Homosexuality in Australia (3 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

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
If I was heterosexual, I'd feel unnatural.
You are neither homosexual or heterosexual, you simply human with desires, some of which may lead to you to do good, others to do evil.

What makes you good or bad, straight or gay etc are your actions.

Just like I can think constantly about killing someone, but I am not a murderer until I actually kill them. Likewise I can think of giving to charity as much as I want, but I am not giving until I actually open my wallet.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
I was not making a point that that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural, I was refuting your point that "Homosexuality is unnatural, hence we should not allow it". The same thing that you have now said to me applies to yourself. Heterosexuality is also natural, must we not accept it either? No.
Humans are not hermaphrodites, a person is either male or female. The vast majority of people are solely attracted to the opposite sex and it is only through sex between two members of the opposite sex that life can be created.

Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. It is a behaviour, I don't see why you cannot accept this.

Well that sentence contradicts that whole paragraph. :p
No it doesn't...

While this article hypothesises the purpose behind the behaviour (we are not addressing this, we are talking about facts here), it does NOT destroy the fact that animal homosexual behaviour is present in nature.
No, it dispells the theory that simply because a simlar (however subetly different) behaviour is observed in animals and humans that it is right or should be accepted as normal.

Humans ARE animals, only that we are more complex and we can communicate more effectively. Once again, BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature.

You cannot say that either one is "bad", unless if a WHOLE species is homosexual lol.
Unless a species is hemaphrodidic (in which case individuals can't be said to pertain to a single gender anyway) homosexual relationships individuals are unable to create life, ergo a whole species cannot be homosexual.

You cannot compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in that regard. A species of homosexuals cannot exist. Biologically (morals aside) it is totally unsustainable.

Yes. So heterosexuality should not be tolerated? The irony in your saying is that you say that "heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not that's why homosexuality should not be tolerated" then you say that "we should not act natural aka like animals, instead act "civilised" ".
As I just stated, you can't compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in humans. Hetersexual reproduction is biologically required for our species to survive.

Homosexuality serves no purpose in humans. In animals it has been suggested that individuals engage in homosexual sex as displays of dominance (which has no relevance to human social interaction) and as a means of attracting partners of the opposite sex with to reproduce. Yes, some species do engage in homosexual sex, but it is as a means to an end, to reproduce themselves. (Strictly speaking, animals which engage in homosexual acts would be closer to the human equivilant of bisexual, since an exclusive preference to individuals of the same gender hasn't been yet observed in nature).

This is not the case with humans, where homosexual relationships are based solely on the lust and pleasure demands of those involved. Now you can say well theres nothing wrong with that, I would beg to differ, but to an extent I agree, just because they are based solely on the selfish pursuit of pleasure doesn't mean that they should be banned or w/e. But what it does mean is that they are inherinetly not equal to the union between a man and women, which exists (both biologically and religiously speaking) for more than simply a source of pleasure.

Not to say that all heterosexual relationships are shining life of moral and sexual morality. But they at least are capable of being so, while homosexual relationships are doomed to failure right from the start, simply on the basis of what they are.

They do not have the right to "marry".
Yes they do, marriage means a union between a man and a women. Anyone can marry. Homosexuals don't want to marry, they want the definition of marriage to be changed solely to be includive of their own lifestyle choices.

This debate is about why a previously unacceptable behaviour should now be tolerated and legislated for. Simply saying, "because they want it" or "because I think its fair" are not convincing arguements.

Also, we are discussing WHY should or should not they have the right, not the fact that they do or don't.
Homosexuals can life in lifelong relationships, their relationships are recognised by the government. They already have what they are asking for.

It is discrimination. The rights that they deserve are not special - all heterosexual (non-incestual, adult etc) couples have this right already. By allowing them to share this right, we are only accepting them as they are. By NOT allocating these rights to them, you are basically alienating them.
Calling an apple and apple and an orange on orange is not descrimination. Likewise treating heterosexual unions as what they are and homsoexual unions as something different is not descrimination.

They are alienating themselves (through their actions, not their desires), I can't believe you don't see that.

Deviation from the norm is fine in many cases, but its stupid to dress it up and pretend it isn't just that. I'm fine with people living the way they want and with who they want, but lets not kid ourselves here and believe in a whole bunch on politically correct liberal BS.

All people deserve the same rights. But not all behaviours are equal, and those which are not should not be treated as such. It is that simple.

Well this can change, can't it? Definitions do not necessarily stay still, as with the English language in general.
Change should only occur if it is for the better. Abandoning morality for the sake of being able to do whatever it is we want, is not for the good of anyone, including homosexuals.

If they are infertile, they will not be able to create life, much like homosexuals.
They engage in sexual acts which otherwise would be capable of procuring life. They may be biologically unable to do so, but this is not their fault, they are doing everything right.

