Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Bereie]

Name_Taken tried to give himself a prostate massage but couldn't find it.

 

[supercalamari]

Face it or not, there is no need whatsoever for us to defile marraige in the name of making special allowances for an unatural behaviour.

Hun, if a man "perverts" himself by wiggling his ears for the entertainment of his neighbours instead of using them exclusively for their "natural" function of hearing, no one thinks of consigning him to prison.

If he abuses his teeth by using them to pull staples from memos--a function for which teeth were clearly not designed--he is not accused of being immoral, degraded, and degenerate.

The fact that people are condemned for using their sex organs for their own pleasure or profit, or for that of others, may be more revealing about the prejudices and taboos of our society than it is about our perception of the true nature or purpose or "end" (whatever that might be) of our bodies.

 

[BlackDragon]

Pretty much the only argument against gay marriage is that it is a christian institution, because anything else is either just opinion and or misguidance about relationships not being equal. Arguing about this thing cannot be an argument of religion, it is an argument of what people should be allowed to do in society. But the thing is that christianity doesn't own marriage at all because if it did non-christians would not be allowed to get married. There really is no case to ask after this. If they don't own marriage, if non-believers can get married, then it is not the christians right to say gay people can't. : )

 

[Name_Taken]

Hun, if a man "perverts" himself by wiggling his ears for the entertainment of his neighbours instead of using them exclusively for their "natural" function of hearing, no one thinks of consigning him to prison.

If he abuses his teeth by using them to pull staples from memos--a function for which teeth were clearly not designed--he is not accused of being immoral, degraded, and degenerate.

The fact that people are condemned for using their sex organs for their own pleasure or profit, or for that of others, may be more revealing about the prejudices and taboos of our society than it is about our perception of the true nature or purpose or "end" (whatever that might be) of our bodies.

As you're probably aware, I am Christian.

As far as I am aware, the Bible doesn't make a point of pulling out staples from a memo using your teeth as a sin, nor does it say anything about wiggling your ears as being evil.

It does however stress a point about homosexuality (amongst many other sexual immoralities).

Ergo while yes I suppose you could consider all three "perversions" of that bodily part's natural function, two of them are not described as sinful while the third very clearly is. Next is the issue of abusing sex, which even if you don't accept religion as a means of procuring life, which I believe constitutes a moral wrong on another level.

I'm not into condemning people in this debate, because I'm sure most, if not all of the people argueing for the gay "rights" are very decent people however simply with conflicting views that myself on this issue.

That said I can't pretend that such acts are permissable or should be tolerated, let alone encouraged by our society, simply because the people who engage in said behaviours are not be hurting anyone (but themselves, f you consider risk of STI infection) or because they are great people.

 

[supercalamari]

As you're probably aware, I am Christian.

Yes. There are plenty of Gay Christians too. Ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church?

The way you read the bible has a lot to do with your bias.

That said I can't pretend that such acts are permissable or should be tolerated, let alone encouraged by our society, simply because the people who engage in said behaviours are not be hurting anyone (but themselves, f you consider risk of STI infection)

Most cases of sexual infection and HIV/AIDs are caused by heterosexual intercourse. Read your statistics. Rates of infections in lesbians for example is very low.

Why don't you start a campaign against eating shrimp, or divorce, or premarital sex?

See how far it gets you. Gay people are the last available targets for the Catholic Church.

 

[Name_Taken]

Pretty much the only argument against gay marriage is that it is a christian institution, because anything else is either just opinion and or misguidance about relationships not being equal. Arguing about this thing cannot be an argument of religion, it is an argument of what people should be allowed to do in society. But the thing is that christianity doesn't own marriage at all because if it did non-christians would not be allowed to get married. There really is no case to ask after this. If they don't own marriage, if non-believers can get married, then it is not the christians right to say gay people can't. : )

Not Christians are allowed to get married because heterosexual marriage, even among non-believers is good and wholesome.

That said, not all demoninations will marry non-believers or a believer to a non-believer.

In the case of a heterosexual couple having sex outside of marriage, the sin can be avoided through instigating the title of marriage on the couple. In homosexual unions, it is the homosexuality itself which is the sin and can't get averted through marriage.

This debate (in regards to marriage) is about whether or not a previously unacceptable behaviour should be tolerated in society. Simply becuase most gays are nice people and all, isn't really a convincing reason.

