Support NeoGAF

[Linconan]

You seem nice

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Why?

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
.

lmao

 

[MooseKnuckles]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

It isn't altering a union between a man and a woman though? Men and women will still be more than welcome to get married if they so desire.

Also it is unfair to characterise the reasoning behind the push for marriage equality as 'a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.' This is an intellectually lazy appeal to the status quo that offers no explanation as to why changing the definition of marriage would have any detrimental effects on individuals or society as a whole.

No one is 'instantly targeting the youth,' there just happens to be very widespread support for marriage equality in younger demographics. And the issue has been put to a national vote, so of course different groups are going to try and sway public opinion. I don't really understand how either of those points give any reasoning for voting No.

How is it 'unnatural'? And is the 'act' you're referring to gay marriage, or homosexual behaviour generally? Because marriage as a whole is a social construct, and homosexual behaviour is clearly understood to be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

You're not upsetting me, I just haven't come across a No voter in my social circles and was wondering what your reasoning is. I personally haven't heard a single argument for the No vote that stands up to any measure of intellectual rigor, so I suppose I was just curious.

 

[farmerboy]

lmao

Get ready for a bigger laugh

Spoiler

I know a gay man who voted no who told me anecdotally that others in his circle had done the same.

Not all opinions counter to yours are lmao worthy.

 

[munchie64]

Get ready for a bigger laugh

Spoiler

I know a gay man who voted no who told me anecdotally that others in his circle had done the same.

Not all opinions counter to yours are lmao worthy.

I'd say that even more laugh-worthy tbh.

I mean, it's sad too, that a minority would go against his own like that but I'd assume the logic behind his reasoning is pretty barebones.

 

[tali'zorah84]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

My opinion is that you're an ugly fucking homophobe.

Just my view and opinion tho

 

[Zzzonked]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

Haha what the fuck. How do two men or women getting married impact your life in any way? Sheesh.

 

[Nrocinu777]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

A growing fad? da fuck.

 

[Jintor]

appeal to nature is a terrible argument.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Get ready for a bigger laugh

Spoiler

I know a gay man who voted no who told me anecdotally that others in his circle had done the same.

Not all opinions counter to yours are lmao worthy.

rotflmao

 

[Walshicus]

It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

There are untold examples of homosexuality in nature, but by contrast you're typing that on a computer or phone, probably wearing clothing and eating food with a large degree of modification, living in a house, using electricity, machinery...

If nature is the metre stick you're using don't be surprised if people call you out as a huge bloody hypocrite. I'm sure you can come up with a more honest excuse.

 

[farmerboy]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Walshicus]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

I think it's different in that there is clearly only one morally justified outcome. You wouldn't expect decent people to respect a vote that made interracial marriage illegal, would you?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

I didn't actually ask for this display of political cowardice so I'm not bound to respect it, this was entirely a creation of the Liberal and National Parties for base political purposes so they are. That's not hypocritical.

 

[Jintor]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

I don't really respect any vote that comes out of this since the process is total garbage anyway, at least on the numbers side. The closest this would give is a general eyeball.

Also as above.

 

[farmerboy]

I didn't actually ask for this display of political cowardice so I'm not bound to respect it, this was entirely a creation of the Liberal and National Parties for base political purposes so they are. That's not hypocritical.

But the question is being asked of your contemporaries, not of the politicians.

For the record I voted yes.

 

[MooseKnuckles]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

I would argue that it's a different situation, because the Liberals are the one's who proposed and pushed for the plebiscite/survey in the first place. So I find the far right faction laying the groundwork for obstruction on the basis of 'religious freedom' particularly galling. This process was always a transparent attempt to deflect responsibility on an issue that has had clear public support for years, because taking action would upset certain elements of the Liberals base.

So that's a roundabout way of saying no, I personally wouldn't respect a No vote because there is no valid reasoning against marriage equality and the survey itself is a colossal waste of time and money borne out of political cowardice. I don't think equal rights should be up for debate, even if a minority of Australian's supported it, it would still be the right thing to do.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

But the question is being asked of your contemporaries, not of the politicians.

For the record I voted yes.

I didn't actually ask for this display of political cowardice so I'm not bound to respect it, this was entirely a creation of the Liberal and National Parties for base political purposes so they are. That's not hypocritical.

 

[farmerboy]

A resounding yes vote takes the breath away from opposers and gives the Libs (who have the more conservative base) the confidence to push through with the right legislation.

I actually think this way would be less of a shit fight.

