Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Prostate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read what it does, and then wonder about why it is where it is... Like seriously, like that wasn't obvious.

Other than that, it could just be there to taunt those tempted to sin

if so, then god has a terrible sense oh humour.

lol and again, have you watched the clip yet? or are you scared of what you might discover?

 

[Titburger]

EDIT: On the second bit, ever thought that the numbers of people born each year might be less if people weren't obsessed about sex as a means to have fun and abstained until marriage, or better yet, for their entire lives (which is considered to be preferable)?

Also, I'm guessing you've never had sex? Stop making it sound like a chore, it really is enjoyable in case you didn't know

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Also, I'm guessing you've never had sex? Stop making it sound like a chore, it really is enjoyable in case you didn't know

ofc! he considers his virginity to be a "gift from god" dont cha alex?

 

[Name_Taken]

And what are the adverse effects of same sex marriages? I really don't see how this is going to have any effect on society for the worse. It is not going to encourage people to become gay in the same way that when segregation and discrimination of black people stopped, people didn't suddenly become black. Do you really think by denying marriage to homosexuals that you are going to make them go away? What are you trying to achieve, I really don't understand

In short it will affect everyone badly, including homosexuals (affects everyone in society equally).

Read this.

[BTW My aim is not to get rid of homosexuals @ all, I havn't met them all, but I doubt they are any better or worse people than heterosexuals are... I only wish to expose homosexuality as what it is, and oppose movements which threaten the very foundation of societies values and structure].

*****


People used this same argument for cohabitation back in the 1950s and 60s. The past 50 years have shown just how wrong it was. Cohabitation has proven to be detrimental to the institution of marriage, and hence children. The number of people choosing to forego marriage in favor of cohabitation increased 1000% from 1960 to 1998 (Population Resource Center, http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/changingnation/changingnation.html), currently at 5.5 million people. The percentage of adults who have never married increased from 22% in 1970 to 28% in 2000.

There has been a dramatic increase in children born out of wedlock as well. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in a report titled "Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States 1940-99," (48 Nat'l Vital Stat. Reps. at 2, October 2000) nonmarital childbirths increased from 3.8% in 1940 to 33% in 1999. One out of three cohabiters are currently raising children.

Marriage is a social institution, not a private institution. As such, changing the definition of marriage will affect society at large. It will affect their conception of the meaning and significance of marriage. If the institution of marriage is weakened in the eyes of society, society itself will be weakened because marriage stands at its foundation.

This argument also ignores the power of ideas. The sanctioning of same-sex marriage is an affirmation that marriage is nothing in particular, but a construct of society that can be changed at will. When marriage is viewed as a changing institution the privileges, benefits, and protections of marriage are all up for grabs.25
The sanctioning of same-sex marriage not only transforms our understanding of marriage from that of a static institution to one that is socially determined, but it is also a declaration that marriage can be defined in ways uninformed by children. It is a declaration that marriage and procreation have nothing to do with one another. For the first time in history the function of marriage would no longer be centered around children, but on the adult couple's relationship itself. This is a departure from the rest of human history and is significant indeed. Justice Cordy aptly noted that

as long as marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples who can at least theoretically procreate, society is able to communicate a consistent message to its citizens that marriage is a (normatively) necessary part of their procreative endeavor; that if they are to procreate, then society has endorsed the institution of marriage as the environment for it and for the subsequent rearing of their children; and that benefits are available explicitly to create a supportive and conducive atmosphere for those purposes. If society proceeds similarly to recognize marriages between same-sex couples who cannot procreate, it could be perceived as an abandonment of this claim, and might result in the mistaken view that civil marriage has little to do with procreation: just as the potential of procreation would not be necessary for a marriage to be valid, marriage would not be necessary for optimal procreation and child rearing to occur. (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health [2003], available from http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf)
​

