the chemical attraction between two human beings allowing them to procreate and continue the human speicies.


8==> <==8

it doesnt work f***heads

So you don't love your father,grandfather and brothers?

Also if love means sexual and reproduction how about your mom,grandmother and sisters?

Love is not sexual.

Personaly, I think marriage should be reserved ONLY for couples wishing to create a family unit. It should be this (marriage license) and this alone which grants human the PRIVILEDGE (no, I don't think it's a right as some people sure as s*** don't deserve to) to breed. Any pregnancies that happen outside of wedlock, should be just terminated. So, if your not willing to breed an obtain a license to do so, then you shouldn't be allowed to marry.

woah I look forward to kats response to that post^^^

LOL at nazi hermi..

population control at that level will prolly be introduced in aus many, many years from now, china has already got some form of it..

fags dont deserve rites.

besides, getting married is for suckers.

population control at that level will prolly be introduced in aus many, many years from now, china has already got some form of it..

China are dirty commy bastards, we're a democracy, population control to the extent of forced abortions will never happen in Australia. Infact the only reason we have a positive population growth is due to imagration, because the older population is dying off faster then babies are being born. Why do you think there are so many benifits given to families. If the government want to slow down the population growth of this country all they have to do is cut down the number of immigrants that are given citizenship each year.

LOL at nazi hermi..

I don't think that I'm a nazi, err, well they did have cooler looking uniforms than the allies, does that count??

Anyway...
The term "married" should be reserved for couples committed (heh, oh the irony *committed*) to raising a family (yes breeding). I do think that their should be regulations in place that prevent any human from just breeding indiscriminately. There are far too many people out there with no means to support their kids either morally or financially). Marriage should then only be permitted to couples who have proven themselves capable of at least providing some quality of life to the offspring (relying on a single parents pension is NOT worthwhile means if this is to be the sole source of income). Marriage comes with financial benefits (differing tax rates etc) an so it should. Same sex marriages are not about creating a family unit as such an so they don't deserve the right for it to be awarded that title. Call it something else, I know, how about "DeFacto" !! Theres a title that comes with all of the legalities of marriage an just as much headache when splitting up.

Like I said, I personally think that Marriage should be associated to a couple that are willing to committ to the raising of a family, an not for some "I want some too cause I should be able to do anything I want and I'm being victimised cause I'm gay" political correctness BULLs***

woah I look forward to kats response to that post^^^

Do you have any other purpose on this forum other than to s*** stir?

A response means it is directed at you and it wasn't directed at me.



last edited by Kat at 14:03:51 28/Apr/04

hahaha - I wasn't stirring s***.

and you seem to respond to alot of posts that are not directed at you so why stop now?

mabe you should look up on the term: in many, many years..

the population of this and every country on this whole earth will increase to a point of self destruction..

we are already using up (and fighting over) the earths resources and will come to the stage of reaching the zen point of death and/or getting off this planet to populate other worlds with human masses..

we will be terraformers, terraforming all the suitable planets to our needs, also mining unsuitable living planets, using up a major amount of resources as we go..

we will be the universes very own form of cancer..

unless our whole planet gets wiped out before any of this happens..

now that is settled, back to topic..

Killing a fetus without the parents consent is defined as murder in many western societies. Hermitech is advocating murder.

It should be this (marriage license) and this alone which grants human the PRIVILEDGE (no, I don't think it's a right as some people sure as s*** don't deserve to) to breed

When it comes to priviledges and rights, they are clearly defined in our society. What you "think", is utterly irrelevant.

Maybe you should look up the term: will never happen.

Industry is driven by war, there is a lot of money to be made and wars will be a continuous part of our world development.

Eventually war will slip out of control of those in power and lead to actual weapons of mass destruction being used, real ones not the kind in Sadams arsenal.

Nuclear war will break out, followed by a nuclear winter.

The few survivors left will live deep underground to escape the radiation, only to emerge generations latter with forgotten knowledge of technology and a primitive concept of society.

Unless a plague wipes us out first.

Hermitech is advocating murder.

I was speaking of a society in which a license to breed was required, this wouldn't be legally murder

As to abortions (side tracking greatly here), I have given my consent for my partner (at that time) to have an abortion when she fell pregnant and neither of us where in a position to care/nurture/support the child at any forseeable time. I would have no hesitation to do so again should the situation warrant it. To that end, I take steps to ensure that conception doesn't occurr. Not that this (my bit) has anything to do with the discussion on same sex marriage. To me, I think that marriage is an outdated concept, however, I still feel that it should be reserved solely for those with the committment to raising a family, an not for some politically correct bulls***.

