JULIA GILLARD CONFIRMED FOR PM - lol

[isthattim?]

i agree about the gay parents. its not natural though. so under it should be called something else.
the difference between discrimination and classification is rights. all i am saying is that it should be classified differently is that so wrong? i agree there is equal love. and the term should reflect that.

possible new terms for gay marriage
***-union
Homorriage
lesborriage

why stop there? Maybe we should have different terms if the two people are different races? some people think thats not natural.
what about other unions that people might not think are natural?
what would you call it if the two people are from different religious groups?
if the female is taller than the male?
if one goes to church and one doesn't?
if the two people are from different religious groups?
if they're vegetarians?

I think we shouldn't just stop with marriage, maybe gay doctors should have a different name? what about gay pilots? what if a gay person wins the nobel prize?(i'm sure thats already happened at least once btw)

 

[xXArrowXx]

ok ok i got it.

 

[Zero]

You would be right, Arrrow, if marriage (in the legal sense) was about procreating. It is not.

What the Catholic Church "settles" for is up to them and their believers. It does not affect the rest of us or society at all.

 

[Nixernator]

i get what you are saying isthattim but those aren't the topic nor are they controvosial. being gay has little capcity of your ability to be a doctor. good point none the less.

Being gay has no impact on your ability to have a loving relationship and union with your life partner.

 

[xXArrowXx]

k k got a good opinion now

 

[Sieg]

My aunt and uncle are together but they aren't married. They have a child and they live life with the love of one another.

Who gives a **** what a piece of paper says.

 

[Zero]

The whole point of marriage as a legal contract or social union (not the "holy institution") is to provide state sanctioned benefits to 'married' couples - tax breaks, property rights, the simple privilege to be with your partner in an emergency room in a hospital. Right now, couples of people who love each other are denied these benefits simply because of their biological sex.

As your religious ideology of choice does not have a monopoly on state marriage, your religion-based ideas on what a "real" marriage constitutes are simply invalid in a discussion about legal marriage.

You don't need the term marriage to be in a loving relationship. People want the term marriage in order to have the simple right of getting the same treatment as everyone else.

 

[...Ellipsis...]

^^^^^^
This

 

[xXArrowXx]

hmm collating opinion.

 

[unreon]

Homosexuality is not unnatural...

Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[1][2] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[3] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."[4] Current research indicates that various forms of same-sex sexual behavior are found throughout the animal kingdom.[5] A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.[6] Homosexuality is best known from social species.

 

[Zero]

should we allow 3-4 people marry each other if they love each other?
should we allow 1 guy to marry his videogame?
should we allow father and daughter to marry?
should we allow girl and dog to marry?

1. Polygamy already exists, although the "love eachother" part is often lost on polygamous communities. I think polygamy would not fit with the current structure of our society and if it were to be legalised, it would need the appropriate legal structure to support it. Polygamy is yet another natural state of being but the crucial difference that will most probably impede widespread acceptance is that: people are selfish. Where/when polygamous marriages aren't forced (extremist Islam and Mormonism spring to mind), I don't think it would be a popular idea amongst most people. That being said, I think it should be a legal option, for the sake of freedom.

2. Can a video game consent?

3. Why not? If they're two consenting adults, what is the societal problem?

4. See 2.

 

[Toby.]

Arrow, precisely why do you feel that homosexual marriage should be called something different?

I don't really understand your justification.

 

[Nova]

ffs
This topic is ****.
Arrow, your off-base laughable analogies (dog & human?) are tremendously stupid.
Why are you even giving the examples/analogies?
Gay/Straight marriage in Australia is CONSENTING adults.
A mechanical device cannot consent, yet....

This discussion is so fùcking stupid when points like that are brought up.

I've never wanted to marry and had my share of both sexes.
Each to their own.
I believe fàgs should have the right to, though.

 

[luke_atyeo]

I have no real problem with gays being together or marrying or whatever, and I havnt bothered to read the arguement, AND I could be wrong here, but isnt marriage a biblical christian thing
made by the christians, outlined in the bible, etc whatever.

so it is a little unfair if you take their things and decide you get to change them, I mean cmon, the poor christians get no love and have no friends, and they had christmas (a holy celebration of the birth of their saviour) taken from them and turned into some commercial song and dance about some fat guy giving you the excuse to spoil yourself,
or easter (a holy celebration of the sacrifice of their saviour to save them all) which was turned into some commercial song and dance about some **** rabbit giving you the excuse to get fat.

now I'm not not trying to start something or aggrevate them, I just feel its unfair if everyone gets religions freedom, except for christians, just cause nobody likes them, and its understandable if they dont want you to take away their things and change the meanings of them.

I mean christ!, could you imagine if we tryed to turn a muslim holy holiday into a sacriligious **** holiday about advertising and spending money, that'd be the end of the ****ing world.

 

[Zero]

I have no real problem with gays being together or marrying or whatever, and I havnt bothered to read the arguement, AND I could be wrong here, but isnt marriage a biblical christian thing
made by the christians, outlined in the bible, etc whatever.

No.

The concept of marriage has pre-dated written history. There are records of marriage from all of the Mesopotamian societies, and from all societies succeeding them.

Christianity borrowed the idea of Christmas from the pagan Winter Solstice. The idea of a virgin birth and resurrection is also not original to Christianity.

 

[luke_atyeo]

the idea of christmas, at least date wise, isnt theirs (apparently jesus was born somewhere in what would be the equivlent to september)

not to get into a stupid religious arguement, but can you really prove all that?
the bible was written a long time after christian beliefs and lifestyles and **** were around.

 

[Toby.]

