Homosexuality in Australia (9 Viewers)

What do you think of homosexuality in Australia?

  • Yes, i strongly support it.

    Votes: 674 48.5%
  • I somewhat support it.

    Votes: 201 14.5%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 182 13.1%
  • I do not support it.

    Votes: 334 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,391

Titburger

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
168
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Its a reflection on society itself.

Its not nice for anyone to live in a society which hold the natural family in contempt and holds it to ransom to the everchanging whims of desire of its population.

We need a totally objective moral code, which should be adhered to, regardless of its popularity. Abosolute morals exist, absolute truth exists.

The problem with relative morality is that it effectively means no-body is actually right, its all opinion and as such no-body should have any obligation to subscribe to anothers moral stance, and to force them to do such would be an infringement of their fundamental liberties.

That was a bit of a rant but oh well...

Theres all the religious reasons, the social ones, the legal ones and the basic point that homosexual unions are not worthy of marriage simply because they do not at all refelct the purpose which it serves.

Marriage is something not defined by society, and as such will remain true to itself, despite what liberals wish to call it. Marriage and families are natural institutions and have always been a staple aspect of human "tribes", it is only recognised by society.
It seems a bit conceited to think that just because gays are marrying that families wont continue to exist. Nothing is going to adversely affect the individual! If you think this is the case then people are starting families for all the wrong reasons. The slippery slope argument is a cop-out.

And it's not nice to live in a society where the definitions of love (and the physical expression of this) are forced down our throat to be limited to a man and woman. Restricting this expression of love is not good for anyone.

This absolute and objective moral code that you talk of doesn't seem so absolute. You must admit that there are times when it is appropriate to lie, yet the ten commandments tells us 'thou shoult not lie"
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
maybe you are simply grossed out by two guys getting it on .

also, what does the bible say about oral sex?
Whatever the bible says on the matter will have little bearing on what that idealogical showpony believes, particularly when compared to what some pompous old windbag in Rome says.
 

Titburger

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
168
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Whatever the bible says on the matter will have little bearing on what that idealogical showpony believes, particularly when compared to what some pompous old windbag in Rome says.


...coincidence?
 

Will Shakespear

mumbo magic
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
1,186
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
lol! you've given us quite abit of wiggle room there:rolleyes:
the all-knowing, all powerful creator of the entire universe cares deeply about which exact specific bits of ur anatomy touch which exact specific bits of some other dude's anatomy
 

meeatu

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
127
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Its not nice for anyone to live in a society which hold the natural family in contempt and holds it to ransom to the everchanging whims of desire of its population.
Ah yes! ^__^ the 'natural family', that entirely definable and not-at-all subjective concept :p
And them everchanging whims! :p Them nasty, nasty everchanging whims... you know... like homosexuality... that everchanging whim that has predated civilization itself :p

We need a totally objective moral code, which should be adhered to, regardless of its popularity. Abosolute morals exist, absolute truth exists.

The problem with relative morality is that it effectively means no-body is actually right, its all opinion and as such no-body should have any obligation to subscribe to anothers moral stance, and to force them to do such would be an infringement of their fundamental liberties.
What is this? Actual, legitimate argument!?!?
Who are you, and what have you done with Name_Taken :p

1) Projecting an absolute moral code onto people who don't accept it is the very infringement of "fundamental liberties" that you speak of.

2) Absolute morals and truths cannot exist or they would not be disputed, merely acted to, or against. The fact that, as humans, we can question morality itself proves that morality cannot be set in stone (figuratively, as the 10 commandments were no doubt set litterally in stone on more than one occassion).

3) Even if morality could be absolutely defined, it, in itself exists only through our subjective interpretations of it.

4) I see no reason why your problems with subjective morality are problems at all...
God forbid every argument not have a 'winner' and a looser'! or that we can just make up our own minds about what we believe to be right all willy-nilly!

5) You don't seem to understand the difference between morals and law.
The purpose of law is not to uphold universal morals.
It never has been.
The purpose of law is to maintain morals that attempt to encompass the majorities morals into a system that allows for the people of that society to co-exist.
By believing in subjective morality, I do not suggest that anyone be obliged to subscribe to my moral stance, quite the opposite, I encourage everyone to hold their own, but simply obide by the law if they want to co-exist freely within the society. Ie: (too take it to the extreme) If, in your subjuective morality, you can justify murder. Then, you are free to see murder as acceptable, and on a moral level, you would be completly fine in murdering someone. However, to co-exist in a society where the majority do not believe that murder is acceptable, you may not.
This would no doubt encourage the creation of nations based on belief structures, rather than ethnicity. The difference, is that you and your absolute morals tell us that our beliefs are wrong, and that even if we surrounded ourselves only with people who believe simmilarly (note: the majority of the western world now) and away from people who our morals could not allow us to co-exist with, we could still not practice homosexual sex. THAT is the stripping of your "fundamental liberties".

Theres all the religious reasons, the social ones, the legal ones and the basic point that homosexual unions are not worthy of marriage simply because they do not at all refelct the purpose which it serves.