Surprised no one else has said it. Short time ago Johnny said he wouldnt recognise them cos "its against the institution of the species" ... which is so true

Marriage promotes offspring which promotes human evolution

Gay marriages do not.

What's so intrinsically good about human evolution and the continuance of the species?

I think your words are insane and that of a madman Hermi.

Continuation of the species requires reproduction a biological activity that has nothing to do with emotion, life long commitment is about emotional attatchment each other. As stated previously many Lesbian couple reproduce using donor sperm, or even finding a willing participant (every mans fantasy 3rd cog in a threesome).

As we are smarter than all other lifeforms on this planet, be are capable of resisting biological instincts, like chocking some dumb s*** to death because he doesn't have a clue of the life experiences to know better, as it is excepted as unsocial behavior, so we are capable of controlling our biologicl urges.

gumby people are talking about marriage for love ok? obviously there are different types of love. the love i defined is the relevent one. dont even start about marrying relations or whatever, thats not love, thats attatchment.

Marriage promotes offspring which promotes human evolution

Gay marriages do not.

agreed

Then where are my weapons of mass destruction?

Nah, not mad, just a personal view that works for me. I don't want kids an I don't want to get married either an I'm not Gay.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that "Gay Marriages" is just the latest bandwagon for the politically correct to jump on an is a load of s***e an I for one have had enough of all this politically correct, don't discriminate against me, can't take responsibility for their own action cause it happened to me as a child or cause I'm part of a minority group" bulls***. You want a minority group? Watch the looks on people when you try explaining to them that you aren't interested in their babies pictures, their telephone calls to their kids on speakerphones so that the whole office can hear. You tell people that you don't want to marry and you don't want to have kids, yet they can assure you (as they know everything) that you will change your mind down the track. Yeah right.. I don't want use an 10 grit electric sander on my nipples right now, but I will change my mind later...

I still however stand by my point that marriage should be reserved solely for those couples committed to raising a family unit with the moral & financial resources that such an important decision an responsibility entails.

jmr how is love different for gays?

Who old are you?

And how does your homophobic redneck arse even know of the gay community apart from your redneck sterotype ideals?

Love is an emotion, it can be felt between men and men and women and women, your precious bible talks about it all the f***en time, Jesus loved all men... he must have been a raving homo.

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

Honestly, who the f*** cares about this s***?

People should just care less. Who cares if gays get married. Who cares if it "cheapens" real marriage.

Do you people honestly care about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry? It won't affect me in the slightest, nor do I really care.

Chub, the point is that just because it doesn't EFFECT YOU doesn't mean it won't effect someone.

God how narrow minded are you?

However if it DID effect you (i.e. you were gay and wanted to marry) you WOULD be passionate about it.

The world today has become to selfish, put yourself in other peoples shoes before judging and making 'should be's'. Just because it doesn't effect you doesn't mean it doesn't effect someone.

God how narrow minded are you?

sif marrige
sif religioin
sif gay
sif john howard

Hey jmr, are you asking god if it's narrow minded?

Kat, I was arguing for gay marriages, like I have the whole post.

I was pointing out that people should "care less" about gays getting married. People are on here, having a huge cry and whinging... for what reason? Do they really feel the need to stop gays getting married?

I'm saying gay marriages won't affect me or anyone else... nor should anyone care, it's none of there business whether or not gays want to get married.

actually i was just testing my html skills seing as tho thread will die soon

i dont beleive in religion and am opposed to people forcing their opinions about it onto other people

i didnt mean to offend you gumby, please dont take my opinion as an attack on your sexuality. also im not a redneck, i have know alot of gays. i dont hate them, and accept them. good luck to you and your relationships

last edited by jmr at 16:36:06 28/Apr/04

ppl are missing the point - nobody is saying they can't get married, they are simply saying that same sex marriage won't be recognised by the govt, just as it isn't recognised by the church.

so whatever your reasons are for marriage, whether you are homo or hetero you can still get married and make the committment or please the folks etc and have the celebration, it just won't be recognised by a large majority of ppl (or minority if you want to argue the point) but who the hell cares what those ppl think.

Yeah that is great

Take two couples

Male and Female & Female and Female.

Male and Female marry been married for 4 years. Male joins the army, dies in battle. Wife gets recognised and gets a pension for pain and suffering.

Female and Female marry. Been married for 10 years. Female one joins the army, dies in battle. Female two gets NOTHING.

and tell me THAT is fair

(note the 'money' issue is not what I want you to concentrate on, I am talking about why one is recognised and one isn't when they are THE SAME)

well i guess that will teach her for leaving the kitchen

have u got any proof to back that statement up kat?

