The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LCohen]

I think some arguments centre around the basic definition and boundaries of marriage and they feel it's outside the boundaries of it due to inability to have family, outside adoption, etc.

The whole thing ceentres around the basic definition of marriage. But the link to having children is a complete red herring. Afterall there is no current prohibition on hetrosexual couples who cannot or do not want to have childre, from getting married.

Not everyone who opposes it is homophobic. There are quite a few good examples of homophobia on this thread but i think there is one in the no camp here who isn't that and is being grouped with everyone else...

Please point me to the non-homophobic reasons for voting No.

[topcuppla]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

[LCohen]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?

[armaghniac]

Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.

I don't agree with any of these contentions. God is not involved in civil law, many gays are good to children and whether homosexuality occurs in nature is neither here nor there.

[topcuppla]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?

That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.

[LCohen]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?

That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.

You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.

[The Boy Wonder]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

[LCohen]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")

[topcuppla]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?

That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.

You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.

Truly pathetic, people have opinions and beliefs, you are say ANYONE who does not believe in gay marriage is homophobic.  People aren't allowed to question your beliefs but you can trample theirs by branding ANYONE who does not conform to your way of thinking homophobic, you are a lovely boy.

[topcuppla]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")

1) Why do you  believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")

[LCohen]

Truly pathetic, the homophobic card  has to be the most played card in modern society, that is the reason the polls all point to a resounding yes people are scared by gay right activists like yourself branding them homophobic by daring to question the issue of same sex marriage.  Come polling day the result will be a lot closer than the polls show.

Just point me to the non-homophobic argument for voting No then?

That sums it up anyone who dares question any part of it is homophobic in your eyes, truly pathetic.

You cannot really expect to get away with that. You contend that there are arguments for voting No and these arguments are not homophobic. I merely request that you point these arguments out anew or point out where they have been detailed before. That is the nature of debate.

Truly pathetic, people have opinions and beliefs, you are say ANYONE who does not believe in gay marriage is homophobic.  People aren't allowed to question your beliefs but you can trample theirs by branding ANYONE who does not conform to your way of thinking homophobic, you are a lovely boy.

I say that I have not heard a non-homophobic argument for voting No. I keep inviting you to post or direct me to an argument that is not homphobic. That is all you have to do.

[LCohen]

Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.

I don't agree with any of these contentions. God is not involved in civil law, many gays are good to children and whether homosexuality occurs in nature is neither here nor there.

That is good that you don't agree with those 3 points. Are you aware of any other arguments for voting No?

[topcuppla]

Religious belief is one.

[LCohen]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")

1) Why do you  believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")

Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.

[LCohen]

Religious belief is one.

Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it