Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[ichigo.bankai]

look gay people will be gay and stay will be straight so wat can u do nothin so close it and dont worry about it meh >.<

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Voting by the mass populace was and is histrorically speaking a relitively new concept and thus rules for it were and are still being written.

History, modern, classical, and natural are all pretty clear on marriage. Even in societies where homosexuality was somewhat accepted or even promoted, marriage was strictly a man/woman affair, Greece as a good example.

History, modern, classical and natural are all pretty clear on the role of women in society.

And no, the fact that a Papuan tribe or something allowed some form of union between men is not relevant, unless you want to start preaching for legalized cannibalism ...

Then how come examples of the role of marriage in society are to be taken as fine examples by you, while (im sure) excluding other more dubious practices of those societies? You're playing the pick and choose game yourself.

 

[ur_inner_child]

We're still a nation of NIMBYs on gays

Erik Jensen
April 20, 2007

A QUARTER of Australians do not like the idea of living next door to homosexuals, a University of Queensland study has found, but less than 5 per cent do not want to live next door to foreigners.

The study, to be published in the economic journal Kyklos, was based on data from 31,625 people in 26 countries. It found that 24.7 per cent of Australians surveyed would not want gay neighbours, suggesting Australia is more homophobic than Britain (24.1 per cent) and the US (22.9 per cent).

"We did OK on everything except homosexuality," said the study's co-author, John Mangan. He said homophobia was the most prevalent bigotry in all geographical areas except Scandinavia, where "Islamophobia" was more dominant.

The data comes from the Human Beliefs and Values survey published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2004.

The survey gauged various forms of bigotry by asking people if they would want certain groups living next door.

Professor Mangan's study used economic formulas to convert this data into a "bigotry scale", taking into account variations within the socio-economic structures of different countries. It found countries where wealth is more evenly spread were less bigoted.

A spokesman for the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, Ghassan Kassisieh, said he was not surprised by the figure. "I'm comforted by the fact that 75 per cent of respondents did not have a problem living next door to a gay couple, which shows an increasing level of maturity and acceptance.

Statistically, I'm quite surprised that it's a mere quarter of Australia.

 

[S1M0]

Statistically, I'm quite surprised that it's a mere quarter of Australia.

Same here, you'd expect it to be much more than that.

 

[Tulipa]

I think people are becoming more accepting.

I mean, homosexuality isn't really going away. The more it's out there, the more people will learn to accept it I think. Maybe that's naive but still.

 

[Dave2007]

Homosexuality is gay.

I bet thats already been said somewhere in the 100 pages I didn't read?

Anyway, I think gays should be supported, they have just as much right to be happy as powerful religious conservatives!

 

[js5071]

its kinda sad that quater statistic, however going from the poll at the begining of this post its good to see so many people for it or inpartial.
i know not everyone can be for it.
but coming from personal experiances on th level i have been abused in the past i thought the statistic would be higher.
i think that civil unions should be instated like in the UK, but marriage is a whole other concept depending on religion.
it would be nice to just see rights progress, so that when i grow older i can be in a recognised defacto relationship. god forbids anything happens to me, ifi have spent the last 20 yr of my life with someone, i would like them to be considered my spouse.
at the moment, its even illegal for another gay man to donate sperm to lesbain couples.
generally its all quite depressing


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world

its actually very intresting if anyone has the time to have a look.

 

[bshoc]

its kinda sad that quater statistic, however going from the poll at the begining of this post its good to see so many people for it or inpartial.
i know not everyone can be for it.
but coming from personal experiances on th level i have been abused in the past i thought the statistic would be higher.
i think that civil unions should be instated like in the UK, but marriage is a whole other concept depending on religion.
it would be nice to just see rights progress, so that when i grow older i can be in a recognised defacto relationship. god forbids anything happens to me, ifi have spent the last 20 yr of my life with someone, i would like them to be considered my spouse.
at the moment, its even illegal for another gay man to donate sperm to lesbain couples.
generally its all quite depressing

Yeah nature sux eh? Stupid homophobic laws of nature and biology, nature is just a stupid, narrow-minded, right winged bigoted conservative!!

Shame on nature, stop discriminating - lets rally against it in the city!!