Homosexuals on the other hand do not. They choose to have sex in ways which will never be able to create life.

But of course it may possible that homosexuals can actually create life through the help of science.

CGS�:�Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon?
Article made me sick :(

Look, whether you can bring yourself to accept it or not, humans reproduce through one man having sex with one women, resulting in fertilisation, development of an embryo and several months later, birth.

I don't care what Dr. Frankenstein does in his laboratory, that is the way humans naturally bring new life into this world. If you don't want to partake in that process that fine, but don't expect, let alone demand that you should be able to create life.

Its the equivilant of me saying "look, I really want to swim but I don't want to get wet". The answer is not to develop some substance which resembles water and allows me to swim "dry" but either to harden the fuck up and get wet or not bother. The choice is mine, if I truly wanted what I said, getting wet is a comparitively insignificant sacrifice.

OFC gays don't see it this way, its their right to have children isn't it? even though they choose to engage in sexual behaviours which prevent them from doing so.

(That said I'm not supporting the notion of gays having straight sex simply to have a child and then raising it with homosexual parents. A child deserves their mother and father, though gay adoption etc is a different debate).

Children are not accessory items. Human life is sacred and important, and should be treated as such by everyone, regardless of religion.

If a couple wants a child, concieve or GTFO.

Can't that be said for infertile couples? Why would they choose to have sex if they knew that they won't be able to produce offspring?
Its still different, because said couple is engaging in acts which can produce life, its just in their case, they individually are unable for w/e reason to do so.

They have good intentions, but are unable to succeed through no fault or misdeed of their own.

For your information, I am straight, but I still support gay marriage. It does not satisfy any said "personal desires" of mine.
I assumed as much, which was why I just referred to "x" behaviour, which could refer to just about anything, even something seemingly unimportant like the colour clothes you wear etc.

I simply see that they should have the same rights as anyone else. It makes sense.
Yes I agree all people are equal, but not all behaviours are.

A person is so much more than who they sleep with. People who have sex with those of the same gender obviously deserve rights, but the privelges associated with marriage, a union between a man and women, should not be bestowed upon unions which are not equal to it and as such not worthy of them.

How would you feel if you were the only straight person in a non-straight society which rejects straight people? (I am assuming you are straight)
Yes I'm straight but, once again, this is a flawed question, because for a human society to survive, it has to be prodominantly heteroseuxal.

A better hypothetical would be if I were gay, in which case, I'd still try to the best of my ability to adhere to the scriptures that I follow, in my case those of the Bible. I would accept that I am a no greater or worse sinner than anybody else, but that doesn't excuse some behaviours as being simply unacceptable.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Enlighten me.

Simpy lusting after those of the same gender does not equate to the Biblically described sin of homosexuality.
What makes you good or bad, straight or gay etc are your actions.

.
lol, i'm gay wether i have sex with a guy or not. or even if i have sex with a girl, that doesnt make me bi or straight. i'm still gay.

EDIT:
 
Last edited:

NewiJapper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,010
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Name_Taken said:
You are neither homosexual or heterosexual, you simply human with desires, some of which may lead to you to do good, others to do evil.
Just spend a day in our shoes. Only when once you have experienced the two different sexual preferences (three if you count bisexual), can you really comment on them and create a judgement.

You will see how normal we are and how frustrating life can be with people like you pointing the finger at us calling us evil and sinners.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Just spend a day in our shoes. Only when once you have experienced the two different sexual preferences (three if you count bisexual), can you really comment on them and create a judgement.
Well if that is your opinion then no-one can make a judgement, since no-one can be gay straight and bi...

I'm not saying its easy to be gay, nor is it easy to be Christian.

Then again I'm not judging you or anyone else who identifies as gay, we are all sinners however all of us sin in different ways.

I almost definately sin as much as you, however this does not excuse said evil acts from being totally unacceptable...

You will see how normal we are and how frustrating life can be with people like you pointing the finger at us calling us evil and sinners.
We are both equally as "evil" people in the world, you and I.

Sure we may commit different evils but we are just as bad as each other. This is not just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot, while kowing it's black, calling the kettle as such.

Just don't pretend something that feels good is necessarily good, or morally acceptable.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
lol of course its easy being a christian. all you gotta do is read the bible, then run around looking down your noses at people. simple. but to be frank, i can do that without the need of christianity.;)
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
We are both equally as "evil" people in the world, you and I.

Sure we may commit different evils but we are just as bad as each other. This is not just a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot, while kowing it's black, calling the kettle as such.

Just don't pretend something that feels good is necessarily good, or morally acceptable.
Lol, at least homosexuality is an evil we can enjoy right? I wonder, though, alex, is it possible for you to commit an "evil" and engage in homo-erotic activities?
 

yayati

New Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
19
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
This thread somewhat confuses me.

Homosexuality isn't a matter of support, It's a fact of life.