She could have been a cook in the Army

What's so intrinsically good about human evolution and the continuance of the species?

Hopefully, less f***s like you.

Female and Female marry. Been married for 10 years. Female one joins the army, dies in battle. Female two gets NOTHING.

I think thats an extreme example, generally a defacto relationship is treated the same in loads of things now days.

if society is a system, what is the function of the institution of marriage?

it is the formalisation of a union between a man and a woman who wish to eventually have a family.

now what is the reason for two ppl of the same gender to marry. legal recognition of various interests and that is it. they won't be hacving children etc.

all those forms of legal rights can be conferred by wills, trusts and endowments.

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

they want all the tax breaks govt benefits etc without the risks and hardship of raising a family. well i won't vote for it. they can enjoy the "legal" benefits of marriage throgh other means.

I see no one has answered my question yet!

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

Uh.. an insult to who, exactly? Why would you even care?

they want all the tax breaks govt benefits etc without the risks and hardship of raising a family. well i won't vote for it. they can enjoy the "legal" benefits of marriage throgh other means.

Yawn. You see, I say yawn, because when I actually yawn, you can't see it.

Personally, I reckon the LESS people out there making babies, the better off we are. Bring on pregnacy licenses!

In my opinion, the government not recognising gay marriages is the same as the government not recognising normal marriages. The government should be all like, "whatever", and stuff. Anything else just seems to be pandering to those stupid redneck bible bashers that can't stop living in the past.

(edit: no offence to any rednecks or bible bashers, you guys are great! really)

last edited by trog at 21:30:23 28/Apr/04

to think that gays can consider themselves even in the same boat as procreators (which they make fun of) is an insult.

I know I am not insulted. Maybe you need to revaluate how comfortable you are in your 'heterosexuality' role

Again I ask the question, does this mean that male and female hetrosexual couples, who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to get married and should be put in the same 'outcast box' as homosexual couples?

Ok, ill have a crack at your questions kat. This is my opinion and it breaks down like this.

1. A gay marriage has NO chance of consiving offspring by natural means. This means if the couple wants a child it requires resources. No, where do these resources come from? Adopting takes alot of money. Its not like buying a dog, parents have to be fit to raise a child. Who decides who is fit? The state at tax payers money.

Now, you could argue that two druggo teenagers could have an unwanted child. Sure, point granted. But that is ALOT harder to inforce via law. That is and should be a seperate argument.

2. Again, if two females want a couple then again it requires resources. Do sperm donators want their child going to a same sex marraige? If they know same sex couples are getting thier sperm, will this decrease donations?

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure. Development of all of us has come from both our parents. It is way too soon to understand what effects on the child a same sex marraige will have.

There are alot of variables outside of our control in the family model, but same sex marriage is one we can and should control.

Maybe you need to revaluate how comfortable you are in your 'heterosexuality' role

I think you believe that ones feeling towards hemo or hetro sexuality is something the individual can control, similar to a TV via a remote. Well, its not. I feel discusted if i see two men kiss. This is a feeling that i believe is inate to me. Just like 1000's of years of eveloution has told me that eating fatty foods tastes good, so in the hunter/survival aspect of life i will have enough energy supplies to survive.

I ask you this: If four children where raised by themselves say from the age of 7 with no external influences, would they be homo or hetra sexual?

I feel discusted if i see two men kiss. This is a feeling that i believe is inate to me.

Well good for you. I don't find the picture or site of two man kissing very appealing at all, but I can look past my own nose and realise that just because *I* don't think it is very 'cosmetic' that it should be banned.
Ever considered the site of heterosexuals kissing gives them the same grossed out feeling? No of course you haven't, you can't think outside your square.

If four children where raised by themselves say from the age of 7 with no external influences, would they be homo or hetra sexual?

Anyone who even tries to answer that question is stupid. NO ONE can tell you that.

However Nature vs. Nurture is a VERY BIG debate and there is strong evidence to support both sides. Doesn't make one WRONG and one RIGHT.

What evidence exists to say there is a Nuture side to homosexuality?

My N vs N comment was about N vs N in general.

Homosexuality isn't "wrong", so it shouldn't really matter.

you enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

that's what is politics is believe it or not. the avergae joe does not want gay marriage.

the labour party dare not go there. cos they are ruled by the unions and minority lefty interest groups. the greens and democrats even endorse gays!!

thank god someone has the balls to stand up for the average taxpayer that's all i can say.

gays can have their little fantasy that they are the same but they are not. it's basic! get with the program. they can their lives with no interference but they should never expect the government's support.

i suppose if we get a labor federal government they will though. won't the enlightended socialists have a field day then !!

