Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[kami]

You go on to say that most christains accept homosexuality and don't discriminate against people. I agree. Most christains are rational with moderate beliefs.

I think this is as much a generalisation as saying most are bible bashing homophobes - one that also would not hold up if we were to look at statistics. It would be more appropriate to say that most tolerate homosexuality; acceptance implies that one is utterly fine with a homosexual presence in any aspect of their daily lives in the similar way heterosexuality is. That said, I don't think religion is solely responsible for that.

 

[ari89]

That's what she said.

How many times do I have to point out that this is just your opinion. While I happen to agree with you more than someone like Fred Phelps, who are you to say that his interpretation is wrong? Religion is subjective Ari, everyone will interpret the bible differently.

It was not just my opinion. There are stuff in the bible that are clearly open to interpretation and equally, there are those that aren't open to interpretation. To say the hexi decimal code for black (the absence of colour) is 000000 means that the hexi decimal code for black (the absence of colour) is 000000. However, to say the hexi decimal code FF6633 is a specific colour is open to interpretation - it could be red to some, or orange to others. The statement quoted was a black, a statement stating something that isn't open to interpretation. However, there are equally other more peripheral statements in the bible that are open to whatever interpretation you could think of. That is the subjectivity of the bible you talk about, and that was not alluded to.

Read the bible just as I have read much of the koran, agnostic gospel, and other apocypha religious writings before you comment on it. Commenting on an article you have never read doesn't constitute a sound academic approach, just as commenting a book you are not accustomed with is a flawed, illogical and irrational approach. (And I am refering to the New Testament, which an absence of Jews within this forum would imply.)

I never stated that you stated that "most Christians accept homosexuality as morally right."

You said " You go on to say that most Christians accept homosexuality and don't discriminate against people" and I didn't want people to interpret it incorrectly. As what kami has interpreted your reference of my words to be.

Edit: and what Kami said...to an extent. Religion isn't the only thing that stops people fully accepting homosexuality.

 

[kami]

No but it plays a big part. Most people that object to homosexuality do so based on religious grounds.

Generalisation - many object based on tradition, fear of change and what it may herald, biological reasons etc. People come to the decision that homosexuality is wrong due to a variety of stimuli. Religion and selective interpretation of religion to the degree that one may propagate bigotry as dogma is disturbing and problematic but to presume that it is even the primary basis in this matter is too much of a generalisation. It also marginalises the GLBTI communities' desire for equity since you're essentially making it a queer vs. fundo issue.

 

[ari89]

I have read the bible.

Then make references other than your 'leviticus statement' to prove a minor point that someone who had read the bible would know the rational counter approach to the old testament. Simlarly, referencing the creation story as occuring in seven days to prove biblical fallacy in itself is flawed because by the nature of the concept of a point of creation, a time scale would inevitably only be representative. Most Christians today even find the 7 days as being equal to 7 of today's days as being absurd, because from science we know that the world developed over a much longer time period. (lol its one of the FF6633 parts of the bible)

Well you did interpret it incorrectly.

Re-read what I said.

No but it plays a big part. Most people that object to homosexuality do so based on religious grounds.

What kami said. Except I don't know what he meant by Fundo in the last sentence?

 

[xeuyrawp]

The bible is not fiction. Much of it is historically accurate.

It's just the parts about there being a "god" that created the universe in 7 days and Jesus rising from the dead that is fictitious. Sure I can't prove this stuff didn't happen, but there is no more proof to support these claims than there is of any other supernatural garbage that is considered fiction.

I'm not trying to rubbish your beliefs, I'm just saying there is no evidence to support them. At the end of the day you are making a personal choice to believe in god despite a lack of evidence.

I'm not saying 'it' did or did not happen - the Bible is a massive collection of many complex accounts of many different events. Dismissing the whole thing as fictitious is just hilarious.

And really, you've got to wonder if things like Genesis actually explain things (in the 7 days case, creation) in understandable and managable ways, like science does today? But that's a tangent.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus himself did not speak ill of queers, as far as we know.