I have no objection with people being allowed to be gay in society and to have their unions recognised and protected by the state, and being given the same legal "rights" in regards to tax and medical issues (as has been raised) etc. But I object with society legislating for a behaviour, which whether you are religious or not and disregarding the political spin, can never be considered truly equal to that of a heterosexual union and "proper" (for lack of a better word) family (i.e. biological parents caring for their own children).

 

[BlackDragon]

Not Christians are allowed to get married because heterosexual marriage, even among non-believers is good and wholesome.

That said, not all demoninations will marry non-believers or a believer to a non-believer.

In the case of a heterosexual couple having sex outside of marriage, the sin can be avoided through instigating the title of marriage on the couple. In homosexual unions, it is the homosexuality itself which is the sin and can't get averted through marriage.

This debate (in regards to marriage) is about whether or not a previously unacceptable behaviour should be tolerated in society. Simply becuase most gays are nice people and all, isn't really a convincing reason.

I have no objection with people being allowed to be gay in society and to have their unions recognised and protected by the state, and being given the same legal "rights" in regards to tax and medical issues (as has been raised) etc. But I object with society legislating for a behaviour, which whether you are religious or not and disregarding the political spin, can never be considered truly equal to that of a heterosexual union and "proper" (for lack of a better word) family (i.e. biological parents caring for their own children).

Lol, the convincing reason is that your beliefs and the christian beliefs don't own marriage. Unless you want to make it so that the christian faith owns marriage then you stating that under your faith it shouldn't happen is not an argument. People of any beliefs can get married.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes. There are plenty of Gay Christians too. Ever heard of the Metropolitan Community Church?

Personally I havn't.

The way you read the bible has a lot to do with your bias.

Homosexuality is quite clearly condemned as an immoral behaviour in both the OT and NT...

In all the passages which can be interpreted as God's outline for love, sex and marriage, homosexuality was not mentioned, presumably because it clearly was not relevant to His plan.

Most cases of sexual infection and HIV/AIDs are caused by heterosexual intercourse. Read your statistics. Rates of infections in lesbians for example is very low.

In developed countries, the rate of HIV infection among homosexuals, particularly gay men is significantly higher than that of heterosexuals.

The fact that globally, a majority of people who have HIV are heterosexual is because 96% of the population identifies as heterosexual.

Homosexuals are over-represented in every major STI (developed countries once again), when compared to heterosexuals and are 20 times more likely to smoke and to regularly use illicet drugs.

All of these facts inidicate some of the many health risks associated with this particular lifestyle choice, like people who regularly consume fast food are at higher risk of obesity and heart problems.

Why don't you start a campaign against eating shrimp, or divorce, or premarital sex?

See how far it gets you. Gay people are the last available targets for the Catholic Church.

There is nothing wrong with eating shrimp if you are a Christian (as you follow NT, sigh), however divorce and premarital sex are also examples of immoralities promoted by our increasingly depraived society.

I'm sorry you think the Catholic Church is just picking fights for the sake of trolling or w/e but that isn't the case. It is adapting its messages to our constantly changing society.

As homosexuality gains popularity, the vehmence displayed by those arguing against it increases. The same occured when we abandoned the no-fault divorce.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol, the convincing reason is that your beliefs and the christian beliefs don't own marriage. Unless you want to make it so that the christian faith owns marriage then you stating that under your faith it shouldn't happen is not an argument. People of any beliefs can get married.

Are you going to get married in a Church?

 

[BlackDragon]

Are you going to get married in a Church?

No, probably not. On a beach sounds better. Regardless, unless you are going to restrict marriage to only believers your religious arguments don't make sense. Christianity doesn't own marriage. Christian beliefs don't own marriage. Non-believers can get married.

What's your response? That you own marriage?

 

[ilikebeeef]

I think you are very ignorant if you truly believe in the sterotyping of Christians within America as the primary source of the US's various social problems, of which this "gay right" movement isn't one...

You make too many assumptions about my beliefs. I never said nor suggested what you have said here.

On the other hand, you have stereotyped gays way too much in this debate, as demonstrated in your assumption that all homosexual relationships are doomed to fail.

The USA is a democratic country, simply because you may not agree with the opinions of many of its people (not saying that I agree with every or even most US Christians on various issues etc.) doesn't make their opinion any less valid than yours.

My opinion is backed up by logic. Christians' on the other hand, from what I have seen so far, are not.

Look thats great ok, I have no problem with other people falling in love and doing whatever they feel is necessary to demonstate this love behiend closed doors.