Well said Chub. They are 'just like us' They bleed like us, they cry like us, they get angry like us, they get hurt like us, they get embarrased like us, they get picked on like us, they get isolated and ridiculed just like us.

Trying to make them 'different' or 'wrong' are the words of people too scared to admit they are just like YOU.

inifnex: You really think that it is the majority that think this way? HA

for sure. do you think johnny would run with it if it weren't. u seriously don't have a clue. i know the way his advisors run. they have done their research and aus. don't like gay marriage.

it aint just oxford street and fortitutde valley that vote u know.

they can have all the civil rights in the world but marriage is additional and an institution. as i said before all the leagl rights and benefits they are seeking from marriage can be conferred through other legal instruments.

australia won't cope it nor should they.

last edited by infiNex at 22:10:56 28/Apr/04

Kat, but the question you answered wasn't.

they get picked on like us, they get isolated and ridiculed just like us.

Just like you, maybe.

last edited by nF at 22:14:51 28/Apr/04

you enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

...but why do we need a voice? What's so threatening about gay couples getting married and expressing there love for eachother? It's none of our business, and we have no right to step in and deny them marriage.

Seriously, what are you's all scared of? Are gay marriages going to significantly alter your life or something?

aus. don't like gay marriage.

yer, thats true

i reckon old people shouldnt be allowed to vote

they also shouldnt be allowed to drive

come to think of it
old people are pretty much wrong/crap all the time

im pretty sure its old people that keep day light savings out of qld also

hah.

just go onto a construction site where people without IT degrees actually do manual labour. you might learn how the other half think.

and btw they all earn over $60K a year. talk to people other than from your own stinky pond and learn how australia is thinking.

johnny does it well. that's why his finger is on the pulse. you can't win if you don't have 50% + 1.

ou enlightened socialists don't get it - kat, trog. this is what middle australia is thinking and johnny is being their voice.

Oh, ok - so we should just accept what the bigoted masses want without trying to change them for the better?

gays can have their little fantasy that they are the same but they are not. it's basic! get with the program. they can their lives with no interference but they should never expect the government's support.

I love this quote! What about disabled people? They're not the same either. Should they live their lives with no interference and never expect the government's support because they're different?

Hmm, what about single mothers - they're not a heterosexual couple.

As far as I'm concerned, the instant you stop same-sex couples from marrying, it becomes something else - its OBVIOUSLY no longer about love (which, well, I'd like to think that's what marriage is all about), but instead its about laws and regulations and money. If its not about love, a couple can just form a trust or a company or one of the other billion entities that let them dodge tax anyway. That's why accountants were invented.

I don't want a government that is going to go BACKWARDS and start locking down this crap, any more than I want a government that is going to stop stem cell research or stop abortion because of a loud-mouthed religious minority. The only way to go forwards, in my humble opinion, is to just STOP WELL TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF like its SUCH a BIG DEAL. Oh, you're a guy, and you're a guy, and you want to get married? Whatever, fine, here's your certificate, I'm going back to bed.

Some other comments:

2. Again, if two females want a couple then again it requires resources. Do sperm donators want their child going to a same sex marraige? If they know same sex couples are getting thier sperm, will this decrease donations?

As someone with an excess of sperm, anyone that wants it is more than welcome to it and they can do whatever they want with it, including breeding trog-spawned supercreatures from hell to take over the world. Who else except religious FANATICS - I'm talking the sort of people that strap explosives to themselves and kill kids and women on buses - would actually care about that?

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure. Development of all of us has come from both our parents. It is way too soon to understand what effects on the child a same sex marraige will have.

I think 10,000's of years is a bit of an overstatement :) Not only that - its really only the last few thousand years that we've stopped painting on cave walls and managed to build societies based on something other than who has the sharpest flint on their spears (although sadly that still seems to be pretty important).

Honestly, I find it seriously depressing that my tax dollars are going towards such pathetic, useless, and uninteresting questions as "should same sex couples be able to marry". I'd like to get up in the morning and hear our government say "massive government funding towards cancer research", "r&d grants to local biotech companies", "australian government enters race to land on Mars", and stuff like that.

Honestly, I find it seriously depressing that my tax dollars are going towards such pathetic, useless, and uninteresting questions as "should same sex couples be able to marry". I'd like to get up in the morning and hear our government say "massive government funding towards cancer research", "r&d grants to local biotech companies", "australian government enters race to land on Mars", and stuff like that.

i agree with trog, the money that is wasted on this sort of non-sence, could go to research and develpoment, could go to shchools and alot of other places where it could be usefull.

