Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

Can you stop changing the font, font colour and size? It's really annoying when quoting to have to remove it all.

Sorry about this, but I copy really large posts into word and type them up my responses there before posting, its more stable and like so much easier.

If you would vote against a proposal to legalise gay marriage, then it is forcing your opinion. Hence, my accusation stands.

No it isn’t - if you vote for gay marriage, then you will be forcing others who view such relationships for what they really are to accept them as equal and good. The door swings both ways.

Once again you cannot force your version of morality onto society. You can follow it yourself, but you cannot make it the basis of legislation. It may be an obtuse rejection of morality, but it's an obtuse rejection of your morality, not an objective one.

I hardly made up these rules. If you were forcing your moral beliefs on me, it would be just that. These are not my morals in the sense that I wasn’t the one who decided what was right or wrong, these are those of God, established in scripture. If you choose to reject the scripture then thats your choice, but don't expect me to stop telling you that what you're doing is wrong, just as you are telling me (that according to your own morals) what I am advocating is wrong.

Um, tell that to the gay couples who want to get married?

I am, what's your point?

And fuck you, you clearly have no idea what marriage would mean to an atheist like myself. It's more than a fucking party, you arrogant and ignorant fool.

Well then explain what it does mean to you? And grow up, your words of hate demonstrate nothing but an inability to hold a civil conversation.

Marriage means different things to different people. Your religious wankers have no claim on the title of marriage; they never had that right and they should not have it now.

Think about that when you are walking down the isle of a Church when you get married. If you choose to get married in a Church you play subject to their rules of marriage. No-one is forcing you to get married in the “house of God” - - you choose to.

Your point? There was a case recently when a couple sued their civil celebrant (!) for refusing to marry them because they were an interracial couple and he didn't agree with that.

We should be fighting against discrimination everywhere, unless you think that civil celebrant was well within his rights.

If he disagreed because of the couple themselves getting married, and it didn't have anything to do with their races or the fact that they were interracial, then there isn’t anything wrong.

If it leads to equality as it has for women and those of ethnic heritages, then that can only be a GOOD thing. As far as I'm concerned, religious groups can kiss the arse of those homosexuals if it means they're treated equally.
It is BEYOND RETARDED RETARDED that you discriminate against someone based on who they choose to sleep with. My god, enough is enough.

Haha you admit it, it’s a choice.
And it isn’t discrimination, everybody currently has equal rights, some people choose to go against the flow as it were and it is wrong for them to expect that simply because they choose to be different that they are somehow deserving of special rights – which they don’t even require to practise their homosexuality.
And we've already established that the "plight" of the homosexual has nothing to do with that of women or Aboriginies etc. Society had so much to gain by granting women rights, it wasn't just because women wanted them and asked for them. Society stands nothing to gain from allowing homosexual marriage, and I dare you to challenge me on that.

Churches already have this right.

Yea, but if a bishop says: “Sorry guys, I’m not going to marry you because you are gay” that’s different to when he says “Sorry guys I’m not going to marry you because one of you is an unbeliever (or I don’t think this relationship will work, give it some more time to be sure etc.)”. It’s just going to be a legal orgy of “waa waa X Church didn’t marry us just because we are gay, someone make them”.

Well, okay, good for them. No one's asking them to accept it/marry gay couples. Your point?

And you are asking me to accept gay couples and marriage, by allowing them to have it.
And that’s false because every time I say that homosexuality should not be tolerated, all I get is accusations of discrimination "waa homophobe".

Don't they?

*pointed look*

I am not persecuting them at all... I am simply saying they should not be allowed to defile marriage in a manner which would have been unthinkable 10, 20, 30 years ago. What has changed now? Why are they now so deserving of marriage? You have yet to establish this.

And denying gays marriage is not persecution. They remain totally free to live together, to have w/e relationships between each other that they desire and to openly practise their homosexuality – where is the persecution?

Just like there used to be provisos that you had to marry someone of the same race, right?

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns interracial marriage as far as I am aware (I know you can't marry an unbeliever, though thats seperate).
However there are plenty of verses against homosexuality – yet it is practised openly within our society. Marriage however is clearly the domain of a man and women (not just in a religious context), and always has been, yet for some reason now, this has to change. Why is marriage no longer the domain of opposite sex couples? Explain this, you have the burden of proof.

Those laws affect you if you, say, drive a car. You can't be fined for speeding if you don't drive a car.

Ergo, you can't be affected by gay marriage if you aren't gay.

Yes, but you are affected if you see matrimony as something holy and religiously integral to your beliefs, defined by God as strictly between a man and women.

Ah, so here we get into it! It's not generic religious marriage you care about, it's CATHOLIC marriage! And presumably all of Australia must then bow to the 26% of the population that are Roman Catholics!

You disgust me.

Well then it looks to me like there are more Catholics (let alone religious people altogether) than there are gays, so... why are we changing the law again?
Anyway I would have thought you could have put 2 and 2 together. Both myself and Iron have mentioned marriage as a sacrament, I would have thought that would give the game away.
You amuse me.