 

[cheezcake]

Don't you guys know being gay is hip

 

[Sutton Dagger]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

Why would I respect an opinion based on the naturalistic fallacy, religious dogma or ignorance regarding the history of marriage.

This isn't a moral dilemma, you either support equality or you don't. I'd have the same respect for people opposing the marriage between different races, ie zero respect.

 

[Aarglefarg]

But the question is being asked of your contemporaries, not of the politicians.

For the record I voted yes.

Respecting a push against equality is not morally equivalent to respecting a push towards equality.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Voted No,
and will never support it.

The result of democracy may at times be misguided, inconsistent or wrong-headed because the people themselves are often wrong, but we must always remember that it is the only way we have of conferring legitimacy upon our leaders that does not involve mystical pleading, or worse, outright violence.

I hope this is a comfort to you as the world changes around you.

For the better, I might add.

 

[Ventrue]

Cheers mate, i'd like to think so.....

Because i don't believe a union between a Man and a Woman should be altered and the principles changed, just because, of a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.
As well as instantly targeting the youth to push agendas and/or sway public opinion.
It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

Sorry, if my post upsets anyone. Just my View and Opinion on where i stand
.

It's not natural for the races to mix. I don't think the holy union of marriage should be altered just because of all this hippy stuff, challenging authority just for the sake of it. They need to respect our traditions.

 

[Yagharek]

appeal to nature is a terrible argument.

Especially when homosexual pairing is common throughout nature.

 

[Linconan]

It isn't altering a union between a man and a woman though? Men and women will still be more than welcome to get married if they so desire.

Also it is unfair to characterise the reasoning behind the push for marriage equality as 'a growing fad to challenge everything in this day and age.' This is an intellectually lazy appeal to the status quo that offers no explanation as to why changing the definition of marriage would have any detrimental effects on individuals or society as a whole.

No one is 'instantly targeting the youth,' there just happens to be very widespread support for marriage equality in younger demographics. And the issue has been put to a national vote, so of course different groups are going to try and sway public opinion. I don't really understand how either of those points give any reasoning for voting No.

How is it 'unnatural'? And is the 'act' you're referring to gay marriage, or homosexual behaviour generally? Because marriage as a whole is a social construct, and homosexual behaviour is clearly understood to be a naturally occurring phenomenon.

You're not upsetting me, I just haven't come across a No voter in my social circles and was wondering what your reasoning is. I personally haven't heard a single argument for the No vote that stands up to any measure of intellectual rigor, so I suppose I was just curious.

(Generally speaking)

Firstly.. It is altering the Marriage Act if it is accepted. If it is changed to include something that by definition, does not included. Then it is Altering.

Secoundly.. The "Fad" comment is obviously my opinion for current trends which can be seen in Companies, Film and Music etc, for Propaganda and to push Agendas.
As well as an affect that will be inflicted alot more if making it legal/supported. Consequences and Cause and Effect,
with Discrimination and Freedom of Speech, Education and Schooling, Law and Governments, Religion and Churches.

Thirdly. It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.
Nature does not (reproduction speaking).
Marriage, regardless of belief and/or justification,
has always be defined by a Man and a Woman imo. And hence, why i won't support it.
(Marriage standpoint only)

Defacto relationship, is what Homosexuality classed as. And should stay classed as, if needed to be accepted from Governments pov.
Anything other (imo) has a hidden clause to individual/s agenda/s.

My opinion of course, and just something i won't ever be supporting.
I'm not got to be fishing or justifying all my reasoning in a post/s so I won't be expressing/debating/arguing back n forth with this topic.

My apologies again if my views aren't shared.

 

[Novocaine]

Sheesh, for all the talk about about the Liberals "respecting" a yes vote, I ask, would you respect a no vote?

Be honest, even if it means your answer makes you a hypocrite.

My parents voted no because they believe god doesn’t want it. Me and my sister voted yes so that’s cancels their votes out pretty much. I don’t think I respect their no vote but religion has gotten them through some hard times so I’m cutting them a little slack. It’s still disappointing that they’re voting against equality but their reasons aren't as horrible as some I’ve heard. Like one of the people I work with who thinks “all poofs should be shot in the head”.

 

[Ventrue]

Thirdly. It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.
Nature does not (reproduction speaking).

Catching the bus is an unnatural act. Watching TV is unnatural. Playing tennis is unnatural.

Nature does not (reproduction speaking).