The bible doesn't say that it invented marriage either

All our historical information points to marriage being older than Christianity.

 

[luke_atyeo]

the bible does say its okay to punch vegitarians in the face though, so its an ok book by me.


also on a more serious note, I do believe the bible says that god invented marriage, so get pwned.

 

[Zero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

While the ideas of marriage certainly have changed over history, historians and anthropologists are certain that marriage is a prehistorical concept. And fair enough, why wouldn't it be? It makes sense that marriage is a result of the altruistic trait of sharing.

Christmas shares its date with Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun". It celebrates the time of year where the day begins to get longer, symbolically representing that the Sun cannot be conquered. It was popular in the Roman empire during the 2nd century CE.

It's also a generic date for the Winter Solstice.

The dates, however, are in contention between historical and Biblical scholars.

December 25 is also the birthday for Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus.

As for the construction of the Bible, that happened after Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the state religion for the Roman Empire. It so happens that the Christians were around before then, so many Christian views were indeed present before the Bible's construction.

 

[Nixernator]

If gays aren't allowed marriage because its a christian thing. Thats cool by me mang.
But then why can athiests marry, and buddhists, and muslims?

 

[luke_atyeo]

what you may fail to realise is that all those gods you just mentioned, are in fact verisons of jon, and that the sun can be conquered, but only by itself (please refer to Jon: The man who punched the sun)


edit- nix its probably because all those people you mentioned are still adhearing to the basic rules and principals of 'christian marriage' so the christians have no problem with it, also being gay isnt a religion (hmm possible solution to the problem? rofl), its seen as breaking the rules by christians

 

[Zero]

But doesn't that mean that Jon is Jesus?

 

[luke_atyeo]

who the **** isnt jon?

 

[Technodeath]

I think that is what Luke is implying :D

 

[Zero]

Suddenly humanity grinds to a halt as it realises that civilisation is just a single entity: Jon. All war, science, literature and competition as we know it was just the divine Jon discovering which incarnations of himself will be successful. I propose a new scientific theory: Evolution by Jon Selection.

 

[unreon]

Andrew hit the nail straight on the head. On all counts.

 

[Dekar289]

i think all the gays, blacks and jews should all be squeezed into a big battle pit, last one standing gets to play hl2 ep3

vote dekar for pm

 

[Mic_128]

Suddenly humanity grinds to a halt as it realises that civilisation is just a single entity: Jon. All war, science, literature and competition as we know it was just the divine Jon discovering which incarnations of himself will be successful. I propose a new scientific theory: Evolution by Jon Selection.

No Jons.

 

[Nova]

Dekar, I'd vote for you.
....
'Cause I'm hiiiiigh atm. ☆☆☆☆☆

 

[xXArrowXx]

blah blah blah

 

[Nova]

Humans are stupid, yes including nme.
That's my coclusion.
cbf talking aabout this anymore. :D

 

[swordsaint]

I haven't posted here in like a week, but whatever.

Arrow. Just give up. Your views are just so whack. Like, more so than most of mine, it's scary. Stop trying.

 

[Zero]

a video game can give no consent whats the problem?

Umm, not giving consent is the problem.

guy and animal huh.. do you think their sexual preferance is born that way?

Animals can't give consent.

incest is messed up -.- it derails a family and has consequences for the offspring if any.

It derails a family what?

polygamy - it derails a family. i can imagine a situation where a child is bullied because he has 2-3 mums... its not very stable either. other things about physcologly that you cant love more than one person in that way :S (ionno probably came up with that)

It derails a family what?

yes the meaning of marriage has changed for sure. it usta be about money and becoming parents. yous think marriage for everyone is now considered only for commitment but christians and other people still believe about becoming parents. that is why gay marriage and sterile marriage should have another term. sterile is abit iffy since i am not really supporting a pre wedding sterile check up. its fine if they dont know.. but if they lie, its fine aswell... since its their lie. that being said this sterile and gay marriage thing would have the same rights as an marriage and should be respected in the same way.

as the number of christians is dropping i forsee some discrimination for them in the future. probably justified by their attitude to alot of topics as being "not their place to speak".

The thing is that it doesn't matter whether you marry for commitment or for family. It really doesn't matter. It's not a reason to discriminate between couples. Your proposal doesn't construct anything positive. It's just pointless.

As the number of Christians is dropping, I foresee less discrimination for everyone in the future. Their views shouldn't be considered in matters of the state, however. That isn't discrimination, it isn't persecution. The religious can maintain their own laws within their own communities, but still must obide by the central laws of society. If Catholics want to restrict gay marriage then let them do so, but don't let them impede the progression of the rest of society.

 

[TakFR]

This argument = 1/10 would not read again -_-'

 

[...Ellipsis...]

Hey Scott where you being? Are you going to Tempest or coming to Boost?

Further explanation of why this argument is 1/10?

 

[xXArrowXx]

hmm alot to think about

 

[undead_moose]

I want to be gay married

 

[xXArrowXx]

k, i have finally formed my final opinion.
gays can have their marriage.
although a different term is what i would want, its not necessary to have.
wont be accepted by church though because its viewed it as different. gays shouldn't care about that though

 

[unreon]

My opinion:

If a church does not wish to marry a gay couple, it is well within their own institution's interests to do so, and we can't stop them.
However, them holding back the progression to a fairer society is almost criminal. We should never stop trying to make the world a better place.

As for the 'marriage belongs in the church' argument, people tend to forget something. Western religious institutions were prevalent in Europe around 2000 years ago.

You really don't think that the Chinese had marriages during their many BC years?

 

[undead_moose]

You really don't think that the Chinese had marriages during their many BC years?

Unny just blew my mind