Homosexuality in Australia (10 Viewers)

[mirakon]

The majority of stridently anti-gay rights american politicians and religious figureheads have turned out to be massive closet homos

So...

name-taken, pelase don't hide your true feelings, we'll look out for you, it's time to step out of the closet.

LOL, just kidding man, don't take it personally. You have your right to be Christian, let gay people have their right to be married couples. Everyone's happy!

 

[supercalamari]

Lol I watched it and it didn't do anything for me, seriously meh.

The Bible contains 6-7 passages which condemn homosexuality. Its not something thats simply brushed on in some obscure reference in a footnote. Its certinly not the central message of the Bible, or any of the books which make it up, but it is undeniably a running theme.

Even if you believe that a few of these passages don't refer to homosexuality as it is now practised in our society and you take them out of the picture, there is still a handful left. The chances of them all being wrong is quite pathetic. Over generations, thousands of scholars have translated the books of the Bible, simply becuase a few apologists now doubt their ability to translate is not a convincing arguement. There are many translations of the Bible, NIV, KJV etc, and all of them condemn homosexuality at one point or another. Some may differ in translation of individual passages, but elsewhere, they describe it as sinful regardless.

Its like saying global warming is wrong, because those guys at NASA can't read a thermometer... Other than that, if you really wanted to, you could argue against the translation of pretty much every passage, not just those relating to homosexuality.

However the biggest reason the Bible offers as to why homosexuality is wrong relates not to what it says about homosexuality, but what it doesn't say. Homosexuality is never mentioned it in a positive light, in any context. Find me a single passage which promotes a homosexual relationship as a good thing at all, regardless of whether or not it is equal to a heterosexual relationship.

Next is the issue of sex outside of marriage. We know that the Bible abhors sexual interaction between people (we can assume between both heterosxual and homosexual couples) outside of marriage. Regardless of the sexual act in question, the fact that it occurs outside the union of marriage is enough to make it sinful. The Bible clearly sets out as to what marriage is; a union between one man and one women. This is what God intended for man and women, and the only acceptable context for sex to take place.

No homosexual couples can ever qualify for marriage, using the scriptures definition of it, and as any sexual interaction between people is forbidden outside of marriage, we can come to the conclusion that even if those 6 or 7 passages which expressly condemn homosexuality were to be ignored, that homosexual sex is still not permitted, according to scripture.

Put both of these factors together, and you have a bloody convincing case that the Bible, and by extention God himself, despite loving all humans equally, doesn't approve of homosexuality.

You'd have an easier time argueing the Bible supports pedophillia (least its not as strongly condemned) than you would it supporting homosexuality.

And I hate it when all those liberals accuse the Church of spreading hate against gay people when it simply isn't true. Homosexuality is a behaviour, a person is not defined by who they are simply as a result of one habit they may have. There is a difference to a Church saying it is a sin for two men to have sex or for two women to have sex than if they were saying lets go hunt us some faggots.

As far as I know, no Church actually inspires hate against homosexual people (except that "God hates fags" one but IMO they are just IRL trolls and no-one takes them seriously).

The Bible's central message is that of love, for God and for each other, not about one particular sinful behaviour or how especially evil the people who engage in it happen to be.



I have never said that gays are bad people or anything. Some of our greatest scientific and creative minds have belonged to homosexual indiviudals, I respect the contribution they make to society and other people's wellbeing.

That said, it doesn't make the behaviour any more acceptable.

There is much more to a person than their sexuality, and I (as well as most people, I hope) appreciate that.



Love can be expressed in ways which do not involve the sin set out in the scripture of homosexual sex. I assume you are able to love your father without having sex with him?

Nor is marriage required for a same sex coupe to commit to one-another.

Marriage is not about committment alone however. Civil marriage is societies recognition and means of protecting those private relationships which promote a vital social interest, i.e. the creation and raising of the next generation of individuals. To assist in this, heterosexual marriages are given special privledges and rights not offered to other unions which, depsite being meaningful to those involved, offer nothing to the state.