The idea that marriage is not restricted to a man and woman will impact us in another significant way as well. To grant marriage licenses to both homosexual and heterosexual couples alike is an affirmation that the two unions are no different in the eyes of the law. This has consequences for child rearing. "For the first time in the history of civilization a culture will declare that neither mothers nor fathers are essential components of parenthood; neither makes a uniquely valuable contribution. Same-sex marriage will deny children a right to a mother and a father."26
We do not have to wonder if same-sex marriage will ultimately have a negative affect on traditional marriage. There has been an ongoing social experiment of this very kind in Scandinavia. The introduction of same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has contributed to the continued decrease of traditional marriage, and an increase in children born out of wedlock (the out-of-wedlock birth rate is the best way to gauge the strength of marriage in a society, because out-of-wedlock birth rates will rise as more couples choose to forego marriage). Cohabitation is becoming the dominant "family" form. Cohabiting parenthood is problematic because cohabiters are known to experience rates of family dissolution 2-3 times higher than married couples. Without stable family units children suffer socially and emotionally, and thus are ill-equipped to function maximally in society.
Approximately 60% of Scandinavian children are now born out of wedlock, most of that figure to cohabiting parents. Approximately half of all births in Norway, Denmark, and Swede, and 2/3 of all births in Iceland are to unmarried parents. The areas in which same-sex partnerships have been embraced with enthusiasm have experienced the greatest decline. Norway's Nordland County-which is particularly accepting of same-sex marriage-has an astonishing 82.27% of first-born children, and nearly 60% of second-born children born out of wedlock (as of 2002). In comparison, in 1990 "only" 40% of second-born children were born out of wedlock. That is an increase of 20%, or a statistical rise of 50% in those choosing to forego marriage before/after the birth of the second child.

The equally liberal county of Nord-Troendelag has an amazing 83.27% of first-born children, and 57.74% of second-born children born out of wedlock (as of 2002). This compares to 38.12% of second-born children who were born out of wedlock in 1990 (See Stanley Kurtz, "Testimony Before the House Judiciary Committee;" available from http://www.nationalcoalition.org/public_policy/kurtz_congress.html; Internet, accessed 22 April 2004.). This is an increase of 20%, or a statistical rise of 53% in those choosing to forego marriage before/after the birth of the second child.

Perhaps the most telling indication of the collapse of marriage in Scandinavia is the move away from their traditional practice of entering into marriage before/after the birth of a second child. At the start of the nineties only 31% of Norwegian cohabiting parents had two or more children. In 2001, however, that number had risen to 43%. That is an increase of 39% over a ten year period, indicative that marriage is in severe decline.
These figures are indicative of the fact that the recognition of same-sex partnerships is causally related to the decline of traditional marriage, and has effectively divorced the cultural connection between parenthood and marriage.
To be fair, Scandinavians were already separating parenthood from marriage prior to the same-sex marriage debate, and eventual legalization of same-sex partnerships. In fact, it was this cultural redefinition of marriage that allowed the same-sex marriage debate to come to a head and prevail. "As Danish sociologists Wehner, Kambskard, and Abrahamson describe it, in the wake of the changes of the nineties, 'Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family--neither legally nor normatively. ... What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood.' " (quoted by Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia"; available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp; Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.) But same-sex partnerships have contributed to the further decline of traditional marriage because it locks in and reinforces the message that marriage is not about parenthood. As social anthropologist, Stanley Kurtz, argues, the legalization of same-sex partnerships were both the result of, and the final nail in the coffin for separating marriage from parenthood. This is evidenced by the fact that the out-of-wedlock birth rates finally shot past the 50% mark since the legalization of same-sex partnerships. This is extremely important because new social behaviors meet their most severe cultural resistance as they enter the threshold of majority status. It was not until the legalization of same-sex partnerships that cohabiting parenthood was able to pass this threshold to become the norm for family life in Scandinavia, because the legalization of same-sex partnerships decisively sent the message to all Scandinavians that marriage is not about children.

In July 2004 a group of five Dutch family scholars, concerned about the state of marriage in the Netherlands, issued a letter addressed to the "parliaments…[of] the world who are debating the issue of same-sex marriage." Their warning is so powerful that it deserves duplication here:

At a time when parliaments around the world are debating the issue of same-sex marriage, as Dutch scholars we would like to draw attention to the state of marriage in The Netherlands. The undersigned represent various academic disciplines in which marriage is an object of study. Through this letter, we would like to express our concerns over recent trends in marriage and family life in our country.