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Well good for you. I don't find the picture or site of two man kissing very appealing at all, but I can look past my own nose and realise that just because *I* don't think it is very 'cosmetic' that it should be banned.
Ever considered the site of heterosexuals kissing gives them the same grossed out feeling? No of course you haven't, you can't think outside your square.

I now see why alot of people here dont like you. You know nothing about me, or my education, or what i have considered. My statement was to counter yours. You claim feelings are able to be turned on and off like a switch. But they are not, they are inant. So YES, I DID CONSIDER THAT BUT DID NOT SITE IT. I assumed you would derive my meaning from my comments. Im not jumping on some bandwagon like you seem to be doing.

for sure. do you think johnny would run with it if it weren't. u seriously don't have a clue. i know the way his advisors run. they have done their research and aus. don't like gay marriage.

it aint just oxford street and fortitutde valley that vote u know.

they can have all the civil rights in the world but marriage is additional and an institution. as i said before all the leagl rights and benefits they are seeking from marriage can be conferred through other legal instruments.

australia won't cop it nor should they.

this is a very good point - jonny wouldn't do it if the masses of australians didn't agree, hell millions out there who agree probably wouldn't admit it, in fact I'd go as far as to say that a very large % of people who are against this policy already don't vote liberal anyway.

I'm not saying I"m against gay marriages, hell I think they deserve the same rights as anyone, but in a democracy majority rules! and even so I'll still vote for jonny if this goes through because labor have given me no decent reason to do otherwise.

I don't want a government that is going to go BACKWARDS and start locking down this crap, any more than I want a government that is going to stop stem cell research or stop abortion because of a loud-mouthed religious minority.

you still don't get it. the govt is not locking down anything. this is a new right seeking to be conferred by a minority it was never intended for.

marriage was never intended for gays. comprende?

so Infi do i take your decleration above as you saying that you are related to or are one of john howards advisers yourself? becuase if your not then you are makeing big assumptions on something you can't know. I for one pay my taxes and what i would consider a average middle class aussie, I don't think gays should be stopped getting married and i do not like someone infering that i do. How about you go out and poll queen street mall and show us the results of it. also don't forget to show just how often you got smacked in the mouth for being such a retard for saying thats what most ppl want.

Wow!

There are some pretty stupid people with really dumb opinions around here... and it really shows in this thread.

Well done guys.

I think ill keep my opinion to myself.

3. Rember the history of mankind spreads some 10,000's of years. It is INANT that children expect a mother and father figure.

I understand the point you're making about parent figures but it should be pointed out that children are raised by a community and not just parents. In more primitive times children were raised by the elderly while the women gathered and the men hunted. Today with so many families where both parents work children spend a large portion of their time in childcare centres from as early as 1. Basically having two mothers or two fathers might not impact upon a child as greatly as everyone seems to simply beleive.

just go onto a construction site where people without IT degrees actually do manual labour. you might learn how the other half think.

What the f*** is your point here? It seems like you are suggesting that where there is a lack of IT degrees, there is manual labour to be found and in these areas of manual labour dubbed by you as 'construction sites' there is a general lack of higher education which seems to me to be an insinuation that these areas harbour a generaly lower standard of intelligence. Then I get the feeling that you're suggesting that these poor simple folk of the peaceful yet productive 'construction site' would support Howard in his belifes due to their general lack of intelligence and labourious work regimes and vice versa for the, what was the term you used earlier, ah yes, 'enlightened' IT degree toting portion of the population.

Then you claim, assuming that you beleive that we all have IT degrees, which point of fact, I do, that the other half is the strange simple assiduous folk of the 'construction site'. We now have two halves, ID (IT Degrees) and CS (construction site), in the context of the argument, I take it that the sum of these halves is the voting population of Australia. Since you didn't specify anyother figures I'll have to assume that the halves were equal in proportion.

So basically your point here is that one half of australia is made up of idiots that agree with Howard and the other half is made up of intelligent people that disagree with him, this is your point by the way not mine, and since you agree with him you fall under the half of the population that have to physically remind themselves not to choke on their own druel and since I have an IT degree I obviously have to high an education to agree with Howard. Since I'm trapped with in my half due to my degree I obviously can't make my own independant decision on the issue and since you're such a blithering idiot that you don't have an IT degree, you obviously can't muster the brain cells required for the decision to pull away from the herd and have a contradictory belife to that of Howard.

Assuming that is your point, then I'd have to say that I would disagree with you on that one.

Edit: Yes I know, I went too far.

last edited by Deadly-Fly at 00:50:56 29/Apr/04

I think what he is trying to say deadly fly, is simply that you are out of touch with the average Australian, and that this is what the majority of Australians want.

