Love is love

[Pelagonija]

Originally Posted by Starling

Equating Greeks to homosexuality in this context isn't fair to the gay community. A relationship between consenting adults is basically the same regardless of the gender of the participants or the number of people involved. While I'm pretty sure ancient Greece had proper same sex relationships at some point, they and Rome are actually better known for pederasty, which is pedophilia rather than homosexuality. Lord Byron's whole thing about searching out Greece for 'sexual liberty' was about pedophilia as well, as he had a thing for young boys and women who looked like young boys. It's a very important distinction to make.

I've heard about that vote a while back and that embarrassingly terrible ad against same sex marriage. I expected better from Australia but I guess the far right really is a world-wide problem these days.

What a load of crap, why be a sheep for mate?

The far right isn't the problem, it's the loony left who are teaching homosexuality in schools and extreme gender theory.. just look at the safe schools program in Aus. Just tell me how healthy is it to confuse children as young as ten with such extreme content and what is the agenda?

What is happening in the west aka Aus is promotion of a liberal system at the expense of a proven traditional system which is now on the decline.

Our forefathers fought and died for their families, church and culture.. not so that two blokes can bat each other in the arse.

People like you are the product of the system.. it's ok to say no.. don't be a sheep and jump to conclusions.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

The vote more or less mirrored previous polls on SSM, showing that approximately $100 million was spent on a process that ultimately questioned the validity of ones' identity and their respective value on a national level. It was nothing more than a political stunt by a gutless leader who wanted to appease a minority of hard-line conservatives in his party.

The vote was on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, period. Any downstream implications of such a vote are purely scare tactics, compensating for the lack of a concrete 'no' argument regarding the question at hand. It's incumbent on parliament to ensure that religious freedoms are protected and that it remains simply an issue of marriage equality. To blame this on the LGBTI community and deny them equal rights on the premise of some unsubstantiated consequence that extends beyond the direct causal chain of events is absolute bullshit to be honest.

Just like none of us would ever support a referendum on the Macedonian identity, this entire vote became a platform for vilifying people based on something they equally cannot change; their sexual orientation. Both sides displayed some disgusting behaviour during the campaign, but it is the 'no' camp that adopted this process to stall a fundamental social change that a large majority of Australians support.

It really is a non-issue and there are far more important things that should be on the national agenda. Marriage equality has NO effect on your rights as an individual. It does NOT diminish heterosexual marriage. It will NOT force a church to marry same-sex couples. If you think Australia is an unbearable place to live now that SSM will become legal, you're welcome to move to Macedonia where people are more concerned with shunning homosexuals than protecting their own ethnic identity.

The YES vote won, life goes on. How dare they have equal rights!? Get over it.

[Risto the Great]

Homosexual couple vs heterosexual couple want to adopt a kid. Who gets the kid? Equal footing?

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

Homosexual couple vs heterosexual couple want to adopt a kid. Who gets the kid? Equal footing?

Why is there a need to pit them against one another? Same sex couples can already adopt, so why is this an issue suddenly? It seems like another attempt to derail from the immediate question of the vote.

Raising a child is ultimately based on the merits of the parents. For example, an abusive mother or father are not ideal parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

If your argument is based on a child requiring both a father and mother role model to develop properly, then by that logic single parents and a parent with a deceased spouse can not raise a child adequately. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As long as the parents care for and love the child unequivocally, it shouldn’t matter whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples.

[Pelagonija]

Originally Posted by EgejskaMakedonia

The vote more or less mirrored previous polls on SSM, showing that approximately $100 million was spent on a process that ultimately questioned the validity of ones' identity and their respective value on a national level. It was nothing more than a political stunt by a gutless leader who wanted to appease a minority of hard-line conservatives in his party.