- that the only "valid" arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, which is invalid as this is a secular country and laws promoting equality/removing discrimination trump the protection of religious sensibilities

Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.

- arguments that detail gay marriage "destroying society" are ludicrous

Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.

- arguments that detail gay marriage as "destroying the institution of marriage" are ludicrous, as religion has no claim over what marriage means for people not of their faith, nor does it have any claim over the word

Not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.

- something something

Give up, now.

- there are no sane arguments against gay marriage

You’ve incorreectly expressed this opinion as a fact before, however it’s not an argument why gay marriage should be instated.

- profit?

Yea lets sell our souls for cash, real honourable.
Am I to take it then, that there is no actual argument for gay marriage, other than, "well the Church says no, so we should just do it anyway to demonstrate to those religious pricks that we don’t listen to them". Is that it?

For the last time:

BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.

How many times do we have to say this before it penetrates your very thick skull?

You already admitted it was a choice before. Everything you do in life is a choice. The fact that I am sitting here educating you in basic morality is a choice, and you are choosing to listen. I don’t blame “genes” or other pseudo science to remove myself from personal responsibility and nor should homosexuals.

Just like being the same colour used to be the proviso?

No, because the definition of marriage is between one man and one women, interracial marriage was never in breach of this definition; and you haven’t demonstrated any reasons whatsoever as to why it would benefit society by changing said defintion to include same sex couples.

Oh so they should hide what they are. Your argument essentially is: "WOMEN WHO DRESS LIKE SLUTS DESERVE TO BE RAPED/GAY MEN WHO ACT GAY DESERVE TO BE BASHED"

Well I don’t go around raping people who look like sluts or bashing people who look gay, I take responsibility for my actions. Let’s not deny however that your actions and choices affect how other see you and in part determine their actions towards you.
However on a side note please, don’t be so pathetic, if I dress up as a missionary and try and spread the gospel during a Mardi Gras parade, I’m going to get bashed aren’t I? Gays are just as guilty of discrimination and violence as heterosexuals. They are hardly victims here when they are guilty of the same crimes, so stop treating them as such.

No, they want the same marriage rights as anyone else. Clearly this is a foreign concept for you.

But they can marry. Marriage by definition is between a man and a women and any Australian over the age of 18 can marry. They’re just not content with the current definition of marriage and want it changed to better accommodate their “alternative” lifestyle choices.

They just can't do what heterosexuals do, and get married and adopt. Because that would be bad. Uh huh.

That would be bad, very bad. Gay adoption is a different issue, but also must be opposed.

Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies

Lesbian parents raise happy, healthy children according to 22-year study - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Lesbian women 'make better parents', says Government adviser | Mail Online

etc

I have never denied the fact that some gay couples would not be great parents, and that some heterosexual couples are crap parents.
None of these articles actually demonstrate that lesbian parents are better for the child in terms of parenting and so that claim is void. The one person who claimed so was merely expressing an opinion, nothing more stop treating it as a fact when it is not.
The natural, most optimum situation is where a child is raised by a mother and a father (preferably their biological parents as well). There are numerous reasons for this which I will explain if you need me to.

Why? They're not better. Are you saying every single parent should shack up with someone because it's the "preferable, natural institution" through which you think a child should be raised?

None of the articles demonstrate that they are better. Lol it’s not just what I think either, do you deny that the natural family institution is between one man and one women, caring for their own children? If that isn’t the only “natural” way it’s done and has been done throughout all history (aside from some extreme left wing states), please tell me what in fact is?

The studies indicate that overall - overall, not just anecdotally - lesbian parents are BETTER that heterosexual parents. So, really, for the good of the child, all children should be raised by lesbian parents. Right?

But they don’t, stop manipulating the facts.
And how would you propose you could even objectively measure that lesbian parents were better than those of heterosexual parents?
There are many reasons why heteroseuxal parents are always preferable, and I'll share them with you if you're interested.

And where is this right to a mother and a father stated? Where does it come from? Why is it the "preferred" or "best" method? (Hint: it isn't.)

Hint; when a mummy and daddy love each other...
You’re doing an honours degree at uni, please tell me you actually understand that children are born when a man and women have sex? The family has always been the most natural means of raising children, and always has been in humans. You can’t deny it, or have same sex parents always been the way its done?

Oh so you only care when they have sex. Because it's immoral to you. And because it affects you so much what someone does in their bedroom.

Seriously dude, no-one likes a nosy parker.

Not my morals, God morals, timeless and absolute.
I don’t care if gay people have sex and have relationships with each other thats their business, when they bring it into the public forum however, and tell me to accept their choices and ask for marriage “rights” then it becomes everyone’s problem.
The issue has been brought to me, I havn't asked for it.

And what's wrong with that? Hey, polygamous marriages are in the Bible. They're traditional. You should have no problem with it!

There are a lot of things in the Bible which are immoral. Homosexuality is in the Bible, yet here we are. Simply because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it is ok. The Bibles (and Gods) definition of marriage is very straightforward (no pun intended lol); one man, one women.

It doesn't. Let them get married!

And I disgust you? Honestly, to think people wonder why fundamentalist Muslim extremists despise of the West so much...