Religious marriage is regulated by the various religious authorities and its up to them to decide what counts and what doesn't. Most have come to the conclusion that gay unions don't, and that their call.

Gay unions have no place in either, and thats just the bottom line.

I'm tired so here's my reply.

Regardless of what the bible says, the bible should not be the deciding factor in equal rights. Nor should individual prejudices against gay people. All people should have equal rights to marry the one (only one, remember how lots of bible characters have several wives?) person they love the most and not be stopped legally or otherwise by other people.

Anything else is unfair. If any couple is willing to commit to a marriage contract, let them. It is not the job of a state or nation to determine who is 'right' to get married. If they could, they wouldn't give out 2/3rds of marriage certificates.


1. I addressed all of the bible verses. So saying it's easier to say the bible endorses pedophilia (which it kinda does if it allows young girls to be married to older men) is beyond a joke.

2. I didn't mention global warming. "Keep to the subject!"

3. Actually...
Ruth and Naomi
The Book of Ruth is a romantic novel but not about romance between Ruth and Boaz. Naomi is actually the central character, and Ruth is the "redeemer/hero." Boaz' relationship with Ruth, far from being romantic, is a matter of family duty and property.


This story contains the most moving promise of relational fidelity between two persons in all of the bible: "And Ruth said, 'Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whether thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God"[FONT=Microsoft Sans











Serif]. (Ruth 1:16)[/FONT]
[FONT=Microsoft Sans











Serif]
[/FONT]
Although used in heterosexual marriage ceremonies for years, this is a vow between two women! When their husbands die in battle, Ruth makes this vow to Naomi, her mother-in-law. Ruth marries Boaz, a close relative, and redeems Naomi's place in her own family, also bearing a child for Naomi. Did Ruth and Naomi have a lesbian relationship? There's no way to know, but it is clear the two women had a lifelong, passionate, committed relationship celebrated in Scripture.


United in a Covenant of Love…David and Jonathan
Another story, that of David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)


The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty (I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel 20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41), refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the closet too long!
Metropolitan Community Churches | Our Story Too

4. True, but remember the cultural situation this book was written in.

5. Way to taint me with the 'I love it how liberals...' brush. I could say that I love how some Christians will abuse the bible to deny me equal rights, or that I love how conservatives are all narrow minded and bigoted closet cases, but I don't believe either of those statements. You don't know my position on financial, most social or political issues, so don't assume to do so.

6. The evangelicals in America's 'ex-gay' movement have inspired Uganda to propose a 'Kill The Gays' Bill. The catholic church has inspired its followers to make the lives of gay people horrible. All anti-gay churches help to reinforce 'traditional gender roles', which allow the twisted minds of 'good christian men' to sometimes bash up 'sissies', or effeminate men. Westboro Baptist are pretty tame in comparison.

7. Tell that to the preacherss at your church.

8. Heard of turkey basters and sperm jars? IVF? adoption? Not every child that is made comes from the 'loving married couple'. Never have, never will. Love is what makes a family and whoever teaches up a child in the right path will find they don't deviate from it. (Proverbs 22:6)

 

[Slidey]

Name taken is so full of shit. Incapable of replying to my posts yet again, yeah.

Seems so.

 

[Name_Taken]

I would disagree a majority of contemporary Australian society values marriage in this way. Whatever the majority may see marriage as representing, this apparently does not prohibit gay marriage in their view as 3/5 support legitimizing these relationships.

Rise in support for gay marriage

Not that it matters one bit what 'society' approves of, when judging the legitimacy of a policy, but you brought it up.

It is the government placing a seal of approval on a private relationship, is it not? Whether people see it as this or not doesn’t stop the fact that that is what civil marriage, is. A celebration of love and commitment, yes that is what private marriage is. Civil marriage is done by signing a form and returning it to the government, you don’t have to even know the person you’re marrying to be be legally married in the government’s eyes. Love doesn’t come into play.
Religious marriage is different altogether. A couple can be married by a Church which approves of their union and be recognised as married by that Church, but not be recognised by the Government.
Alas democracy. However I think it is important to make the distinction, just because a majority of people are in favour of something happening, doesn’t mean that it is of any great urgency. 51% is a majority anyway. And the survey was conducted by a Gay Activist Group, I won’t say they rigged it or anything, but I’m not surprised they came back with the response they wanted.

