Homosexuality in Australia (12 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

Oh dear lord, more christianity mumbo jumbo. Isn't there other arguments (maybe scientific ones) against homosexuality?

Are there any scientific arguements showing how society would be any better off if homosexuality and other perversions were to be encouraged?

No, there is only your demand to have everyone respect and support you being led astray by your sinful temptations, which you see as a right.

 

[0bs3n3]

Oh dear lord, more christianity mumbo jumbo. Isn't there other arguments (maybe scientific ones) against homosexuality?

He wasn't even using it as an argument against homosexuality...

 

[Name_Taken]

I don't think the world needs another Edward Cullen, especially one that like homosexuals this time...

I don't know what you mean by this

It's funny how you said things of 'moral' and 'immoral'. The majority of the society sees something as 'moral', so it is 'moral.

If you don't understand, I'll give you an example. The majority of the society thinks that murder is 'wrong', therefore it is 'immoral'. That's how society works.

This correlates to all the things you said. I guess, being taught to be 'moral', I can't say that it's actually 'immoral. Need another example?

I've been taught by my parents, and the people around me, that's it's not alright to kill someone. So I don't, or else I'll face consequences, like going to jail, because 'everyone else' has been taught that if you kill someone you put them in jail.

Your logic is flawed. Just because something is popular does not make it right. The majority of people think that sex out of wedlock is acceptable, provided it is consensual, because it feels good, it’s convenient, it doesn’t hurt anyone and after all, everyone else is doing it.

We oppose sex outside of wedlock, as we do homosexuality, for in God’s view they are both indecent, and we will continue to oppose them on a moral level, regardless of their popularity.

I agree with you that murder is wrong. However on a side note I find it horrible to think that your principle argument against the act of murder relate to the fact that you will be imprisoned as a consequence (a personal inconvenience), as opposed to the higher moral argument of prematurely ceasing another human’s life against both their will (and that of Gods, should you accept him to exist) as well as denying that which is a humans most basic right, the right to life.

Many, if not all of the morals society that are still widely upheld, for example, that it is wrong to murder or to rape another person, were originally those put forward by God, in addition to others, some of which relating to love and sexual perversion (sex out of wedlock, homosexual sex, sex with family members etc.).

The only difference between the two is that you still support the notion that murder and rape are wrong because it is convenient for you and your lifestyle. On the other hand, of the original morals, those which are not convenient to you or you see as encroaching upon your freedoms to peruse sinful desires, you ignore (as do many, others).

What is even more disappointing is that the majority of people then attempt to justify this callous rejection of Gods law by mocking the existence of God Himself, sometimes through their misplaced belief in “science” as a religion in unto itself as one which not only explains the world but supports their own selective view of morality.

That's why, when I think about it, I can accept Christianity. Frankly, I don't mind there believing there is a God. My parents say that God is a useless thing, though I don't necessarily agree. I can accept why some Christians can't accept homosexuality, because they have been taught that way.

Or they just recognize it as wrong. I wouldn't mind.

Lust and other sinful temptations are ugly and unfortunate aspects of life, but they affect both gays and heterosexuals in what is ultimately the same way, encouraging sin. It is just as great a perversion for a heterosexual to be lead by lust into having sex outside of wedlock as it is for a person to be lead into a homosexual affair, for example. Equally, engaging in incest or bestiality are also sinful perversions of sex and love.

It is the allowing of oneself to be led away from God by temptation, which is wrong.

It's just that when people start hating us, and calling us 'sinful' and 'abominations' that I start having to put a brave face, take my sword, and wham my words into your head.

When someone asks for a fight, I believe in fighting back. Unless ,of course, if there is a place to run and hide! But, hiding your homosexuality just hurts.

The Christian faith is one of love, not animosity and it is disappointing that people would treat others in such a way that brings shame unto themselves, their faith, and ultimately God Himself.

I don’t hate you, nor do I hate any person who engages in homosexual, or various other acts of sexual perversion. Simply because you have been tempted by evil doesn’t necessarily make you evil at heart. You must accept however, that we cannot support your decision to lead a sinful lifestyle.

Following Gods will is rarely the easiest path, and the temptations to sin are both powerful and numerous. There are many examples of people throughout history who were wrongly imprisioned and even killed for following God.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Are there any scientific arguements showing how society would be any better off if homosexuality and other perversions were to be encouraged?