What kami said. Except I don't know what he meant by Fundo in the last sentence?

Fundamentalist, I believe.

 

[kami]

Not at all. Perhaps I should have used the word "many" instead of "most." I can't prove it but I do think a large proportion of anti-homosexual people are religious. If they object to homosexuality based on other reasons I find it just as stupid. So I'm not making it a "queer vs fundo issue" I'm making it a queer vs. bigotted morons issue.

I too believe that many who object are religious but I believe for many it is a conjunction of the previously mentioned things. Otherwise I personally believe people would question the validity of such beliefs, just as they question and dismiss so much else from the Bible as inapplicable.

 

[ari89]

I'm not saying 'it' did or did not happen - the Bible is a massive collection of many complex accounts of many different events. Dismissing the whole thing as fictitious is just hilarious.

qft. We're even allowed to use it as evidence for a HSC ancient history unit. (And yes, the facts aligned up with other independant sources.)

Most people who claim that the bible is fictitious have no idea what it is about. You have the creation story and that of Noah which without a doubt sound farfetched. There is the exodus story and the law that you give or take. Then we have the history of Israel's kings and the books of the chroniclers...That is very much accurate history and by no means fiction by any claim. We inevitable make our way to the New Testament which follows the life of Jesus who almost all historians (theists and secularists alike) conclude that he was a very real Gallilean who taught, was accussed of sedation against Rome and was crucified. The journeys of Paul in Acts is factually accurate (however, the timeline isn't perfect as it was not intended as a history). Lastly, the end of the new testament with the writings of the Apostles puts forth a philosophy, does that brand the entire book fiction?

And really, you've got to wonder if things like Genesis actually explain things (in the 7 days case, creation) in understandable and managable ways, like science does today? But that's a tangent.

Etc.

Anyway, my point is that Jesus himself did not speak ill of queers, as far as we know.

Yep.

Fundamentalist, I believe.

Thanks

So in otherwords make references to the bible that support the conclusions you think are correct, because anyone that interprets it differently to you is wrong.

No. Make reference to facts in your arguments just as I did with mine about the Koran. And guess what, "Mohammed married a 9 year old girl and had intercourse with her" doesn't require any further interpretation just as what I'm asking doesn't. You don't even know my conclusions so quit forcing your preconceived ideas of what I apparently believe onto me. As with everything I've said, the basis of my arguments are not on interpretation, which you appear to be pushing for no apparent reason.

No.

Closed minded much? Or does the problem lie in my interpretation of the word no?

He means fundamentalist Christians.

Thanks

 

[sam04u]

People who say they bible is fictitious are usually speaking about the ideas of a Deity and things of that nature. (also usually refering to contradictions and incorrect facts and ideas.)

 

[ari89]

People who say they bible is fictitious are usually speaking about the ideas of a Deity and things of that nature. (also usually refering to contradictions and incorrect facts and ideas.)

We already ruled out generalisations from this argument with the 'all muslims are paediphiles, rapists and terrorists'. I guess you were secretly attached to those ideals (however, I was lucky enough to get a direct quote God bless my soul).

Incorrect facts among a narrative of true historical facts do not constitute a fictitious text. With a historical texts such as much of what is in the old testament, historical inaccuricies make it flawed as a perfect history, not a work of fiction.

Similarly, ideas that contradict your personal beliefs or what you brand 'incorrect ideas' (as stemming from your beliefs) do not constitute a work of fiction. By your logic I can say that since I believe marrying a child to be an incorrect idea I can brand the koran fiction. I'm gonna just go ahead and brand every historical work, philosophy, judges ruling and other works of literature fiction because I find the ideas incorrect. Sound good and reasonable?

