Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

You're on shaky ground to attempt criticizing sociological methods. To begin with, most modern sociologists study qualitative data, and objectivity is commonly considered neither possible nor desirable.

My main critique was that I hadn't actually been able to find the papers, and without reading them myself, I can't really form an opinion.

 

[Kwayera]

My main critique was that I hadn't actually been able to find the papers, and without reading them myself, I can't really form an opinion.

There are heaps more that I haven't listed because I couldn't be bothered. Feel free to do your own research (in the same vein in which you urge us to read the Bible. Which I have read the majority of, by the way).

 

[Name_Taken]

There are heaps more that I haven't listed because I couldn't be bothered. Feel free to do your own research (in the same vein in which you urge us to read the Bible. Which I have read the majority of, by the way).

Very observant of you.

But Article 14, point 2:

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

And Article 18, point 1 and 2:

1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

and Article 19, point one:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

...Among several others; would lead me to assume the word "parents" as it appears throughout the convention is used to descibe the child's biological parents, which must in fact be a heterosexual couple. In the case where a child is cared for by adoptive "parents" (be they a heterosexual or homosexual couple) the convention would appear to refer to them specifically as "legal guardians".

 

[Kwayera]

..I don't see how this helps your argument.

Legal guardians can be anyone defined to be a guardian that does not necessarily imply parent - i.e. grandparent, aunt, close family member, even temporary foster parents. One does not have to adopt a child to be its legal guardian. In fact, to use one example, when kids go unaccompanied on a flight, the airline becomes a temporary legal guardian.

Adoptive parents legally become the child's parents, regardless of biological distinctions. When you put a child up for adoption, you rescind the right to legally be considered its parent.

 

[Name_Taken]

..I don't see how this helps your argument.

Legal guardians can be anyone defined to be a guardian that does not necessarily imply parent - i.e. grandparent, aunt, close family member, even temporary foster parents. One does not have to adopt a child to be its legal guardian. In fact, to use one example, when kids go unaccompanied on a flight, the airline becomes a temporary legal guardian.

Adoptive parents legally become the child's parents, regardless of biological distinctions. When you put a child up for adoption, you rescind the right to legally be considered its parent.

I don't pretend to be an expert on legal matters, I even conceded in my previous post that:

Among several others; would lead me to assume the word "parents" as it appears throughout the convention is used to descibe the child's biological parents. etc etc.

I've searched but I can't seem to find a UN definition of "parent". I found a legal definition (though obviously these vary from country to country etc.)

parent n. the lawful and natural father or mother of a person. The word does not mean grandparent or ancestor, but can include an adoptive parent.

It would appear to refer primarily to ones "natural" biological mother and mother (hence; "but can also include"), though I guess its all up to interpretation.

 

[Graney]

My main critique was that I hadn't actually been able to find the papers, and without reading them myself, I can't really form an opinion.

I did a quick search of one of the authors kwayera had posted, and there was a literature review, I downloaded and uploaded it especially 4 u.

Free File Hosting, Free Video Hosting, Online File Hosting. Large Files and Images up to 5GB - YourFileLink.com

 

[Kwayera]

Up to interpretation? Lol, well, isn't everything? People make a living out of interpreting (or misinterpreting) the law.

 

[Name_Taken]

You did say it was a right!!!

I (I'm guessing) used the word flippantly

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

i (i'm guessing) used the word flippantly

ha!

 

[Name_Taken]

I did a quick search of one of the authors kwayera had posted, and there was a literature review, I downloaded and uploaded it especially 4 u.

Free File Hosting, Free Video Hosting, Online File Hosting. Large Files and Images up to 5GB - YourFileLink.com

Wow thanks Graney.

EDIT: Good grief, lol is this uni? Its one massive wall of text

 

[evilflic]

But you keep on making the mistake that the Bible should prove anything to people who don't believe in it.

Lol.

Which is why religious arguments are invalid when they only have the Bible to stand on.

Exactly.

Look, Name_Taken. The poll shows you're outnumbered. The posts show you're outnumbered.
Society says you're outnumbered. Australia is secular. You're just one dickhead in 21 million people, and nobody gives a fucking atom about what you think; just because something is condoned or condemned by your religion, doesn't mean it should be by everyone else. And if you think that everyone should believe what you believe in and thus legislation should adhere only to your beliefs, then you're clearly self-righteous and self-centred and have an obvious disregard for the diversity and understanding that is so crucial to the fabric of Australian society. In short - you're un-Australian (yes, I said it) and if you really want to impose your beliefs on others, go start a fucking cult on some remote island where we won't have to hear about it.
Times are changing, and attitudes are evolving as people turn towards justice and equality.
There's no place for people like you or attitudes like yours in Australian culture and society. And I will bet my life on it that someday in the possibly-not-so-distant future, Australia will legalise gay marriage.

 

[Graney]

Yeah it's heaps boring.

Probably just punch some funnels instead of posting in this thread, would be my advice to you.

 

[Name_Taken]

Look, Name_Taken. The poll shows you're outnumbered. The posts show you're outnumbered. Society says you're outnumbered.

This demonstrates what? That sin is popular nowadays, it always has been so, why are you under the deluded impression that you were the first person throughout human history who behaves and thinks the way you do?

