• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Gay Marriage, do you support it?

Do you support Gay Marriage?

  • Total voters
    31
bozodos said:
I'd say the onus is on the poofs who claim that it's genetic to prove that it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think gay people care about proving whether it's genetic or not. It's a bit like people saying why aren't Muslims decrying radicalism. There is no moral onus on anyone to prove something solely for the satisfaction of close minded reactionaries.
 
bozodos said:
If you're born a man or a woman, that's what you are. Having your body mutilated to imitate being the opposite gender doesn't make you that.
Click to expand...

You do realise that for most trans-gender people it is about having the physical appearance match what they already feel they are inside?
It is not about imitating the opposite sex, it is about rectifying the incongruity between the physical and mental.
 
Nice... like that word. Incongruity.

Will be stealing bro ;)

btw - I used to wear my mums dresses for laughs up until I was around 12.

Actually quite free and liberating.
 
@vonfram88; I won't hijack your log. Some aspects of your argument I can appreciate, don't necessarily agree with but can appreciate. You raise the hierarchy of needs; if you subscribe to Maslow's theory the treatment of Gay people as a separate social entity, refusing them the right to marriage and so on negatively impacts every level of the hierarchy of needs save physiological.

450px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png


You have raised the issue of minors having no sexual identity. I think it is generally accepted that peoples sexual identity is well developed before they are legally 'of age'. An arbitrary number is of no relevance. Given the current accessibility of information to minors through the internet etc it could be argued that sexual identity is something that is developing at a younger age than ever before, for better or worse.

It's worth considering that, given homosexuality is as old as humanity, there likely always were 'minors' that felt attracted to the same sex, rather than it being a recent invention or by-product of the LGBT movement. It is only in recent years that awareness has increased and young people are not subject to the same level of homophobia, and actually have various channels of support available to them. This may be a factor in the perceived proliferation of minors who identify as Gay.

Interestingly, it's probably a safe assumption that the membership here is probably a bit more conservative in regards to gay rights than much of society in general, yet the poll up the top still reads 56% in favour of supporting gay marriage rights. Not exactly a huge sample size and I don't think anyone's going to quote 'the poll on AusBB' when making a case to parliament for allowing Gay marriage, but food for thought nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Repacked said:
@vonfram88; I won't hijack your log. Some aspects of your argument I can appreciate, don't necessarily agree with but can appreciate. You raise the hierarchy of needs; if you subscribe to Maslow's theory the treatment of Gay people as a separate social entity, refusing them the right to marriage and so on negatively impacts every level of the hierarchy of needs save physiological.

450px-MaslowsHierarchyOfNeeds.svg.png


You have raised the issue of minors having no sexual identity. I think it is generally accepted that peoples sexual identity is well developed before they are legally 'of age'. An arbitrary number is of no relevance. Given the current accessibility of information to minors through the internet etc it could be argued that sexual identity is something that is developing at a younger age than ever before, for better or worse.

It's worth considering that, given homosexuality is as old as humanity, there likely always were 'minors' that felt attracted to the same sex, rather than it being a recent invention or by-product of the LGBT movement. It is only in recent years that awareness has increased and young people are not subject to the same level of homophobia, and actually have various channels of support available to them. This may be a factor in the perceived proliferation of minors who identify as Gay.

Interestingly, it's probably a safe assumption that the membership here is probably a bit more conservative in regards to gay rights than much of society in general, yet the poll up the top still reads 56% in favour of supporting gay marriage rights. Not exactly a huge sample size and I don't think anyone's going to quote 'the poll on AusBB' when making a case to parliament for allowing Gay marriage, but food for thought nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Interesting and strangely civil response.

Looking at the Maslovian hierarchy you have depicted;

Homosexuals enjoy very high levels of personal safety in Australia and are afforded protection from violence and hateful discrimination by the law - a gay is more safe today than at anytime in the nations history.

Love and belonging doesn't seem to be a function of marital status. Many heterosexuals don't marry these days. There's nothing stopping gays from loving each other and their own fraternity seems pretty cohesive with a real sense of belonging.

Esteem is up to the individual. If someone perceives they are held in low esteem by others and has low self esteem, how is the instrument of marriage going to fix that?

Self actualisation - everyone is free to pack fudge or munch the rug. Without being prudish, I don't think many of us care to see that flaunted in public nor does it seem sensible to run advertising campaigns about a small minorities' alternative way of life.

On the issue of minors;

the Laws of this land do not give Minors a sexual identity and that is to protect them. If we relax this standard, we are heading into dangerous territory indeed. Decisions on sexuality and many other adult concepts are for adults to decide. Minors do experiment and discover things about themselves and it is silly to deny that but ultimately any decisions about ones sexuality are for the mature person to decide. If we project adult sexuality unto minors, how low do we set the bar? Man Boy Love Society would love that.

As for a proliferation of minors identifying as gay which does seem to be happening at greater rates than for the older demographics; if minors were mature enough to make such decisions then I think the rates would mirror those of the adults. Perhaps some of the "outing" by minors has no more traction than their transient obsession with One Direction or Justin Beiber.
 
vonfram88 said:
The last census shows that, nationwide, 0.6% of the population live in same sex relationships. [...]

Why should I accept any amendment to the Marriage Act to cater for such an extreme, infinitesimal minority?
Click to expand...
0.6% of 23 million people is 138,000 people. Arithmetic, son, try it some time, could be useful. They're far from "infinitesimal." As for "extreme"... not really. It's just whether you like to put your bits in a consenting adult of the same gender or a different one. It's not like they're furries or something. They're just doing what every AFL player does but taking it a step further.

You need some argument better than "I don't like poofters much." There are lots of people I don't like, but I still believe they should have human rights, among which the right to make promises and have those promises recognised by the law.
 
Kyle Aaron said:
0.6% of 23 million people is 138,000 people. Arithmetic, son, try it some time, could be useful. They're far from "infinitesimal." As for "extreme"... not really. It's just whether you like to put your bits in a consenting adult of the same gender or a different one. It's not like they're furries or something. They're just doing what every AFL player does but taking it a step further.

You need some argument better than "I don't like poofters much." There are lots of people I don't like, but I still believe they should have human rights, among which the right to make promises and have those promises recognised by the law.
Click to expand...

That figure of 0.6% includes the 15-25 demographic, a significant portion of whom are minors and therefore exempt from the whole marriage amendment argument. Of the remainder who have registered as living in a same sex relationship, not all would seek to be married, just as many Hetero couples don't seek marriage.

so the numbers are more likely fewer than 80,000 who may wish see their marriage recognised via amendment to the Act. That's an outer orbital electron compared to the nucleus of Australian society.
 
if you live together, whats the adv of being married?

its to take adv of the tax and other systems, thats it.


nobody is stopping anyone from living together...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top