>>>MOD WARNING<<<Study finds homosexuals less healthy, happy than heterosexuals

Not so. Denying interracial marrige would be having different rights based on race. A black man has the right to marry a black women but a white or Asian man does not have the same right.

The point is homosexuals are not denied any rights that others have. They want to be included in something (marriage) which presently excludes them because of the wording of the various Acts. So it is not a 'right' that they are demanding, that is just emotive crap, what they want is a change to the definition of marriage and a change to the wording in the various Acts.

Not if they are of the opposite sex.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*),
our PM is doing what he can not to allow same sex marriage....
Be honest for once!
Regards

 

We are both male and female in the first stages of fertilization.
I also believe we carry a bit of both during our whole life, whether we are male or female.
That still doesn't explain why some people are gay, does it?
Mate, they don't hurt anyone, but those misinformed with plenty of anti sentiment and hatred do.
Regards

 

Homosexuals in Australia have exactly the same rights and privileges as everyone else. Give us a right or privilege that other people have that homosexuals do not have.

 

That is incorrect, and you know it. Australia is one of the last western countries not to allow same sex marriage. Why do you lie?
Regards

 

No it would not. Because everyone had the right to marry their own race. Right?

Why was there a need to expand rights to interracial couples when they already had the same rights as everyone else?

Just like interracial couples were not denied rights that others have. So why did we need to legalize interracial marriage?

That is factually incorrect. There are very real rights and privileges attached to state recognized marriage. It is not merely "emotive crap". Things that have to do with tax benefits, medical decision making, and inheritance issues.

Why is it not a psychological disorder?

- - - Updated - - -

Heterosexuals will also have the same rights and privileges as homosexuals if homosexual marriage is allowed. What exactly are heterosexual losing?

 

Something to do with the long dark winters maybe?

 

It won't become "mainstream" unless 50% of the population is gay.

I'm down with gays being married and against anti-gay paranoia, however I think that other dynamics involved - as in I think the theory that "religious bigotry" is the only source of homophobia is false, and I don't think that it can be completely eliminated through social change

Basically people are to a degree xenophobic by nature due to evolution (some people are just more repressed about it than others), as in they are drawn to people like themselves and tend to look on people who are "different" with suspicion - this doesn't justify the actions of people like the Fred Phelps clan sure, but it debunks the PC agenda and idiotic notions such as that getting everyone in the media to stop saying "queer" will have any marginal effect on homophobia.

 

This is the problem with PCism right here- the presumption that every member of a "minority" group has been personally subjected to massive hatred and violence.

In their minds for example, a black child born to a millionaire rap star has been "more effected" by adversity than a poor white dude growing up in Detroit.

You're assuming that it's strictly because of "bigotry", when there are realities that likely come into play as well - for example gays are (and will likely always) be a minority, meaning there are less elibigle partners for them out there (as well as many people they might be attracted to, but would turn them down since they're not gay themselves) - so factors like this might play an inevitable role in it, not just anti-gay bigotry.

The OP however seems disingenuous about this - I have a feeling that even if gays were found to be more happy and healthy that he'd still be against them just because of something the Bible says. I'm simply against the notion that political correctness and affirmative action are the "be all, end all" solution to inequality.

 

The professionals actually charged with making such decisions say you're wrong. Your opinion is of no relevance.

 

It's already mainstream in my country. We have gay premiers, a gay foreign minister, celebrities. Gay marriage is just marriage. Our churches almost all of them accept openly gay people into their church.
It's just normal now.

 

Russians don't often reach the 70s in life expectancy rates either.

 

Science and medical journals say otherwise.

It should be classified as a disease, but the gay mafia controls the media.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/

 

Not one word in that article refers to homosexuality as a "disease". Do you even read your own sources??

 

Wrong. They had different rights. A black man did not have the right to marry a white women but a white man did.

Not in Australia. Homosexual couples have all the same rights and privileges.

Because the colour of a persons hair has nothing to do with their gender.

Heterosexuals would not be losing anything. it is not about overtly gaining or losing anything. Homosexuals want to change the definition of marriage.

 

Bit of a "no=brainer" as Americans say. I'm not surprised. While Australia has legislated for equality in everything except marriage there's still a hangover from less enlightened times among some of the populace. But it will get better. We just need to sort out marriage equality, unfortunately we have a sorry-arse federal government that can't come to grips with it.

 

The term 'marriage equality' is nonsensical.

 

I'm pretty clearly talking about collectives rather than individuals here.

Eh, fair enough.

 

Homosexuality is a personal lifestyle choice, one which in my opinion if they do not have, then non of us truly have freedom, being a truly free society is not having the freedoms you want, it is allowing others to have the freedoms they want, without of course, denying others their own freedoms. By the way I am a biochemist (molecular biology).

 

Please explain, don't just say so, tell us why it is "nonsensical", remember, when marriage first came into being, it had nothing to do with sex or husband and wife. The word marriage just means the joining of two together. "I filed the surface of the bush until I married it to the socket.". However if you are talking about after the church got involved, then we have a different story.

The early church loved to change things, like the story of Jesus birth...

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/christmas/born-in-a-barn-stable/

See Jesus wasn't just anyone, he was a direct descendant of David.

So Jesus was born the son of a wealthy descendant of King David in a Grotto (Chapel) at the family estate.

The people that the early church wished to gather were very poor people and they would not be impressed following the words of the son of a rich man telling them they need to give up worldly goods, so the "created" the stable at the inn to make Him sound more human like them.

The church has manipulated the "Word of God" for their own agendas, it is not the only place either IMHO. I have nothing against God, it is religion I hate.

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
Do not believe all you read, even in the bible.

 

A gay man did not have the right to marry a gay man, but a straight woman did.

See how that works?

Who told you that all psychological disorder is related to gender?

The the definition has already been changed before by heterosexuals. Why do you have a problem with this change, but not the previous changes?

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality does not come into it any more than race. It has nothing to do with 'rights'. men and women can marry each other but men cannot marry men and women can not marry women.

It is when we are talking about homosexuality.

How do you know they were heterosexuals than changed it? And why should it matter if they were heterosexuals anyway? The point is that despite odd changes now and again marriage has always been between a man and a woman. That fundamental basis has never changed. I don't care what the bible might say, to me it is irrelevant.

 

Let's hammer it out in the English Language forum.