Exploiting or using for intended purpose? But oh, you don't think that gays should be able to fight for rights. They should be CONTENT with what the overly-generous society has given them, right? Put up or shut up?

Hate crime laws and the like are stupid, they deal with intent and not the punishment for the crime itself. Intent is not a crime, it is the committing of the various illegal act which is. Simply because someone commits a crime for a different purpose does and should not affect their sentencing (should there be one).

GAYS DID 9/11

Yeah, I know already. /sarcasm

THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A THEOCRACY. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEOCRATIC VALUES UPON IT.

This country is not governed by anarchy you have no right to take away all of its moral foundations simply because you want more freedom and have no sense of propriety or self control.
But this is a democracy, so expect that I will always be putting my opinions forward, whether they are religiously inspired or not. It just so happens that you can as well.

It IS invalid because your religion affects YOU. YOU. It shouldn't have to affect anyone else who doesn't choose to believe in it.

What about this is so hard to understand?

Yes it does, but the defilement of marriage affects me, and is an important part of my faith (and that of others). What is it so hard to understand that because marriage means nothing to you, doesn’t mean that some of us would like to see its purity and wholesomeness untarnished in such a henious manner?

Wrong to YOU. Not the country! Not everybody! Fucking hell, ARE YOU SO ARROGANT AND EGOTISTIC THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE?!

Tell that to Christ, see what He says.

Personal responsibility and personal liberty.

Yea, a person’s liberty to be gay is not being infringed through the protection of marriage.
Their union can still be recognised by the state by a civil union, they have equal rights.
However you are infringing on the liberty of religious people who have the right to look down on homosexuality as a sin and abhor and oppose it’s proliferation and encouragement in society.

Yeah but you are creating difference. You are CREATING difference by not allowing them to marry people they love, while heterosexuals can marry those they love.

Clearly more than it does to you.

Way to avoid another question and hide behind yet another personal attack Kwayera.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

ohhh team gay... i like that.

well my point is:
- if 2 males or 2 females love each other, then they should have as much right as anyone to marry each other. the reason why people want to marry is to solidify their commitment, celebrate their relationship and to declare their love for one another to the world, not to fulfill the traditional criteria of having one male and one female in a relationship.

name_taken!!! that^

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Tell that to Christ, see what He says.

What did christ actually say about homosexuality?

 

[Name_Taken]

What did christ actually say about homosexuality?

Good question, the technical answer is in recorded scripture; no.

Incidentally, the “Jesus never said anything about it” argument is absurd on its face value. He never mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, wife beating or any number of other sins. The only one who would use such rationale is someone trying to defend some kind of a practice that he is involved in. It’s kind of like a witch defending seances. God in the New Testament addressed it, but Jesus never referred to it, so He permits it.

Sin blinds people to their own foolish rationale.

Please read this article as well (pasted for your convenience):

Question: “Is there any place in the New Testament where Jesus actually condemned homosexuality? If so, I have not been able to find it. ...It seems to me that if the Savior didn’t say it was wrong, then neither should we.”

Answer: While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong, He did in fact condemn the behavior. A careful study of the Bible will bear this out. Please read the following Bible passages and then consider the questions which follow:

1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘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?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

Questions: What did Jesus say about God’s creative work? Did He make Adam and Joseph? Did He create male and male, or did He create male and female? According to this passage, what has been God’s plan for sexual union [one flesh] since the beginning of time? Was His plan for a male partner to be joined to another male partner, or was it for a husband to be united to his wife? According to this passage, is a man to cleave to his male partner, or to his spouse?

Consider: Since Jesus approved of His Father’s plan [i.e., one man, one woman, one flesh,] could we correctly say that Jesus condemned homosexuality?

2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

Questions: What law was Jesus born under? What law did He live under? Answer: The Law of Moses (cf. Gal. 4:4.) Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17.)

Consider: Since Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, and since He endorsed the Law of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, then could we correctly say that Jesus also condemned it?

3. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for he will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-15.)

Questions: What did Jesus say the Holy Spirit would do for the apostles? Answer: Guide them into all truth (v. 13.) When/as the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth; would He speak on His own authority? Answer: No, He would speak on the authority of Christ (v. 14.) What did Jesus say the Holy Spirit would do in verse 14? Answer: “He (i.e., the Holy Spirit) will take of what is Mine (i.e., Christ’s) and declare it to you” (i.e., the apostles.)

Consider: Since 1) the apostles would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and since 2) the Holy Spirit would not speak on His own authority but instead would speak on the authority of Christ, and since 3) the Holy Spirit would take of what was Christ’s and declare it to the apostles, then by WHOSE AUTHORITY would the apostle’s speak/write/teach when the Holy Spirit guided them into all truth? Answer: Christ’s.

Question: What did the apostle Paul [by Christ’s authority] say about the practice of homosexuality? (Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10.)