No, there is only your demand to have everyone respect and support you being led astray by your sinful temptations, which you see as a right.

Well I doubt you can produce any scientific evidence to prove that society will be worse off.... so we reach a stalemate I guess.

But wait, if there's no scientific evidence to show that society is worst off OR better off, then we should simply deny homosexuals equal rights? Just for the whim of people like you? So denying us rights is more or less, discrimination.

However, I guess there would be social benefits, seeing as:
-a minority is longer oppressed and are afforded equal rights
-orphans will have more opportunities to find new homes and families.

We are not mandated to be governed by the rules of a particular church or religion. Laws govern us, and it is not against the law to love someone of the same sex. Why then, should one be denied the rights and benefits of a homosexual marriage? Religion is a personal choice, and there are no laws which specify which religion we must suscribe to. Politics are not conducted from a religious stand, so why should marriage be saturated with it?

And plus, not everyone is a christian, incase you hadn't noticed. So to your christianity-backed argument, I say: BALDERDASH!

One interesting site that I found: HOMOSEXUALITY: Advantage to society; Equal treatment

The decriminalisation of homosexuality, and the Property Relationships (Amendment) Act and the ever increasing social acceptance of homosexuals goes to show that our mighty onsalught for acceptance, recognition, and equality is never wavering. Never faltering. Headstrong.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

What is even more disappointing is that the majority of people then attempt to justify this callous rejection of Gods law by mocking the existence of God Himself, sometimes through their misplaced belief in “science” as a religion in unto itself as one which not only explains the world but supports their own selective view of morality.

Prove to all of us, beyong a shadow of doubt, that god indeed exists.

Lust and other sinful temptations are ugly and unfortunate aspects of life, but they affect both gays and heterosexuals in what is ultimately the same way, encouraging sin. It is just as great a perversion for a heterosexual to be lead by lust into having sex outside of wedlock as it is for a person to be lead into a homosexual affair, for example. Equally, engaging in incest or bestiality are also sinful perversions of sex and love.

It is the allowing of oneself to be led away from God by temptation, which is wrong.

What if one homosexual LOVES another homosexual? And wants to engage in a deep, meaningful, committed relationship for life?

And please show us which verse in the bible which says homosexuality is a sin?

 

[Name_Taken]

We are not mandated to be governed by the rules of a particular church or religion. Laws govern us, and it is not against the law to love someone of the same sex. Why then, should one be denied the rights and benefits of a homosexual marriage? Religion is a personal choice, and there are no laws which specify which religion we must suscribe to. Politics are not conducted from a religious stand, so why should marriage be saturated with it?

And plus, not everyone is a christian, incase you hadn't noticed. So to your christianity-backed argument, I say: BALDERDASH!

Likewise, homosexuality is a personal choice (despite almost every major religion establishing it as sinful) and despite how our increasinly hedonistic and immoral society encourages such choices, there is no reason why we should subscribe to these views.

Politics should be conducted on the basis of what is for the moral good of all society and so why should it be saturated by an increasinly immoral agenda?

And your point of popularity has been refuted so many times already. I have said in what feels like every post I have made in this thread that simply because a motion is popular, is no justification of it being morally correct.

 

[Name_Taken]

Prove to all of us, beyong a shadow of doubt, that god indeed exists.



What if one homosexual LOVES another homosexual? And wants to engage in a deep, meaningful, committed relationship for life?

And please show us which verse in the bible which says homosexuality is a sin?

Proving the existence of God is an arguement that belongs in a different thread. The easiest proof however is that is it is impossible for you to explain your own existence and purpose on Earth without God. Whether you choose to accept God or not is your own choice.

There are many Bible verses in both the Old and New Testament which explain Gods stance on homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

 

[Aquawhite]

Proving the existence of God is an arguement that belongs in a different thread. The easiest proof however is that is it is impossible for you to explain your own existence and purpose on Earth without God. Whether you choose to accept God or not is your own choice.

There are many Bible verses in both the Old and New Testament which explain Gods stance on homosexuality.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

God used to be forgiving and cool and all. From that, he just sounds like an ignoramus homophobe XD

 

[Name_Taken]

One interesting site that I found: HOMOSEXUALITY: Advantage to society; Equal treatment.