You seem to be confused that the role of government is to only permit that which 'serves society'. Why does the government ever allow individuals to make bad choices? Why doesn't the government prohibit anything that isn't certainly for the benefit of national productivity? Why shouldn't the government legislate to prohibit everything it perceives as immoral? Whether something benefits society has zero relevance to whether it should be prohibited.

Society is simply a collection of individuals. The only person who can determine what is best for the individual, is the individual themselves. People have different preferences, and different things bring different individuals satisfaction. The happiness of the individuals who compose society is most efficiently maximized by allowing them to self-determine what brings them their own satisfaction and sense of meaning.

That seems to me more of an argument as to why homosexuality itself shouldn’t be banned, which I don’t think it should. People are allowed to do things which are probably not in their best interest, freedom of the individual, bodily autonomy etc.
But the government doesn’t have to recognise these avant grande behaviours as equal to those which it endorses. For example, smoking, it’s permitted, but the government doesn’t have to endorse it simply because it is permitted.
The government endorses heterosexual relationships because simply, without them, society itself is utterly unsustainable. Its not like the government or any society throughout history made the conscious decision to support heterosexuality. They have no choice but to, hence its not discrimination to place the union between a man and women on a different level than others (between two people of the same sex, between a person and an animal, between a person and a child, between relatives between two friends etc.) and giving them special privileges not offered to other unions, to assist them of serving their biological purpose and as befitting their importance.

The less control and direction the government attempts to apply to individuals, and the more freedom it gives them to self-determination, the greater the collective level of satisfaction.


Allowing gay marriage isn't about 'giving' anything, it's simply ending the ridiculous prohibition on allowing two individuals to form a mutually agreeable contract and to refer to it in the terms of their choosing.

Gays can already get married at certain Churches in this country. As de facto couples, they are legally recognised by the government anyway and in the case of breaking up, their assets are split accordingly anyway if required.
The state has no reason to take another step and promote a homosexual union to the level of heterosexual marriage, because it offers nothing back. A homosexual union is great and all, but it only helps those involved. A heterosexual marriage on the other hand however is capable of doing something which no other relationship can; create children and raise them.
Unless a union between two people is capable of doing this, it is of no relevance to the state.
Governments don’t bother regulating things which are not important. The next generation of members of society is important. Every citizens sex life isn't.

Gay marriage is an example of a 'negative right'. It is a negative right because it doesn't necessitate the placement of an obligation on any third party to behave in a particular way to the right holder. The prohibition against it is an attempt to force a twisted 'positive right', a claimed right to control and prohibit how different people may form a contract. If you choose to respond to this, I'd appreciate if you addressed the argument in terms of negative and positive rights, and why the violation of a negative right may be justified in this situation.

Can you explain what you mean by negative and positive rights, I don't understand.

As an analogy of where I’m coming from. In a community there are 10 boys and 10 girls. As it so happens all 10 of the boys start driving as soon as they reach 16, while all of the girls (for various random reasons) don’t until 21, despite the fact they are allowed to once they are 16. If society were to pass a law saying individuals are not allowed to drive until 18, you could hardly say that it is discriminatory to the male population, because it affects everyone equally. Special allowances in the law should only be made when special allowances are deemded critically important, say if one of the boys was working as a courier and needed to be able to drive to keep his job.

The traditional purpose of marriage was to ensure obligations relating to property between partners were formally recognized. People got married so that they would have a legal claim to property in the event of their partners death.

Yes, legal ownership of assets is an important part of marriage. But even (historically speaking) in marriages where there was no affection between individuals children were still very important. People needed heirs in order to pass down their wealth and status, children were a vital aspect of marriages and have always been so. Love isn’t really, but recently has been seen of ever increasing importance. That doesn’t prevent the fact that children (and not so much distribution of assets) are more central aspects of marriage and the family, not to say that love should be overlooked.