Yes, Jesus did condemn homosexuality in His Word. The good news is, “there is hope for the homosexual; he has reason to believe there is hope for a brighter future. Paul states that some at Corinth had engaged in homosexual acts, but they had been washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 6:9-11.) The same can happen today. As anyone who repents of a sin, the homosexual can be forgiven. He can experience the same freedom and joy that any other sinner knows when he becomes a Christian. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but clearly states that non-practicing homosexuals can be saved”.

 

[Name_Taken]

- if 2 males or 2 females love each other, then they should have as much right as anyone to marry each other.

Disagree. They should definately have the right to be with each other and to have their union legally recognised by the state (this obviously includes the same benefits of heterosexual couples in regards to the law; taxation benefits etc.). In this regard their union is recognised by the state as being legally equal to a heterosexual marriage and they recieve fair treatment.

For a union to be recognised as a marriage however, it must meet certain criteria; the first and formost being that marriage is by definition is a union between a man and a women. As such a homosexual couple can never qualify for marriage.

the reason why people want to marry is to solidify their commitment, celebrate their relationship and to declare their love for one another to the world

All of this can be achieved through unions with equal legal status to marriage.

Marriage by the state invovles the signing of a form. If the form were renamed from the marriage register to something along the lines of "Civil Partnership Register" and listed both same sex and heterosexual couples, would you be content? Both are recognised by the state as equal and have the same legal rights.

If couples (homosexual/heterosexual) want to undergo a Church ceremony, however and be recognised by their Church this is a debate they must have with the relevant religious authorities, who have the ultimate discretion to deny anyone the recognition of their union by the Church (both homosexual and heterosexual couples).

IMO This would seem a reasonable compromise for both parties, though obviously details require further "fleshing out".

 

[Will Shakespear]

wait so he endorsed the rules, but he also cancelled out all the rest of them?

 

[scarybunny]

Ok so you agree that their relationship should have the same legal status as a heterosexual relationship, but they can't use the word "marriage" and don't have the right to have their union recognised by the church..?

What do you think about the churches (esp of the Uniting Church) who DO want to be able to join gay people in a union? Should marriage be up to the discretion of the particular church and their interpretation of the Bible?

 

[Name_Taken]

Ok so you agree that their relationship should have the same legal status as a heterosexual relationship

I have always said this; that homosexual couples should be given all the equal "rights" and perks of heterosexual unions (with the notable exception of adoption - and the title of marriage).

but they can't use the word "marriage" and don't have the right to have their union recognised by the church..?

I don't think anyone has the right to have their relationshiop with their partner recognised by the Church (goes for heterosexual couples as well, but especially in the case of homosexual couples as the Church has always had the moral obligation to oppose homosexuality and other evils).

What do you think about the churches (esp of the Uniting Church) who DO want to be able to join gay people in a union? Should marriage be up to the discretion of the particular church and their interpretation of the Bible?

I'm not a member of the Uniting Church nor do I have any control (or interest) in how they run themselves. I can appreciate what they are trying to do, make Christianity seem more appealing to current generations (relate scripture to the times etc) for which they should be praised, but they are seriously mistaken if they think the right way to go about this is through rejecting aspects of the scripture, to appear "cool" or even politcally correct.

Its not about populatiry, or doing what is easy (copping out by saying "oh God made me this way"); its about doing whats right (accepting, in this case, that somethings are sin and despite the opinion of secular society, they will always be so and can never be encouraged, for they are never right).

Basically I don't like what they are doing, but they are free to manage their own agenda as the Catholic Church is free to attend to their own; the spreading of the Truth, however difficult it may be.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

what if they don't marry in a church?

 

[Name_Taken]

what if they don't marry in a church?

Not marriage, at a Church or elsewhere; marraige = 1 man + 1 women.

What a Church's authorities allow or disallow is neither yours nor my buisness (however obviously it will effect those people who attend the Church). It is very possible that if it is legalised, some Churches will accept gay unions and marriage while others will reject it in its entirety.

 

[NewiJapper]

the Church has always had the moral obligation to oppose homosexuality and other evils

Homosexuality is NOT an evil. It doesn't corrupt anyone, it doesn't spoil someones life, it doesn't make then depressed and it doesn't cause anyone any grief. I cannot see how homosexuality can be regarded in the same class as adultery or homocide. That's just plain stupid.

 

[Bereie]

This thread:
Homosexuality is fine
But the bible says it's bad

376 pages later..

Conclusion: Stop trying to convince religious people that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If they listened to reason they probably wouldn't be religious in the first place.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Good question, the technical answer is in recorded scripture; no.

Incidentally, the “Jesus never said anything about it” argument is absurd on its face value. He never mentioned pedophilia, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, wife beating or any number of other sins. The only one who would use such rationale is someone trying to defend some kind of a practice that he is involved in. It’s kind of like a witch defending seances. God in the New Testament addressed it, but Jesus never referred to it, so He permits it.

Sin blinds people to their own foolish rationale.

Please read this article as well (pasted for your convenience):

Question: “Is there any place in the New Testament where Jesus actually condemned homosexuality? If so, I have not been able to find it. ...It seems to me that if the Savior didn’t say it was wrong, then neither should we.”

