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

LOLOL.. Good post!

- - - Updated - - -

LOLOL.. Good post!

 

But to you the only thing that is right is what you think is right and that's why any argument is irrelevant.

 

Do you have something to contribute to the discussion?

 

Yep

https://1215.org/lawnotes/misc/marriage/history-of-marriage-chronology.pdf

 

It hasn't been in the past, and it's not right now.

It does so long as the state is involved in defining it.

They can and have. Even before the supreme court decision.

The vast majority of psychologists disagree with you.

Then what source are you using if not scientific consensus, law, or the Bible?

 

What relevance has all that got to do with todays marriage laws in Australia? You have condemned the Catholic church for their behaviour numerous times in the past now you want to hold them up as a shining example for homosexual marriage!!! Typical lefty hypocrisy! it still does not change the fact that today marriage is something that can happen between a man and a woman. If it is between a man and another man then it cannot be marriage by our laws or the long held acceptance of what marriage is.

 

Do you ever read your own posts, you actually contradict yourself. I showed you that marriage has not always been about the wedlock of a man and a woman and you say we should keep it that way because that is the long acceptance of what marriage is. I was just demonstrating how wrong you are, how narrow minded you are, how hypocritical you are, how biased you are and how you are denying the rights to equality based on YOUR interpretation of what marriage is based on fallacy. The truth be known, you are as homophobic as the rest of the red necks. Don't worry AM I am sure they're not after your bum.

- - - Updated - - -

and my intention is to hold the catholic church up to be the lying, manipulative godless organisation they are.

 

Well you are right. For a brief period 700 years ago the Catholic church would marry two men. What the fark has that got to do with the discussion today?

That is correct. Marriage has been accepted as being between a man and a woman for many, many, generations. I don't care if two pooftas want to spent their lives together, good luck to them but they can not call themselves married. They don't have the prerequisits required.

Har har har har! But your interpretation of what marriage is, of course is right. But any other interpretation is wrong. Right?

- - - Updated - - -



and my intention is to hold the catholic church up to be the lying, manipulative godless organisation they are.[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

why don't they have the prerequisites for it, that has me totally at a loss, are you saying that gay people don't have what it requires to make a relationship? I don't have a different interpretation of marriage, I am saying what it is, it is the union of two people to share all they have together, that is what it was designed for, then the church stepped in to use it .. an already established institution .. into something they could use to manipulate and control the flock, micro-manage us. The church redefined marriage, but the church today is as it always has been, the most ungodly people on earth, judge not lest you be judged ... say the most judgmental people on earth.
You have previously used the church to back your argument, even saying why redefine marriage, well we are not redefining marriage just removing the false definition given to it by people scared of their own ignorance.

 

why don't they have the prerequisites for it, that has me totally at a loss, are you saying that gay people don't have what it requires to make a relationship? I don't have a different interpretation of marriage, I am saying what it is, it is the union of two people to share all they have together, that is what it was designed for, then the church stepped in to use it .. an already established institution .. into something they could use to manipulate and control the flock, micro-manage us. The church redefined marriage, but the church today is as it always has been, the most ungodly people on earth, judge not lest you be judged ... say the most judgmental people on earth.
You have previously used the church to back your argument, even saying why redefine marriage, well we are not redefining marriage just removing the false definition given to it by people scared of their own ignorance.[/QUOTE]

AM is happy to stay behind, as always. So does our PM....
Regards

 

I have never used the church to back my argument. I think marriage is essentially for security, mainly for the woman I think, for the raising of a family. As two homosexuals cannot procreate it would be a bit pointless really.

 

So infertile men and women shouldn't be allowed to marry. I mean, what's the use?

 

Crikey, its not difficult. Marriage as a religious institution is between man and women, but marriage as a political institution should operate within the rules of democracy like all other policy. Just because they use the same 'word' doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Problems like this are usually solved by having the conflict explained in more words, and parameters defined to outline the differences, such that all (political) marriage should be available to any 2 consenting adults, but that this does not require institutions providing marriage services to provide those services to all people.

But said better obviously. Then the churches can keep their religious marriage ceremony's as they believe without fear of legal prosecution for discrimination - but also other marriage providers (new churchs, marriage people lol I dunno what they are called, etc etc) can marry gay couples.

Unless there are gay couples who have an agenda to change the church's, then they should be told to FOff and get a life. If a church wants to continue a peaceful and private belief and practise amongst its clergy which is otherwise legal, then they should be allowed to IMO. BUT marriage has for a long time now not the exclusive domain of churchs to provide, so clearly not all marriages are church religious, and many are completely irreligious.

 

What is the downside for allowing it? What are straight women losing by allowing homos to marry?

 

Now that's a good point. Perhaps we should change the marriage laws to include a positive fertility check for both the man and the woman.

- - - Updated - - -

We would be normalising and legitimising aberrant behaviour.

- - - Updated - - -

We would be normalising and legitimising aberrant behaviour.

 

I think it's more abhorrent to you then aberrant because most I have spoken to are in favour of it even if they are against homosexuality themselves they see that in an enlightened society that they do have a right to a legal entity as do heterosexual couples. I can understand those with theological beliefs would be against it in their places of worship and whilst I support the legalisation of gay marriage as far as the law goes, I would resist any push to get churches to change their views for the same reasons of freedom of belief for which I fight for gays.

To deny them the security of a legal entity based purely on false information, scare tactics and ignorance is I believe illegal. If I was to deny someone signing a contract based purely on their sexual preference I would be liable by law, yet our government can deny them the legal right to sign a contract of marriage. It is morally wrong, ethically wrong, unAustralian and just plain stooooopid.

 

But we have already done that before. Interracial marriage was considered aberrant behavior at the time as well. Oral sex was considered aberrant behavior at one time.

So gays are not actually infringing on anyone's rights in your opinion. They are just doing stuff you think is gross and unnatural.

 

Scared, a lot of 'homophobes' actually have latent homosexual or more correctly bisexual desires. They are attracted to the same sex so have an abhorrent view of those that attract them. In Australia we have a very loud and outspoken shock jock who constantly goes out to verbally bash anyone he can. Another of similar ilk and one who is constantly deriding people for not being honest said this

IMHO people who are too scared to admit the attraction go the opposite way and denigrate those that they are attracted to.

 

No, I don't care what you do to each other. The aberrant behavior is your wanting to do it to someone of the same sex.

 

You are contradicting yourself. The first sentence claims you are indifferent to what homos do. The second sentence complains about what homos do. They cannot both be true.

 

Wrong. The second sentence is not a complaint, I am naming the behaviour as aberrant.

 

Like oral sex. Got it.

 

Nah, oral sex is not aberrant. Men and women have always done that, not all mind you but certainly a lot of them. You misunderstood what I said. The aberrant behavior is wanting to do it with someone of the same sex.

 

Men and women have always practiced homosexuality, some earlier civilisations it was quite acceptable. So where is your argument besides your own bigotry

 

Yea and some animals eat there young...... and I'm sure we can find evidence of humans doing the same. Just saying.