New Greens Senator Puts Marriage for Gays on Agenda

mottrain

Premiership Player
Suspended
Apr 21, 2014
3,826
1,703
AFL Club
Geelong
I understood your comment to mean consensus, not a couple of people.

Have you read the study from your first link? "Gay Marriage and Homosexuality, Some Medical Comments"
I'm willing to put money down, that you haven't actually read the study.

Also, you might want to read this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...a-christian-youre-just-no-good-with-evidence/
It's about one of the authors of the study, and also points out the demonstrably false 'facts' the study provides.
Ahh so you intended to put words in my mouth again and misrepresent what was said by me.

Think that's all ineeded to know.
 

Floor Pie

Cancelled
May 13, 2014
2,580
2,404
AFL Club
St Kilda
Ahh so you intended to put words in my mouth again and misrepresent what was said by me.

Think that's all ineeded to know.
In reply to being called out for saying;
Why should I support unusually obscene sexual relationship.
Your response was;
it is backed by medical practitioners too.
If you said it was backed by some medical practitioners, I would have understood you to mean "it is backed by some religious nutters and fellow homophobes"

Not putting words in your mouth at all.
I notice you didn't respond to my point about the study, so I'll assume you concede?
 

mottrain

Premiership Player
Suspended
Apr 21, 2014
3,826
1,703
AFL Club
Geelong
Do you also oppose vaccines?
No.
Most medical practitioners engaging in best practice pretty much are aware that in certain classes of persons there are enhanced issues or risks of a medical nature. Hence they give advice that is different on account of suiting their situations.

For example you realise there is evidence pointing to the increased risks associated with amphetamine use and aids and that this practice is significantly higher per capita in male homosexuals than in other subsets. Next there is also the fact that there is statistical evidence pointing to the risky behaviour gay men engage in when compared to straight men which again actually places them at a much higher risk than a straight person of contracting diseases. Lastly there are also anal sex issues which are exacerbated (and the vast majority are experienced by gay males.) that also need noticeably increased and provided to homosexual males in much more prevalent manners than to straight females.
 

mottrain

Premiership Player
Suspended
Apr 21, 2014
3,826
1,703
AFL Club
Geelong
In reply to being called out for saying;
Your response was;

If you said it was backed by some medical practitioners, I would have understood you to mean "it is backed by some religious nutters and fellow homophobes"

Not putting words in your mouth at all.
I notice you didn't respond to my point about the study, so I'll assume you concede?
No the words medical practitioners simply refers to more than one and not automatically to an overwhelming consensus as you assumed falsely.
 

mottrain

Premiership Player
Suspended
Apr 21, 2014
3,826
1,703
AFL Club
Geelong
Because those same health issues don't affect the heterosexual community
Nowhere near the way in which they affect the heterosexual community for one in some instances and secondly some of the sexual stuff undertaken by gays and the environment in which exists is nowhere close to that of straight people.
 

Floor Pie

Cancelled
May 13, 2014
2,580
2,404
AFL Club
St Kilda
Nowhere near the way in which they affect the heterosexual community for one in some instances and secondly some of the sexual stuff undertaken by gays and the environment in which exists is nowhere close to that of straight people.
They eat da poo poo?
 
Nowhere near the way in which they affect the heterosexual community for one in some instances and secondly some of the sexual stuff undertaken by gays and the environment in which exists is nowhere close to that of straight people.
So we dismiss their right for same sex marriage because 'You; believe they engage in acts that increase the health risks for this group Care to back up these suppositions
 

GrandBlue

Norm Smith Medallist
May 18, 2008
9,328
1,794
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Being against gay-marriage does not make you homophobic; if that's what the Greens were trying to say, it just reinforces what a pack of lunatics they are.

Personally, I don't see the problem. I don't think they should have children however.
 

pokerspiv

Premiership Player
Jun 23, 2013
4,714
2,713
AFL Club
Fremantle
The fact that their sexual behaviours cause health issues.

So can drinking. That isn't banned, why should buttsex be?

Not that this has anything to do with marriage. They are already having sex. If anything, letting gay people get married will lead to better health outcomes rather than worse. Married people tend to be less promiscuous, so less chance of unsafe sex.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely it is related trying to say they are not is wrong. it is an argument of criticism constantly bought up against straight parents who have seperated and associated negative effects on the children the same as gay couples get criticised fir bringing up children without their opposing sex parent. It legitimises this negative act.
Yes. Straight parents, not straight married couples.

We're not talking about parents, parenting, or children, we are talking about marriage.
 

Bosun

Cancelled
Apr 10, 2007
3,632
2,104
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Spurs
whether they are mutually exclusive or not is irrelevant. Other marriage forms include sick religious extremists Muslims asking to allow marriage to juvenile brides.

You made it relevant!!! * me, you can't even get consistency in the basis of your own argument right.

It has effects on the child which they raise for starter secocondly it can be a source for other forms of marriage equality being raised.
 

DrKrieger

Club Legend
Jul 3, 2013
1,292
1,383
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Patriots, Miller, Williams
It has effects on the child which they raise for starter secocondly it can be a source for other forms of marriage equality being raised.
So given that gay couples can already adopt a child in about half the states in Australia, the first point is really irrelevant here. I mean, if they're already your parents, they're raising you, married or not.