Answer: While it is true that there is no NT record of where Jesus explicitly stated that homosexuality is wrong, He did in fact condemn the behavior. A careful study of the Bible will bear this out. Please read the following Bible passages and then consider the questions which follow:

1. And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘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?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

Questions: What did Jesus say about God’s creative work? Did He make Adam and Joseph? Did He create male and male, or did He create male and female? According to this passage, what has been God’s plan for sexual union [one flesh] since the beginning of time? Was His plan for a male partner to be joined to another male partner, or was it for a husband to be united to his wife? According to this passage, is a man to cleave to his male partner, or to his spouse?

You can't even cite your fucking religious text properly. That's Matthew 19:4-5, and it says:

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς καὶ εἶπεν, ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν

Which is essentially as your translation has it. However, it continues (who would have thought context matters?!):

ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
'Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.'

Ie, it's talking about the importance of marriage. The passage continues for a few more verses about the fact that if marriage is important, why did Moses allow divorce? etc. The passage does not, as far as I can see, talk about homosexual marriages being wrong. How would homosexual marriage separate heterosexual marriage? Your logic is completely flawed the same way that this is:

1. Jesus said 'Catching public transport is good'.
2. Driving your car is not public transport.
.: Driving your car is bad.

Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17.) Consider: Since Jesus was born and lived under the Law of Moses, and since He endorsed the Law of Moses, and since the Law of Moses explicitly condemned homosexuality, then could we correctly say that Jesus also condemned it?
2. “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

That's a very good question. Going by these two verses, you cannot believe and follow Jesus without believing and following Moses. The laws of Moses are contained throughout the Old Testament, however I'm not going to repeat them here. So, do you follow the laws of Moses, or do you not follow Jesus?

Questions: What law was Jesus born under?

The oppressive law of the Roman Empire, if the fact that his family spent all their savings to travel to take the census means anything.

What law did He live under?

I thought we just answered that...

Answer: The Law of Moses (cf. Gal. 4:4.) Did Jesus endorse and follow the Law of Moses? What did the Law of Moses say about homosexuality? (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17.)

Oh right.

So you're happy to cite the OT for homosexuality and call me a sinner, but you're not happy to cite the OT for the numerous other things which would also make you a sinner? In fact, as far as I understand Hebrew lexicography and law (and I don't greatly, so I could be wrong), you are more of a sinner by not respecting the Sabbath - one of Decalogue, the most important laws of Moses!

Tbh I'm not going to read the rest of your post; I assume the rest is as inconsistent and illogical as the first.

 

[kelly tully]

Hey guys what have I missed?

Does this thread still induce suicidal tendencies?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Not marriage, at a Church or elsewhere; marraige = 1 man + 1 women.

What a Church's authorities allow or disallow is neither yours nor my buisness (however obviously it will effect those people who attend the Church). It is very possible that if it is legalised, some Churches will accept gay unions and marriage while others will reject it in its entirety.

i think theres a church in canada that fully supports gay marriage

 

[Kwayera]

Conclusion: Stop trying to convince religious people that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. If they listened to reason they probably wouldn't be religious in the first place.

Yep, mine as well.

 

[kelly tully]

I just want to kill myself.

No it isn’t - if you vote for gay marriage, then you will be forcing others who view such relationships for what they really are to accept them as equal and good. The door swings both ways.

No it doesn't. By legalising gay marriage, nobody is forcing you to change your view. You can still sit in your corner and believe that gay marriage is wrong. You do not have to accept it.

I'm sure there are many things which are legal which you do not accept or agree with. Am I correct with this statement?

I hardly made up these rules. If you were forcing your moral beliefs on me, it would be just that. These are not my morals in the sense that I wasn’t the one who decided what was right or wrong, these are those of God, established in scripture. If you choose to reject the scripture then thats your choice, but don't expect me to stop telling you that what you're doing is wrong, just as you are telling me (that according to your own morals) what I am advocating is wrong.

Homosexual marriage is not in the scripture. Lots of things that are in the scripture are contravened by every day life.

1. According to the scripture, you're not supposed to have sex before you marry. Lots of people co habitat and have sexual relations before marriage. Marriage is still permitted in these circumstances.
2. According to you this is wrong because it is against the scripture, yet you do not preach from the corners against those who have premarital sex with the same ferocity that you do with homosexual marriage.
3. This leads me to believe that your underlying motive is not actually this undying belief in the scripture (which I will get to), but that you're actually a latent homophobe.
4. I draw this conclusion because according to you, homosexuals are ok - until they engage in homosexual activity. I don't buy this, I think deep down you still have a tendency to dislike homosexuals and homosexuality.
5. You're an idiot and you're insane and you're not a great person. You are taking these morals you believe were created by God (pop quiz, they weren't) and you are not questioning them, you are just accepting them as being correct because God says so. Ignoring the historical context in which the Bible was written.

Well then explain what it does mean to you? And grow up, your words of hate demonstrate nothing but an inability to hold a civil conversation.