Oh, and let's not forget oral sex. Or using a condom. It's unnatural -- there's no reproduction. I hope you've never engaged in something so sinful and wrong.

 

[tali'zorah84]

I'm not got to be fishing or justifying all my reasoning in a post/s so I won't be expressing/debating/arguing back n forth with this topic.

Why? Because you know you're wrong?

Just say you don't want me to have equal rights and go, fuckhead. You're doing an awful lot for someone who's "not here to argue" and "won't be going back and forth".

 

[Prototype Viktor]

lmao

just look at their avatar. they must turn heavy blinders on and ignore that DLC exist (and Part 2)

 

[Deleted member 30609]

.

 

[Inukage]

(Generally speaking)

Thirdly. It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.
Nature does not (reproduction speaking).
Marriage, regardless of belief and/or justification,
has always be defined by a two Man and a Woman imo. And hence, why i won't support it.
(Marriage standpoint only)

Oh mate, how can you even justify this post, I feel sorry for your bigot opinion....believe it or not most of the world before the Catholic regime believed acts between two Women and Men were completely normal, go have read up on it.

Plus the act is common between all species in Nature, how more "natural" can it get lol.

 

[Linconan]

Why? Because you know you're wrong?

Just say you don't want me to have equal rights and go, fuckhead. You're doing an awful lot for someone who's "not here to argue" and "won't be going back and forth".

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

 

[Sutton Dagger]

(Generally speaking)

Firstly.. It is altering the Marriage Act if it is accepted. If it is changed to include something that by definition, does not included. Then it is Altering.

Secoundly.. The "Fad" comment is obviously my opinion for current trends which can be seen in Companies, Film and Music etc, for Propaganda and to push Agendas.
As well as an affect that will be inflicted alot more if making it legal/supported. Consequences and Cause and Effect,
with Discrimination and Freedom of Speech, Education and Schooling, Law and Governments, Religion and Churches.

Thirdly. It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.
Nature does not (reproduction speaking).
Marriage, regardless of belief and/or justification,
has always be defined by a Man and a Woman imo. And hence, why i won't support it.
(Marriage standpoint only)

Defacto relationship, is what Homosexuality classed as. And should stay classed as, if needed to be accepted from Governments pov.
Anything other (imo) has a hidden clause to individual/s agenda/s.

My opinion of course, and just something i won't ever be supporting.
I'm not got to be fishing or justifying all my reasoning in a post/s so I won't be expressing/debating/arguing back n forth with this topic.

My apologies again if my views aren't shared.

1: The marriage act has been changed many times in Australia, most recently under John Howard. What's the issue with another change. We can't change the act because it's some sacred, unaltered law is demonstrably false.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/croomemarriage/2778326

I wouldn't have been able to marry my wife in the 1930's because she's Aboriginal. Do you also oppose mixed raced marriage because they needed to change the marriage act to allow that.

2: We live in a society where religious imagery and ideas are constantly rammed down our throats. The bigots promoting hatred don't also have an agenda? The agenda is to let people have equality in terms of the law in regards to marriage. Things are changing sunshine, the old ways of promoting hatred disguised through religion is on the way out.

3: there is no such thing as traditional marriage. Marriage has changed throughout the centuries, just because you put an arbitrary stopping point where you have doesn't bolster your viewpoint.

Thankfully it looks like the people of Australia are turning their backs on 'traditional ' ie bigoted ideas about what marriage should be.

 

[Prototype Viktor]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

if they are triggered and not you then i'd hate to see you triggered

Spoiler

only using triggered b/c you use it

 

[Antiwhippy]

You do know that homosexuality does happen in nature with other species too right.

And that marriage is a law of man and not actually a law of nature.

 

[munchie64]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

People get "triggered" (wtf?) because you're dehumanising an entire group of people and are proud of it for some reason.

 

[MooseKnuckles]

(Generally speaking)

Firstly.. It is altering the Marriage Act if it is accepted. If it is changed to include something that by definition, does not included. Then it is Altering.

Secoundly.. The "Fad" comment is obviously my opinion for current trends which can be seen in Companies, Film and Music etc, for Propaganda and to push Agendas.
As well as an affect that will be inflicted alot more if making it legal/supported. Consequences and Cause and Effect,
with Discrimination and Freedom of Speech, Education and Schooling, Law and Governments, Religion and Churches.