Which is just silly really. The majority don't care, but theres a percentage who feel the law should be clarified, so some po-dunk minimum wage f***wit doesn't just start handing out marriage liscences to all comers thereby single handedly deciding policy that should be implemented by the courts or the elected officials. Which is exactly what Howard is doing. You want same sex marriage? Great, fine, but thats a seperate issue, one that I'm sure Howard will be happy to reap some extra votes for when he addreses it... seperately.

the greens and democrats even endorse gays!!

OH NOS, DIRTY GAYS!@#

too much gay in this thread, you're all band.

^ it just got a whole lot gayer ^

Just like you, maybe.

That is where you are wrong. To pretend you have never been picked on by society or one of, is just someone in denial.

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Yes I do. They have the same rights as us. Plus what do you honestly think is next?

jonny wouldn't do it if the masses of australians didn't agree,

And when DID it become an issue? You think pver the last 3 years it has become common tea time talk across Australian dinner tables? NO, he brought it up because his buddy George did.

you are out of touch with the average Australian,

What like Pete and Tina out of the hothouse? or Lisa-Marie out of Bigbrother? *snort* Give me a break, THEY are not 'AVERAGE' Australians. 'Average Australians' are the ones you DON'T hear from. The Average Australians are the silent minority and Johnnie does NOT speak for them


edit: They allow people from other countries into Australia and then let them break the laws in all kinds of ways because they won't intrude on their religion or way of life. I would prefer married gay couples dancing through Kings Cross once a year to gang rapes, stabbings, and beatings.


last edited by Kat at 07:35:30 29/Apr/04

deadly fly: i employ construction workers and i am very good friends with construction workers. i never suggsted they are not intelligent. i did suggest that they have a completely different view on these things and it would help for the university-sheltered lefties to get out there and learn what other people think.

to the "enlightened folk" here. it appears that by suggesting we should confer this right to gays that we are being a civilised society. well if that is ur point of view u can keep it.

gays want to marry to get the legal benefits of marriage i.e. supernannation, deceased estates, real estate ownership etc. all these matters can be dealt with via other means.

marriage was never intended for gays. again i have nothing against gays but gay marriage can not be permitted because children should be raised by a mother and father as was originally intended.

and kat: as for the infertility argument there is a BIG difference between a hetero couples (the gays sarcastically call them "breeders") who cannot become pregnant due to some medical condition or complication and gays who cannot have children by design!

Honestly though, does anyone here actually care (I mean seriously) if gay people get married?

Huh? Sounds familar.

Yes I do. They have the same rights as us. Plus what do you honestly think is next?

FFS Kat, are you really that thick...

Honestly, who the f*** cares about this s***?

Uhh, do you think you could catch on yet?

Chub, the point is that just because it doesn't EFFECT YOU doesn't mean it won't effect someone.

Like I've already stated

Kat, I was arguing for gay marriages, like I have the whole post.

I was pointing out that people should "care less" about gays getting married. People are on here, having a huge cry and whinging... for what reason? Do they really feel the need to stop gays getting married?

I'm saying gay marriages won't affect me or anyone else... nor should anyone care, it's none of there business whether or not gays want to get married.

Bloody hell, is there anything inisde that head?


last edited by CHUB at 08:11:04 29/Apr/04

i havent read any of this thread,




your all gay

and kat: as for the infertility argument there is a BIG difference between a hetero couples (the gays sarcastically call them "breeders") who cannot become pregnant due to some medical condition or complication and gays who cannot have children by design!

Not when the arguement is that marriage is ONLY for those who want to 'breed'!

oh and Chub, we are fighting the same fight. I get your point and mine was not in your 'Why do you care' but 'why you care about if they get banned' :)

I just can't understand, how someone can go out of there way, to speak/act out against gay marriages? Do these people have anything better to do with there time? Or are they just whingers?

I believe the majority of this forum is aruging against gay marriages for the sake of it (plus it's something to do). Though if they did become a reality, I doubt any of you's would stand up/protest and do something about it.

What evidence exists to say there is a Nuture side to homosexuality?