I know this was directed at Kway, but cut out the strawman arguments. They're petty and ridiculous. OMG GROW UP KWAYERA U CANT EVEN DONE SPEEK PROPERLY COZ U IS MEAN LOL

Think about that when you are walking down the isle of a Church when you get married. If you choose to get married in a Church you play subject to their rules of marriage. No-one is forcing you to get married in the “house of God” - - you choose to.[/COLOR]

Correct! Just like if gay marriage is legalised, nobody is forcing the Churches to marry homosexuals. They will still have the right to refuse, as they have the right to refuse anyone else they do not see fit to marry. I don't get why this is an issue for you. Legalising same sex marriage does not automatically mean the Churches are legally mandated to marry homosexual couples.

Get a grip.

And it isn’t discrimination, everybody currently has equal rights, some people choose to go against the flow as it were and it is wrong for them to expect that simply because they choose to be different that they are somehow deserving of special rights – which they don’t even require to practise their homosexuality.

What does that even mean? What is "the flow"? Are you suggesting that homosexuals "choose" to go against the flow? That homosexuals "choose" to encounter the discrimination and the stigma and the brick wall they face, despite the fact that if they pretended to be in a heterosexual relationship, they could get married tomorrow. Despite it being a bold faced lie?

Are you going to sit here and say to all the homosexuals posting that they really choose to go against the flow deliberately? Are you fucking nuts?

I didn't see what Kwayera posted, but people do not choose to be homosexual. It's the opposite. In many instances it's homosexuals CHOOSING TO DENY THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY in order to "fit in" according to whatever bullshit constraints of normality you think exist.

Homosexuality isn't an art you dick, they don't "practice" homosexuality, just like I don't "practice" heterosexuality.

And we've already established that the "plight" of the homosexual has nothing to do with that of women or Aboriginies etc. Society had so much to gain by granting women rights, it wasn't just because women wanted them and asked for them. Society stands nothing to gain from allowing homosexual marriage, and I dare you to challenge me on that.

Society has nothing tangible to gain from homosexual marriage, just like it has nothing to gain from heterosexual marriage. Your argument is invalid. Marriage in any capacity does not contribute to society, except to produce this figments of what "should" and "should not" be.

I dare YOU to challenge me on that.

Yea, but if a bishop says: “Sorry guys, I’m not going to marry you because you are gay” that’s different to when he says “Sorry guys I’m not going to marry you because one of you is an unbeliever (or I don’t think this relationship will work, give it some more time to be sure etc.)”. It’s just going to be a legal orgy of “waa waa X Church didn’t marry us just because we are gay, someone make them”.

Well I've finally found the crux of your issue. You're an imbecile.

And you are asking me to accept gay couples and marriage, by allowing them to have it.

No, nobody is asking you to accept it. Just like I don't accept your beliefs or practices. But I don't vote against them because they have no impact on my every day life. Just like homosexual marriages is going to have no bearing on your life.

And that’s false because every time I say that homosexuality should not be tolerated, all I get is accusations of discrimination "waa homophobe".

If it walks like a duck....

I am not persecuting them at all... I am simply saying they should not be allowed to defile marriage in a manner which would have been unthinkable 10, 20, 30 years ago. What has changed now? Why are they now so deserving of marriage? You have yet to establish this.

People defile marriage every day. So unless you are going to campaign against marriage for:
people who are divorced
people who have children outside of marriage
couples who live together before marriage
two athiests getting married in a church because they think the church is pretty
etc

You have no logical argument against homosexual marriage.

And denying gays marriage is not persecution. They remain totally free to live together, to have w/e relationships between each other that they desire and to openly practise their homosexuality – where is the persecution?

Stop referring to homosexuality as a practice.

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns interracial marriage as far as I am aware (I know you can't marry an unbeliever, though thats seperate).

Yet many people do, where is your fervent campaigning against that?

Marriage however is clearly the domain of a man and women (not just in a religious context), and always has been, yet for some reason now, this has to change. Why is marriage no longer the domain of opposite sex couples? Explain this, you have the burden of proof.

hahaha are you serious. Lots of things have changed over time. Women were burnt for fear of being witches. That was the norm for a long time, why did it have to change?
Illegitimate children were treated as second class citizens, people were forced into slavery, Australia had the death penalty. These were the norm for years, why did they have to change?
Science was relegated to the backwaters and considered heresy for years, why did that stop?

I can come up with a hundred examples of things that had "always been" that changed. I want to see your list of things that have changed that shouldn't have

For the record, homosexuality has also "always" been.

Well then it looks to me like there are more Catholics (let alone religious people altogether) than there are gays, so... why are we changing the law again?

Because the days of the Catholic majority dictating how the rest of us can live are long over. You haven't noticed? I had a child out of wedlock. I wasn't institutionalized and he wasn't adopted out. Any other examples of Catholic demise you want me to list?

Am I to take it then, that there is no actual argument for gay marriage, other than, "well the Church says no, so we should just do it anyway to demonstrate to those religious pricks that we don’t listen to them". Is that it?

The argument for homosexual marriage is that these people are humans, that they are in loving and stable relationships, raising children, contributing to society (much better than a lot of heterosexual married couples) and that despite their heterosexual counterparts, they are not awarded the same rights.

Example!

