Same sex marriage, yep or nah? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14843671
On one issue I differ strongly with the opinion of Alex Jones.

Certain illicit Drugs were made illegal for good reason and should not be relegalized(Cocaine, etc) or first-time legalized.

I honestly believe the next thing these leftwinger lunatics will seek to get "consensus support for" is the legalization of certain dangerous recreational drugs. Once they get Gay Marriage they will continue to move to destroy the social fabric by outlawing reasonable substances like tobbacco and making legal unreasonable dangerous ones like cocaine and heroin(safe injecting rooms are being forced on us now).

I believe that will be the next political battle.
#14843673
I personally hope all these "leftist" (perogressive) assholes will finally be crushed in one event and the rest of humanity can finally go on living in peace.
#14843679
Diligent wrote:No one should care if it's two consenting adults. I'll never understand the resistance to this.


My dad believed "two incomes, no kids is selfish, especially because of how much kids cost to raise, puts your average family economically disadvantaged in comparison to a rich two income Gay couple". As Gays can't naturally conceive together, they are living selfish relationships. Though some adopt(and that is ok), most never have kids at all.

He also thought childless young straight couples focused 100% on their careers were equally immorally selfish.

It's not the abnormality of a gay relationship, it is the fucking selfishness of it all.

I see older Boomer parents of a gay secretly hiding their discomfort at being robbed of potential grandchildren all the time, even when they publically support that gay offspring.

Alot I know have already voted no in this vote.
#14843706
SolarCross wrote:Well perhaps we are being unfair on old Nero, one lone progressive surrounded by vast numbers of reactionaries with nothing but the Praetorian Guard between him and the party-pooper enemies of progress. They called him insane and I called him insane but we all say that because of the so-called "crazy" things he did like marry a man as if there was any danger they might make butt babies and so on. But if those things aren't crazy then neither was he, he may have been the only sane person in all of the ancient times...


Since you are ignoring all my criticisms, there is no point continuing this discussion. Though feel free to make this same argument, as it is so bad it basically undermines itself.

-----------------

Albert wrote:This whole "progress" is actually regression and degeneracy masked in a pretty language. It is funny that progressives at times use Greek and Roman periodical immorality to support their degeneracy, as justification for their "progress" and moving humanity "forward". In the end what we are having today, is battle between ignorance and truth, degeneracy and normality, justice and injustice, good and evil. I hate to say it, but that is what it is. With now Trump in the middle.

I suggest you give up on Pants, he is fully into that world. There is very little hope for him.


SolarCross wrote:Indeed. The sad thing is "progress" as a concept was really cool back when it was invented in Victorian Britain, then it didn't mean rebooting ancient perversions it meant building the better steam engine or the more accurate pocket watch.. See how far we have sunk when the core concept of the original sci-fi futurists of Victorian Britain has come to have its meaning thoroughly perverted to mean bacchanalian depravities and perverse nonsense instead?

Ask me what exemplified progress in the 20th century and I say landing a man on the moon (assuming it wasn't a hoax).

Ask a prog and he will say the re-legalisation of butt banditry.


You guys are doing the exact thing I described in the "outrage culture " thread.

Way to be outraged at my apathy about the sex lives of consenting adults.

--------------

colliric wrote:My dad believed "two incomes, no kids is selfish, especially because of how much kids cost to raise, puts your average family economically disadvantaged in comparison to a rich two income Gay couple". As Gays can't naturally conceive together, they are living selfish relationships. Though some adopt(and that is ok), most never have kids at all.

He also thought childless young straight couples focused 100% on their careers were equally immorally selfish.

It's not the abnormality of a gay relationship, it is the fucking selfishness of it all.

I see older Boomer parents of a gay secretly hiding their discomfort at being robbed of potential grandchildren all the time, even when they publically support that gay offspring.

Alot I know have already voted no in this vote.


How many kids do you have?
#14843772
People have kids because they want them, not to make their parents happy.

It would be really stupid if you don't actually want kids and just do it for your parents.

two incomes, no kids is selfish, especially because of how much kids cost to raise

That depends what you do with your money. There seems to be an assumption there that you spend all your money on your self.
#14843795
mikema63 wrote:I hope you trolls get dragged into the 21st century. :lol:


It has been a busy week at work and I haven't been able to keep up with this thread. To jump back in, I reply to you.