The vote was on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, period. Any downstream implications of such a vote are purely scare tactics, compensating for the lack of a concrete 'no' argument regarding the question at hand. It's incumbent on parliament to ensure that religious freedoms are protected and that it remains simply an issue of marriage equality. To blame this on the LGBTI community and deny them equal rights on the premise of some unsubstantiated consequence that extends beyond the direct causal chain of events is absolute bullshit to be honest.

Just like none of us would ever support a referendum on the Macedonian identity, this entire vote became a platform for vilifying people based on something they equally cannot change; their sexual orientation. Both sides displayed some disgusting behaviour during the campaign, but it is the 'no' camp that adopted this process to stall a fundamental social change that a large majority of Australians support.

It really is a non-issue and there are far more important things that should be on the national agenda. Marriage equality has NO effect on your rights as an individual. It does NOT diminish heterosexual marriage. It will NOT force a church to marry same-sex couples. If you think Australia is an unbearable place to live now that SSM will become legal, you're welcome to move to Macedonia where people are more concerned with shunning homosexuals than protecting their own ethnic identity.

The YES vote won, life goes on. How dare they have equal rights!? Get over it.

Abe fark the pederi.. I couldn't give a rats arse about them..

I'm assuming you don't have kids.. look up safe schools? Or are you to busy making wedding plans? This is not about equal rights if it were that simple.

No surprise most no votes came from suburbs with majority kids and the most yes votes came from suburbs where people had the lowest proportion of children in the country..

I just can't believe how left people are on this forum.. such persons belong on the pride forum..

[Pelagonija]

Originally Posted by EgejskaMakedonia

Why is there a need to pit them against one another? Same sex couples can already adopt, so why is this an issue suddenly? It seems like another attempt to derail from the immediate question of the vote.

Raising a child is ultimately based on the merits of the parents. For example, an abusive mother or father are not ideal parents, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

If your argument is based on a child requiring both a father and mother role model to develop properly, then by that logic single parents and a parent with a deceased spouse can not raise a child adequately. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As long as the parents care for and love the child unequivocally, it shouldn’t matter whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples.

Youve lost the plot be, if god wanted them to have kids naturally then they would have been made to do so.. FFS having two deviate dads is normal?

Someone get rid of this person..

Answer this can two males naturally make a baby? If not then why?

[EgejskaMakedonia]

Originally Posted by Pelagonija

Abe fark the pederi.. I couldn't give a rats arse about them..

I'm assuming you don't have kids.. look up safe schools? Or are you to busy making wedding plans? This is not about equal rights if it were that simple.

No surprise most no votes came from suburbs with majority kids and the most yes votes came from suburbs where people had the lowest proportion of children in the country..

I just can't believe how left people are on this forum.. such persons belong on the pride forum..

No, actually 12/17 electorates that had a majority ‘no’ vote were in Western Sydney, where there is a substantial Muslim population. But judging from your post on the 1st page, you dislike Muslims just as much as homosexuals. Maybe your prejudice against gays can mitigate your hostility towards Muslims lol. I feel sorry for you mate.

[EgejskaMakedonia]

And since when is political affiliation synonymous with pride? And I’m the one that’s lost the plot.

Even if I am left leaning on some social issues, it doesn’t make me any more or less patriotic when it comes to Macedonia. Though, I’d rather not engage in a pissing contest with someone who can barely string a sentence together.

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by EgejskaMakedonia

If your argument is based on a child requiring both a father and mother role model to develop properly, then by that logic single parents and a parent with a deceased spouse can not raise a child adequately. This couldn’t be further from the truth. As long as the parents care for and love the child unequivocally, it shouldn’t matter whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples.

Every natural instinct will select a mother and father for an adopted child (all other things being equal). It is natural, milleniums of history confirm this. That won't be allowed and any suggestion of preference for the "natural choice" would be pursued rigorously by the wronged homosexuals.

i get it, it's cool now. But why do you think consequential issues are irrelevant? Where is the proof that it won't force churches to marry homosexuals? Why weren't these conditions included in the vote? I may have voted yes. What if it is deemed hateful to deny the homosexuals their legal rights?