My doctor is a lesbian and has a child with her girlfriend. If they should ever break up, she has no legal parental rights in relation to that child (because she did not give birth or donate an egg). Yet she is contributing financially and emotionally to this child, just as a heterosexual mother or father.

Homosexual couples that have been in long term relationships are not entitled to claim their deceased significant others superannuation or belongings (unless specified in a will and even then because their relationship is not legally acknowledged it can be contested).

It has nothing to do with the Church, despite the Church wanting this to be a Church issue.

Always wah wah wah with the Church, eh?

You already admitted it was a choice before. Everything you do in life is a choice. The fact that I am sitting here educating you in basic morality is a choice, and you are choosing to listen. I don’t blame “genes” or other pseudo science to remove myself from personal responsibility and nor should homosexuals.

Psuedo science, lol. I don't believe in science but I believe in this thing that I have no proof for its existence .. lol

No, because the definition of marriage is between one man and one women, interracial marriage was never in breach of this definition; and you haven’t demonstrated any reasons whatsoever as to why it would benefit society by changing said defintion to include same sex couples.

Definitions change. Language is fluid. Values are fluid. Culture is fluid. etc etc etc

Say we concede it does not directly benefit society (apart from the benefits it would bring those in a relationship). It doesn't harm society either.

Well I don’t go around raping people who look like sluts or bashing people who look gay, I take responsibility for my actions. Let’s not deny however that your actions and choices affect how other see you and in part determine their actions towards you.

Well aren't you an upstanding member of society!

However on a side note please, don’t be so pathetic, if I dress up as a missionary and try and spread the gospel during a Mardi Gras parade, I’m going to get bashed aren’t I? Gays are just as guilty of discrimination and violence as heterosexuals. They are hardly victims here when they are guilty of the same crimes, so stop treating them as such.

Probably not going to get bashed, no. I know plenty of instances where people have gone to the Mardi Gras with the intent of preaching. None of them have come back on a stretcher. Do you have examples to the contrary?

Of course homosexuals are not immune to perpetrating violence. This is because despite their sexual preference, they are human? Dude what is wrong with you?


I can't be bothered with the rest, I am just quoting for posterity because he's hilarious

But they can marry. Marriage by definition is between a man and a women and any Australian over the age of 18 can marry. They’re just not content with the current definition of marriage and want it changed to better accommodate their “alternative” lifestyle choices.



That would be bad, very bad. Gay adoption is a different issue, but also must be opposed.



I have never denied the fact that some gay couples would not be great parents, and that some heterosexual couples are crap parents.
None of these articles actually demonstrate that lesbian parents are better for the child in terms of parenting and so that claim is void. The one person who claimed so was merely expressing an opinion, nothing more stop treating it as a fact when it is not.
The natural, most optimum situation is where a child is raised by a mother and a father (preferably their biological parents as well). There are numerous reasons for this which I will explain if you need me to.



None of the articles demonstrate that they are better. Lol it’s not just what I think either, do you deny that the natural family institution is between one man and one women, caring for their own children? If that isn’t the only “natural” way it’s done and has been done throughout all history (aside from some extreme left wing states), please tell me what in fact is?


But they don’t, stop manipulating the facts.
And how would you propose you could even objectively measure that lesbian parents were better than those of heterosexual parents?
There are many reasons why heteroseuxal parents are always preferable, and I'll share them with you if you're interested.


Hint; when a mummy and daddy love each other...
You’re doing an honours degree at uni, please tell me you actually understand that children are born when a man and women have sex? The family has always been the most natural means of raising children, and always has been in humans. You can’t deny it, or have same sex parents always been the way its done?



Not my morals, God morals, timeless and absolute.
I don’t care if gay people have sex and have relationships with each other thats their business, when they bring it into the public forum however, and tell me to accept their choices and ask for marriage “rights” then it becomes everyone’s problem.
The issue has been brought to me, I havn't asked for it.




There are a lot of things in the Bible which are immoral. Homosexuality is in the Bible, yet here we are. Simply because something is mentioned in the Bible does not mean that it is ok. The Bibles (and Gods) definition of marriage is very straightforward (no pun intended lol); one man, one women.


And I disgust you? Honestly, to think people wonder why fundamentalist Muslim extremists despise of the West so much...


Hate crime laws and the like are stupid, they deal with intent and not the punishment for the crime itself. Intent is not a crime, it is the committing of the various illegal act which is. Simply because someone commits a crime for a different purpose does and should not affect their sentencing (should there be one).


Yeah, I know already. /sarcasm



This country is not governed by anarchy you have no right to take away all of its moral foundations simply because you want more freedom and have no sense of propriety or self control.
But this is a democracy, so expect that I will always be putting my opinions forward, whether they are religiously inspired or not. It just so happens that you can as well.



Yes it does, but the defilement of marriage affects me, and is an important part of my faith (and that of others). What is it so hard to understand that because marriage means nothing to you, doesn’t mean that some of us would like to see its purity and wholesomeness untarnished in such a henious manner?


Tell that to Christ, see what He says.


