The Turnbull Government

[Tisme]

As the post by Smurf indicates for most marriage no longer has those theological meanings. Slavery to was a tradition at some point that people thought they had a right to.



And this dribble is part of the reason so many gays kill themselves. There is no scientific evidence that being gay is a choice as you suggest. https://www.livescience.com/50058-being-gay-not-a-choice.html

More drivel my son. If you took the time to actually research the subject you would know I am 100% correct.

 

[overhang]

More drivel my son. If you took the time to actually research the subject you would know I am 100% correct.

The whole science community looks forward to you peer reviewed paper into your groundbreaking discovery. Not sure how the science community has had it wrong for so long. Unless of course you don't actually have proof.

 

[Tisme]

The whole science community looks forward to you peer reviewed paper into your groundbreaking discovery. Not sure how the science community has had it wrong for so long. Unless of course you don't actually have proof.

Nonsense you don't talk for the scientific community. There are many scientific, peer reviewed papers that all say the same thing:

1) there is NO genetic proof of homosexuality
2) there is NO congenital proof of homosexuality

I'm sure you have all the right reasons for your your crusade, but the truth is the truth and you cannot and will not find any facts to the contrary of my statement. You can suppose anything and you can try to use presumptive axioms as a basis of proof, but that premise is wrong.

Honestly, although I'm obviously rattling chains, the truth is what I'm saying. This is why the whole plebiscite debate is a conscience one, rather than an anatomical one.

 

[overhang]

Nonsense you don't talk for the scientific community. There are many scientific, peer reviewed papers that all say the same thing:

1) there is NO genetic proof of homosexuality
2) there is NO congenital proof of homosexuality

I'm sure you have all the right reasons for your your crusade, but the truth is the truth and you cannot and will not find any facts to the contrary of my statement. You can suppose anything and you can try to use presumptive axioms as a basis of proof, but that premise is wrong.

Honestly, although I'm obviously rattling chains, the truth is what I'm saying. This is why the whole plebiscite debate is a conscience one, rather than an anatomical one.

As my link before indicated, contrary to your belief there is no scientific proof to suggest that people choose to be gay. You are absolutely correct that atm there isn't a scientific proof into the cause of homosexuality, but to suggest that it's a choice is something the scientific community do not support. Anyone who thinks a conscious choice takes place has rocks in their head.

 

[Tisme]

As my link before indicated, contrary to your belief there is no scientific proof to suggest that people choose to be gay. You are absolutely correct that atm there isn't a scientific proof into the cause of homosexuality, but to suggest that it's a choice is something the scientific community do not support. Anyone who thinks a conscious choice takes place has rocks in their head.

Choice is a very subjective thing and your idea of choice may well be different to someone else, but at some time in anyone's life the opportunity presents itself to act out erotic urges. Some act on it, others discipline themselves against it, some procrastinate, some abstain their whole lives ........ all make a choice.

 

[overhang]

Choice is a very subjective thing and your idea of choice may well be different to someone else, but at some time in anyone's life the opportunity presents itself to act out erotic urges. Some act on it, others discipline themselves against it, some procrastinate, some abstain their whole lives ........ all make a choice.

Choice is actually quite basic, it's a conscious process. Do you believe that people choose to be gay by a conscious process?

 

[SirRumpole]

As my link before indicated, contrary to your belief there is no scientific proof to suggest that people choose to be gay. You are absolutely correct that atm there isn't a scientific proof into the cause of homosexuality, but to suggest that it's a choice is something the scientific community do not support. Anyone who thinks a conscious choice takes place has rocks in their head.

I think it's mainly a hormone imbalance, but social engineering that homosexuality is "normal" might tip the balance in some cases.

 

[overhang]

I think it's mainly a hormone imbalance, but social engineering that homosexuality is "normal" might tip the balance in some cases.

I would agree that hormone imbalance is probable. I've always wondered what would happen if scientist were able to find a way to correct this possible hormone imbalance or gene. Would people take it up? Should parents be given the right to alter this gene in the embryo? Penny Wong would write a speech longer than the Game Of Thrones series. Anyway getting off topic from the Turnbull government.