If you have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, you wouldn't be against gay marriage, nor would you find it a moral issue. Clearly, your posts tell otherwise.

I respect others enough to allow them to govern their own personal lives, regardless of whether I think what they are doing is right or wrong.

That's good.

But once again, introducing gay marriage and adoption does not suddenly allow gay people to love each other or to have sex, they can do both of these presently, and have unions which are recognised and protected by the government. Face it or not, there is no need whatsoever for us to defile marraige in the name of making special allowances for an unatural behaviour.

It's all about equality, my friend. Equality is the keyword here. By not giving them equality, you devalue them. And once again, the allowances are not special, and I have already made it clear that it is so in my earlier posts. I don't want to have to repeat myself.

Throughout this entire debate, you have basically said "I respect their right to be equal, but I don't support gay marriage because their behaviour is "unnatural"". Throughout this entire debate, I've pointed out that your saying houses multiple contradictions, such as that prohibiting gay marriage = not giving them equal rights, but you have continued to meander around my points, eventually re-using the same already-refuted points elsewhere in the debate.

I've noticed that your main reasons consist of your moral values which are not based on fact. However I've also pointed out that morality is subjective.

The reason why you have your moral values as they are is because of your religion, Christianity, which is passed on by others onto you, and hence not logically decided for by yourself, because you blindly accept it due to your faith. However, I have logically proven that the Christian God is impossible and thus religion is flawed.

I am confident that you cannot argue any further about this topic without going around in circles and hence be further refuted, but can only think deeply, if your mind is truly open, without bias, why you are as you are, and why your opinion is as it is.

 

[Name_Taken]

Regardless, unless you are going to restrict marriage to only believers your religious arguments don't make sense.

Catholic Church has already does that.

 

[BlackDragon]

Catholic Church has already does that.

Lol well then what is the problem? if your church has banned the marriage of certain people under its banner than what do you want? You are fine to restrict who YOU want to marry, but you don't own marriage outside christianity and can't dictate what everyone else does. Christian beliefs don't own the marriage of people. Unless you want to restrict the marriage of all people to believers than your arguments only pertain to the services you do. But people of all beliefs can get married. Non-believers can get married.

 

[Name_Taken]

You make too many assumptions about my beliefs. I never said nor suggested what you have said here.

Sorry but that was the what it appeared you were suggesting.

On the other hand, you have stereotyped gays way too much in this debate, as demonstrated in your assumption that all homosexual relationships are doomed to fail.

Gay relationships are doomed to fail in the fact that they don't stand for anything more than the selfish desires of those involved, not that they won't all last as in, the two people will split.

My opinion is backed up by logic. Christians' on the other hand, from what I have seen so far, are not.

Without trying to sound malicious, your opinion is backed by your logic only, and nothing "concrete" in the minds of others.

In fairness however I would accept much the same is true for my own position.

If you have absolutely no problems with homosexuality, you wouldn't be against gay marriage, nor would you find it a moral issue. Clearly, your posts tell otherwise.

But I do have a problem with homosexuality, one would have though that much to be somewhat evident at this stage.

I don't have a problem with others chosing to practise homosexuality if they so wish (despite my personal opposition to it). I think its wrong, so even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be involved in that type of behaviour. I'm not going to force my morals down the throat of another who has a differing opinion, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to be quiet about how I feel it is wrong.

That's good.

It's all about equality, my friend. Equality is the keyword here.

It is my belief and that of many others, that gays already have equality.

By not giving them equality, you devalue them.

All people are equal, and should be treated as such under the law.

Homosexuality however is a behaviour, and an abnormal and unhealthy one at that. Just because all people are equal does not make all behaviours equally so.

As such homosexual unions, despite being deserving of being recognised and protected by the state (as they are now) are not equal to heterosexual marriage.

This is not descrimination, homosexual unions are unable to foster children. Many of the "perks" if you will given to married couples, currently demanded by homosexual couples are provided by the state as a means of protecting the the livelihood of children and the family unit, being the fundamental building block of our society.

And once again, the allowances are not special, and I have already made it clear that it is so in my earlier posts. I don't want to have to repeat myself.

By legalising gay marriage you set a precedent for all future generations that "lowering the bar" (of standards, in this case in regards to marriage) is acceptable. This means that in the future, further "lowerings" will become progressively easier to introduce.