Even many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

Of course gay sex tends to be riskier but in general every society will have a class of homosexuals whether they like it or not.

So you have to tolerate it anyway.
 

zaxmacks

Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
295
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
That somehow, refusing to give into the demands of a misguided and immoral minority, constitutes a breach of their ability to carry out said immorality in the first place.
No, that's not what he said.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
lol of course its easy being a christian. all you gotta do is read the bible, then run around looking down your noses at people. simple. but to be frank, i can do that without the need of christianity.;)
Nope!

Lol, at least homosexuality is an evil we can enjoy right? I wonder, though, alex, is it possible for you to commit an "evil" and engage in homo-erotic activities?
Um IDK what you mean by that sorry :(
 

mcflystargirl

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
551
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
lol of course its easy being a christian. all you gotta do is read the bible, then run around looking down your noses at people. simple. but to be frank, i can do that without the need of christianity.;)
Being a Christian is not easy at all! We are living in a world which i against God, and against most things we believe in. We face persecution all the time for being a christian people get killed, we get ridiculed, we get labeled as stupid by ignorant people!
 

maznar

New Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Being a Christian is not easy at all! We are living in a world which i against God, and against most things we believe in. We face persecution all the time for being a christian people get killed, we get ridiculed, we get labeled as stupid by ignorant people!
i lol'd
 

BlackDragon

Active Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
1,534
Location
Under The Tree
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Being a Christian is not easy at all! We are living in a world which i against God, and against most things we believe in. We face persecution all the time for being a christian people get killed, we get ridiculed, we get labeled as stupid by ignorant people!
Christians are generally the ones persecuting or acting against others. Against gay people for instance.
 
Last edited:

ilikebeeef

Active Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,198
Location
Hoboland and Procrastinationland
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2010
Being a Christian is not easy at all! We are living in a world which i against God, and against most things we believe in. We face persecution all the time for being a christian people get killed, we get ridiculed, we get labeled as stupid by ignorant people!
Well, non-Christians get Bibles shoved in their faces (metaphorically) upon walking in some unis etc. There is also persecution of gay people, as BlackDragon said.

The U.S, a Christian dominated country, has signs saying "God hates fags". On the other hand, you don't have "I hate Christians" (God knows what will happen if you put that up in Alabama).

I am not ignorant. I have been a Christian before. I have experienced what it feels like to be Christian, "not easy" as you said and all. I was no longer Christian after I started to make full use of my logic. Christians on the other hand, do not use their logic on the matter of God, and accept their religion blindly.

Humans are not hermaphrodites, a person is either male or female.
I did not say anything about hermaphrodites, nor did I suggest it.

The vast majority of people are solely attracted to the opposite sex and it is only through sex between two members of the opposite sex that life can be created.
So what?

Homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. It is a behaviour, I don't see why you cannot accept this.
I did not say that homosexuality is not a behaviour.

No, it dispells the theory that simply because a simlar (however subetly different) behaviour is observed in animals and humans that it is right or should be accepted as normal.
Unless a species is hemaphrodidic (in which case individuals can't be said to pertain to a single gender anyway) homosexual relationships individuals are unable to create life, ergo a whole species cannot be homosexual.
I did not say that a whole species can be homosexual.

You cannot compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in that regard. A species of homosexuals cannot exist. Biologically (morals aside) it is totally unsustainable.
I know that.

As I just stated, you can't compare homosexuality to heterosexuality in humans. Hetersexual reproduction is biologically required for our species to survive.
I know that too.

Homosexuality serves no purpose in humans.
Yes it does.

This is not the case with humans, where homosexual relationships are based solely on the lust and pleasure demands of those involved.
That is not true. Not all homosexual relationships are based solely on sex, in the same way that not all heterosexual relationships are based solely on sex.

Now you can say well theres nothing wrong with that, I would beg to differ, but to an extent I agree, just because they are based solely on the selfish pursuit of pleasure doesn't mean that they should be banned or w/e.
We are human. Everyone has sexual desires. Don't tell me you don't, lol. There is nothing wrong with sex as long as it is between two consenting partners and use protection (unless they are trying to conceive).

But what it does mean is that they are inherinetly not equal to the union between a man and women, which exists (both biologically and religiously speaking) for more than simply a source of pleasure.
This is where discrimination comes in. The bit highlighted in bold is not only applies to heterosexual couples, but homosexual too.

Not to say that all heterosexual relationships are shining life of moral and sexual morality. But they at least are capable of being so, while homosexual relationships are doomed to failure right from the start, simply on the basis of what they are.
That is not true at all. A homosexual couple can have a better relationship than a heterosexual's. Clearly, yo see them as merely animals, when they are human just like you.