The government doesn't generally get involved in friendship because there isn't a necessary financial relationship between friends.

And friendships don’t result in children.
The special rights and privileges given to married couples over all other private relationships reflect their importance and are to assist them in carrying out their primary purpose (in regards to the national interest) which is the procreation and raising of the next generation.

That article is total bullshit. It says that children born out of wedlock are worse off. Correlation =/= causation. Unmarried couples are more likely to be poorer, younger, less educated etc...

No it’s not like children born of wedlock are destined to be dropkicks, or people whose parents are divorced. But common sense and numerous studies show us that children who live with both their parents, (married or not really) in a stable relationship and situation (stability is improved by marriage) often do better. Children need both their mothers and their fathers influence in their development, while this can’t happen all the time (divorce, death etc) it is still the preferable way that it is done.

They are not poor, young and uneducated because of their lack of marriage. Getting married will not improve their childs welfare, which is always going to be disadvantaged. Marriage itself is not what confers the advantage, it's the fact that, if you're married you're very likely to be secure in your life and above average in other ways.

No but the stability of their situation, which is undeniably by their parents being legally and socially (and possibly religiously as well) committed to each other (i.e. marriage), their relationship and the upbringing of their children is what is important.

There's no proof that cohabiting couples in a committed relationship, being otherwise equal to a married couple, will have worse outcomes in the raising of children.

No ofc not. What is needed is commitment and stability, both of which are found more in married couples who are more serious about making their relationship work, for religious reasons, their kids etc. It doesn't mean kids can't be raised in a situation where the parents are not married, but it isn't preferable.
A couple in such a stable situation (stable relationship with kids etc) however is probably likely to get married anyway down the track (I imagine), they may be prevented for sometime because of some restricting factor like money or w/e.

Name taken is so full of shit. Incapable of replying to my posts yet again, yeah.

Lol I did, your posts are usually soo much more mentally taxing to respond to.

 

[Will Shakespear]

......Someone has nothing better to do.

she's the goddamn juggernaut bitch, she hit him with his own pimp... or, umm, holy book

 

[red-butterfly]

name taken is so full of shit. Incapable of replying to my posts yet again, yeah.

+1

 

[Titburger]

Once again I ask, is homosexual marriage going to affect you as an individual? I assume you are going to remain a heterosexual and I see no rational reason why it would have any affect on any other heterosexual individual. For some reason you have this idea that once homosexual marriage is legalised, every individual in society is going to abandon their beliefs and start devolving back to a primitive state.

I'm straight, but I don't think I could be any more frustrated by this even if I was gay.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Once again I ask, is homosexual marriage going to affect you as an individual? I assume you are going to remain a heterosexual and I see no rational reason why it would have any affect on any other heterosexual individual. For some reason you have this idea that once homosexual marriage is legalised, every individual in society is going to abandon their beliefs and start devolving back to a primitive state.

I'm straight, but I don't think I could be any more frustrated by this even if I was gay.

such a shame... you would make such a fine homosexual

 

[supercalamari]

she's the goddamn juggernaut bitch, she hit him with his own pimp... or, umm, holy book

I support the right of churches who read the bible a certain way to not recognize, support or bless gay marriages. That's they're right, just as they have the right not to host weddings between divorcees, etc.

I don't believe they have the right to lead or contribute to political campaigns and feel that any political campaign they contribute to, with perhaps the exception of campaigns contributing to charities and crackdowns on poverty/human rights abuses, should be viewed with suspicion. Churches which act this way should be taxed.

 

[Titburger]

such a shame... you would make such a fine homosexual

Hahahaha, If only it was a choice!!! Damn you genetics!

 

[hsb39]

OK, time to go back into this conversation for the first time in 2 years. Rather than replying to anything directly I'll do a general post.