By legislating gay marriage, you descriminate against those in polygamous relationships (among others which are presently not recognised under marriage). Afterall society made a special case out of changing the definition of marriage for gays, why not other groups as well?

Throughout this entire debate, you have basically said "I respect their right to be equal, but I don't support gay marriage because their behaviour is "unnatural".

I don't support gay marriage becuase it is basically a homosexual enterprise. I am opposed to homosexuality, as I and many others see it a moral issue.

It is my opposition to homosexuality which leads me naturally, to oppose the (broadly speaking) gay agenda, encompassing issues such as gay marriage, adoption, indoctrination in schools etc.

Throughout this entire debate, I've pointed out that your saying houses multiple contradictions, such as that prohibiting gay marriage = not giving them equal rights, but you have continued to meander around my points, eventually re-using the same already-refuted points elsewhere in the debate.

This isn't about "rights"... Anyone can marry already, it means a union between a man and a women, thats the law books talking.

Simply becuase some reject this definition and want it changed to better reflect their choices which are incompatible with this definition, is harldy a rights issue.

I've noticed that your main reasons consist of your moral values which are not based on fact. However I've also pointed out that morality is subjective.

Your opinion is that morality is subjective. That doesn't mean that I automatically subscribe to the same train of thought. I believe that truth and morality are fixed.

The reason why you have your moral values as they are is because of your religion, Christianity, which is passed on by others onto you, and hence not logically decided for by yourself, because you blindly accept it due to your faith.

Excuse me, but with all due respect, you don't know what I believe.

Simply because you feel you have reached your position soley as a result of your own conclusions does not add strength to your position, nor does it make your opinion necessarily correct.

I don't "blindly" accept anything... How many people on this forum are argueing that homosexual sex is a sin and are putting in all of this intellectual effort simply because their Bishop told them or they read it in a Bible?

People in the modern era are not that guillable almost everyone doesn't believe in things that easily, I have researched this topic quite extensively and have formed my opinion through my own findings, only in part based on my religious beliefs, which I did not accept blindly becuase someone told me about Jesus one day either...

However, I have logically proven that the Christian God is impossible and thus religion is flawed.

You're an agnostic who believes God is impossible?

Also, could you link me to where you "proved" this as well please?

I am confident that you cannot argue any further about this topic without going around in circles and hence be further refuted, but can only think deeply, if your mind is truly open, without bias, why you are as you are, and why your opinion is as it is.

Simply because I don't agree with you doesn't make me close-minded...

 

[meeatu]

But as citizens of this country, a person who identifies themselves as a homosexual does have exacly the same rights...

Point to me, please, where in any law in this country that the law states something along the lines of "an individual is entitled to ....., unless they identify themselves as homosexual in which case they are not".

There is no descrimination in our laws regarding gays.

Sorry to nitpick.
Much of what you said is very logical, and only slightly misguided.

This is the only bit I can be bothered picking out, and only because I was looking into the laws on concent recently.

Queensland maintains that the law of consent for anal sex is 18, while that of vaginal sex is 16, effectively ensuring that homosexual males are unable to participate in sexual intercorse untill the age of 18.
It is the only state in Australia to make such a distinction in its laws.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol well then what is the problem? if your church has banned the marriage of certain people under its banner than what do you want? You are fine to restrict who YOU want to marry, but you don't own marriage outside christianity and can't dictate what everyone else does. Christian beliefs don't own the marriage of people. Unless you want to restrict the marriage of all people to believers than your arguments only pertain to the services you do. But people of all beliefs can get married. Non-believers can get married.

The problem is that being Christian, we see homosexuality, regardless of its popularity as an example of immoral behaviour, whose perpetrators, while definately not as malicious as those of various other misdeeds, are nonetheless in the wrong.

The Bible, or any of the Churches teachings say that heterosexual marriage is wrong, even among non-believers. The Church, as a private organisation can refuse to recognise and carry out marriages between non-believers, but that doesn't make them sinful. This means that the Church has no objection to other religious groups agreeing to recognise unions between non-believers as legitimate.

Gay marriage on the other hand however is sinful, stemming from the simple fact that homosexuality is immoral inunto itself. As such, the Church, and many Christian groups are publically speaking out against the state's recognition of gay unions under "marriage" and the ability for any religious group to authorise such a ceremony.

 

[Name_Taken]

Sorry to nitpick.
Much of what you said is very logical, and only slightly misguided.

This is the only bit I can be bothered picking out, and only because I was looking into the laws on concent recently.