The 21st century is an interesting century. It is the end of the era of Vasco de Gama. Australia, perhaps alone amongst Western nations, is being dragged into the 21st century. But it is an Asian century and Asian norms will rule. Western progressivism is so very 20th century.

As it happens, many people who find LGBTI politics unacceptable happen to be Asian Australian. It is also the case that another group who supports LGBTI rights are Asian Australians. Some are traditional and moved here for the political freedom that middle class Asians desire but are denied in places like HK. They want these political freedoms to be preserved. Others value the social freedom and want that to be preserved. Asian society is very conservative and such freedoms are difficult to realise.

It is perculiar, but there is an interesting thing going on in Australia. Asians struggling with each other over what they want from Western culture and thus what they want Australia to be. I posted a link to a news article earlier in the thread about a Chinese Australian doctor who was against gay marriage. A politician, Penny Wong, who is LGBTI, is an adamant suporter of gay marriage.

Regardless of who wins, I am encouraged by the sentiments of the tempory laws to punish anyone who vilifies their opponents on the other side of the debate. Possibly something of value will evolve from the experience.

Of course there is a cynical side to all of this. The pollies are currently in the midst of scandals relating to their citizenship. Constitutionally, they can't hold dual citizenship. A large number have recently been exposed as having failed to sort this out before running for office. So there is an element of 'oh look, there's a squirrel' to the timing of this gay marriage debate.
#14843797
Technically speaking, even if you did not go through a marriage ceremony and impregnated a girl, you are at that moment of conception have become married to her. Because you have begotten a family and now have responsibilities of a father and mother.


So you agree with me that there is no need for any state recognised marriage service to exist in this day and age. :) If they are already married it is time to dump that silly contract in the dustbin of history.
#14843829
colliric wrote:1.

Can't go into further details though.


Did you do it to please your parents? If not, that is selfish.

I know many gay couples with more kids than you. By your logic, you are more selfish than they are.

;)
#14843941
Pants-of-dog wrote:Did you do it to please your parents? If not, that is selfish.

I know many gay couples with more kids than you. By your logic, you are more selfish than they are.

;)


I did it for both myself and my parents. Wanted a kid and they wanted grandkids.
#14843946
colliric wrote:I did it for both myself and my parents. Wanted a kid and they wanted grandkids.


And so gay couples with two kids are less selfish than you. We got it.

Do you think that my opinion that you are being selfish in your marriage is a good reason to establish marriage law?
#14845859
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... d311961715

Do you hate spammers who use your number without any permission, if so vote NO.

NO to spamming Orwellian losers who are obviously freaking out about something(Internal polling showing something the media ain't telling us?).

I went to the website to try and lodge a complaint, naturally the only way to do so is to go to the Facebook or Twitter page.

Fuck.

Someone should invent a Junk/Spam SMS filter. They know this shit won't get through on email so they send it SMS to force rubbish on you.
#14850191
This argument about marriage equality has never been about the support for, or opposition to traditional marriage (whatever that means, since marriage traditions have changed many times over the millennia). What those who claim to be defending traditional marriage seem to be for, is the marriage between one man and one woman at a time, though polygamy is legal in a number of nations around the world, and divorce and remarriage is also common.

I know of no one working for marriage equality, who has opposed the so-called traditional form of marriage. Rather, the movement for marriage equality has been for the expansion of marriage beyond just the one man one woman form of marriage, to allow for marriage between people of the same gender as well.

This whole idea that people of the same gender should not be allowed to marry, because people who believe in only man/woman marriages would be offended or believe they are wrong, is absurd. And public campaigns against marriage equality have always involved lots of lies about gay people, and lots of bigotry and discrimination, strife and animus. Which is very stressful for and harmful to many people who are GLBTI.

And then there is the question of those who are intersex and transgender who are are left out of the picture entirely. The simplest solution, is to allow two freely consenting adult persons, regardless of gender, to legally marry.
#14850325
redcarpet wrote:The simplest solution, is to allow two freely consenting adult persons, regardless of gender, to legally marry.