 

[KFunk]

Yeah nature sux eh? Stupid homophobic laws of nature and biology, nature is just a stupid, narrow-minded, right winged bigoted conservative!!

Shame on nature, stop discriminating - lets rally against it in the city!!

Poor argument, biology only dictates that same-gender sexual activity doesn't produce children - not that it is wrong. Men already feel each other up playing football, what's so different about the occaisional poke? In seriousness though, homosexual behaviour is found in animals - particularly amongst social species like monkeys and apes. That homosexuality crops up regularly in nature suggests that perhaps homosexuality performs a genetically valuable social function (in any case it is not against the laws of nature, else it wouldn't occur). Regardless, there is no good reason to accept something as wrong simply because it doesn't occur in nature. I feel that I thwart your assertions in two ways:

1. The laws of nature are not homophobic - homosexuality arises in several species.
2. A variation of the 'Is-Ought problem' --> showing that something 'is (or is not) the case' does not show that it 'ought be the case'. You are simply imposing your own moral construct onto nature (and a construction of nature no less!).

 

[jimmayyy]

What are your views on homosexuality? Marriage?

shouldnt even be an issue. people (as long as it is in the context of a consenual relationship) should be able to bonk whoever the hell they please, same sex or otherwise.

same sex couples should be entitled to equal status as a hetro couple in the same situation

as for marriage, i dunno. it wouldnt really be "marriage" would it? but they deserve their civil services or what have you.

they also deserve the same rights in regard to wills, family law etc etc

 

[Serius]

genetically valuable? I thought the whole idea was so that you dont reproduce. Some sort of coping mechanism with overpopulation so that not everyone who is born wants to reproduce.

 

[KFunk]

genetically valuable? I thought the whole idea was so that you dont reproduce. Some sort of coping mechanism with overpopulation so that not everyone who is born wants to reproduce.

An example of a phenomenon which appears to be of little reproductive value, but which nonetheless manifests itself, is menopause. A proposed theory is the 'grandmother hypothesis' which suggests that in hunter/gatherer societies back in the day women were required to help with food collection and that grandmothers performed the valuable functions of caretaking and education while mums/dads were out. It's only a hypothesis of course, but it's an example of how a seemingly paradoxical evolutionary feature could actually benefit passing on one's genes. Perhaps homsexual relationships are helpful in that they form social alliances, who knows? Social animals are particularly difficult to study in evolutionary terms.

For interests sake: here is a link to a list of animals which supposedly (I know, wikipedia is dubious ) display homosexual behaviour - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

 

[KFunk]

Another interesting source:

Against Nature? - an exhibition on animal homosexuality

This is a brief bit of information on animal homosexuality from a museum exhibition on homosexuality in the animal kingdom . It suggests what could be called the 'alliance hypothesis' as a possible explanation of homosexuality. The concluding statement on the third page is:

"...one thing is clear: Homosexuality is found throughout the Animal Kingdom. It is not against nature."

 

[alez]

I think they should be able to do what they want. anyone watch comedy gala the other day? anyway one of the comedians was saying that yeah it says u cant be gay in the bible, but a lot of things in the bible really dont apply to todays society. like slaves. anyway if they arent religious why should those rules even apply to them?

 

[HyPnOtiSeD]

I have no problem with gay couples! I am undecided as to whether they should be allowed a legalised marriage however ...

 

[dagwoman]

I have no problem with gay couples! I am undecided as to whether they should be allowed a legalised marriage however ...

If you're not sure that gay relationships should be acknowledged equally to how straight couples are, you have a problem with them.

 

[ur_inner_child]

If you're not sure that gay relationships should be acknowledged equally to how straight couples are, you have a problem with them.

Just because someone isn't sure about same sex marriage doesn't mean they have a problem with gay couples.

For instance, I have a problem with the concept of marriage anyway, so in theory I wouldn't be supporting gay "marriage" by default. Nevetheless I support it through principle. I'm sure there are other reasons. There are other worldly issues I'm not "sure" on because I haven't gathered enough information about it, thus not making an opinion. Let people decide at their own pace.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Regarding references to the bible to prove that homosexuality is forbidden by god;
the relevant verse is Leviticus 18:22; "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

This pearl of wisdom is from the same chapter of the bible that states:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Leviticus is full of similarly insane, deplorable laws like this.