Australia is secular. You're just one dickhead in 21 million people, and nobody gives a fucking atom about what you think; just because something is condoned or condemned by your religion, doesn't mean it should be by everyone else.

Nah, I'm one of 1.1 billion Catholics, and one of 2.1 billion people wordwide who adhere to the teachings of Christ.

21 million (27% who are Catholic and 64% of whom are Christian themselves) seems a somewhat insignificant figure in comparison. I'm afraid in the larger picture, it is you who is outnumbered.

And if you think that everyone should believe what you believe in and thus legislation should adhere only to your beliefs, then you're clearly self-righteous and self-centred and have an obvious disregard for the diversity and understanding that is so crucial to the fabric of Australian society.

No I don't and that much is evident by the fact that I have said (numerous times) that I don't care that individuals within our society practise homosexuality openly. Marriage however and adoption have nothing to do with homosexuality, and should remain the exclusive domain of the heterosexual.

In short - you're un-Australian (yes, I said it) and if you really want to impose your beliefs on others, go start a fucking cult on some remote island where we won't have to hear about it.

Yes I would be, if we all adopted your approach on what consititues "Australian" behaviour.

Times are changing, and attitudes are evolving as people turn towards justice and equality.

No, people are becomming increasinly dependant on the carnal to provide purpose to their lives, and are forsaking higher things; such a beauty, love and life itself.

Without God there is neither good nor evil, right or wrong, simply the illusion of meaning.

There's no place for people like you or attitudes like yours in Australian culture and society. And I will bet my life on it that someday in the possibly-not-so-distant future, Australia will legalise gay marriage.

Going by the definition you provided a little before, I'm afraid that you are just being downright unAustralian there.

Stop trying to impose your misguided and self-justifying beliefs regarding the acceptability of homosexuality on me.

I find it ironic that the person who's post spews forth such words of hate, was the very same who (incorrectly) accused me of similar behaviour previously.

As Jesus Christ Himself said in John verse 8:11; "Go now and leave your life of sin".

 

[Kwayera]

Mmm, I could go some carnality right about now, to be quite honest

 

[NewiJapper]

I'm one of 1.1 billion Catholics, and one of 2.1 billion people wordwide who adhere to the teachings of Christ.

Just because there are 2.1 billion worldwide doesn't mean there are 2.1 billion people apposed to gay marriage or homosexuals.

All of the catholics I know don't have anything wrong with homosexuals or gay marriage. They aren't brainwashed to think otherwise.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Just because there are 2.1 billion worldwide doesn't mean there are 2.1 billion people apposed to gay marriage or homosexuals.

All of the catholics I know don't have anything wrong with homosexuals or gay marriage. They aren't brainwashed to think otherwise.

i agree. isn't there some canadian church the fully supports homosexuals?

 

[Name_Taken]

Just because there are 2.1 billion worldwide doesn't mean there are 2.1 billion people apposed to gay marriage or homosexuals.

It was a comparison to demonstrate how even if everyone in this country disagrees with me, its hardly like me vs the world.

All of the catholics I know don't have anything wrong with homosexuals or gay marriage. They aren't brainwashed to think otherwise.

Your friend may very well be Christian (IDK or even just claim to be). Some Christians seem to think that they are better off selectively rejecting passages of the scripture that would otherwise negatively affect their popularity. Actively following the scripture that is meant to be held sacred in its entirely by all Christians is hardly "brainwashing".

Catholics treat marriage as a sacrament - it is very important. Generally speaking there are 5 requirements that have to be met for a couple to get married in a Catholic Church (there is more to it than this but these are the basics):

1. Both must be Baptised Christians.
2. Not be (too) closely related.
3. Free to Marry (among other requirements you have to get permission to marry again if you have already been married, divorce is almost always not good enough, you usually need something like death of your previous partner etc).
4. A Heterosexual couple (1 man + 1 women).
5. Be in good standing with the Church.

The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican is speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages.

- Taken from the US Catholic Church Website.

Catholics see marriage as a lifelong union between 1 man and 1 women bud. In all honesty I would be very very suprised if your friend was in fact a serious, practising Catholic who supported gay marriage.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Your friend may very well be Christian (IDK or even just claim to be). Some Christians seem to think that they are better off selectively rejecting passages of the scripture that would otherwise negatively affect their popularity. Actively following the scripture that is meant to be held sacred in its entirely by all Christians is hardly "brainwashing".

You disagree with the stoning bits in the bible! ME SMEELS HIPO-CRI-SY

suprised if your friend was in fact a serious, practising Catholic who supported gay marriage.

again, some canadian church supports homosexuals.

 

[Name_Taken]

i agree. isn't there some canadian church the fully supports homosexuals?

Eurgh, there's a handful everywhere, not so much in Austrlia as far as I am aware.

Main perpetrators I think are the United Church in Canada, and the Anglican Church in the States (among other places). Its not just gays, these Churches (among others) are much more lax on the use of contraception, sex outside of marriage and divorce, and pretty much everything else.

It seems at least within the Western world, only the Vatican has actually remained truthful to the actual principles of the faith of Christ.

 

[Name_Taken]

You disagree with the stoning bits in the bible! ME SMEELS HIPO-CRI-SY

No I don't.