 

[Tulipa]

To move away from religion perhaps, I have to agree with Kami with this:

Generalisation - many object based on tradition, fear of change and what it may herald, biological reasons etc. People come to the decision that homosexuality is wrong due to a variety of stimuli. Religion and selective interpretation of religion to the degree that one may propagate bigotry as dogma is disturbing and problematic but to presume that it is even the primary basis in this matter is too much of a generalisation. It also marginalises the GLBTI communities' desire for equity since you're essentially making it a queer vs. fundo issue.

Not everything is about religion, there is a big societal push on this that a lot of people dismiss. Perhaps because of religion but also because of tradition, there are a lot of people adverse to the accepting of homosexuality because they grew up with it being "bad". Also, there are a lot of bible threads guys, this is more for homosexuality and at the moment you're starting to stray. Perhaps keep on topic a little more?

 

[ari89]

Not everything is about religion, there is a big societal push on this that a lot of people dismiss. Perhaps because of religion but also because of tradition, there are a lot of people adverse to the accepting of homosexuality because they grew up with it being "bad".

You and Kami are correct imo. Many people don't accept homosexuality because it is what they see as against social norms hence they brand it unnatural (Refer to the first 1000 posts in this thread.) It was never really Gay's v Religion, it just seems that people in their ignorance like to turn it that way. I'm a Christian and I fully accept homosexuals for who they are and I have no right to judge or discriminate against them. Any argument someone suggests about me otherwise would be clearly false as my best guy friend is in fact gay and I'm quite sure I'm a Christian(And yes, its by choice and if you disagree with my choice I'll have to brand you intolerant). I don't have an opinion on same sex marriages as I have no idea what I can do about it and heard that something like 85% didn't want to get married so I don't know how much of an issue it actually is. (Some interview with Michael Kirby)

Also, there are a lot of bible threads guys, this is more for homosexuality and at the moment you're starting to stray. Perhaps keep on topic a little more?

I'll keep on topic as long as someone doesn't take me away again

Anyway, the reason that religion became a theme throughout this thread is summed up by waf.

The problem is that a lot of bigots who don't really care about religion pretend to be religious so they can have some basis for their stances rather than the fact that they're just pricks.

 

[Tulipa]

I don't have an opinion on same sex marriages as I have no idea what I can do about it and heard that something like 85% didn't want to get married so I don't know how much of an issue it actually is. (Some interview with Michael Kirby)

I think the problem with the viewpoint that "Oh they don't all want to get married so we don't need to worry about it", is that what about the couples that do want to get married and have children?

There are hetrosexual couples who might not want to get married but they've got the choice to. I think it's having the opportunity and being able to choose to marry whoever you want that's the point.

Also, I feel that the argument some people put forward that they'll never have a "normal" or "healthy" home life is pretty much bullshit. Think of how hard a gay couple would have to work to get a child but they'd do it because they'd love the child and look after it much better than some straight couples who abuse their "mistake" children. (I'm just putting forward a viewpoint, not meaning to generalise about parents here)

 

[Iron]

Hm gay marriage.
If you wanted to take a bit of a gendered slant on things, youd say that marriage has traditionally been a raw deal for the wife. It could be argued that it's a system rigged to maximise a man's efficiency, by having a wife take care of all the dull yet necessary things. There's essentially a residual subordination thing about it; strong man, weak woman bla.
I think that poofs have never seen the need to enter this. Being two self-respecting men, there should be no question about who's going to sacrifice their masculinity. That's why the gay community produces notoriously unfaithful lovers.
It's just about the sex. When you get into marriage, you get into more murky waters about gender identity, which is too weird for my taste.

 

[js5071]

i think if there was a bigger more recongnised movement then reform might take place, and i think it will happen eventually, but considering there is nothing overally drastic capturing the medias attention the govn. doesnt need to approach it.

maybe its time for a revolution!!
: P

 

[ur_inner_child]

I think the problem with the viewpoint that "Oh they don't all want to get married so we don't need to worry about it", is that what about the couples that do want to get married and have children?

There are hetrosexual couples who might not want to get married but they've got the choice to. I think it's having the opportunity and being able to choose to marry whoever you want that's the point.