 

[SirRumpole]

I've always wondered what would happen if scientist were able to find a way to correct this possible hormone imbalance or gene. Would people take it up? Should parents be given the right to alter this gene in the embryo?

Very good point. If parents could do that it would obviously be concerning for the gay community, and may hurt a lot of feelings if it was allowed.

 

[Tisme]

Choice is actually quite basic, it's a conscious process. Do you believe that people choose to be gay by a conscious process?

That's a fundamental hurdle you are not overcoming. Choice is both conscious and nonconscious.

the unconscious decisions are processed much faster and in vastly greater magnitude than the conscious decision making. The conscious decision making is like a serial bus, while the nonconscious is like a parallel bus.

 

[Tisme]

I think it's mainly a hormone imbalance, but social engineering that homosexuality is "normal" might tip the balance in some cases.

Well how does that explain the Greek males enmasse, the island of Lesbos, etc? In the water?

There was a theory that fetal hormones combined with social, environmental and fraternal external influences combined to influence sexual persuasion. Then there is the theory of the prenatal disease, congenital adrenal hyperplasia which results in births of girls with male pinky bits, etc.

Noticeable androgen exposure in gestation or early after birth results in masculine behaviour, while lack of it femanises the brain, in puberty boys need more androgens while females need estrogens to round out the brain.

 

[Logique]

Postal plebiscite is expected to cost $122 Million.

Divide by 7 Liberal party room rebels = $17.4 Mill per head, Trent Zimmerman and colleagues.

A snip compared to $50Bill to keep Christopher Pyne elected in SA.

Trent Zimmerman wasn't selected by the local North Sydney branch, but was parachuted in by Lib Head Office. And what's the first thing he does.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

Does anyone know that if marriage equality is granted whether that allows them to adopt children? Is that part of it?

 

[McLovin]

Does anyone know that if marriage equality is granted whether that allows them to adopt children? Is that part of it?

They already can.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

They already can.

ok.

Seems like we have this the wrong way around then. Marriage - no harm that I can foresee. Adoption - ?? Could cause enormous harm, imo. What child would choose to be deprived of a mother/father?

 

[overhang]

That's a fundamental hurdle you are not overcoming. Choice is both conscious and nonconscious.

the unconscious decisions are processed much faster and in vastly greater magnitude than the conscious decision making. The conscious decision making is like a serial bus, while the nonconscious is like a parallel bus.

An unconscious decision isn't a choice. You're really deflecting here, do you believe that being gay is a conscious choice that someone can control?

 

[overhang]

ok.

Seems like we have this the wrong way around then. Marriage - no harm that I can foresee. Adoption - ?? Could cause enormous harm, imo. What child would choose to be deprived of a mother/father?

Fully agree here, I'm not sure how gays being able to adopt come to be with such little resistance and yet we're up in arms about the prospect about them having a piece of paper to define their love.

 

[SirRumpole]

ok.

Seems like we have this the wrong way around then. Marriage - no harm that I can foresee. Adoption - ?? Could cause enormous harm, imo. What child would choose to be deprived of a mother/father?

I agree. Same sex parenting via surrogacy, ivf and adoption slipped under the radar with little discussion, depriving children of their biological parents and a balanced upbringing.

It's a State issue and all States currently allow SS adopting, IVF and surrogacy so it can't be part of a Federal plebiscite.

 

[drsmith]

A interesting question was whether or not Bill Shorten and Labor would participate in the postal vote process or encourage a boycott with the aim of delegitimising the outcome.

Bill Shorten has opted for some space on the victory podium should the vote get up. He has advised in a speech in Parliament that he will be voting YES to SSM.

 

[Tisme]

An unconscious decision isn't a choice. You're really deflecting here, do you believe that being gay is a conscious choice that someone can control?

There's a difference between choice and involuntary. I haven't evaded anything. I'm the one providing proofs, you have supplied zip so far.