Until the late 1980's, marriage was a flourishing institution in The Netherlands. The number of marriages was high, the number of divorces was relatively low compared to other Western countries, the number of illegitimate births also low. It seems, however, that legal and social experiments in the 1990's have had an adverse effect on the reputation of man's most important institution.

Over the past fifteen years, the number of marriages has declined substantially, both in absolute and in relative terms. In 1990, 95,000 marriages were solemnized (6.4 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants); by 2003, this number had dropped to 82,000 (5.1 marriages per 1,000 inhabitants). This same period also witnessed a spectacular rise in the number of illegitimate births--in 1989 one in ten children were born out of wedlock (11 percent), by 2003 that number had risen to almost one in three (31 percent). The number of never-married people grew by more than 850,000, from 6.46 million in 1990 to 7.32 million in 2003. It seems the Dutch increasingly regard marriage as no longer relevant to their own lives or that of their offspring. We fear that this will have serious consequences, especially for the children. There is a broad base of social and legal research which shows that marriage is the best structure for the successful raising of children. A child that grows up out of wedlock has a greater chance of experiencing problems in its psychological development, health, school performance, even the quality of future relationships.

The question is, of course, what are the root causes of this decay of marriage in our country. In light of the intense debate elsewhere about the pros and cons of legalising gay marriage it must be observed that there is as yet no definitive scientific evidence to suggest the long campaign for the legalisation of same-sex marriage contributed to these harmful trends.

However, there are good reasons to believe the decline in Dutch marriage may be connected to the successful public campaign for the opening of marriage to same-sex couples in The Netherlands. After all, supporters of same-sex marriage argued forcefully in favour of the (legal and social) separation of marriage from parenting. In parliament, advocates and opponents alike agreed that same-sex marriage would pave the way to greater acceptance of alternative forms of cohabitation.

In our judgment, it is difficult to imagine that a lengthy, highly visible, and ultimately successful campaign to persuade Dutch citizens that marriage is not connected to parenthood and that marriage and cohabitation are equally valid 'lifestyle choices' has not had serious social consequences. There are undoubtedly other factors which have contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage in our country. Further scientific research is needed to establish the relative importance of all these factors. At the same time, we wish to note that enough evidence of marital decline already exists to raise serious concerns about the wisdom of the efforts to deconstruct marriage in its traditional form.

Of more immediate importance than the debate about causality is the question what we in our country can do in order to reverse this harmful development. We call upon politicians, academics and opinion leaders to acknowledge the fact that marriage in The Netherlands is now an endangered institution and that the many children born out of wedlock are likely to suffer the consequences of that development. A national debate about how we might strengthen marriage is now clearly in order (all italics mine).
Signed,
Prof. M. van Mourik, professor in contract law, Nijmegen University
Prof. A. Nuytinck, professor in family law, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Prof. R. Kuiper, professor in philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam J. Van Loon PhD, Lecturer in Social Theory, Nottingham Trent University H. Wels PhD, Lecturer in Social and Political Science, Free University Amsterdam
(available from iMAPP.org | Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)
​

How did it come to this? How is it that marriage has come to be an "endangered institution?" Kurtz offers a logical progression:

In Sweden, as elsewhere, the sixties brought contraception, abortion, and growing individualism. Sex was separated from procreation, reducing the need for "shotgun weddings." These changes, along with the movement of women into the workforce, enabled and encouraged people to marry at later ages. With married couples putting off parenthood, early divorce had fewer consequences for children. That weakened the taboo against divorce. Since young couples were putting off children, the next step was to dispense with marriage and cohabit until children were desired. Americans have lived through this transformation. The Swedes have simply drawn the final conclusion: If we've come so far without marriage, why marry at all? Our love is what matters, not a piece of paper. Why should children change that?
…
"If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with." (Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia"; available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp; Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.)
​

British demographer, Kathleen Kiernan, developed a four-stage model by which to gauge a society's movement toward divorcing parenthood from marriage. Stanley Kurtz summarized this model as follows:

In stage one, cohabitation is seen as a deviant or avant-garde practice, and the vast majority of the population produces children within marriage. … In the second stage, cohabitation serves as a testing period before marriage, and is generally a childless phase. … In stage three, cohabitation becomes increasingly acceptable, and parenting is no longer automatically associated with marriage. In the fourth stage…marriage and cohabitation become practically indistinguishable, with many, perhaps even most, children born and raised outside of marriage. …These stages may vary in duration, yet once a country has reached a stage, return to an earlier phase is unlikely. … Yet once a stage has been reached, earlier phases coexist. (Stanley Kurtz, "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia"; available from http://24.104.4.225/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp; Internet, accessed 16 September 2004.)
​

Scandinavia had already experienced stages one and two prior to the inception of the same-sex marriage debate, with some Scandinavian countries having entered into the beginning of stage three. The debate over, and legalization of same-sex partnerships, however, pushed them through the upper stages of three and into the beginning of four. The United States is similarly situated. We are currently in stage two where the social climate is ripe for a successful campaign on behalf of same-sex marriage. If legalized, we can be certain that marriage in American will follow the Scandinavian pattern.

 

[Name_Taken]

Eh, get the fuck out of Australia you intolerant bigot.

I like it here, I'ma stay for a bit moar before going back, gotta love multiple passports

if so, then god has a terrible sense oh humour.

lol and again, have you watched the clip yet? or are you scared of what you might discover?

No... I'm scared of losing my bandwidth :S

ofc! he considers his virginity to be a "gift from god" dont cha alex?

Mhmm :uhhuh:

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

And what are the adverse effects of same sex marriages? I really don't see how this is going to have any effect on society for the worse. It is not going to encourage people to become gay in the same way that when segregation and discrimination of black people stopped, people didn't suddenly become black. Do you really think by denying marriage to homosexuals that you are going to make them go away? What are you trying to achieve, I really don't understand

oh that is so true. bravo indeed. homosexuals are already allowed to be together and stuff without fear of persecution. what's the point of denying them the right to get married?

fun fact: i read this in DNA magazine about Iran

Under the former Shah's rule, homosexuality was tolerated, even to the extent of allowing news coverage of a same-sex wedding. The shah (whatever that is) was rumoured to be bisexual and his Prime Minister, Amir Abbas Hoveyda, was gay.

the rest of the article was really awful:
"they told me that if i didn't tell the truth, they would make me sit on a metal chair with a gas cooker under it"

and

"they threatened to send me to an army barracks where all the soldiers would rape me. There was a soft drink bottle sitting on a table, and the Panahi told one of the basiji (volunteer militant) to take the bottle and shove it up my ass, screaming, "this will teach you not to want any more cock"

thank god for this beautful world.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

No... I'm scared of losing my bandwidth :S

lol you gotta watch it. i am sure it has enough of a punch to sway even iron.

 

[NewiJapper]

Hey Name_Taken, the mardi gras are around the corner. How about you and a couple of your hommies go actually check how the people on the other side of the fence made of dildos live their life.

 

[Titburger]

Marriage is a social institution, not a private institution. As such, changing the definition of marriage will affect society at large. It will affect their conception of the meaning and significance of marriage. If the institution of marriage is weakened in the eyes of society, society itself will be weakened because marriage stands at its foundation.

Nothing in that article has conviced me that society is going to crumble because two dudes are expressing their love for each other

"Oh noes other people getting married, I must abandon everything I know"

Is it going to change your beliefs if same sex marriage is legalised Name_Taken?
Or are the rest of society just a bunch of suckers?

 

[Graney]

What is civil marriage? (Religion aside) wouldn't you say it is society's stamp of approval (in a way) regarding the legitimacy of certain relationships, to encourage them, because they serve a particular social interest (i.e. procreation, or would you say its something else)?

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.

With this in mind, what purpose do same sex relationships serve society, that which would justify the government giving them social support to secure their stability (in marriage)?

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.

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.

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.

What (in your opinion) is the purpose of (civil) marriage? What makes the union between a grown man and women so special to the state, that the government regulates and protects it? What makes this type of union so special and more important, to the state, than all others?

Its not becuase they are based on love else, why doesn't the government regulate or monitor our friendships (they're based on love as well you know)?

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.

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

 

[Graney]

People used this same argument for cohabitation back in the 1950s and 60s. The past 50 years have shown just how wrong it was.

