Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[BlackDragon]

People should be put to death for cursing their parents:

Leviticus 20:9

"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."


People should be put to death for working on the sabath:

Exodus 35:2 - "Whoever does any work on the sabath shall be put to death"


Neither blind people, nor the lame, nor hunch backs may worship god in a church

Leviticus 21:18-21 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous...Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; ...he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.


I present to you your contradictions name_taken. plus the following which i previously stated:


Pro Slavery:

Exodus 21:7-10 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

Leviticus: 25:44-46 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Against Money Lending:

Leviticus 25:37 "You are to lend neither money at interest nor food at a profit."

Against drunkeness and over consumption:

Proverbs 23:20 "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Isaiah 5:11f: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the LORD, no respect for the work of his hands."

The bible, homosexual sex, and the death penalty.

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."


And this is just what I could find in ten minutes. Are you pro-gay death penalty? Are you pro-slavery? Are you anti money interest?

Please respond name_taken

 

[Will Shakespear]

homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle

Prove it.

EDIT: Also, why are we accepting the bigots calling sexual preference a "lifestyle"?

Being attracted to people of the same sex says nothing about your lifestyle; gay people can be doctors, academics, they can be conservative, liberal, they can be into partying or they could be introverts, or whatever... the term "lifestyle" is used by people like yourself to promote negative stereotypes of homosexuals and we shouldn't accept it.

we should not be promoting it in our society

People are born gay. Fucking deal with it.

If it's not a choice, which it basically isn't, how can it be "promoted"? No one is going to stop finding the opposite sex attractive because discrimination against homosexuals is condemned... unless you can provide any evidence? Massive non sequitiur.

We're promoting tolerance and equality.

and while we may tolerate an individuals right to choose who they have sex with (including people of the same sex etc.) we should not compromise the rights of children to be raised by a mother and father or tarnish the dignity of traditional marriage (as well as offend every major religion within society an infringe on their right to see and describe homosexuality as a sin) by allowing gay marriage and adoption.

Lesbian parents better at raising children


rofl

until those religions can prove their claims about the universe (pro tip: they can't) then they should have no bearing on the laws of the nation

homosexuality (and its so-called promotion) doesn't encourage hate against religious people, religion does encourage hate against gays.

 

[Graney]

Hey, as I keep getting told, just because I don't agree with someone's choices, who am I to stop them?

As I expect homosexual people to allow people to pursue faith in God, I would expect people of all religions to allow people to practice homosexuality. I think people should be given as much freedom as possible in order to take advantage of their free will, as long as of course, people do not harm others (so things like drugs and murder need to be outlawed).

Wasn't your whole thing about how homosexuality is harmful for society, harmful for impressionable children/adults who may encounter their anti-life culture? Doesn't the legal tolerance of homosexuality by the state constitute a tacit approval that encourages the behaviour?

Also, by allowing homosexual sex, which as you mentioned carries an increased risk of HIV/AIDS, it facilitates the transmission of AIDS to innocent children via the bisexual community. How can you still claim this is a victimless act?

Drug use does not have to harm anyone but the user, and in most instances doesn't, if you support a right to freedom of activity for individuals, by the terms you've used to justify maintain the legal status of homosexuality, you should support legalization of drug use.

Equating murder and drug use in the same sentence, as though they have any of the same moral implications, is an insane leap.

I'd like to hear a clearer outlining of the terms and circumstances in which you endorse individual freedom, and when exactly state intervention to circumvent freedom is desirable?

Maybe you misinterpreted me by saying discouraging. I oppose homosexuality being encouraged as it is now (Gay "pride" parades, speakers going to schools and talking to children about how being gay is perfectly healthy and ok).

Isn't that just basic freedom of association?

IDK, parents have the right to choose to send their children to a conservative school, or one that is more liberal. Individuals should have the right to gather and promote political causes in the street.

I think it's a less than ideal situation for the state to intervene too heavily in the political and philosophical aspects of schooling. These sort of things should reflect community demands. It's too heavily regulated currently, and there should be a liberalization of the values and politics that schools are allowed to teach, allowing parents to choose a school that offers any sort of liberal or conservative education they may be looking for.

(Sorry if this reads like a dogs breakfast, I've got this hangover from last night lol, just woke up ).

Isn't your condemnation of drug use slightly hypocritical in light of your wilful abuse of alcohol? Especially considering you're underage afaik.

 

[Will Shakespear]

I think it's a less than ideal situation for the state to intervene too heavily in the political and philosophical aspects of schooling. These sort of things should reflect community demands. It's too heavily regulated currently, and there should be a liberalization of the values and politics that schools are allowed to teach, allowing parents to choose a school that offers any sort of liberal or conservative education they may be looking for.

Really?

It's hardly fair on the kids that they end up at Fred Phelps Grammar just because their parents are nuts

 

[Graney]

Really?

It's hardly fair on the kids that they end up at Fred Phelps Grammar just because their parents are nuts

Educational curriculum can do with regulation, but the politics doesn't need to be.

I think much of the values, politics and history taught at contemporary schools is deeply offensive, it's a sick situation where any government is allowed so much power over the delivery of information

My government school gave me heaps of bullshit misinformation about drug use and indoctrinated me as a socialist, there is no school I can send my child to that offers any alternative to these values, if I tried to set up such a school I would be arrested.

I think children are mostly smart enough to work their way out eventually, and if their parents are from the westborough baptist church, they're going to receive it at home any way. Nothing is ever fair in the raising of children really.

Not to mention anyone can home school anyway, unless you would see that right be taken away.

 

[Iron]

Again, valuable and beneficial to whom?

