Australia legalizes same sex marriage

[Azzanation]

Goodnightmoon said:

Azzanation said:

The point your missing is love. Its okay for two men or two woman to marry yet a brother and sister or mother and son or father and daughter cannot? Why exactly? There both biologically ncorrect and many religions are against both yet we allowed one through yet not the others?

Australia is one of the most manipulating counties in the world. Don't be suprised in 10 years incest is legalised due to love is love.

What do you know about biology to claim that? It would be biologically incorrect for 2 person of the same sex to try to have a baby by themself simply couse it wouldn't work for biological reasons, but there is absolutely nothing biologically incorrect about loving another person of your same sex, if there was, then it would harm the species in some way, and guess what? it doesn't, we are higly overpopulated and even if the whole humanity becomes gay they would still be able to reproduce if they really need it cause being homosexual doesn't destroy your hability to reproduce, however incest does harm the species, not only is usually a result of abuse (fathers and daughters, wtf??) but also if they reproduce there is a high chance of haviong childrens with genetical problems.

 Check your words and think about what you say cause you are reaching the line of homophobia with comments like that, love is a very complex thing, people don't need to reproduce to fall in love with each other, that happens both with straights and with gays and following the logic that if you can't reproduce with your parner you are biologically incorrect then we could say that sterile people are biologically incorrect, shouldn't they be able to fall in love and marry someone else because of that?

You don't have to reproduce to love someone, that is a choice. Your basically saying love for gays is accepted because they cant have kids yet love for incest families is wrong because they can? 

We are talking about using the term love not which ones can reproduce which goes back to my original post. Using the term love is love is stupid because it opens up doors for others to use it.

Also don't accuse me for being a homophobic because i voted Yes and have plenty of gay friends who actually agree with me. Dont couldnt care if they got married and when they were allowed, they werent shouting it put arcoss the street advertising it. 

Us as humans will continue to change and we keep accepting more and more change. Again dont be suprised in 10 years we allowed incest marriage because of the term love.

 

Pemalite said:

Azzanation said:

Don't be suprised in 10 years incest is legalised due to love is love.

That is a slippery slope argument and thus a logical fallacy. Ergo. Incorrect.
Do I need to educate you on what a logical fallacy is?

Azzanation said:

The point your missing is love. Its okay for two men or two woman to marry yet a brother and sister or mother and son or father and daughter cannot? Why exactly? There both biologically ncorrect and many religions are against both yet we allowed one through yet not the others?

The main difference is that two same-sex people aren't going to be reproducing with each other.

Those in incestuous relationships potentially can... And the biological repercussions on children can potentially be catastrophic.

And that is why slippery slope arguments are stupid, because not only can it go as far back as you want (I.E. Heterosexuals being allowed to marry has resulted in LGBTQI people being allowed to marry and then potentially incest!) but you can conflate it with reasons that have nothing to do with it.

Who said incest have to reproduce? Love is love doesnt mean they have to have babies. Also theres a high chance of having babies with issues with gens too close but thats not 100% chance. People can have issues with babies at any gens so why should we seperate humans from loving each other. We allowed gays to so why not the rest?

That is the arguments we will come across.

For our sake lets hope Australia doeant give into it because we give into majority of changes.