Gay 'Marriage', Do you attand

rather interestingly, the Australian parliament has rejected gay marriage, which is interesting from the point of view that the prime minister, an atheist, voted against the proposal.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sorry, but the biology could not be more clear. We are animals. To say otherwise just reveals your ignorance.

It's arguable that only humans can reason.

So, do we go by what science says or believes? Do we take what is fed to us as the truth an run with it? If there ever was a discipline in a constant state of flux, it is science. Everyday theories, beliefs, what have you... change! Sorry you don't agree... ignorance is bliss after all.

So, would you attend a gay marriage?

-k

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
rather interestingly, the Australian parliament has rejected gay marriage, which is interesting from the point of view that the prime minister, an atheist, voted against the proposal.

Shiver me timbers laddie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
au contrare you should know and be aware, controversial as it is, that the vast majority
of cases of paedophilia within the catholic church were perpetrated against young
boys. Coincidental? No link? How are we to explain the phenomena? What possessed
those people to perpetrate these crimes against these young people, was it their
homosexuality or their paedophilia?

I don't deny it, but what does that matter?

1. This may simply reflect the fact that priests had greater access to boys over girls. The statistics reflect not so much their sexual orientation as their access to boys.

2. Many priests did in fact abuse both boys and girls. The John Jay report is available on the internet. This alone suggests that clerical pedophilia was more than a matter of sexual orientation. Sexual abuse is the result of other psychological factors.

3. Catholic priests are not representative of the gay community and same-sex couples wanting to marry. Many clerics who committed abuse were themselves abused, did not receive much education about sex, were bound by a vow of celibacy -- all factors which could bring out a sexually abusive character.

4. Anecdotally, I am not aware of any gay man sexually attracted to prepubescent boys. I see no reason why they would be more inclined to abuse boys than a heterosexual man to abuse girls.

Originally posted by Nicksten
My reason is - it is immoral and unnatural. I'll never agree on any type of basic terms with regards to homosexuality. The natural is for male and female to participate in sex. If this isn't clear enough, end of story, end of debate. Then you're right no point in debating further.

I attacked no one, I just do not agree with people believing homosexuality is right.

So, you make the conclusion the terms of debate? You will only debate homosexuality with someone if they accept at the start that it is unnatural. You're a total nut.

Originally posted by Nicksten
At least by saying to people they are doing what is unethical and morally wrong, I am helping the human race to tell them that. You are just sitting and going with the flow, driving the human race into a brick wall.

You have zero understanding of Christianity. Keep following your faith, maybe it will lead you into thinking child porn is okay for our inne ...[text shortened]... er immoral injustices in the world. You are more than welcome to open threads to discuss them.

Children ,Adults. Idiots, Wise men.

Do you notice any differences here? Yes they are different words which mean different things. Do you have any idea of how offensive what you just said to me is? Me being a single dad with a small son who would gladly die a million times so that his son may live?

I'm not going with the flow, not your flow, not most people's flow.
Just stick to whats in the post rather than reading other things into it 😛

Originally posted by kd2acz
However, humans are not animals... even though they act like it sometimes. Animals lack the ability to reason and are driven more by instint than anything else. Humans reason, think, have feelings and care among other characteristics. To equate humans to animals is, well, shortsighted.

-k

The oversimplify what it means to be animal and human is short-sighted

Originally posted by Nicksten
My reason is - it is immoral and unnatural. I'll never agree on any type of basic terms with regards to homosexuality. The natural is for male and female to participate in sex. If this isn't clear enough, end of story, end of debate. Then you're right no point in debating further.

I attacked no one, I just do not agree with people believing homosexuality is right.

You said because I support homosexual rights that I would one day support peadophelia.
If thats not an attack it is a massive slur,sir

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Shiver me timbers laddie.

Austrlain parliament suck. Out of the last 28 referendums only 2 were approved (this was going back a few years). So , going on that track record, it's highly unlikely that much change is going to happen here, rather it would be Australia following other countries lead as it has always done.
Heck it took til last year to apologize to the Aboriginies who the whities tried to eliminate until about 1980.

Originally posted by kd2acz
So, do we go by what science says or believes? Do we take what is fed to us as the truth an run with it? If there ever was a discipline in a constant state of flux, it is science. Everyday theories, beliefs, what have you... change! Sorry you don't agree... ignorance is bliss after all.

So, would you attend a gay marriage?

-k

You examine scientific findings, and go with the ones that are well supported.

You act surprised that beliefs can change. So what? This is normal. We don't know many things. As we slowly discover more things, it's expected that some old beliefs will need revision.

Yes, I would attend a gay marriage.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You need to do better than 'heterosexual = natural'. Why is it the only natural type of sex? Do you have a reason for saying so, or do you just enjoy spouting dogma?

I am surrounded by idiots.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Fine, deny the findings of science. Religious fundamentalists tend to do that, so it's expected.

Finding of science = gay sex ???. Wake up!

Originally posted by Conrau K
So, you make the conclusion the terms of debate? You will only debate homosexuality with someone if they accept at the start that it is unnatural. You're a total nut.

Am I the only one seeing here that I am trying to debate? If you look back you'll see that I was told if I don't agree to certain terms there is no point in debating further. Thus I am not agreeing to certain terms, then technically the debate is over right??

You people believing gay sex is okay are nuts. It is sick and it is immoral and it is unnatural. I am standing with my point, it is pointless to argue further especially when it comes to people like you who are starting to call me names as it looks like the only way out of this.

Wake up people, you are killing yourself! Think for yourself, men sleeping with men, female with female, it is all lust, it is filth, it is immoral and unnatural.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Austrlain parliament suck. Out of the last 28 referendums only 2 were approved (this was going back a few years). So , going on that track record, it's highly unlikely that much change is going to happen here, rather it would be Australia following other countries lead as it has always done.
Heck it took til last year to apologize to the Aboriginies who the whities tried to eliminate until about 1980.

Please do not say "whities" or "honkies" to refer to the caucasian race. Those are derogatory terms in the USA.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sorry, but the biology could not be more clear. We are animals. To say otherwise just reveals your ignorance.

It's arguable that only humans can reason.

When a monkey beats me at OTB chess, I will agree with you. 😏