Thirdly. It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.
Nature does not (reproduction speaking).
Marriage, regardless of belief and/or justification,
has always be defined by a Man and a Woman imo. And hence, why i won't support it.
(Marriage standpoint only)

Defacto relationship, is what Homosexuality classed as. And should stay classed as, if needed to be accepted from Governments pov.
Anything other (imo) has a hidden clause to individual/s agenda/s.

My opinion of course, and just something i won't ever be supporting.
I'm not got to be fishing or justifying all my reasoning in a post/s so I won't be expressing/debating/arguing back n forth with this topic.

My apologies again if my views aren't shared.

Saying 'apologies if my views aren't shared' is just a way of giving a veneer of politeness to a post that has some pretty gross stuff within it. Mainly this bit;

It is an Un-natural act. People can try and justify their reasoning to do acts if only to justify's their own actions.

To deem it an 'unnatural act' you have to basically ignore all psychological understanding of human sexual behaviour and preference. It stigmatises homosexual behaviour as an aberration when it is not.

I would go through your post in it's entirety but apparently you're not here to 'go back and forth,' so that would be a waste of my time. But for a final point, saying 'it's my opinion' doesn't shield you from criticism if your opinions are poorly argued, barely justified and offensive.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

Opinion.
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

I'm not sure why you stating that it's an opinion is supposed to be some 'get out of jail free card ' for saying stupid things? You can have an opinion, but we are also allowed to point out that it's not based on fact or knowledge and is bigoted.

 

[hirokazu]

It's an un-natural act and i don't support it.

I was gonna ignore your comments, but this is fucking hilarious. So here goes:

Which act is unnatural? The act of marriage? Damn right, I’ve never seen any animals getting up and deciding to get married. We should just abolish marriage completely then.

Or... you mean homosexuality? Go read some scientific papers on that one, mate. 😂

 

[tali'zorah84]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

 

[krioto]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

I hope one day you can find it within yourself to allow those different from you to share your rights.

I'm not gay, don't have any gay friends etc, but who am i to vote no? Why be a party to hate? Life is too short to spend it trying to keep others down.

 

[hirokazu]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

Maybe if you put yourself in tali's shoes you’d understand why they’d feel anguished by your comments. You “opinion” has a material effect on their rights and their life. They have every right to be angry at the views that you hold.

 

[Dr.Phibes]

I really hate it when discriminated groups want equal rights...

 

[Bernbaum]

Especially when homosexual pairing is common throughout nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeIna1LZHQ4

 

[Roulette]

No voters vote no because they don't want to see two dudes making out. It's not a religious thing. It's not a "Marriage Act" thing. It's not because it's against nature, or to protect the kids, or any other bullshit, made up justifications for homophobia.

It's because "any guy touches my hand in a pub and I'll smash his face" fuckwittedness is still rampant.

Just be honest, dude. Just say "guys holding hands makes me feel icky". Anything else besides that and you're fooling no one, least of all yourself.

 

[SMOK3Y]

I know alot of people voting no which was surprising for me they say they have to because of the wording they are fine with same sex getting legally commited but are not comfortable with the fact that churches will have to do it or probably be sued if they don't want to as they still see the church thing as man to woman.

 

[Walshicus]

No. But because this very reason like your post of people getting triggered and act all pissy.
It's my opinion, that's why. Just like you and others having theirs.
Hypocrite

The difference is we can justify our opinions. You don't seem to be able to, outside of a dubious call to what you think is 'natural'. And even then you ignore the very real criticisms of your position that point out countless instances of homosexual behaviour in 'nature' or the fact that your life like everyone else's is fundamentally unnatural.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I know alot of people voting no which was surprising for me they say they have to because of the wording they are fine with same sex getting legally commited but are not comfortable with the fact that churches will have to do it or probably be sued if they don't want to as they still see the church thing as man to woman.

I mean this should be surprising because no one has proposed that legislatively, Churches will unquestionably be able to refuse to perform SSM if it violates their doctrine. It's pretty likely the exemption will even extend to religious civil celebrants who were registered as celebrants before the bill is passed (Dean Smith's bill which is relatively uncontroversial created a new category of civil celebrant for this purpose)

 

[SMOK3Y]

I mean this should be surprising because no one has proposed that legislatively, Churches will unquestionably be able to refuse to perform SSM if it violates their doctrine. It's pretty likely the exemption will even extend to religious civil celebrants who were registered as celebrants before the bill is passed (Dean Smith's bill which is relatively uncontroversial created a new category of civil celebrant for this purpose)

They know this.. but once churches start saying no equal rights/discrimination will come up again in their opinions.