I think the comparison with denying the Macedonian identity is not comparable in any way.

[Starling]

Originally Posted by Pelagonija

What a load of crap, why be a sheep for mate?

The far right isn't the problem, it's the loony left who are teaching homosexuality in schools and extreme gender theory.. just look at the safe schools program in Aus. Just tell me how healthy is it to confuse children as young as ten with such extreme content and what is the agenda?

What is happening in the west aka Aus is promotion of a liberal system at the expense of a proven traditional system which is now on the decline.

Our forefathers fought and died for their families, church and culture.. not so that two blokes can bat each other in the arse.

People like you are the product of the system.. it's ok to say no.. don't be a sheep and jump to conclusions.

That's just a load of scaremongering and propaganda. People have claimed stuff like that back when no one bat an eye to the killing and ostracisation of anyone who was public about having a different sexuality than what society arbitrarily decided was the only acceptable one. A number of other civilizations had no such problem. I think we all know quite well in some form that terrible things have been done in the name of religion as well as other, more political belief systems.

So all that sexual content and sex jokes children are constantly exposed to, assumptions that if a girl and a boy so much as glance at each other they must be having a crush and some parents outright speculating on a hypothetical relationship and future wedding is ok? But heaven forbid if we acknowledge that sometimes boys like boys and girls like girls. The simple act of existing as a publicly gay person or telling people that they do is considered too extreme, hence the lie in the petition. Children don't even care. In fact, many would question why adults can't just marry each-other regardless.

And how about sex education? It's a perfectly normal part of the school curriculum, provided around the time students reach puberty as it's kinda important to make sure people who are now physically capable of having children understand how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, the responsibilities of having children, how to protect themselves against STDs and the importance of consent, such as when a person isn't capable of consenting to sexual acts. No, schools do not in fact role-play those scenarios. That was completely made up and I remember hearing that claim before. People need to stop getting so affronted at the thought of people acknowledging that sometimes men have sex with other men. You have no right to control whether or not two consenting adults simply because you don't believe marriage rights should apply equally regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Given the notion of separation of church and state, any particular religion isn't even supposed to have any say on the running of the country to begin with.

Youve lost the plot be, if god wanted them to have kids naturally then they would have been made to do so.. FFS having two deviate dads is normal?

Someone get rid of this person..

Answer this can two males naturally make a baby? If not then why?

Given that people can have sex without sexual attraction, so long as they're fertile they're entirely capable of finding someone willing to bear a child they won't raise if they want a biological child. In any case, same sex relationships serve the purpose of raising orphaned children. That's what same sex pairs in other species do. Additionally it's possible to experience sexual attraction to more than one gender.

Also when you account for trans and intersex people yes, sometimes two men and two women can have a child biologically related to them. And why remove someone from a conversation simply for pointing out the problem with your reasoning? That's a rather fundamental part of discussion.

Risto, marriage is fundamentally a contract. While culturally we associate marriages with the religious ceremony, you just need to sign some paperwork to officiate it. While people are entirely capable of living together pretty much the same with or without marrying, what makes it a big issue is that the government processes certain things differently based on your marital status. For example if a couple isn't married they don't get visitation rights to their partner should they be hospitalized, may not be declared next of kin should they die and lack pretty much any legal benefit that comes with marriage. This also makes the process of adoption more difficult aside from the prejudice that favours a less suitable heterosexual couple before they choose a same sex couple that more than meets all the requirements. Priests are only involved regarding marrying couples as per religious customs, where forcing them to would be a matter of anti-discrimination laws more than anything.

Also the comparison about the Macedonian identity is more a matter of finding commonality in your own experiences, which is how we develop empathy. If we don't have a 1:1 equivalent for what we're attempting to relate to, then looser comparisons such as differing forms of discrimination tied to identity are applicable.