Poll: If you were to vote to Australian Marriage Equality, what would that be?
Yes
No
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Australian Marriage Equality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2017, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2017 02:29 PM by Loom.)
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
With that sort of logic infertile people or those who chose not to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

I've also known kids who were raised by two moms or two dads with no issue. Heck I'm pretty sure they're all straight and had no issue with 'balance.'

I vote yes. There's no secular reason to deprive two (or more) consenting adults the right to legally marry.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Loom's post
01-09-2017, 07:05 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
Not sure if you are a troll but anyway.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  Mod note: I cannot access subsection Intimacy and Relationships for no reason. Please grant me.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ps-section

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  I am an adult and Australian citizen. The vote for Australian Marriage Equality is about time.

I am so far gay, homosexually attracted to select guys but I am also very social and romantic with girls. However, I am all against gay marriage equality for apt reasons.
If you are attracted to both men and women, you are not gay.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  First, for marriage between man and woman, marriage derives from terms of motherly love. So it might be a little hypocritical and double standards on part of gay couples demanding legal rights to same-sex marriage - the legal benefits of marriage, despite religious institutionalisation, apply to cover the costs of support for raising kids and starting families.
I am unsure where you found that "marriage" derives from "motherly love". I was not able to find this information. And the only clear legal guideline about it having to be between man and woman is from 1955 as far as I can find out. So it is obviously old and not applicable to more modern times anymore. It might be that the tax benefits are about family etc and it would make sense, i give you that. But, and now keep reading, if benefits for child raising is your basis for the argument, it is invalid. Because of two reasons: the benefits can be moved from applying to married couple to applying to couple who raise children. Also same sex married couples can raise children, and in that case they will be happy to have those benefits. Additionally, there are millions of straight married couples without children out there, just food for thought.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  To balance the argument against same-sex marriage, it would be inconvenient to raise the kids for many identity reasons and kids would like balance, as far as my instinct goes and from my personal experiences. Personally as a future father, I always want to raise kids with my wife rather than husband.
I am originally coming from pedagogics and my speciality was psychological/mental child development. And from that perspective, what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. There is also not scientific study that supports your claim.
Children do want parents who love them. I'd rather have a child raised by a loving homosexual couple than not have parents at all.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  Second, I unconditionally support brotherly love of any and all forms including personal, private to open and public, such as gayness and so on - I will always be with consensually indulgent humans and fight for rights to consensual gay pleasures. I would challenge and redefine the terms homosexuality and consider it as the most intimate form of brotherly love, and the same applies to sisterly love.
Being gay is not all about sex. Can you step away from that for a second? What anybody does in their bedroom is none of your business. Are you walking around and judge every straight couple by what they might or might not do in bed? That is a very immature way of thinking. Being a couple, rather than fuck-buddies, means that there is love. People feeling deeply and close, a human connection that is so much more than a sexual attraction. There is no redefinition of homosexuality needed, my friend.
You talk about brotherly love and make it equal to a gay relationship. Take me for example.
I have three male best friends. If we talk in terms of love, I love them, yes. But not in a romantic way. I trust them, I care for them, and I get the same in return. Nothing romantic there. You gonna tell me I am being gay with them?

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  To counterbalance homophobic arguments, whilst 'homosexually' indulgent with select guys, I would vow differently for marriage. That is, I would stipulate respect from my future wife for my consensually brotherly love as much as I would respect her sisterly love - personal and private to open and public. In short, I wouldn't care about her consensually 'lesbian' sexuality, and so as long as we play safe whilst continuing to exercise integrity and mutual trust along the way.
So you are cool with your wife having a female fuck-buddy just like you expect her to be cool with you having a male fuck-buddy. Great. What does it have to do with equal marriage?
You don't get to be homophobic and then be like "counterbalance homophobic arguments". Do you hear yourself talk?



-- Also I am unsure why this is in the health section. Seems to me it would fit better in the political section (or intimacy if Thinker gets approved)

"Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4" - George Orwell (in 1984)
- Wotsefack?! -
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leerob's post
01-09-2017, 11:44 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(01-09-2017 07:05 AM)Leerob Wrote:  Not sure if you are a troll but anyway.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  Mod note: I cannot access subsection Intimacy and Relationships for no reason. Please grant me.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ps-section

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  I am an adult and Australian citizen. The vote for Australian Marriage Equality is about time.