Also, I feel that the argument some people put forward that they'll never have a "normal" or "healthy" home life is pretty much bullshit. Think of how hard a gay couple would have to work to get a child but they'd do it because they'd love the child and look after it much better than some straight couples who abuse their "mistake" children. (I'm just putting forward a viewpoint, not meaning to generalise about parents here)

I too wonder about what some must consider a balanced family. And to add, two females raising a child is apparently warped, but one struggling single mother somehow isn't?

And if it's not about having two adults of different gender to "properly" raise a child, but moreso about how gay parents will teach children to be gay, I have an inkling that the very last thing homosexual people will ever do is exert a preferred sexuality upon someone they care about. They have probably suffered and endured the same in their own childhood. That, and the fact that gays aren't exactly bred from gays.

So the whole "unbalanced family/home life" argument is a bit silly to me. When it comes down to it, the excuse is really "homosexuals are freaks of nature/homosexuals have disgusting relationships" in disguise.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hm gay marriage.
If you wanted to take a bit of a gendered slant on things, youd say that marriage has traditionally been a raw deal for the wife. It could be argued that it's a system rigged to maximise a man's efficiency, by having a wife take care of all the dull yet necessary things. There's essentially a residual subordination thing about it; strong man, weak woman bla.
.

Yet many non-traditional straight marriages work very well? Ie, two professional, socially-powerful people, raising children? Stay at home Dads, etc?

I think that poofs have never seen the need to enter this.

I think there used to be no need for it: Gay people could come out, therefore couldn't have long relationships, therefore couldn't get married.

Now queers are really only after the legal right to marry, for, other than legal reasons, a top-down change in social norms.

Being two self-respecting men, there should be no question about who's going to sacrifice their masculinity. That's why the gay community produces notoriously unfaithful lovers.
It's just about the sex. When you get into marriage, you get into more murky waters about gender identity, which is too weird for my taste

I think gender roles work well for queers, if they're aware of it.

Two masculine guys go well because they're essentially roommates who fuck. A more masculine guy and a less masculine guy work well because they might fit the traditional ying-yang model. Two less masculine guys will tend to form a similar relationship as two masculine guys, except be more emotionally and socially intimate.

But that's just my guess.

 

[Iron]

Yet many non-traditional straight marriages work very well? Ie, two professional, socially-powerful people, raising children? Stay at home Dads, etc?

I think there used to be no need for it: Gay people could come out, therefore couldn't have long relationships, therefore couldn't get married.

Now queers are really only after the legal right to marry, for, other than legal reasons, a top-down change in social norms.

I think gender roles work well for queers, if they're aware of it.

Two masculine guys go well because they're essentially roommates who fuck. A more masculine guy and a less masculine guy work well because they might fit the traditional ying-yang model. Two less masculine guys will tend to form a similar relationship as two masculine guys, except be more emotionally and socially intimate.

But that's just my guess.

I like you PwarYuex and deeply respect you as a person. But I just cant see how a man would willingly surrender his independence to another. The idea sickens saddens and tires me.

 

[townie]

I like you PwarYuex and deeply respect you as a person. But I just cant see how a man would willingly surrender his independence to another. The idea sickens saddens and tires me.

c'mon, havent u ever heard the term "pussy whipped" and yuck, it IS sad when it happens, but it DOES happen, and willingly too (tho admitidly without a clear head)

 

[xeuyrawp]

I like you PwarYuex and deeply respect you as a person. But I just cant see how a man would willingly surrender his independence to another. The idea sickens saddens and tires me.

ahah... Your approval means so much.

But seriously, I think a good relationship requires such little work and gets massive rewards. It's not about completely surrendering independence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ziECzNKhM

hilarious expose of the hypocritical position of christians on homosexuality.

Link's broken, I think.

edit: Nah, sorry youtube's just down at the moment.

 

[Snaykew]

It's quite easy to find practices and contradicting bits in the Bible. :/ It seems that even though the Bible was translated for everyone to read, nobody reads it. -_-