I support gay marriage, either that or the removal of "marriage" from law. I simply don't see any reason why one would think that not allowing it is a good idea. I equate banning it for religious reasons as similar to banning Muslim prayer. It is more likely to lower AIDS rates than increase them (that has actually been an argument on some forums), as they will be more likely to stay together as one couple, and also more likely to use condoms, not to mention the awareness raising. It will also help increase adoption rates, we have a section of the population that cannot have kids without specifically choosing to, I'd say adoption is more likely among them. I'll mention here that I can assure all of you that having homosexual parents doesn't teach homosexuality, it teaches tolerance. Finally, what the world does seem to run on, money. Marriages bring money into the economy, the same should apply for gay marriages, I also wouldn't be surprised if we had an increase in the rate of people coming to Australia simply for the purpose of getting married.

I'll leave my introduction there, need to save some space for arguing back.

 

[zaxmacks]

Hahahaha, If only it was a choice!!! Damn you genetics!

You can condition your brain into being attracted to dewds (look up neuroplasticity).

 

[supercalamari]

I've never met anyone who would prefer to be gay. It's not easy.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I've never met anyone who would prefer to be gay. It's not easy.

I actually would prefer it. I once had the feeling that I could possible be straight and I was so scared.

edit: not a feeling, more like an inkling.

 

[hsb39]

You can condition your brain into being attracted to dewds (look up neuroplasticity).

And I'm completely sure that this is a science that is 100% proven, and not just that, it is also an incredibly easy process for anyone to go through!

I've never met anyone who would prefer to be gay. It's not easy.

Damn strait! (Pun intended). Nothing wrong with being gay, but there's no doubt, more people say that they are against homosexuality than there are that say that they are homosexual.

 

[zaxmacks]

And I'm completely sure that this is a science that is 100% proven, and not just that, it is also an incredibly easy process for anyone to go through!

It is 100% proven, though I wouldn't say it's incredibly easy, it is accessible to anyone through simple brain exercises. It's also how learning works.

 

[hsb39]

It is 100% proven, though I wouldn't say it's incredibly easy, it is accessible to anyone through simple brain exercises. It's also how learning works.

I'd like to see some 100% proof, because I've never heard of it. I don't think that googling is a smart choice, the internet isn't 100% proof.

I've heard of many of these cases, but I've never seen one in which someone couldn't just be bi, or even just faking it (before or after). I think that more people are bi than we tend to think.

People kill themselves because they can't change, lots.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I'd like to see some 100% proof, because I've never heard of it. I don't think that googling is a smart choice, the internet isn't 100% proof.

I've heard of many of these cases, but I've never seen one in which someone couldn't just be bi, or even just faking it (before or after). I think that more people are bi than we tend to think.

People kill themselves because they can't change, lots.

if you watch that i clip i posted, you'll know that people can't change their sexuality. they can, however supress it, though it wouldn't be healthy.

 

[zaxmacks]

I'd like to see some 100% proof, because I've never heard of it. I don't think that googling is a smart choice, the internet isn't 100% proof.

Is a psychoanalyst who wrote a book on neuroplasticity good enough for you?

I suggest reading his book. It's really good.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

go pope!

Pope Condemns Relationship Equality Laws in Britain



Date: 2-Feb-2010
The Pope has condemns gay equality laws in Britain ahead of a planned trip to the UK later this year, according to the Guardian. Pope Benedict XVI repeated a line he has often pursued, arguing that relationship equality runs contrary to "natural law".


Nonetheless the Pope praised Britain's "firm commitment to equality for oppportunity for all", an awkward phrase.

English and Welsh bishops reportedly expressed to him their concern about the place of religious institutions in an increasingly secular society. The Guardian reports that, since sexual orientation legislation came into effect on 1 January 2009, more than half of the Roman Catholic's adoption agencies have been forced to close, because the law makes it illegal to discriminate against gay applicants went against their beliefs.

The Pope has recently shown a special interest in the UK, inviting Anglicans who feel isolated by the row over homosexuality in their church to join the Catholic fold. This trip will undoubtedly consolidate the Pope's efforts to portray the Catholic Church as a strong, disciplined and united alternative to its ailing Anglican counterpart.