I am so far gay, homosexually attracted to select guys but I am also very social and romantic with girls. However, I am all against gay marriage equality for apt reasons.
If you are attracted to both men and women, you are not gay.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  First, for marriage between man and woman, marriage derives from terms of motherly love. So it might be a little hypocritical and double standards on part of gay couples demanding legal rights to same-sex marriage - the legal benefits of marriage, despite religious institutionalisation, apply to cover the costs of support for raising kids and starting families.
I am unsure where you found that "marriage" derives from "motherly love". I was not able to find this information. And the only clear legal guideline about it having to be between man and woman is from 1955 as far as I can find out. So it is obviously old and not applicable to more modern times anymore. It might be that the tax benefits are about family etc and it would make sense, i give you that. But, and now keep reading, if benefits for child raising is your basis for the argument, it is invalid. Because of two reasons: the benefits can be moved from applying to married couple to applying to couple who raise children. Also same sex married couples can raise children, and in that case they will be happy to have those benefits. Additionally, there are millions of straight married couples without children out there, just food for thought.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  To balance the argument against same-sex marriage, it would be inconvenient to raise the kids for many identity reasons and kids would like balance, as far as my instinct goes and from my personal experiences. Personally as a future father, I always want to raise kids with my wife rather than husband.
I am originally coming from pedagogics and my speciality was psychological/mental child development. And from that perspective, what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. There is also not scientific study that supports your claim.
Children do want parents who love them. I'd rather have a child raised by a loving homosexual couple than not have parents at all.

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  Second, I unconditionally support brotherly love of any and all forms including personal, private to open and public, such as gayness and so on - I will always be with consensually indulgent humans and fight for rights to consensual gay pleasures. I would challenge and redefine the terms homosexuality and consider it as the most intimate form of brotherly love, and the same applies to sisterly love.
Being gay is not all about sex. Can you step away from that for a second? What anybody does in their bedroom is none of your business. Are you walking around and judge every straight couple by what they might or might not do in bed? That is a very immature way of thinking. Being a couple, rather than fuck-buddies, means that there is love. People feeling deeply and close, a human connection that is so much more than a sexual attraction. There is no redefinition of homosexuality needed, my friend.
You talk about brotherly love and make it equal to a gay relationship. Take me for example.
I have three male best friends. If we talk in terms of love, I love them, yes. But not in a romantic way. I trust them, I care for them, and I get the same in return. Nothing romantic there. You gonna tell me I am being gay with them?

(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  To counterbalance homophobic arguments, whilst 'homosexually' indulgent with select guys, I would vow differently for marriage. That is, I would stipulate respect from my future wife for my consensually brotherly love as much as I would respect her sisterly love - personal and private to open and public. In short, I wouldn't care about her consensually 'lesbian' sexuality, and so as long as we play safe whilst continuing to exercise integrity and mutual trust along the way.
So you are cool with your wife having a female fuck-buddy just like you expect her to be cool with you having a male fuck-buddy. Great. What does it have to do with equal marriage?
You don't get to be homophobic and then be like "counterbalance homophobic arguments". Do you hear yourself talk?



-- Also I am unsure why this is in the health section. Seems to me it would fit better in the political section (or intimacy if Thinker gets approved)

Leerob, to be absolutely honest - I am attracted to only men so I'm gay.

I got the definition of marriage from that stupid, jerkily bastardly Aussie who has left me terribly confused!

I'm glad that what you say defies it all and has given me fullest reassurances and peace of mind.

Excellent that you're from psychology/child development so I'm now confident that as a gay father, I could raise kids with my future boyfriend/husband, notwithstanding some really stupid humans in the local area trying to convince me to vote NO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinker's post
01-09-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(01-09-2017 11:44 AM)Thinker Wrote:  Excellent that you're from psychology/child development so I'm now confident that as a gay father, I could raise kids with my future boyfriend/husband, notwithstanding some really stupid humans in the local area trying to convince me to vote NO.

Yeah you won't have any problems that any other parent won't face. One of my best friends is raising her little girl with her ex-girlfriend. The little girl is a child of divorce, just as some of her schoolmates.

In fact, she's one of the top students, is very well adjusted, and is one of the nicest kids you could ever meet. (Of course I'm biased, but the first two have evidence.)

Anyone who tells you can't be a good father merely because of orientation or your spouse's orientation does not know what they're talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2017, 08:39 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2017 09:05 PM by Sushisnake.)
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(31-08-2017 03:13 AM)Thinker Wrote:  [color=#FF0000]Mod note: I cannot access subsection Intimacy and Relationships for no reason. Please grant

To balance the argument against same-sex marriage, it would be inconvenient to raise the kids for many identity reasons and kids would like balance, as far as my instinct goes and from my personal experiences. Personally as a future father, I always want to raise kids with my wife rather than husband.

I therefore will vote NO to Australian Marriage Equality.

1. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with rearing children. It is already legal for same sex couples to foster and/or adopt children in Australia.
2. What "identity issues"?
3. What do you mean by " balance"?

I'm not having a go at you, but don't be sucked into the "no" campaign's dishonest claim that SSM is about children. It isn't.

* The identity issues children of same sex couples face are imposed on them by the demonisation of their parents by the likes of the "no" campaign, and the gentler but more pervasive neglect of their existence by the wider community of good will: it's only been in the last decade or so that children's books and TV programs depict families parented by same sex couples. Before that, the poor kids were stuck with the impression that their families weren't 'real families' in some way. I'm relieved and pleased the wider community has finally addressed this gap and expect depictions of all kinds of families to become mainstream.

* The balance kids need is between freedom/boundaries. And yeah, it's a hard line for parents to find - we screw it up. A lot. I look at my adult child and marvel at how well he turned out inspite of my blunders. Smile Above all, they need unconditional love and acceptance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sushisnake's post
14-09-2017, 09:44 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
I've already sent off my YES vote. But... ultimately this whole thing is an expensive waste of taxpayers' money, costing $122 million. Anybody who votes no is simply trying to prolong what really should be a non-issue anyway.

IMHO, we should've had a conscious vote in parliament, which would've taken about 10 minutes and cost us $122. Isn't that the sort of thing we elect these slack-arse politicians to do?

And after all, Australia is simply playing catch-up with the other 20+ Western countries that've already legalised same-sex marriage, such as Argentina, Canada, United States, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Spain, South Africa, Finland, England and Wales etc.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SYZ's post
14-09-2017, 09:52 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
FT. The pollies have made voting hard on purpose.

I vote Yes.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
14-09-2017, 10:33 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
(01-09-2017 11:44 AM)Thinker Wrote:  
(01-09-2017 07:05 AM)Leerob Wrote:  Not sure if you are a troll but anyway.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ps-section

If you are attracted to both men and women, you are not gay.

I am unsure where you found that "marriage" derives from "motherly love". I was not able to find this information. And the only clear legal guideline about it having to be between man and woman is from 1955 as far as I can find out. So it is obviously old and not applicable to more modern times anymore. It might be that the tax benefits are about family etc and it would make sense, i give you that. But, and now keep reading, if benefits for child raising is your basis for the argument, it is invalid. Because of two reasons: the benefits can be moved from applying to married couple to applying to couple who raise children. Also same sex married couples can raise children, and in that case they will be happy to have those benefits. Additionally, there are millions of straight married couples without children out there, just food for thought.

I am originally coming from pedagogics and my speciality was psychological/mental child development. And from that perspective, what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. There is also not scientific study that supports your claim.
Children do want parents who love them. I'd rather have a child raised by a loving homosexual couple than not have parents at all.

Being gay is not all about sex. Can you step away from that for a second? What anybody does in their bedroom is none of your business. Are you walking around and judge every straight couple by what they might or might not do in bed? That is a very immature way of thinking. Being a couple, rather than fuck-buddies, means that there is love. People feeling deeply and close, a human connection that is so much more than a sexual attraction. There is no redefinition of homosexuality needed, my friend.
You talk about brotherly love and make it equal to a gay relationship. Take me for example.
I have three male best friends. If we talk in terms of love, I love them, yes. But not in a romantic way. I trust them, I care for them, and I get the same in return. Nothing romantic there. You gonna tell me I am being gay with them?

So you are cool with your wife having a female fuck-buddy just like you expect her to be cool with you having a male fuck-buddy. Great. What does it have to do with equal marriage?
You don't get to be homophobic and then be like "counterbalance homophobic arguments". Do you hear yourself talk?



-- Also I am unsure why this is in the health section. Seems to me it would fit better in the political section (or intimacy if Thinker gets approved)

Leerob, to be absolutely honest - I am attracted to only men so I'm gay.

I got the definition of marriage from that stupid, jerkily bastardly Aussie who has left me terribly confused!

I'm glad that what you say defies it all and has given me fullest reassurances and peace of mind.

Excellent that you're from psychology/child development so I'm now confident that as a gay father, I could raise kids with my future boyfriend/husband, notwithstanding some really stupid humans in the local area trying to convince me to vote NO.

Me, SYZ and Banjo are all Aussies, Thinker, so it's the three of us against the jerkily, bastardly one. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Sushisnake's post
14-09-2017, 11:28 PM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
*Raises appendage*

Me three... Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
16-09-2017, 12:14 AM
RE: Australian Marriage Equality
A bit of humour on the $122 million dollar ABS opinion poll

https://youtu.be/C9g9RhnbIUA
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: