How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

lazygal · 20-03-2015 08:18AM

true567 wrote: »

What animals?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

true567 · 20-03-2015 08:24AM

lazygal wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Ok. So animals also display sexual deviance- but are the morals of animals something you want to raise your kids upon? I surely hope not.

P.S. I knew of the info you provided but you made it seem as if there was a species that was entirely gay which wouldn't make sense because then they wouldn't generate offspring.

aloyisious · 20-03-2015 08:29AM

lavdad wrote: »

She is capable of choosing though isn't she? As are drunk or mentally handicapped people. That is not a good argument against why. Is it OK for an adult man to play a game with a pre-pubescent girl? How about for him to give her a hug? See where I'm going with this? You should just admit there is no rational reason why it's unacceptable. Only irrational reasons, similar to the reasons many people aren't comfortable with homosexuals being allowed to marry. It's shows a contradiction in the yes voters and is a valid argument.

If you have a daughter, maybe you could put the P.O.V./argument you've written here to her and ask her if she think's it a legitimate one to have, given that she would have been a pre-pubescent girl at one stage. Maybe you could debate it further in your own mind as to how you'd feel if some man asked you if he could have sex with your pre-pubescent age daughter and see how rational you would think his request and P.O.V is.

Anyway, I think you are dragging the issue away from allowing homosexual adult citizens of our state access to civil marriage, equal to the way straight citizens have access to it. I'm not sure if you are genuine arguing a P.O.V. here or just muddying the waters by posting "what if's" here to distract from the genuine issue of a denial of an existing civil right to citizens worthy of getting that right.

aloyisious · 20-03-2015 08:46AM

true567 wrote: »

Tell him to be in his life and be a supporting father (i.e. sporting, hiking, etc.) and this shouldn't happen. A referendum won't save his kids from being gay, raising them proper should be his focus.

That a new one on me. I had no idea that the referendum on whether to allow same-sex adult couples have access to civil marriage here, in the same manner that straight adult couples have, was about saving children from a homosexual lifestyle. Please realise that being gay, straight, bi, lesbian, transgender or another part of the gamut of human sexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
One's sexuality is innate to each individual human. If naturing would cause one's sexuality, we would all be straight given the education we got as children "gay is bad, bad, bad", said education was pursued through adult life by the mores of society. I was a member of a state body (which would definitely have been seen as the most heterosexual and macho here) for thirty years and it certainly didn't affect or "straighten" me out in any way.

EDIT.... I see from your posts above that you have strange arguments to make about the issue of same-sex civil marriage, making any debate with you worthless IMO, so while I may read anything further you might write here, I probably won't respond if they are silly and personally angering to others here.

true567 · 20-03-2015 08:48AM

aloyisious wrote: »

That a new one on me. I had no idea that the referendum on whether to allow same-sex adult couples have access to civil marriage here, in the same manner that straight adult couples have, was about saving children from a homosexual lifestyle. Please realise that being gay, straight, bi, lesbian, transgender or another part of the gamut of human sexuality is not a lifestyle choice.

One's sexuality is innate to each individual human. If naturing would cause one's sexuality, we would all be straight given the education we got as children "gay is bad, bad, bad", said education was pursued through adult life by the mores of society. I was a member of a state body (which would definitely have been seen as the most heterosexual and macho here) for thirty years and it certainly didn't affect or "straighten" me out in any way.

Just curious, at what age did you know you were gay?

TwoShedsJackson · 20-03-2015 08:56AM

true567 wrote: »

There will need to be more than just activities that they are engaged in. Studies show there is a strong and direct correlation between childhood engagement within the nuclear family and Pedophilia among other sexual deviances.

Care to link to one or more of these studies and I suppose we can all vainly hope that they haven't been carried out by some right-wing think tank or religious group?

20-03-2015 09:30AM

Mod

Lavlad & True567 banned and not permitted to post in this thread again.

Lads, don't feed the trolls, please and report posts rather than backseat modding.

Thank you.

mravaya · 20-03-2015 09:38AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.