Your argument might be valid if heterosexual marriages were first means-tested on the basis of how well they will raise children. That's without mentioning infertile couples.

or this

or the fact that around a third of marriages end in divorce (which is also prohibited by selective parts of the bibble...)

or the fact that IVF can make lesbian couples 'life giving' now

Lol valuable and benificial to any life-giving, life-respecting society worth mentioning.

'Infertile couples' are tragic; they do not 'choose' to be so and do not seek to have their infertility projected and spread to others in society.

Likewise divorce is tragic and not to be celebrated by smirking creeps like you. It should rightly be restricted for the well-being of a healthy child and community. People need to learn to have the maturity to sort out their issues instead of running away at the sight of them. Otherwise society will acquire no wisdom or insight for its own children. Having said that, there are ofc valid cases where the marital character/conduct of one partner is so extreme and unknown to the other partner before marriage as to warrant the granting of an annulment (ie a finding that there never was a valid marriage)

IVF does not restore a respect for the dignity of persons; rather it subordinates the miracle of life to the amoral will of man. This artificiality harms our respect for unique individuals and only furthers the athiestic ambitions of worms like you who desire above all to melt men and all reality down to the purely physical, so that you can assert your own dominance over the 'herd' that you have no love for. The spiritual reality remains that we are not 'bought' like any other commodity on a supermarket shelf.

 

[SylviaB]

HUMANS DO NOT HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO SOCIETY TO PROCRETAE


i

 

[Iron]

And I didnt say that...
We have an obligation to remain open to life - the very essence of Christ.

 

[SylviaB]

wat does that even mean m8

 

[Lentern]

wat does that even mean m8

Oh essentially that you don't promote stuff that is contrary to the ideas of procreation, contraception, condoms, being sexually active but wasting it by being gay etc.

 

[Will Shakespear]

i forgot to mention those fertile couples who choose not to have children because they just don't want to :S

 

[SylviaB]

for something to be immoral there has to be a victim

sex with procreation ---> no victims


not immoral


and god isn't a victim so don't start

 

[dolbinau]

Also, by allowing homosexual sex, which as you mentioned carries an increased risk of HIV/AIDS, it facilitates the transmission of AIDS to innocent children via the bisexual community. How can you still claim this is a victimless act?

Heterosexual sex, has a risk of HIV/AIDS, and can also facilitate the transmission of AIDS to innocent children. (As it does - with many more HIV/AIDS suffers I'd guess being born with it via heterosexual sex, than via homosexual-bisexual sex).

Obviously, I'm not going to claim heterosexual sex is immoral. These are just issues that shouldn't be part of the argument, IMO (as again, they occur for both).

 

[Iron]

dumbsdumbs DUMBS

 

[Will Shakespear]

And I didnt say that...
We have an obligation to remain open to life - the very essence of Christ.

Arrogance of the religious, claiming they can't possibly know.

Jesus on family values:

Luke 14:26-27
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.”

Jesus on being gay:
Christ and the Bible are of no use to us in working out anything about life -or- morality. They can't provide us with any insight we don't already have, you can't even read the damn thing without interpreting it using modern knowledge. Christ was just a snake-oil salesman cult leader, like hundreds of others thru history. "Blindly follow me - forget about reality".

Where would your ideal family be if anyone actually followed His words as quoted above? It couldn't even exist. Clearly we get our sense of morality, our sense of duty, of family, from somewhere else.

If we're to work out any sort of civilised framework for a society and reach anything like our full height as a species, we need to abandon the rudimentary pre-scientific mumblings of cult leaders.

For non-believers, talk of miracles, and the 'essence of Christ' are basically meaningless. What else is life but a self-sustaining metabolic process capable of replicating itself - temporary bodies built by genes, programmed to make more copies of themselves. This is no miracle at all, other than in the metaphorical sense of Spinoza or Einstein's god.

Morality is based on mutual empathy and our need to live as a social species - it comes from "the will of man". As a society we have to overcome the primitive animal instincts - fear of other groups/those that are different; rule of the strong, etc. This only happened through progress by man over time - see the end of slavery, rights for women, and so on. Religion of any kind is no help in this; every holy book is obviously a product of its time, reflecting the morals of its time and the knowledge of its time.

Giving all people freedom and equality under law is really a fairly recent thing, with many hard fought struggles along the way (guess which side the religious were usually on). To the secular mind, ending discrimination against same-sex couples is just another step in overcoming the in vs. out-group mentality of primitive humanity.

(since we're using nice prose as the measure of reasoned argument now, lol)

 

[Iron]

Snakeoil salesman? He came from the poor, shunned wealth and power, freely gave himself up to the mob to be tortured and murdered. It was the perfect life - it was the life - the turning point in history where Truth was revealed and power overcome. The way, the truth and the life. Your shallow and self-serving interpretation is pretty laughable and deserves no serious response

Progress of 'man'? Are you naive enough to believe that slavery was ever ended? That women now live in some enlightened bubble never experienced before in history?
I'm surprised youre arguing this. On one level you hint that morality is a universal rejection of our barbaric core, yet on the other you claim that morals are relative and contingent on, lol, the level of scientific, technical knowledge. Whatever lol. Continue to mark human progress by the material goods we consume and exploit. Continue to begrudgingly make yourself accountable to a fickle, man-made 'law' that you secretly want abolished alltogether. I'm sure youll be very happy.

 

[xeuyrawp]

That was a nice story, wasn't it?

Not really. I honestly think you should stop posting your incoherent babble.

 

[Kwayera]

Wrong to you.

Sounds fine to me.

 

[Kwayera]

..what about it?

 

[SnowFox]

..what about it?

white