Why just two? You seem to be a biggot. Scratch a social democrat and you always find a fascist underneath. :p
#14850331
I'll just say what I've always said on this issue: the biggest threat to the "sanctity of marriage" in the modern world is the ease of divorce. A few thousand same-sex marriages each year is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

Of course, market-liberal Thatcherite types criticising gay couples for their alleged "selfishness" when they subscribe to an ideology that holds selfishness to be the highest possible virtue, is very amusing. I also like the idea that gay couples are selfish for not adopting children, when the same people who hold this view typically want to ban them from adopting children. :lol:
#14850511
Heisenberg wrote:I'll just say what I've always said on this issue: the biggest threat to the "sanctity of marriage" in the modern world is the ease of divorce. A few thousand same-sex marriages each year is a drop in the ocean by comparison.

Of course, market-liberal Thatcherite types criticising gay couples for their alleged "selfishness" when they subscribe to an ideology that holds selfishness to be the highest possible virtue, is very amusing. I also like the idea that gay couples are selfish for not adopting children, when the same people who hold this view typically want to ban them from adopting children. :lol:


I agree with your first paragraph, but I find your second paragraph to be a bit odd given it appears to contradict the first one.

Are you saying people who get Divorced are being selfish and shouldn't be able to be easily and quite separated because they don't love each other? Or are you not believing in the "Sanctity of Marriage" but saying that is what you believe this is what threatens such a thing anyway?

Divorce is basically the legal way of saying you don't love a person(and maybe you never did) and don't want them in your life anymore. It is a choice related to the freedom to choose whom you love, what the legal status of a relationship is and who you want to live with. Just as much as same-sex marriage is.

Either both are valid, or neither is valid. Both are selfish or neither is selfish. Either both threaten it or neither threaten it. There is really no inbetween. Are you saying it threatens it more than the other? Or are you saying one threatens it, but the other doesn't?

You do realize Divorce in homosexual marriages will be higher right? Less chance of long drawn out custody battles and court hearings will make it a very easy decision to say "I don't love you anymore, go away" and have that proceedure go much much quicker. Divorce rate will rise even faster.

This is why alot of opponents believe Gay Marriage is the government and political parties callously colluding with the legal system to arbitrarily increase the amount of Divorces occurring to show "Divorce increasing" at an even larger and faster rate. Thus making Divorce appear to be more invogue. Meaning more cases and enriching the legal system faster plus further while not increasing by much the amount of long drawn out custody battles. The mixing of statistics into one general "Divorce is growing much faster" headline will of cause hide the social engineering, and the LGBT community will defend the system to the death making it even more difficult to overthrow and reform the legal system.

The loser is the tax payer as usual.
Last edited by colliric on 11 Oct 2017 02:58, edited 1 time in total.
#14850514
Same sex marriage? Yes. Absolutely.

Canada's had it for 14 years and no one has married a horse, or dog, and no "slippery slope" has appeared. Most people just don't care. This is as it should be, because unless you are homosexual, and getting married, it will not affect you, in any way.

Why do people even care about marriage and divorce rates, anyhow? As soon as divorce was allowed, it became something people could do. Its affect on your marriage, or mine, for that matter, is 0. Divorces cost the people HAVING the divorce, not the taxpayer. My friends who had some divorces can attest to the court costs.
Last edited by Godstud on 11 Oct 2017 03:02, edited 1 time in total.
#14850515
@colliric My position is simple: if marriage is to mean anything, divorce must be made much more difficult than it currently is. I suspect a.sode effect of that may well be that the number of marriages - gay and straight- decreases, but so be it. People shouldn't make lifelong vows and break them a couple of years later, because it makes a mockery of the whole process.

As for the rest of your post: I don't see how my second paragraph contradicts the first in any way. I disagree with all of your claims about the alleged "selfishness" of same sex marriage, and am simply pointing out that your own ideology holds that selfishness is a good thing, rendering your criticism hollow.

Also, I don't see how your claim that same sex marriage is selfish follows from my criticism of the ease of divorce, at all.

My claim is simple: until "conservatives" make a serious effort (i.e. not just payong lip service) to reverse no-fault divorce, they cannot claim any moral high ground whatsoever regarding the "sanctity of marriage". The reason most people see your position as being motivated primarily by spite, is because it is. :)

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] Are you[…]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]