Also, the "slippery slope" argument here is a logical fallacy. If gay marriage is a "gateway" to other forms of marriage (none of which would be legalized, either explicitly or implicitly, alongside gay marriage), then straight marriage is a "gateway" to gay marriage and should therefore be banned also.
The fact that their sexual behaviours cause health issues.
So straight males cannot perform anal sex acts? Straight people can't perform oral sex? Straight people cannot have STDs and go around clubbing and having unprotected sex with strangers?

Even if the falsity of the idea that "gay sex is dangerous and the only way to be safe is to be with the opposite gender" is ignored, they already have sex with each other, I don't think they're all wearing chastity belts waiting for marriage, most Christians don't even wait for marriage these days. Gay marriage will change nothing in this regard.
Being against gay-marriage does not make you homophobic; if that's what the Greens were trying to say, it just reinforces what a pack of lunatics they are.

Personally, I don't see the problem. I don't think they should have children however.
Out of curiosity, do you also think that single people shouldn't have children (be able to adopt etc)? What if someone is single and gay?

My opinion is worth exactly one vote in a national referendum, but I don't see how gay marriage being allowed/banned affects any person except for gay couples. I do, however, see it being banned as a blight on Australia, and frankly given that the government has banned discrimination against gay people by employers, I find it ludicrously hypocritical that they then discriminate against every single gay Australian as compared to simply not hiring one person for one job. It's going to be made legal soon, it's only a question of "when", not "if."
 

GrandBlue

Norm Smith Medallist
May 18, 2008
9,328
1,794
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur
Out of curiosity, do you also think that single people shouldn't have children (be able to adopt etc)? What if someone is single and gay?
It's all a tricky subject. Child Welfare is the most important factor, and if it was proven they'd be able to live a happy & healthy life, I wouldn't have any issues with them being raised by gay couples or single parents.

Problem is, I can envision a lot of problems for a child with gay parents, so it's a grey area for me. As for single parents, it depends on a lot of things, but provides there's a good healthy lifestyle, I think there's less of a problem.
 

MrCharisma

Club Legend
Jan 1, 2013
1,996
1,802
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
No.

Most medical practitioners engaging in best practice pretty much are aware that in certain classes of persons there are enhanced issues or risks of a medical nature. Hence they give advice that is different on account of suiting their situations.

For example you realise there is evidence pointing to the increased risks associated with amphetamine use and aids and that this practice is significantly higher per capita in male homosexuals than in other subsets. Next there is also the fact that there is statistical evidence pointing to the risky behaviour gay men engage in when compared to straight men which again actually places them at a much higher risk than a straight person of contracting diseases. Lastly there are also anal sex issues which are exacerbated (and the vast majority are experienced by gay males.) that also need noticeably increased and provided to homosexual males in much more prevalent manners than to straight females.

Medical advice is given dependent on the patients' personal history. A gay man doesn't walk into a doctor's office to be told 'you're gay, you have unsafe casual sex and you're addicted to ice.'
The patient in front of the doctor has either told the doctor that they have practiced unsafe casual sex or/and drug use or they haven't. Being gay or straight isn't the clincher that dramatically changes the general advice given, which in the case of casual sex is generally to tarp up and get tested regularly, and in regards to drugs it's to stop doing it. Yes, a doctor may inform a gay man practising unsafe sex of certain increased risks he has, but the general advice given is the same as the advice given to a straight man practising unsafe sex.
 

Bosun

Cancelled
Apr 10, 2007
3,632
2,104
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Spurs
No.

Most medical practitioners engaging in best practice pretty much are aware that in certain classes of persons there are enhanced issues or risks of a medical nature. Hence they give advice that is different on account of suiting their situations.

For example you realise there is evidence pointing to the increased risks associated with amphetamine use and aids and that this practice is significantly higher per capita in male homosexuals than in other subsets. Next there is also the fact that there is statistical evidence pointing to the risky behaviour gay men engage in when compared to straight men which again actually places them at a much higher risk than a straight person of contracting diseases. Lastly there are also anal sex issues which are exacerbated (and the vast majority are experienced by gay males.) that also need noticeably increased and provided to homosexual males in much more prevalent manners than to straight females.

Can you please provide this evidence? Especially on the increased use of amphetamines within the gay community that leads to to unsafe sex.......that is strictly defined to said community.
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,374
66,861
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I think you need to be comfortable with your own sexuality to admit that.

So do I. I think you could always tell who was either homophobic or not comfortable with their own sexuality when Rove asked them "who would you turn gay for". The people who were comfortable with their own sexuality had no problem answering the light hearted question.
 
Public opinion is shifting and sooner or later it will happen.

Until then, the ALP & Greens will use it to bash the Libs about it (although the ALP didn't exactly make any big moves on it when they were in charge....Not sure if that was because polls were against it, or so they can use it as a tool to bash the Libs).

My personal thought is that the government shouldn't control who can and can't get married. So long as those involved consent, what business is it of the government?
 
Back