What's wrong with being gay? Homosexual behavior versus the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

I too can post links.

This article refutes the four main arguements made in favour of homosexuality, these being:

1. They are made that way.
2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid.

 

[Kwayera]

Homosexuality is not a choice, as much as being redheaded is a choice.

Would you choose to be a ranga, Name_Taken?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Likewise, homosexuality is a personal choice (deapite almost every major religion establishing it as sinful) and despite how our increasinly hedonistic and immoral society encourages such choices, there is no reason why we should subscribe to these views.

There's that "choice" word again. If I knew you, I swear to lucifer, rabid dogs would be feasting on your danglers right about now.

Now, I accept your view of homosexuality. Nothing that I (or anyone else's for that matter) do or say can ever change that. However, your and others like you view's oppresses and denies the rights of others who wish to enter a union based on love, then there's a problem.

Politics should be conducted on the basis of what is for the moral good of all society and so why should it be saturated by an increasinly immoral agenda?

Society's ideals of morals change! Slavery was once a norm. Now that's out the window! So is capital punishment (for most countries), or methods of execution! Torture! Marriage! Oppression of women! Some or all of these are allowable in the bible, but have been decriminalised or abolished. So does that mean that the majority of the world now is in a moral deficit? Gee, I dare god to cause another flood.

And your point of popularity has been refuted so many times already. I have said in what feels like every post I have made in this thread that simply because a motion is popular, is no justification of it being morally correct.

Now why are they popular?

Once upon a time, christianity (or religion) had a hold on one's life, to the food they ate, the clothes they wore, the days they worked etc. People were terrified of the god(s), congregating in places of worship (whether they wanted to or not) and fearing the fire and brimestone which awaits them for disobedience to their god.

Why have that hold slackened over time?

Could it be that many actually realised the bible is no more than a fictional book? Speaking nothing more than BOO-HOCKEY? Maybe.

And if you and the rest of your christian pals (no offence to anyone by the way) are so sure and confident that you had absolute proof that he exists, then why isn't the rest of the world convinced? If you are so your that your god exists, why aren't all other religious idealogies dismantled?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Proving the existence of God is an arguement that belongs in a different thread. The easiest proof however is that is it is impossible for you to explain your own existence and purpose on Earth without God. Whether you choose to accept God or not is your own choice.

Well if you're going to use god and religion in your argument against homosexuality, then I must dispute his existence in order to comprimise your argument.

There are many Bible verses in both the Old and New Testament which explain Gods stance on homosexuality.


Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Ahh, I found a loophole mate. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. "As one lies with a woman": A man would "lie with a woman" by means of vaginal sex right? So seeing as males do not possess a vagina, it is physically impossible.

 

[dolbinau]

Likewise, homosexuality is a personal choice (despite almost every major religion establishing it as sinful) and despite how our increasinly hedonistic and immoral society encourages such choices, there is no reason why we should subscribe to these views.

What the fuck. Homosexuality is not a personal choice, at least in my experience.

This article refutes the four main arguements made in favour of homosexuality, these being:

1. They are made that way.
2. Homosexuality is of no harm to the participants or to anyone else.
3. If it feels right to those involved, it is nobody else's business.
4. Homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships are equally valid.

That website is fucked.

Firstly, being 'made that way' and 'being a choice' aren't opposite things. That is, if homosexuality is not caused by genetics it does not necessarily mean 'it is a choice' (it is NOT a choice anyway, ask ANY homosexual, God). And the 'conclusion' is SO strange:

"that a person becomes a homosexual ultimately by choosing to be involved in same-sex activity"

Because that is not what a homosexual is; a homosexual has a sexual attraction to the same sex! So by those standards anyone who has not had any same-sex activity is not a homosexual, which is just wrong. Is someone who has never had any activity with ANY sex asexual? It's just so silly. I find it laughable they think they are making good arguments. That whole website is laughable, I find it so cringeworthy you guys are just blindly accepting it.

I do agree with this, however:

As with all moral issues, our beliefs about our origin determine our attitude. If we believe that we arose from slime by a combination of random chance events and the struggle for survival, it is understandable to say that there is no higher authority, and we can make our own rules. However, if there is a loving God who planned us and gave commands for us to follow, then we must do so. God has set forth His standards in the Bible, beginning with the foundational teaching in the book of Genesis.