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

You can even study it.
http://canis.tamu.edu/wfscCourses/Supplements/Courses.html

ANTH 689. The Great Apes. Fall 2001. This course will provide students with an in- depth examination of the biology and behavior of our closest living relatives. We will begin the class with a review of primate taxonomy, emphasizing the taxonomic relationship between the great apes and humans. Fossil and molecular evidence supporting the close relationship of chimpanzees and humans will be reviewed. The course will then consider the use of the great apes as models for understanding hominid behavior, whether or not the great apes exhibit culture and their language capacities. Additional topics to be covered include the hunting practices of chimpanzees, tool-use abilities and practices, self-medication, parental care patterns, homosexual behavior of the pygmy chimpanzees, forced sexual intercourse among orangutans, and grouping patterns, as well as the conservation status of all the Great Ape species." For more information, please see Dr. Gursky's bio at http://www.tamu.edu/anthropology/faculty.html#Gursky or contact her directly at gursky@tamu.edu.

gays want to marry to get the legal benefits of marriage i.e. supernannation, deceased estates, real estate ownership etc. all these matters can be dealt with via other means.

marriage was never intended for gays. again i have nothing against gays but gay marriage can not be permitted because children should be raised by a mother and father as was originally intended.

You seem to be good at saying what marriage isn't for and who it isn't for - who exactly IS it for then?

I'm no expert on the history of marriage, but most of what I know seems to indicate that it had its origins in arranging things for what were, ultimately, legal reasons - alliances between families, power, money, etc. Today, marriage is basically just a contract between a couple - one that can be terminated at the stroke of a pen.

You say, marriage was never intended for gays - I say, marriage is, and always has been, intended for two people who want to form a formal relationship between themselves (or have it forged for them by a third party :) If its for reasons of love, great. If its for reasons of political or business expedience, then whoopdeedoo.

Marriage is not even particularly christian or religious, all those saying what marriage is/isn't for forget that most of cultures around the world ahve marraige.

And when DID it become an issue? You think pver the last 3 years it has become common tea time talk across Australian dinner tables? NO, he brought it up because his buddy George did.

hahha you are so naive, that or you are trolling cause thats close t the most retarded thing I have heard in this thread.

from a little bit of google searching I have found that marriage doesn't have religious origins but was developed in mesapatopian (sp?) times or some s*** and was adopted by the church at a later date. However, everywhere I read about the history of marriage and its intentions it refers to a man and a woman. Now I'm not against marriage but I can see where ppl are coming from, marriage and its origins weren't intended for same sex couple and therefore ppl believe they shouldn't partake in it which is a fair viewpoint. A few certain people have taken extreme examples on here no here comes mine - ANZAC day is a celebration of the ANZACS, intedned for Aussies and Kiwis to remember those that gave their lives. Now if the poms decided they would like to celebrate ANZAC day and call it that what your viewpoint be? I mean plenty of poms died at Gallipoli and its their right to celebrate what they want - but was it really intended for them to celebrate? Pretty extreeme example I know - but I thought I stay within the retarded levels of the thread so far.

Man and woman .... then you obviously never looked at early mormans or muslims ... poligamy etc etc

Basically its a couple thing. If fags want to get married let them, how does it affect me?

Marriage being for love between a man and a woman is a relatively new concept. Arranged marriages were far more common, and still are in some parts of the world.

And its not even a religous thing. ie. Italy, a hugely religous country (compared to us for sure) requires a civil marriage thing at a government office, then they go off and do the big thing at the church.

Article providing examples and illustrations of same sex marraiges dating back to accient egypt.

last edited by imitation at 12:52:58 29/Apr/04

Australian marriage has always been a hetero thing. What the Egyptians got up to is hardly relevant when the topic is regarding existing Australian marriage laws.

Uhh but the arguement put forward has been that marriage is historically about a man and women and thats what makes it wrong. Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time. You are an idiot clipto.

Uhh but the arguement put forward has been that marriage is historically about a man and women and thats what makes it wrong.

So you would sooner bring up Ancient Egyptian culture rather than point out the irrelevancy of it all?

Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time.

Why are you directing this at me? I have not advocated anything one way or the other in this thread, except perhaps that we stay on topic. Maybe you should use one of your crayons to print the topic of the thread onto the top of your monitor, you might be able to remember easier that way.

Nice story, needs Dragqueens.. errr Dragons

They allow people from other countries into Australia and then let them break the laws in all kinds of ways because they won't intrude on their religion or way of life. I would prefer married gay couples dancing through Kings Cross once a year to gang rapes, stabbings, and beatings.

HAHAHA. You really are a gem. Truely a fountain of tolerance and open-mindedness.

Historically Australians shot aboriginals and didn't regard them as people or citizens of the country, wow we shouldn't have changed our law because those were the existing Australian laws of the time.

My great-grandfather (or possibly great-great), was killed by an aboriginie with a spear. True story. I'm thinking of going on a princess bride/kill bill kinda rampage.

sometimes the nF posting experience is just great!

You seem to be good at saying what marriage isn't for and who it isn't for - who exactly IS it for then?

Easy: man and woman. Children are best raised by a mother and father. If we do not position society to reproduce in a functional framework civilisation will perish.