Yeah the 50's were really a golden age for child welfare. All those happy, non-abusive marriages



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...

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.

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.

 

[Name_Taken]

lol you gotta watch it. i am sure it has enough of a punch to sway even iron.

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.

Hey Name_Taken, the mardi gras are around the corner. How about you and a couple of your hommies go actually check how the people on the other side of the fence made of dildos live their life.

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.

Nothing in that article has conviced me that society is going to crumble because two dudes are expressing their love for each other

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.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Name_taken:

1- you are a robot if those clips did nothing for you. i suggest you find a heart and fill up that hollow tin chest of yours.

2- where in the bible does it state EXPLICITLY that marraige MUST be between a man and a woman? Sure he told adam and eve to be "multiply" but that was mainly because of the low population level. And if people at time did wanted to populate the earth, then of course homosexuality would be looked down upon.

3-

Homosexuality is a behaviour

So heterosexuality is a behaviour as well?

4-

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.

And that is what a homosexual relationship is based upon. Not lust, or perversion as you have stated before.

In short, do you really expect people to try and abstain from sex and not enter into a relationship? Do you understand the repercussions this could have for an individual? Being told that their innate desire for love is actually a sin? A desire in which you expect them to overcome. The need for love and affection is on the third tier of Maslow's hierachy of needs and I can't believe that there are people like you who see fit to deny them that.

People have been using the bible as a weapon for too long to fulfill their own selfish agendas. Even though recognition have been gained, homosexuals are still afraid to come out, choosing to supress their desires instead. And you wonder why promiscuity and drug use is prevalent among the LGBT community? if you really did watch the video, then you would know homosexuals are 4-7 times more like to commit suicide.

 

[Name_Taken]

Name_taken:

1- you are a robot if those clips did nothing for you. i suggest you find a heart and fill up that hollow tin chest of yours.

Ouch, cut me deep there.

I laughed a bit though, especially when the cartoon of lies appeared and spewed forth BS with which to indoctrinate the gullible, and also at that absolute bogan who's favourite past time was bashing up gays. Not with him though, but at him.

2- where in the bible does it state EXPLICITLY that marraige MUST be between a man and a woman? Sure he told adam and eve to be "multiply" but that was mainly because of the low population level. And if people at time did wanted to populate the earth, then of course homosexuality would be looked down upon.

If God wanted to, He could have created millions of people, but he didn't. He created two, and told them to multiply. He could have bypassed the whole notion of reproduction and made each successive generation of humans himself, but He didn't.

He created man and women, and told them to "be fruitful" (Gen 1:28).

Bible verses on marriage:

Gen 2:22-24 (NIV);

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The first marriage; between Adam and Eve. Note, singular "wife", and "a man".

Note as well, God could have created Eve from scratch, but instead, made her out of Adam. They are both equal, having been made from the same flesh, and again reunited as "one flesh" in marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read" he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Here, Jesus quotes what the OT says regarding marriage (when asked about divorce).

1 Corith 7:1-2 (NIV);

... It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

Marriage is suggested as something more than simply a means of celebrating love, but as a means of avoiding sin (eg. fornication etc.).

There are plenty more, google it yourself if you are curious.

3-
So heterosexuality is a behaviour as well?

I would admit it is, but the two are not equal.

A homosexual = a heterosexual in terms of their humanity.
However;
A homosexual union < a heterosexual union and as such, the heterosexual union is worthy of special privlideges which are not offered to other relationships (including that of homosexual couples).

Wether you are religious or not, this should be evident. A union of two homosexuals is just that, two people. But a union of heterosexuals represents something which is greater than the simple sum of its parts, it has the ability to do something which the homosexual union cannot do, to create life and raise children in a loving environment.

Yes a homosexual union could raise a child, but they are not able to create one. They remain totally parasitic on the unique abilities of the heterosexual population.

4-

And that is what a homosexual relationship is based upon. Not lust, or perversion as you have stated before.

What is marriage, except the foundation stone on which a family is built, and subsequently society itself? A family is about more than love, or sex, but about life, the creation of it, the celebration of it.

Human society has always been built upon the family, where the mother and father have been joined together in something known as marriage. This unit, provided a means to raise the next generation. Civil marriage has never been about love (alone), but about children.