If the state had no involvement in marriage then we would not need a referendum on the issue

Kiwi in IE · 20-03-2015 11:02AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There should be an IQ test prior to first enrolling to register on the electoral role! Some people are just too ****ing stupid too be participating in decisions that affect the entire nation.

The thanks I got for the above post is a perfect example to prove my point. One of the two I was quite obviously referring to thanked me for calling him/her too stupid to vote!

evil twin you know I don't mean you

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 11:13AM

lavdad wrote: »

She is capable of choosing though isn't she? As are drunk or mentally handicapped people. That is not a good argument against why. Is it OK for an adult man to play a game with a pre-pubescent girl? How about for him to give her a hug? See where I'm going with this? You should just admit there is no rational reason why it's unacceptable. Only irrational reasons, similar to the reasons many people aren't comfortable with homosexuals being allowed to marry. It's shows a contradiction in the yes voters and is a valid argument.

From the bottom of my heart, I hope for your sake you're trolling and don't honestly believe what you're writing.

Ken79 · 20-03-2015 11:21AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.

Changing marriage to allow more than one partner would fundamentally change the nature of marriage and that is not what this referendum is about.

This referendum is about common decency. No more, no less. A marriage is and will be be between two people. Nothing will change except the disgraceful situation where people can't be married because they are gay will be eliminated.

Lets be straight up about this. Anyone who votes no in this referendum is nothing more than an evil, spiteful little *insert whatever term you'd prefer*. There is no other reason to vote no because it costs us nothing and this notion that "I'm voting no because I can't marry my poodle" won't wash with anyone with even half a brain.

StewartGriffin · 20-03-2015 12:39PM

lazygal wrote: »

Lol. Will there be a homosexuality vaccine some day?

Scary as it sounds, it is possible that future parents will have an option of screening their children for the gay gene.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VQwGbtKDmnA

fran17 · 20-03-2015 03:14PM

Ken79 wrote: »

Changing marriage to allow more than one partner would fundamentally change the nature of marriage and that is not what this referendum is about.

This referendum is about common decency. No more, no less. A marriage is and will be be between two people. Nothing will change except the disgraceful situation where people can't be married because they are gay will be eliminated.

Lets be straight up about this. Anyone who votes no in this referendum is nothing more than an evil, spiteful little *insert whatever term you'd prefer*. There is no other reason to vote no because it costs us nothing and this notion that "I'm voting no because I can't marry my poodle" won't wash with anyone with even half a brain.

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to that Ken.Because that's all it is,your opinion.

bodice ripper · 20-03-2015 03:22PM

fran17 wrote: »

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to that Ken.Because that's all it is,your opinion.

I didn't think you even knew the phrase...

Ken79 · 20-03-2015 03:56PM

fran17 wrote: »

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to that Ken.Because that's all it is,your opinion.

No, it's not subjective. Changing marriage to allow more than 2 people would be a fundamental change to what a marriage is. "This is my wife, the center of my universe, my partner, second to nothing and nobody... except my newer wives."

It not only comes across as stupid, but inherently unhealthy and prone to abuse. If you cannot pick a single person to build a life with then don't get married - doesn't matter what your excuse for wanting a 3rd spouse.

Canis Lupus · 20-03-2015 04:18PM

fran17 wrote: »

You forgot to add "in my opinion" to that Ken.Because that's all it is,your opinion.

You don't need to add 'in my opinion' to fact.

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 04:42PM

lazygal wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

You gotta love this nugget.
"Displaying" homosexual behaviour isn't the same as exclusive homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is exceptionally exceptionally rare.

Pherekydes · 20-03-2015 04:50PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

You gotta love this nugget.
"Displaying" homosexual behaviour isn't the same as exclusive homosexuality.
Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is exceptionally exceptionally rare.

Why would exclusivity matter? You're implying that bisexuality would be perfectly ok.

bodice ripper · 20-03-2015 04:50PM

So are blow jobs. Ever turn one down on that basis?

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 04:59PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Why would exclusivity matter? You're implying that bisexuality would be perfectly ok.