A government which wants society to survive gains no benefit from endorsing legal unions which cannot produce children.

It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Gay marriage does not benefit society because gay marriages cannot yield children. They have no purpose.

Children are best raised by a mother and father. If we do not position society to reproduce in a functional framework civilisation will perish.

Doesn't matter if that mother and father are worse parents than a gay couple? Or is the ONLY thing required to be a parent that you are a male and a female???

not love, compassion, understanding, patience, commitment, and money?

Wow, no wonder out society is as f***ed up as it is now, they have been people like you who say that a mother and a father are the only ones who should be a parent and not those who can actually be one, no matter what the sex or sexuality

It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Gay marriage does not benefit society because gay marriages cannot yield children. They have no purpose.

Accept for the whole, fulfilling someones sexual, emotional, and spiritual desires in life.



Bigots with your heads stuck up your arses, that's what you are all showing yourselves to be

last edited by Kat at 07:52:54 30/Apr/04

Contrasted to your fantasy world where society doesn't actually have to consider whether it is condoning practices which will ultimately lead to its own demise.

Doesn't matter if that mother and father are worse parents than a gay couple? Or is the ONLY thing required to be a parent that you are a male and a female???

Kat, where do you think babies come from - now I KNOW you know this one?

Kat, where do you think babies come from - now I KNOW you know this one?

I do know how a baby is made. I am not talking about 'making a baby' I am talking bout being a 'parent' two TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.

Conception is one thing, parenting is another.

Gay couples may not be able to conceive but they are still able to be parents. In today's society there is no shortage of kids in need of parents.

last edited by Kat at 09:25:24 30/Apr/04

Gay couples may not be able to convince but they are still able to be parents. In today's society there is no shortage of kids in need of parents.

er, conceive?

ok so we should encourage a new kind of society where breeders produce babies for gay couples to raise. nice.....

er, conceive?

Ooops :)

ok so we should encourage a new kind of society where breeders produce babies for gay couples to raise. nice.....

No, the point is that you don't have to be married to conceive a child. As well as being married and conceiving a child, that doesn't make you a parent.

So if you add a + b, you get a final equation which shows that you don't HAVE to be married to be a parent. Therefore marriage is not just about having kids, it is about marriage full stop.

Each individual who is getting married put's their own meaning and purpose to it.

It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Gay marriage does not benefit society because gay marriages cannot yield children. They have no purpose.

But you are ignoring the utility monster named Kat that derives enormous utility from observing homosexuals in wedlock. It's all about utilitarianism in the end. Everyone must submit to gay marriage to satisfy the utility monster!

don't use big words hast she won't understand - gays should be able to get married but I'm not convinced on the parenting thing yet, but then again ppl have had alot worse parents that a couple of really good ppl that happen not to be heterosexual.

Maybe homos and lesbians should get together to make a 4 parents for the one child so they get both a male AND a female influence, but they are just in reverse :P (yes thats not a real suggestion)

Contrasted to your fantasy world where society doesn't actually have to consider whether it is condoning practices which will ultimately lead to its own demise.

This is the funniest f***ing thing said so far in this thread. Man I'm seriously worried about you. First you use rediculous stereo types about construction workers and IT people, and now you are claiming that if gays were alowed to marry then society itself might just be destroyed.

Sorry dude, I respect your right to an opinion and all but going by some of the things you've said I don't think you really understand what that opinion is. Maybe it is just because you're responding to kats trolls, or maybe it is just because you haven't thought the issue through and are simply supporting the party line, but you are begining to come across as raving lunatic.

I couldn't care less whether gays can get married or not, but I do know that the right to get married and the right to adopt are two sepparte issues.

I suggested that there wouldn't be too many IT graduates, a large cohort of this forum, that frequently associate with construction workers. I didn't conclude anything about anyone's intelligence or societal standing. Stop being a dong.

Get it clear, my point is that middle Australia thinks gay marriage is wrong. "Why?" do you ask. Because mummies and daddies get married. Not daddies and daddies or mummies and mummies.

To change middle australia's mind you have to convince society why gay marriage would be in the public interest - this refrerring to the concept of utilitariansism.

The issue of parenting is intertwined because while not being a precondition it is one of the dominant reasons why people get married - they wish to raise a family.

Now if gays do not seek a family and the legal benefits normally associated with marriage can be acuired through other methods what is the attraction to gay marriage - symbolism.

It is in the end a conscience decision and one which therefore will be determined by the majority. Society should be able to determine how one institution (marriage and family) is regarded by another institution (parliament and courts) within the overall system. That is why the government has raised it as an issue.

Democracy will ultimately determine the outcome I suppose.

tl'dr