Even polygamous marriages in the past, whilst immoral, met this purpose.

There is nothing wrong with treating gay unions as different to heterosexual unions, if such a fundamnetal difference actually does exist.

In short, do you really expect people to try and abstain from sex and not enter into a relationship?

I have so far. I don't see why anyone else couldn't.

And even if a person has sex outside of marriage, they are not doomed to Hell simply because of that. They can always seek redemption through Christ for their sins. Homosexuals these days don't do this, they march down the streets dressed as prostitutes and all manner of uncivilised human filth would and celebrate the "normality" of their sin and ostracise those who criticise their morally corrupt and anti-life behaviour.

Do you understand the repercussions this could have for an individual? Being told that their innate desire for love is actually a sin? A desire in which you expect them to overcome. The need for love and affection is on the third tier of Maslow's hierachy of needs and I can't believe that there are people like you who see fit to deny them that.

Am I to assume that you were unable to love your parents or any other family member or friend, without havnig sex with them? Your relationships should be governed by your heart (so to speak) rather than your thirst for orgasm (goes for everyone).

Sex is not required for love.

Sex is the means by which a man and women can create life. If it is not being used for this purpose then it is a perversion.

Love between people of the same sex isn't condemned anywhere (as far as I know) within the Bible.

People have been using the bible as a weapon for too long to fulfill their own selfish agendas. Even though recognition have been gained, homosexuals are still afraid to come out, choosing to supress their desires instead. And you wonder why promiscuity and drug use is prevalent among the LGBT community?

The alientation and intimidation of homosexuals is not my, or anyone else's aim. I don't call people faggots on the street or bash up people I know to be gay etc.

I'm sick of the BS the gay movement expects me to believe (eg. my genes made me do it, God made me gay waa waa waa etc), but that is a different matter.

The bottom line is, gay sex is a morally repugnant behaviour and is not acceptable. This is a moral view.

Homosexual sex (and exclusive subscription to homosexuality as a permanent "orientation") is not natural (lets not go there again please). This is a scientific view.

Homosexual sex, is dirty and unhealthy for the individual (STI's, lifestyle diseases etc). This is a medical view, concerned for the heath of others being mislead into thinking this "alternative" is healthy.

As a Christian I believe I go even further and believe it is a sin, and as such, I believe I have a moral obligation to oppose its encouragement in society. This i a religious view.

There are no reasons why gay (civil) marriages should be accepted, as cannot produce children, and as such are by default not equal in importance to heterosexual ones, in the eyes of the state and are not worthy of the same priveledges and "rights". This is a practical view.

if you really did watch the video, then you would know homosexuals are 4-7 times more like to commit suicide.

The number was 3 times more likely, if I recall. Stop artifically inflating the figures >.>

And I believe this is the result of retards like the dickhead in the baseball cap who couldn't even string a scentence together, and likes to bash up gays and people who abuse them on the street etc.

Socieites attitude towards homosexuals is intollerant, when it should be accepting of homosexuals, but intollerant of homosexuality (as in the physical practising of it), that said the act itself should be permitted, but it should not be portrayed as anything but what it is.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

no i'm sure they said 4-7 times more likely.

and lol do you expect homosexuals to choose between having "heterosexual" sex or no sex at all?

anyhoo, blame god for making sex tempting... or did the devil create the orgasm?


edit: and you can't honestly believe that adam and eve were the first man and woman? that is impossible for obvious reasons.

lol and i'm sure that cartoon was mainly directed at bogans who cannot think of a better reason to oppress homosexuals other than "cUS the biblle told me so"

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

couldn't resist:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dZgf4N6_7wE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dZgf4N6_7wE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Graney]

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

 

[Titburger]

If God wanted to, He could have created millions of people, but he didn't. He created two, and told them to multiply. He could have bypassed the whole notion of reproduction and made each successive generation of humans himself, but He didn't.

And they gave birth to Cain, Abel and Seth. What happened then, ...incest?

 

[mirakon]

couldn't resist:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dZgf4N6_7wE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dZgf4N6_7wE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

So moving *sniff*

How can you not support gay marriage now?

 

[Will Shakespear]

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

So...