscale
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
Whether they call it 'marriage' or not shouldn't really matter. I have no problem with gays getting married. Why shouldn't they ceremoniously declare their commitment to each other and benefit from having a legally recognised union?
Preventing them from doing so benefits whom exactly?
In simplistic terms, they are not going to say 'Oh, the church/government don't recognise our relationship, we are doing the wrong thing being gay and having a long term relationship, let's change our lives'.
Preventing them from doing so benefits whom exactly?
In simplistic terms, they are not going to say 'Oh, the church/government don't recognise our relationship, we are doing the wrong thing being gay and having a long term relationship, let's change our lives'.
- Banned
- #66
It's the same thing so should be called the same thing. No need to make up a new name.PowerKat said:
Unfortunately any Aust. Govt. or opposition party. If a Govt tried to bring this in they'd alienate too many people. The church/es would not be having it and would be doing their best to influence their followers not to vote for any party who wants to bring in gay marriages.
In simplistic terms, they are not going to say 'Oh, the church/government don't recognise our relationship, we are doing the wrong thing being gay and having a long term relationship, let's change our lives'.
[/quote]
PowerKat
grayscale
Veteran
Port Adelaide - Allir Allir Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Kane Farrell Player Sponsor 2021
Port Adelaide - Connor Rozee Player Sponsor 2020
Port Adelaide - Zak Butters 2019 Player Sponsor
Bring Back the Bars
Port Adelaide - Jack Watts Player Sponsor 2018
Port Adelaide - Jesse Palmer Player Sponsor 2017
bunsen burner said:
What it's called is not the crux of the matter IMO
bunsen burner said:
This sounds like an excuse not be innovative. Typical of the major Australian parties.
If the laws were changed to allow the legal union of gays, the whole thing would 'blow over' like most changes and not have a significant (if any) impact on the majority of Australians. Likely some complaints from the religious sector in the main.
The Brits have been gutsy enough to bring in a valid option for gays. I haven't followed it closely, so, has there been a massive backlash in response? I haven't heard about one.
IntheNet said:
Source??? Please, the only place I have heard this 1% bandied about is on Foxnews.
After the first couple of posts on this thread it became apparent that your bigotry and intolerance would rear its ugly hate filled and bitter head.
You judgemental statements such as homosexual "perversions" and "immoral homosexuals" show your true agenda.
PerthCrow forwarded some very interesting questions to you and you responded defensively with accusations of PerthCrow championing perversion. Interestingly enough I could see no championing at all, just an interrogation of your statements of "traditional marriage".
Why wont you answer his questions instead of attacking his more than reasonable queries?
Afraid to, or unable to rebutt?????
- Banned
- #70
hawkeye23 said:OK, I'm going to fly the confused flag here and ask you what procreative value these marriages have? You've already said that marriage needs to have a procreative value, yet you immediately contrdict yourself and say that infertile couples, career couples and couples who don't want children are ok by you. On which side of the fence are you sitting?
They can all have children should they so wish.
I don't agree with gay marriage and I don't think gay unions should have access to artificial insemination or adoption.
If you have a union with someone of the same sex this is one of the consequences.
Its very simple.
Create two different structures:
1. Marriage - A non-legal status that can be conferred by church or by two people who wish to call themselves married. By taking the legal side out of it, if someone does not wish to see another pairing as married, they're quite free to. So if you don't like the idea of gay marriages, you can just not acknowledge them. There's no legal thing that says you have to.
2. Civil Union - the legal union of two people. They can be any combination of male, female or hermaphrodite that wish to be joined together. To gain the legal status currently granted by marriage (in the secular sense), this is the status you would have to obtain.
Of course, you would also need to re-label defacto relationships.
Create two different structures:
1. Marriage - A non-legal status that can be conferred by church or by two people who wish to call themselves married. By taking the legal side out of it, if someone does not wish to see another pairing as married, they're quite free to. So if you don't like the idea of gay marriages, you can just not acknowledge them. There's no legal thing that says you have to.
2. Civil Union - the legal union of two people. They can be any combination of male, female or hermaphrodite that wish to be joined together. To gain the legal status currently granted by marriage (in the secular sense), this is the status you would have to obtain.
Of course, you would also need to re-label defacto relationships.
- Banned
- #73
Mr Q said:
dont forget that you will also need to re-educate marriage counsellors as well. LOL, sheeeeeeesh..
- Banned
- #74
CoggaRules said:dont forget that you will also need to re-educate marriage counsellors as well. LOL, sheeeeeeesh..
Wonder who'd get the house in a Gay divorce? Ha, ha, ha
why is this funny?dee_molisher said:Wonder who'd get the house in a Gay divorce? Ha, ha, ha