Marriage is something not defined by society, and as such will remain true to itself, despite what liberals wish to call it. Marriage and families are natural institutions and have always been a staple aspect of human "tribes", it is only recognised by society.
To paraphrase:
There is the reason wherein it does not fit with one particular moral system, the reason wherein a minority of the western world would feel cheated, the reason that we might actually have to lift a finger and change some legislation, and the basic point that Marriage has existed for millions of years in some form or another, and already has a definition, which cannot be changed (oh wait... This is an argument AGAINST my other points, because the vast majority of celebrations that mirrored the christian "marriage" have allowed for the union of homosexual couples)

You just PROVED that homosexual matrimonial unions should be recognised by religion and legislation. =]
 

meeatu

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
127
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
So polygamous relationships, relationships between people and animals, older people and children, between people of the same family, these are all deserving of marriage as well? Desrved by all means just that, right?
In short: Absolutely. Yes. :hat:
:jaw:
I know! Next he'll be saying that gypsey, dwarf, fortune-tellers can get married too! Or even completely consenting and responsible adults who can statistically form more stable relationships, generate more income, and raise happy and healthy children that are known to be even slightly more likely to live full and successfull lives (that just happen to both be male or both be female) -Fucking liberals!


Um because religion aside, a marriage and a family is a natural structure of all human societies and should this should be reflected in the law. It is different to all other types of relationships for reasons I have demonstrated already, and as such merits to be in a class of its own.
Yup. because, as we all know, it is an absolute falsity that every single society ever to be documented has included homosexual couples. :p
They couldn't possibly be included into our views of the "natural structure od all human societies" and thus mariage and family. That would be preposterous! :p

:hammer: smashy smashy!


I'm feeling lazy so I'm just going to paste this article, hope you don't mind, and that it clarifies for you.
O_O ummm...
That article holds absolutely no relevance to what we were discussing!
You're making me sad again =[

I don't love you any more! *cries*

I don't think this is an issue in Australia, I think this is only in America. Otherwise, there is family relatives who can make the call and these rights can be secured outside of marriage.
Okies :] Fair 'nuff ^__^
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
lol absolute morals? doesn't morals are subjective and what one society view as incorrect milleniums ago might not neccessarily be incorrect today. now, you might drag murder and theft into your argument, but in what world would that ever be socially acceptable? once again, two guys or two girls getting married would not affect you personally in any way.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
also, we fags need some sort of theme song :D
to show that we mean business.

i think something like headstrong by trapt should suffice...

"back off i'll take you on!
headstrong to take on anyone!
i know that you are wrong,
headstrong, we're headstrong!"​
 

meeatu

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
127
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
also, we fags need some sort of theme song :D

to show that we mean business.

i think something like headstrong by trapt should suffice...

"back off i'll take you on!
headstrong to take on anyone!
i know that you are wrong,
headstrong, we're headstrong!"​
GTFO! :p
No shitty pop rock (cock-rock) band will make MY theme song!
 

mcflystargirl

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
551
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
in that case u have to ask what act on a continuum becomes sinful?

to love another dude?
to hold his hand?
kiss...
etc.

when does the non-sinful inherent attraction end and the sinful behaviour start?

coz in the case of the murderer it's fairly clear cut, once he pulls the trigger n kills someone then u've got a sin (murder), but here it's not obvious at all
This is not the case though, In matthew we are clearly told that not just the murder is the sin but the anger towards the other person is also considered a sin (un-rightous anger of course).
Matthew 5 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment
We are also told that lusting after someone we are not married to is also a sin, not just having sex with them.
I think once you start having sexual thought or images about that person is when it becomes a sin.
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
All this talk of absolute morality and belief structures is making my head spin.

There's nothing wrong with love, any kind of love that doesn't manipulate or abuse. We could do with some more love in this world...
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
This is not the case though, In matthew we are clearly told that not just the murder is the sin but the anger towards the other person is also considered a sin (un-rightous anger of course).
Matthew 5 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment
We are also told that lusting after someone we are not married to is also a sin, not just having sex with them.
I think once you start having sexual thought or images about that person is when it becomes a sin.

Actually that is a very good point...
 

JasmineNuytre

I AM ACTUALLY BIGPOLE
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
79
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Name_Taken, the bible is crap.

I believe in God, but religion as a whole is a bunch of far-fetched theories.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
All this talk of absolute morality and belief structures is making my head spin.

There's nothing wrong with love, any kind of love that doesn't manipulate or abuse. We could do with some more love in this world...
More love, but less sex...
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Name_Taken, the bible is crap.

I believe in God, but religion as a whole is a bunch of far-fetched theories.
Sigh, the Bible is not crap.

Gays are not human.

I can make ridiculous and unsupported statements as well, it doesn't mean anything, unless you're a troll ofc, which I don't think you are...

Do you believe in the Christian God, but simply reject His word, or a God which you divised yourself, perhaps conveniently permitting whatever behaviours that you may feel enticed to indulge in?
 

Titburger

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
168
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Sigh, the Bible is not crap.

Gays are not human.

I can make ridiculous and unsupported statements as well, it doesn't mean anything, unless you're a troll ofc, which I don't think you are...

Do you believe in the Christian God, but simply reject His word, or a God which you divised yourself, perhaps conveniently permitting whatever behaviours that you may feel enticed to indulge in?
To quote Dr Cornel West,

"In the end we're finite creatures. We don't have a language or even a linguistic elequance that can begin to be fully truthful to the experiences that we have, the short time that we're here in time and space."

To claim that one book written by man can be a guide for our entire lives and therefore govern our actions and beliefs is quite a stupid statement.
 
Last edited:

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
To quote Dr Cornel West,

"In the end we're finite creatures. We don't have a language or even a linguistic elequance that can begin to be fully truthful to the experiences that we have, the short time that we're here in time and space."

To claim that one book written by man can be a guide for our entire lives and therefore govern our actions and beliefs is quite a stupid statement.
The Bible isn't just one book, and it wasn't written by a single author, nor did the authors have contact with each other, largely becuae many of them lived in different places and generations apart.

And may I ask as to how your quote actually relates to what your point was?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 9)

Top