But of course, "if there is a loving God" and if God did "set forth his standards in the Bible", are different from there IS and he DID set forth.

 

[Name_Taken]

Ahh, I found a loophole mate. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. "As one lies with a woman": A man would "lie with a woman" by means of vaginal sex right? So seeing as males do not possess a vagina, it is physically impossible.

Please don't try and outsmart God, it will only bring shame upon yourself.

It is quite clear what the message of the verse is. Should you ignore it, that is your choice, but the Bible's stance on homosexuality it isn't open to interpretation.

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Feel free to apply your flawed logic to find a loophole in this verse, as well as the many others which describe homosexuality.

 

[Kwayera]

Please don't try and outsmart God, it will only bring shame upon yourself.

It is quite clear what the message of the verse is. Should you ignore it, that is your choice, but the Bible's stance on homosexuality it isn't open to interpretation.

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Feel free to apply your flawed logic to find a loophole in this verse, as well as the many others which describe homosexuality.

Nah, he's "outsmarting" the pricks who wrote the Bible, not your God.

And those statements are as much "open to interpretation" as the Bible's statements on wearing mixed fabrics. One hopes you don't wear wool-cotton blends

 

[Iron]

Kway, team truth tires of your repetition - ie the prophets and apostles were all "pricks", the ancient jewish instruction on fabrics invalidates all of Christianity, and that we physically cannot act against our instincts (whatever they may be). Pls make provision for fresh thinking
regards etc

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Please don't try and outsmart God, it will only bring shame upon yourself.

It is quite clear what the message of the verse is. Should you ignore it, that is your choice, but the Bible's stance on homosexuality it isn't open to interpretation.

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Feel free to apply your flawed logic to find a loophole in this verse, as well as the many others which describe homosexuality.

Outsmart god? Heaven forbid no! I was merely trying to interpret the bible literally.

Well as for your verse, I think it says that homosexuality is unnatural, which is incorrect. I mean, if one has such feelings, then it is only natural to act upon it. If i had feelings for girls, then my natural instinct would be to act upon it. Now replace the word girls with guys. Sentence still works! Maybe this verse is aimed at those who change their genders by unnatural means?

Also, try and consider the author of the bible. They obviously had a problem with homsexuals, which hence resulted in what they wrote. I mean, if I wrote a book now, its obvious that my context, personal experiences etc would affect the result of my work.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Kway, team truth tires of your repetition - ie the prophets and apostles were all "pricks", the ancient jewish instruction on fabrics invalidates all of Christianity, and that we physically cannot act against our instincts (whatever they may be). Pls make provision for fresh thinking
regards etc

Well if your going to use your bible to deny us rights, why are you blurring out other parts of the bible? Consistency please.

 

[Name_Taken]

Outsmart god? Heaven forbid no! I was merely trying to interpret the bible literally.

Well as for your verse, I think it says that homosexuality is unnatural, which is incorrect. I mean, if one has such feelings, then it is only natural to act upon it. If i had feelings for girls, then my natural instinct would be to act upon it. Now replace the word girls with guys. Sentence still works! Maybe this verse is aimed at those who change their genders by unnatural means?

Also, try and consider the author of the bible. They obviously had a problem with homsexuals, which hence resulted in what they wrote. I mean, if I wrote a book now, its obvious that my context, personal experiences etc would affect the result of my work.

This is not true. If I am overcome with lust towards an very attractive person I know (be they male or female), it would be wrong for me to be tempted by my lust to have sexual contact with them if it violates Gods laws regarding love and marriage. That is, if they are the same sex as me, if they are a family member of mine, or if they are anyone but my partner in marriage, it would be wrong.

Who is to say that if the homosexual has "natural" love and attraction to people of the same sex, that pedophiles don't have equally "natural" attractions to children, or what the people who engage in beastaility would experince towards animals.

An extension of your suggestion, if it is a natural urge then it is natural to act upon it and it is right, would condone not only various sexual perversions but also rape.

Can't you see the flaws in your assumption?

 

[Iron]

Ive dealt with this matter, 'toenails' - I think even to you. But i'm curious to learn where you think your "rights" actually come from?