Do any of these bible bashing nutters that who actively oppose gay rights seriously advocate slavery? If as I suspect they do not condone slavery, why is the homosexuality verse revelant but not the slavery verses?

Haha, the old 'Leviticus lolz!' argument.

Do you understand that Jesus' church brought Christianity to the entire world, not to Jews? Jesus was a Jew and preached to a mainly Jewish population, but he definitely intended to spread his teachings further - which the likes of Paul did. Anyone who claims that Leviticus is part of the official set of Christians norms is a moron. Sorry, but unless you're talking about Judaism, you're a moron. If you want to talk about Leviticus, talk about it in the realm of Judaism and not Christianity.

Just so everyone's aware:
1. There is no evidence of Jesus himself being anti-homosexual. Unless I am mistaking, you will not find any evidence of Jesus being anti-homosexual in the Gospels. I know there are some issues with translations, but these are really negligable. In fact, I don't think homosexuality is actually mentioned anywhere in the Gospels even by the authors outside of Jesus,
2. however, other parts of the New Testament are hideously riddled with anti-homosexual sentiments. The New Testament is the part of the Bible which is the main part of official Christian norms. Once you get past the Gospels and Acts (into the Pauline Epistles, the Epistles, and Revelation), you get massive amounts of anti-homosexual references. Same goes for a fair amount of the Apocrapha, except, notably, the Gospels of Judas and Thomas which try to depict the actual life of Jesus in the spirit of the canonical Gospels.

So thus whilst the OT is very anti-homosexual as is some parts of the NT, the main Christian character, Jesus, does not display any anti-homosexual sentiments that are recorded. The people who spread his church, though, especially Paul, re-instated anti-homosexual believes.

Christians are supposed to aim to be like Jesus, and, unless the 4 canonical and innumberable apocryphal surviving Gospels are coincidentally lacking, Jesus did not preach homophobia. The Jews and pretty much the rest of that area of the world did.

Depending on how much emphasis you place on the Gospels, you could argue anywhere from Christianity has no problem with homosexuality to Christianity, like Judaism, frowns upon it as a very evil act.

Edit:

Because like all extremists who choose a particular religion to support their views, they pick and choose certain verses and refuse to acknowledge their context and simply point at it and say "Look, the <text> says this! We are right!"

(Even though all religion is crap and man invented it all and even if it was in context it still wouldn't be valid because it's all fiction anyway)

People who quote it also stupidly let religion set the basis for their view on the subject. Do they let religion set all life views? And if they do, that still doesn't forbid anybody else from being homosexual, just the person who believes in the religion.

I don't remember much from school, but i think Christians aren't even governed by the Old Testament anyway. It says a lot of freaky stuff.

So glad you've formed such well-informed view without even being able to 'remember much from school'?

Some of the NT says a lot of freaky stuff as well... But you're right about the OT. Bibles only have the OT because Christianity was spawned from the Jewish notion of the messiah, which Jesus allegedly fills. I think you'd have a had-pressed time arguing that Jesus's preaching of the loving god is in line with the violent god of Exodus which killed innocent Egyptian children etc.

 

[pete shearman]

i think the catholic church is pretty consistent in its views on sex. fire and brimstone awaits all who have sex of a non-procreational nature, not just gay but straight too. remember that most straightys, except for the super religious ones, disobey the church by buying condoms.

 

[xeuyrawp]

i think the catholic church is pretty consistent in its views on sex. fire and brimstone awaits all who have sex of a non-procreational nature, not just gay but straight too. remember that most straightys, except for the super religious ones, disobey the church by buying condoms.

Well the Catholic church not only places huge amounts of importance on the rest of the NT, but also on its religious administration. This is because, like many churches, they claim that their lineage gives them the right to create their own rules.

Despite what they say, though, they're full of shit. On the one hand, the Catholic church strives to utilise the Gospels and know Jesus, but on the other hand, they've fabricated all of these rules and applied them through what I would call the unimportant bits of the New Testament.