Yea, a person’s liberty to be gay is not being infringed through the protection of marriage.
Their union can still be recognised by the state by a civil union, they have equal rights.
However you are infringing on the liberty of religious people who have the right to look down on homosexuality as a sin and abhor and oppose it’s proliferation and encouragement in society.





Way to avoid another question and hide behind yet another personal attack Kwayera.

 

[Name_Taken]

You can't even cite your fucking religious text properly.

Lol, I even said at the beginning of the post that he should “read this article”, I didn’t write it. I didn’t cite the source incorrectly. And even so it’s not like, Mattew:19:4 is like a completely different verse than Matthew:19:4-5. If you were reading them in a Bible they would flow after each other anyway. For all we know it could have been a typo.

That's Matthew 19:4-5, and it says:

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς καὶ εἶπεν, ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν

Which is essentially as your translation has it. However, it continues (who would have thought context matters?!):

ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ μία. ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω.
'Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man separate.'

That’s great, I was quoting the NIV, but w/e thanks for your interpretation as well. Both translations (yours and the NIV) equate to the same message however, I don’t see what your point is.

Ie, it's talking about the importance of marriage. The passage continues for a few more verses about the fact that if marriage is important, why did Moses allow divorce? etc. The passage does not, as far as I can see, talk about homosexual marriages being wrong.

The Bible condemns homosexuality quite clearly (this is not in dispute I assume?). This verse describes God’s plan for marriage (one man leaving his mother and father, to be united with his wife etc.). It fails to mention homosexual marriage for that very reason; it is not part of God’s plan for marriage. If it were, surely it would have been mentioned?

How would homosexual marriage separate heterosexual marriage? Your logic is completely flawed the same way that this is:

1. Jesus said 'Catching public transport is good'.
2. Driving your car is not public transport.
.: Driving your car is bad.

I never said (nor did the article I posted) that homosexual marriage would separate heterosexual marriage, where do you get this from?

If Christ said nothing about driving a car, but made the point of saying that public transport is good, then what do you think is the preferable mode of transport in God’s eye? Surely if driving a car wasn’t bad, or even as good as public transport, then Christ would have made this very clear.

That's a very good question. Going by these two verses, you cannot believe and follow Jesus without believing and following Moses. The laws of Moses are contained throughout the Old Testament, however I'm not going to repeat them here. So, do you follow the laws of Moses, or do you not follow Jesus?

This is just plain stupid. By following Christ you (by extension) follow the laws He was born under; i.e. those of the Father in Heaven, scribed by Moses in the OT.

The oppressive law of the Roman Empire, if the fact that his family spent all their savings to travel to take the census means anything.

No, the law of Moses. Once again:

(Gal 4:4) “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (referring OFC to Moses laws).

From Matthew Henry’s Concise Bible Commentary:
“4:1-7 The apostle deals plainly with those who urged the law of Moses together with the gospel of Christ, and endeavoured to bring believers under its bondage.”

I thought we just answered that...
Oh right.

Do you get it now?

So you're happy to cite the OT for homosexuality and call me a sinner, but you're not happy to cite the OT for the numerous other things which would also make you a sinner? In fact, as far as I understand Hebrew lexicography and law (and I don't greatly, so I could be wrong), you are more of a sinner by not respecting the Sabbath - one of Decalogue, the most important laws of Moses!

Lol... Why is it that every gay person takes this stance and acts so bloody defensively? Do any of you know anything about the Christian faith?!

I am just as evil, corrupted and sinful as you or anyone else on this Earth, or anyone throughout history. I have never claimed that homosexuality is a particularly insidious sin or that it’s perpetrators are particularly evil. All sin is equal in Gods eye. All sin is unacceptable, whether it be a simple lie, whether it be homosexual sex or whether it be adultery, theft of murder. Different people are tempted in different ways, however all sin is evil. Furthermore; all sins must and will be punished, unless the offender seeks redemption through Christ.

The main problem with homosexuality (as we see it today) is the pride people take in their sin, the open celebration and encouraging of evil. I (and nor is any Christian for that matter) is capable of resisting sin our entire lives, and we will inevitably succumb to our temptations at some point or another. This difference is, that when I do, I do not take pride in my sin, I accept that I am imperfect, but that never stops me from constantly aspiring to reflect the holiness ad perfection of Christ. This more often than not requires great sacrifice on my part, temptation is almost always more appealing than what is right.

The main criticisms of homosexuality these days made by Christians do no relate solely to the fact that people do it (however it remains a sin) its this whole message of being gay is perfectly natural and normal, and even healthy – despite the fact that the Bible clearly establishes it as none of these things. Now sure, not everyone has to accept Christ, or believe in the Bible, that’s their choice, as it is their choice to commit sin. I’m not going to stop you from doing so, but don’t expect me to shut up and pretend its actually ok.

Tbh I'm not going to read the rest of your post; I assume the rest is as inconsistent and illogical as the first.

Funny that because you demonstrated nothing with the small amount that you did read and cared to criticise.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ You're a fool.

 

[NewiJapper]

Hmmm...

How about we rename the thread


Name_Taken vs the rest of BOS.