Yes they do, marriage means a union between a man and a women. Anyone can marry. Homosexuals don't want to marry, they want the definition of marriage to be changed solely to be includive of their own lifestyle choices.
Yes, and why not? Why alienate them? What is wrong with giving people a sense of belonging? << lol

This debate is about why a previously unacceptable behaviour should now be tolerated and legislated for. Simply saying, "because they want it"or "because I think its fair" are not convincing arguements.
Half of my this debate consists of saying WHY it would be fair to give them exactly the same rights as everyone else, backed up with facts. The other half of what I have said consists of refuting your "facts".

Homosexuals can life in lifelong relationships, their relationships are recognised by the government. They already have what they are asking for.
No. You are missing the notion of Gay marriage.

Calling an apple and apple and an orange on orange is not descrimination. Likewise treating heterosexual unions as what they are and homsoexual unions as something different is not descrimination.
First of all, what you have called "heterosexual unions" are legally referred to as "marriage". On the other hand, homosexual unions are not legally recognised as marriage. The word "marriage" should be analogous to saying the word "fruit" to include both apples and oranges.

They are alienating themselves (through their actions, not their desires), I can't believe you don't see that.
They choose their behaviour because it is what feels right for them, but society condemns it. If you were Christian in an Atheistic society, then you would be alienating yourself. by your definition.

Deviation from the norm is fine in many cases, but its stupid to dress it up and pretend it isn't just that. I'm fine with people living the way they want and with who they want, but lets not kid ourselves here and believe in a whole bunch on politically correct liberal BS.
What is wrong with being politically correct? What is wrong with freedom? Is it really any of your business how people dress? No. They do not have to change their behaviour for the sake of you, just as you do not have to change your behaviour for the sake of others. What makes the clothes that transvestites wear more "stupid" than yours? They are clothes after all.

All people deserve the same rights. But not all behaviours are equal, and those which are not should not be treated as such. It is that simple.
A person is so much more than who they sleep with. People who have sex with those of the same gender obviously deserve rights, but the privelges associated with marriage, a union between a man and women, should not be bestowed upon unions which are not equal to it and as such not worthy of them.
Yes I agree all people are equal, but not all behaviours are.
Behaviour is part of who people are. Behaviour forms identity.

You say that all people deserve the same rights aka be treated equally, then you say that not all people should be treated equally. That is a contradiction on your behalf.

Change should only occur if it is for the better. Abandoning morality for the sake of being able to do whatever it is we want, is not for the good of anyone, including homosexuals.
Once again, morality is subjective. Yes, change should only occur for the better, and giving people equal rights is a change for the better. This whole "equal rights for gay people"; wave is analogous to the feminist campaign "equal rights for women". Do you not oppose feminism then, too? Or maybe you do?

They engage in sexual acts which otherwise would be capable of procuring life. They may be biologically unable to do so, but this is not their fault, they are doing everything right.
It is not the homosexuals' fault that they can't reproduce, either.

Homosexuals on the other hand do not. They choose to have sex in ways which will never be able to create life.
It does not matter whether otherwise they will/will not be able to produce life or not, as they don't produce life anyway, both infertile and homosexual couples.

Look, whether you can bring yourself to accept it or not, humans reproduce through one man having sex with one women, resulting in fertilisation, development of an embryo and several months later, birth.
Dude, I do biology. xD

OFC gays don't see it this way, its their right to have children isn't it? even though they choose to engage in sexual behaviours which prevent them from doing so.
Well, same thing can be said for infertile couples. We are not talking about children here.

(That said I'm not supporting the notion of gays having straight sex simply to have a child and then raising it with homosexual parents. A child deserves their mother and father, though gay adoption etc is a different debate).

Children are not accessory items. Human life is sacred and important, and should be treated as such by everyone, regardless of religion.

If a couple wants a child, concieve or GTFO.
Please stay on topic.

Its still different, because said couple is engaging in acts which can produce life, its just in their case, they individually are unable for w/e reason to do so.

They have good intentions, but are unable to succeed through no fault or misdeed of their own.
If you define "pleasure" as bad, and infertile couples have sex BECAUSE they want pleasure (why would they have sex to conceive if they KNOW they are infertile?), then by your definition, it would be immoral.

if I were gay, in which case, I'd still try to the best of my ability to adhere to the scriptures that I follow, in my case those of the Bible. I would accept that I am a no greater or worse sinner than anybody else, but that doesn't excuse some behaviours as being simply unacceptable.
Then if you were gay, you would be a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

meeatu

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
127
Location
Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
This thread somewhat confuses me.

Homosexuality isn't a matter of support, It's a fact of life.

Even many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

Of course gay sex tends to be riskier but in general every society will have a class of homosexuals whether they like it or not.

So you have to tolerate it anyway.

You forget...
Fag drags:
God's solution to "the homosexual problem"!

Hahahaha people are retarded.
I love how we can justify anything we like in our heads.
especially is we have the luxury of saying "god told me to do it" :p
How fucking childish XD
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top