Quake3World

Massive Quasars wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:Well it's an embodiment which I don't see school children taking on, nor do I believe they will be capable of taking on for a very long time, if ever at all.

So you're claiming that even if society was openly accepting of homosexuality, children would still act in a hostile fashion towards homosexuality?

More importantly, where is the support for these claims?

It's a difficult belief to back up with evidence. I don't think there are many reports being done on the treatment of children of homoseuxal male couples at school over a 12 year period.

So it's basically down to you being a fag-hater?

Law wrote:More so that society will never reach such a level of acceptance.

Sounds like something i imagine your avarage white person would have said a 100 years ago in regards to the position of black people in society.

Grudge wrote:So it's basically down to you being a fag-hater?

Maybe you should bother reading the thread.

Ryoki wrote:

Law wrote:More so that society will never reach such a level of acceptance.

Sounds like something i imagine your avarage white person would have said a 100 years ago in regards to the position of black people in society.

Sounds like the comparison a person who believes in an ideal world would make instead of facing the realities of society.

Law wrote: It's a difficult belief to back up with evidence. I don't think there are many reports being done on the treatment of children of homoseuxal male couples at school over a 12 year period.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for more.

In the other thread, you worried that establishing a Bill of Rights would actually serve to narrow the rights of citizens and here you go on to argue in favoring of limiting the rights of certain individuals based of their orientation and the sex of their partner(s). In and of itself I wouldn't reject the argument outright but you'll need to do better than appealing to your largely unsubstantiated feelings and beliefs in order to sway us.

Massive Quasars wrote:

Law wrote: It's a difficult belief to back up with evidence. I don't think there are many reports being done on the treatment of children of homoseuxal male couples at school over a 12 year period.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for more.

In the other thread, you worried that establishing a Bill of Rights would actually serve to narrow the rights of citizens and here you go on to argue in favoring of limiting the rights of certain individuals based of their orientation and the sex of their partners. In and of itself I wouldn't reject the argument outright but you'll need to do better than appealing to your largely unsubstantiated feelings and beliefs in order to sway us in favour of narrow rights in this area.

I only argued that a bill of rights was unneccassary for Australia as I feel rights here are sufficiently represented by common law. It's just a few people went off on tangents about the whole limitation of rights which was simply one concept I put forward, and I replied in like.

I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

I'm really not trying to sway anyone of their beliefs, I just enjoy the discussion and other opinions. I never subscribe to the "you don't agree with me therefore you're wrong" train of thought.

There has been a lot of interesting and thought provoking posts provided in this topic which I will take with me and consider.

Law wrote:

Grudge wrote:So it's basically down to you being a fag-hater?

Maybe you should bother reading the thread.

But that's what your position boils down to isn't it?

You think it's wrong for same sex couples to have kids because you believe there's instinctive non-acceptance towards this in people, and you feel strongly that this cannot ever be changed, amirite?

I think you're projecting your own personal feelings about this on society as a whole - as well as conveniently ignoring historic examples of how culture evolves.

you would actually think theyd be more tolerant towards gays because they were raised around gay people. thats hardly "psychological damage" innit

Law wrote: I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

Thread title: Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?
You: My answer is no.

I'm really not trying to sway anyone of their beliefs, I just enjoy the discussion and other opinions. I never subscribe to the "you don't agree with me therefore you're wrong" train of thought.

That's not how I approached this thread.

Ryoki wrote:

Law wrote:

Grudge wrote:So it's basically down to you being a fag-hater?

Maybe you should bother reading the thread.

But that's what your position boils down to isn't it?

You think it's wrong for same sex couples to have kids because you believe there's instinctive non-acceptance towards this in people, and you feel strongly that this cannot ever be changed, amirite?

I think you're projecting your own personal feelings about this on society as a whole - as well as conveniently ignoring historic examples of how culture evolves.

You're completely incorrect in your assumptions.

Massive Quasars wrote:

Law wrote: I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

Thread title: Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?
You: My answer is no.

I'm really not trying to sway anyone of their beliefs, I just enjoy the discussion and other opinions. I never subscribe to the "you don't agree with me therefore you're wrong" train of thought.

That's not how I approached this thread.

And if you read what I say, my point is that gay male couples should not be allowed to adopt children for a reason other than the fact that they are gay.

Law wrote:You're completely incorrect in your assumptions.

No u

Thought provoking.

Law wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:

Law wrote: I'm not argueing on limiting the rights of certain individuals because of their particular sexual preference, I'm argueing that their preference will lead to irreversible psychological damage inflicted from another section of society as a result of this.

Thread title: Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?
You: My answer is no.

I'm really not trying to sway anyone of their beliefs, I just enjoy the discussion and other opinions. I never subscribe to the "you don't agree with me therefore you're wrong" train of thought.

That's not how I approached this thread.

And if you read what I say, my point is that gay male couples should not be allowed to adopt children for a reason other than the fact that they are gay.

I read the thread in it's entirety, and it's true that you did not draw a necessary link between gay parenthood and problematic childhood development, but the effect is the same if prescribed against in law.

Regardless, that's beside the point because I never claimed that you drew this necessary link.

Massive Quasars wrote:Thread title: Should gay men be able to legally adopt children?
You: My answer is no.

I thought you insinuated it by posting this. Nevertheless, if it's not what you believe there's no further discussion required on the point.

"Australia is not in need of a Bill of Rights because human rights here are already adequately protected by common law."




tell that to your average Aborigine and they would spear you.

That was the first line of your first post, I wasn't paraphrasing.

edit: directed @ Law

busetibi wrote:"Australia is not in need of a Bill of Rights because human rights here are already adequately protected by common law."




tell that to your average Aborigine and they would spear you.

It might interest you to know that I'm doing an essay right now on how to improve the A.C.T. Bill of Rights, and I'm basing it on the inclusion of Indigenous Rights, using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and The Treaty of Waitangi as my examples.

Puff can troll with the best of them, but you may want to consider his point from the other thread regarding the non-restrictive use of a Bill of Rights to guarantee certain rights without restricting others that go unstated or undefined.

Law wrote:More so that society will never reach such a level of acceptance.

Ok so this is an entirely different aspect of the discussion. For now I'd like to focus on the argument that maturity is a necessary condition for acceptance of homosexuality.

Can you please address this?

can't wait to read it.

my comment still stands

edit: @Law

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Law wrote:More so that society will never reach such a level of acceptance.

Ok so this is an entirely different aspect of the discussion. For now I'd like to focus on the argument that maturity is a necessary condition for acceptance of homosexuality.

Can you please address this?

There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

busetibi wrote:can't wait to read it.

my comment still stands

edit: @Law

Your comment can still stand, as I agree with you as far as Indigenous Rights are concerned.

Law wrote: There's not much I can say other than that of my belief that the vast majority of children will not accept homosexuality until they reach a mature age, and even then a large portion will still not accept it.

IE you believe non-acceptance of homosexuality is instinctive, not culture bound.