Queensland maintains that the law of consent for anal sex is 18, while that of vaginal sex is 16, effectively ensuring that homosexual males are unable to participate in sexual intercorse untill the age of 18.
It is the only state in Australia to make such a distinction in its laws.

I wasn't aware of that, but even so, that law doesn't descriminate against homosexuals at all.

It bans anyone, including heterosexuals from engaging in anal sex until 18. Homosexuals (both gay men and lesbian couples) would still be able to engage in sexual activity (legally) before the age of 18.

Though that said, it seems like a pretty stupid law to make, I would have thought that the ages for consent for every sexual act would have been standardised and I wouldn't object if someone wanted to have it changed.

 

[BlackDragon]

The problem is that being Christian, we see homosexuality, regardless of its popularity as an example of immoral behaviour, whose perpetrators, while definately not as malicious as those of various other misdeeds, are nonetheless in the wrong.

The Bible, or any of the Churches teachings say that heterosexual marriage is wrong, even among non-believers. The Church, as a private organisation can refuse to recognise and carry out marriages between non-believers, but that doesn't make them sinful. This means that the Church has no objection to other religious groups agreeing to recognise unions between non-believers as legitimate.

Gay marriage on the other hand however is sinful, stemming from the simple fact that homosexuality is immoral inunto itself. As such, the Church, and many Christian groups are publically speaking out against the state's recognition of gay unions under "marriage" and the ability for any religious group to authorise such a ceremony.

Yes but your belief that gay marriage is sinful is not one that allows you to own marriage. Christian beliefs state that homosexuality is immoral, but non-believers get married. Own your own institution, not everyone elses.

 

[Charizard]

The thing that shits me most about christians like name_taken, is that they make it sound as if Homosexuals are making an calculated and pragmatic decision to be gay.

I'm not gay, but this view really annoys me, in that why should people be punished for the way there mind is formed as they are born?

Fair anough for disagreeing with homosexuality, but don't pretend that it's a conscious decision to be attracted to and fuck other men/women.

 

[supercalamari]

Gay relationships are doomed to fail in the fact that they don't stand for anything more than the selfish desires of those involved, not that they won't all last as in, the two people will split.
).

Pfft. Stereotyping, again. I know personally plenty of gay couples whose relationships have lasted longer then those of straight marriages. They have raised children together and can hardly be called selfish.

Homosexuality however is a behaviour, and an abnormal and unhealthy one at that. Just because all people are equal does not make all behaviours equally so.).

If homosexuality is a chosen behaviour then so is heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is quite clearly condemned as an immoral behaviour in both the OT and NT...

In all the passages which can be interpreted as God's outline for love, sex and marriage, homosexuality was not mentioned, presumably because it clearly was not relevant to His plan.

You are reading the bible the wrong way.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11, there are two major issues to consider when one approaches these passages: translation and sexual practices of Greek culture. A comparison of these verses in several translations of the Bible indicates that there is some confusion about how to translate two Greek words in these lists of vices Paul has enumerated. The two words are 'arsenokoitai' which is rendered in various translations as "homosexuals," "sodomites," "child molesters," or "perverts" and 'malakoi' which is rendered in various translations as "catamites," "the effeminate," or "boy prostitutes."

These Greek words are difficult to translate in the context of these passages. Malakoi is a common term and means "soft." It can refer to clothing (Matthew 11:8) or moral matters, meaning, "undisciplined." Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning "man," and koitai meaning "bed, lying, or having sex with." When put together the word may mean "male prostitutes."
When these words are placed in the context of Greek culture in which Paul was writing, the passages have very specific meanings.

The Mediterranean world had a definition of sexuality that was based on dominance/submission and unequal status. Greek culture fine-tuned that definition with regard to status. Proper sexual relations occurred between people whose status was unequal. In addition there was a practice in ancient Greek culture known as pederasty in which younger men were socialized and educated through a close relationship with an older man. These older men were the boys' (age 12 or 13) patrons and, often, their lovers.

These relationships were seen as the key to raising up the next generation of city leaders and there were strict rules about how long the relationship should last and the roles of families within these relationships. Evidently there was some abuse happening in these relationships and young boys were being exploited and kept by the patron well after the boy had grown into adulthood (which would have made him an equal, hence violating the code of sex only among unequals).

These abusive relationships are what the apostle Paul is referencing, not mutually loving and caring relationships between people of the same sex.