• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

Hey, let's get married!

Not open for further replies.
Blank Verse said:
Is that you're way of saying you have no reply?
Not at all, it's my way of saying I have no time, but I do intend to reply.

"I pity you a lot."

Do you Robert? Why is that then?

"I pity you for your closed-minded arrogant view on how the world works and I hope that other people do not share your views."

Oh I see. I believe in what makes sense to me Robert. If 89% of HIV infections are being attributed to gay sex, I say "wow, there must be a reason for this". Whereas you say "well that's insignificant". Did you know, possibly by your so-called acceptance you are surely working to have AIDS spread even more among homosexuals? Less homosexually-active men means less HIV infections. If anyone's arrogant it's you.

"I'm very glad you do not live in the U.S., we have enough problems at it is, your lack of compassion and understanding for the humans is sad."

Personal attacks are out of order. What can you possibly achieve through them, honestly? You're the one venting hate, you're the one who's playing the victim and it's sickening.

"You really think you're the victim here, and that is what is worse."

Dude I'm no victim, I don't play the victim. If there's something that effects me I'm not going to throw up my arms and complain about it! I'm going to get involved in changing the situation. The exact opposite of what you've done here, and the exact opposite of what a victim would do.

I may not have said what you wanted to hear. But I have shown the inherent problems homosexuality poses in our society; I have shown it isn't natural and that it's associated with several negative social trends. You've done nothing to challenge these arguments, nor has anyone else here.

Oh and what on Earth prompted you to call me hateful? There is no possible way you can find anything I've said here in this thread to be hateful.

http://www.idoexist.com/ - Will you hear their voice?
Yeah, real smart. Simply by calling these arguments strawmen arguments, you have now created a strawman argument. Bravo.

I'd believe your arguments have substance when you provide references to them, and aren't some results achieved the same way phrenology was. You haven't even stated WHEN the sample was taken.
You do realize the irony in claiming you have made no personal attacks, when you are calling people "strawmen", right? Good on you.
By all means, please show us proof that 89% of all HIV infections are from homosexual sex. (The link you posted above only applies to Australia.)

You are doing nothing but throw around rhetoric, and that is what is making others call you hateful.
"You do realize the irony in claiming you have made no personal attacks, when you are calling people "strawmen", right?"

Dude, I'm calling the argument a strawman argument. The strawman is the person with no brain invented by those creating the argument. The entire point of calling an argument a strawman is to say to the author "I know you're smarter than that, don't answer to a strawman answer to me". How that is insulting I don't know.

"By all means, please show us proof that 89% of all HIV infections are from homosexual sex. (The link you posted above only applies to Australia.)"

And Australian infections are all I care about, and all I claimed they apply to. Seriously, if you want to look at the spread of HIV in Africa, where there's just as many women with AIDS as there are men (for instance) I would remind you of the huge difference in lifestyle and environment that results in this change. For instance, in Africa the main form of contraception is sodomy.

Again, I'm not here to manipulate facts - I'm here to report on the truth of the situation, based on an observation of the facts. I've not seen any of you pro-gays attempt to do this with your arguments. Earlier Mahoro said:
I'm sorry, but you really have no argument. These social problems can all be fixed, but given the government that we have, and people like you, it won't.

You can pull numbers all you want, the fact remains is that gay couples aren't the only ones that face these problems, but like Peo said, because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help. Ever think about it that way?
Notice the following:

1. He claims "these social problems can all be fixed", but has done nothing to back-up this claim; or to try and disprove a connection to homosexuality.

2. He then blames this on me, again with nothing to substantiate this claim.

3. He then notices that gay's aren't the only ones with these social problems. I say to him "well done", but that doesn't disprove a relationship there; as the magnitude we're talking about goes way beyond the scope of normal social trends.

4. He then has an assumptive-conclusion in a circular argument: "because of the way some people shun them, they are probably less likely to seek help" which makes sense only to him and his Strawman, but not to any person he's arguing against. And in fact I've shown this is not true before (not here). The exact same claim was once made (in America) about divorce - that "children would not be negatively affected by it if it was normalized" (well the actual claim was that because divorce was frowned upon that's why it had a negative effect on children). Now that it's happened it's become plainly obvious this was never true. Divorce has proven negative effects no matter how it is handled, regardless of whether the parents fight, regardless of whether the child thinks it's normal or not.

5. His argument is based on the assumption that he knows better than I do.

The entire argument is conjecture. Based on assumptions he's made himself, and not on the facts he knows to be true. He's done no research, he's not produced any claims with substance. His argument did not address any of my raised points, nor did anything he say challenge my claims.

That's why the argument is a strawman. He's produced a hollow argument that contains no proof, disproof or discussion of facts and the truth of the situation.

And one last edit, erm thing... Every major party agrees the Marriage is between a man and a woman. The majority of Australians also agree, the majority of Australians also think homosexuality is morally wrong.
Last edited:
Well, last I checked this argument has nothing to do with Australia.

Perhaps provide statistics for the world as a whole, instead of statistics you choose to make your point seem more credible.

This thread isn't about homosexuality in Australia, but instead about homosexuality in the entire world.
And here's another suggestion:
If you're not interested in the topic at hand, don't bother posting.
LOL! I was interested, but I'm just observing this petty bickering is turning what was a good topic and argument into a catty bitch fight. The topic at hand is really an off-topic verbal fist fight. 'Nuf said.
I wouldn't say it is off-topic, other than Meksilon trying to sway it entirely towards homosexuality in Australia.
jmiller said:
And here's another suggestion:
If you're not interested in the topic at hand, don't bother posting.
I do agree, but it's not my place or yours to tell people where they can and can't post. The fact of the matter is that I've shown the very high spread of HIV and other STI infections to be a characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle. The truth of the matter is that this is based against a standard first world society.

I'm not going to compare where environmental conditions are so radically different, like in Africa. I live in Australia, I love Australia and I know so much more about Australia than I do about other nations, that's why I look at Australia. There may be other countries in which gay sex makes up more than 90% of HIV infections. But as I said earlier, I know so much about Australia that I know exactly what it means, and have shown this.

89% of new infections, total infections 13,500ish in Australia. Total gay (men) population is around 1% of Australia's population. This is a bottle-neck, have you ever heard of 80:20 ratios? Where 80% of staff in large corporations earn 20% of the profit and vice versa? sometimes it's 90:10.

I don't want homosexuals to contract HIV, even if they are homosexually active. I wouldn't wish such an infection on anyone. It saddens me deeply that people can just sit by and not care. That people can put their so-called "acceptance" ahead of the well being of this group. we have a 1:90/99:10 ratio here. That's where 99% of our population make up 10% of new infections, and 1% of the population makes up 90% of new infections.

We already have so few HIV infections in Australia, and I for one would like to see it decrease to zero. This is achievable. But it's not if awareness that gay men are at the highest risk of infection isn't spread. I mean, where only .06% of our population has HIV, 6%-7% of gay men have HIV! Here, look at the surveys here:

http://nchsr.arts.unsw.edu.au/research projects/periodic.html

It's an excellent resource, one of the best I've encountered. ALL of the numbers, all of the stats do tally up correctly. They make perfect sense. They appear accurate compared to: census data, best estimates for the actual number of people who identify as gay, lesbian and bisexual, and other studies.

While it may not be "exactly" 6 or 7%, it does appear to be very close to this, and regardless it is an excellent ballpark to go off. For instance, Sydney is much higher in the 15% ballpark, which does seem excessively high. 6 or 7% agrees better with the rest of the information available, including the surveys in the rest of Australia.

This isn't off topic, it's discussing the truth of the situation.
So you're saying that due to the so-called homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals shouldn't be given the right to marry/raise a family?
I'm not telling anyone what to do, I'm merely making a suggestion, one that follows the forum rules.
tandoc said:
So you're saying that due to the so-called homosexual lifestyle, homosexuals shouldn't be given the right to marry/raise a family?
I'm saying that adoption is about children's rights, not about adults rights. That children aren't pawns to be used for political leverage. That children's rights come before ours. So do women's rights I believe come before men's rights. If a ship sinks women and children are the first to be given the life rafts. If we're invaded men are drafted to defend the women and children - their rights to safety and security come before our rights.

That's just the most basic level. As I said though, breaking it down as far as possible I believe children's rights come before adult's rights. This doesn't mean taking children away from their natural parents, unless it's necessary because it's in the child's best interests.

I'm not advocating taking away any rights. We all have equal rights. I'm not about withholding any rights either, rather upholding the rights I believe in. To "give" these so-called "rights" as you put them to everyone for the purposes of homosexual relationships breaches so many other fundamental rights. There's no balancing of rights - you can't tell me that homosexual couples deserve to have a right to adopt children if you believe that adoption should be in the child's best interests.

The most important thing for a child to be raised in a loving environment - this comes before the relationship status of the parents. But the relationship status is still hugely important for the child, and the proven best environment for a child to be raised in is with a mother and father who are Married to each other, and remain so until they die/child moves out.

Breaking this down further it's been proven children have distinct and separate needs for both a mother and a father. So even an unmarried mother and father would be a better choice than a single person or a homosexual couple. You can raise a child with only one parent, or with parents of the same sex; however there is a proven and unavoidable developmental gap as a result. If the government is given the burden of foster children, then it's their responsibility to respect these needs that the foster child has, and place the child with the best possible parents. To put the "rights" of adults before this is simply evil.

Therefore foster children should be placed with Married couples. We have so few adoptions in Australia this poses no problem. If it were some other country with too many foster children, I would suggest un-married men and women come before singles who come before homosexual couples. Even though un-married men and women who live together in a sexual relationship are living a lifestyle I disagree with, and singles are not - I know they are able to meet the needs of foster children better than singles (who are living a lifestyle I have no problem with).
So discrimination is up your alley?

Purely because a person/couple is homosexual, you automatically assume that they are worse as people and aren't worthy of raising another human being, or can't do it well? I wouldn't want you raising me, and my parents are devout (perhaps not as much as you) catholics.

Just because something can potentially happen, or is probable, doesn't mean it will.
So what you're saying is that you'd rather see children used as pawns, and their rights neglected so as not to "discriminate"? What I said I believe is that I don't think anyone should be allowed the right to adopt children, I think it's the foster child's right to be placed in the best possible environment for them. In Australia this has traditionally meant only Married couples can apply.

Need I remind you a majority of Australians believe homosexuality is wrong?
Last edited:
I never said that adoption was a right, but deciding the best people to raise a child shouldn't be simply decided by the couple's sexuality.

Need I remind you that you don't speak on behalf of all Australians.

Larger numbers doesn't make you right, it just makes it easier to apply pressure to whatever you want.
Last edited:
tandoc said:
I never said that adoption was a right, but deciding the best people to raise a child shouldn't be simply decided by the couple's sexuality.
Well again, I don't really believe in different sexualities. I believe in true sexuality, and that's it. Anything that differs from it is a flawed, deviant sexuality. If the relationship status of the parents has been shown to be important to the child's best interests (which it has) - why would you be against deciding due to the couples relationship status?
I'm against it since it isn't the only factor that affects the child's best interests. There isn't always one way to do something correctly.

And with that, I leave the thread, I'm simply bored of arguing with a rock.
Not open for further replies.