I'm not implying anything. The poster I was responding to implied that perceived homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom somehow backed up her argument about SSM.

I'm just stating (in the context of her statement) that its incredibly rare for animals to exhibit homosexual behaviour. Some species have been observed exhibiting bisexual behaviour. Kind of negates the thrust of her argument.

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 05:07PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I'm not implying anything. The poster I was responding to implied that perceived homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom somehow backed up her argument about SSM.

I'm just stating (in the context of her statement) that its incredibly rare for animals to exhibit homosexual behaviour. Some species have been observed exhibiting bisexual behaviour. Kind of negates the thrust of her argument.

So, are you saying homosexual people are really just bisexuals leading a homosexual lifestyle?

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 05:10PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What exactly is perceived homosexual behavior? Seems like its a pretty black and white issue to me rather than something open to how one perceives it.

You are saying that any (be it human of animal) behaviour could not perceived differently depending on who is looking at it?

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 05:12PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

So, are you saying homosexual people are really just bisexuals leading a homosexual lifestyle?

Jaysus christ. I give up.

Pherekydes · 20-03-2015 05:15PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Some species have been observed exhibiting bisexual behaviour. Kind of negates the thrust of her argument.

Eh, no. Bisexual behaviour includes homosexual behaviour.

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 05:22PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Jaysus christ. I give up.

But what is your point

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 05:29PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No I'm saying that male on male/female on female sexual acts are homosexual and I'm not sure how that's open to interpretation.

I can't see any point in your extending of my post to include all behaviour, other than trying to make me look silly of course.

I'll go back to what I was originally replying to

lazygal wrote: »

Plenty of animal species have homosexual animals in them.

lazygal wrote: »

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

I was simply highlighting that lazygals wikipedia link only showed that some animals exhibited homosexual behaviour.
1) "Plenty of animal species have homosexual animals". Plenty? Really?
2) Some of the behaviour in the article posted includes "homosexual behaviour" under the titles "courtship, affection, pair bonding and parenting". These are purely down the how the viewer perceives what he/she is viewing. It's very subjective. Does that mean if 2 male penguins assist with the rearing of a baby penguin they are exhibiting "homosexual behaviour" even though they are heterosexual.

bruschi · 20-03-2015 05:35PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I'll go back to what I was originally replying to

I was simply highlighting that lazygals wikipedia link only showed that some animals exhibited homosexual behaviour.
1) "Plenty of animal species have homosexual animals". Plenty? Really?
2) Some of the behaviour in the article posted includes "homosexual behaviour" under the titles "courtship, affection, pair bonding and parenting". These are purely down the how the viewer perceives what he/she is viewing. It's very subjective. Does that mean if 2 male penguins assist with the rearing of a baby penguin they are exhibiting "homosexual behaviour" even though they are heterosexual.

instead of being utterly pedantic, go back to why that part of the debate was brought up. It was in response to the point by someone who has since been banned from the thread for trolling saying that it was how parents brought kids was how they 'become' homosexual, and the point of the animals was to ask if the upbringing causes homosexuality, then why does it happen in animals.

PeteFalk78 · 20-03-2015 05:42PM

I've seen the statement that "homosexuality is rife within the animal kingdom" loads of times here on boards. Which is absolutely incorrect.

If somebody tries to back up their incorrect statement within wishy washy "facts" then I'm (or anybody else is) absolutely entitled to argue it.

fran17 · 20-03-2015 06:27PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You don't need to add 'in my opinion' to fact.

so I take it that your also of the opinion that whoever votes no in this referendum,for whatever valid reason,is also an "evil and spiteful whatever"?

bb1234567 · 20-03-2015 06:40PM

fran17 wrote: »

so I take it that your also of the opinion that whoever votes no in this referendum,for whatever valid reason,is also an "evil and spiteful whatever"?

I don't know about evil and spiteful, but a person voting no believes a gay person shouldn't be granted the same rights they have for the one and only reason that they are gay.By voting no you are saying gay people aren't equal to you and don't deserve the rights you have. To me thats just unfair.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments