Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[allzy]

that shuttle_bus guy disappeared though. and you're new. something's not right.

mmm its me not him

i cant change the pic because it's being a bitch to me.

 

[Name_Taken]

Oh you know... like those ridiculous ones. Like how you're forbidden from eating shell-fish, or working on the sabbath, or stoning people for the most ridiculous reasons.

Almost all Jewish people I know will not eat shellfish or pork.

And in regards to working on the sabbath, it would depend on what your definition of of "work" is. I don't go to school on Sunday, and most religious buisness people (I imagine, can't pretend I've met them all) don't go to work on Sunday. Ironically, for those who work in the clergy, their "work" would require them to work on the Sabbath. However most clergy members do not see doing the work of God as a chore in the same way that most people look upon their own occupation.

Oh you are just priceless mate.

Thanks It's a good song though, whether you believe or not.

 

[Graney]

pls reply Name_Taken

Why not prohibit it legally, as we prohibit other immoral behaviour such as drug taking, the censorship of offensive media etc...

If the state is to be ideally an expression of the will of god, and there is a necessary relationship between church and state (as I believe you've mentioned before), what greater discouragement can there be than legal prohibition and penalties for this behavior?

Why discourage people with words and not legislation?
Would you support the legalization of all drugs, and merely say they should be 'discouraged with strong words'.

 

[Name_Taken]

How much of what you are saying is just what has been preached to you by your parents and parish, and you are just spewing it up??
And before you decide to have a go at me...I come from a very Christian background, and although I myself am not religious, my family doesn't have any problem with homosexuality.

Just so you know; my family is a somewhat decent bunch. None of them are religious (none of my grandparents were religious) and they are not friends with a particularly religious selection of people.

In fact, my mum even thinks I'm gay.

Neither my parents nor my background (even my friends who are mostly atheist) have played any part in determining my religious beliefs.

 

[Ethanescence]

Well, thats their choice, and I respect their position (won't stop them from saying that I frown upon it). Just as I would in turn, expect them to respect mine (likewise expecting them to frown upon mine).

Personal attacks prove nothing and are those which spread the hate.

I agree completely, but I still don't understand why some Christians take your view of frowning upon the act, and not the people - yet their actions do not reflect this in the slightest.

I can understand if you don't agree with same-sex marriage, yet would you purposefully vote/protest against it?

Would you oppose same-sex marriage, if it were implemented as legal recognition (with no religious recognition implied) of a committed same-sex relationship? This would be similar to other heterosexual marriages that aren't affiliated with any religious institution. If same-sex marriages were only recognised by the courts/legal system, would you oppose them?

If so, doesn't this conflict with your ideal of frowning upon the act, but not the people? A modern-day marriage is a union between two consenting adults, and does not necessarily (negatively) influence anyone else. Also, a marriage is moreso about the individuals in the relationship, not the "act" of sexual relations between those individuals.

 

[Kwayera]

This thread is specifically about homosexuality, "Homosexuality in Australia". If its title was "Sex-Before Marriage in Australia" I wouldn't be talking about homosexuality bud.

It goes to the credibility of your argument. Clearly you take the Bible's advice/teachings on sexual matters very seriously. Why, then, do you cherry-pick? Why do you not take its OTHER teachings as seriously? Say the one I mentioned earlier - do you wear mixed cloth?

 

[allzy]

Neither my parents nor my background (even my friends who are mostly atheist) have played any part in determining my religious beliefs.

Okay that may be so, but I sort of wonder if people who believe so strongly in these things (homosexuality is sinful and wrong) have actually reached those conclusions as individuals, or if other influences have made them believe those things. I think that one should go on a more personal 'journey' and reach conclusions about what's right; rather than taking teachings from others about what's right and wrong.
I know you'll probably dispute what I'm saying, but I still think that you ought to reconsider your views on homosexuality...because how much of what you believe is actually stuff that you have come to a conclusion about??
I reckon that what you have said has just been regurgitated by those who have primitive views on homosexuality.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Yes, but even though they frown upon your religion, they're not doing anything to impede on that.

Name_taken that^

 

[kaz1]

lol at the ad on this page

http://www.atlantisevents.com/cruises_2010_solstice.aspx?gclid=CL7slsqel58CFRsFagod13IEGw

 

[Name_Taken]

I agree completely, but I still don't understand why some Christians take your view of frowning upon the act, and not the people - yet their actions do not reflect this in the slightest.

What do you mean by this, could you clarify please?

I can understand if you don't agree with same-sex marriage, yet would you purposefully vote/protest against it?

I would vote against same-sex marriage (currently I'm too young to vote however, though haha).

Would you oppose same-sex marriage, if it were implemented as legal recognition (with no religious recognition implied) of a committed same-sex relationship? This would be similar to other heterosexual marriages that aren't affiliated with any religious institution. If same-sex marriages were only recognised by the courts/legal system, would you oppose them?

If so, doesn't this conflict with your ideal of frowning upon the act, but not the people? A modern-day marriage is a union between two consenting adults, and does not necessarily (negatively) influence anyone else. Also, a marriage is moreso about the individuals in the relationship, not the "act" of sexual relations between those individuals.

Hmm... I have thought about this. I am still unhappy about homosexual unions being promoted to the same status as heterosexual marriage, however if the current laws are to be abolished, I suppose I may accept this as a compromise. Depends on the details though and how the Act itself would be worded.

Marriage I know, as far as the government is concerned, is as simple as singing a form with your spouse. However, how many people get married in this way, without the ceremony itself as well?

It is the Churches right (and always has been) to refuse to marry people (not just homosexuals, but like, couples which for whatever reason are deemed inappropriate to marry). By the government approving homosexual marriage, it would put immense pressure on the Church to agree to wed homosexual couples. There may be cases where homosexual couples press legal charges against religious institutions who refuse to wed them (as that case with the lesbian couple who sued the wedding photographer). If the government were to make it clear that the Church is under no obligation whatsoever to marry homosexual couples if it is not willing to, then I would feel more at comfort, but it I believe it would alienate the Church.

Marriage is not a private celebration, it is an open and very public celebration of love, who gets married without people witnessing?

Granting marriage "rights" would promote homosexuality still further in the public eye. I don't endorse anti-homosexual policies, but I oppose policies which promote it as an acceptable alternative.

Whats more marriage is not required by homosexual people to be with each other. Disallowing marriage will not separate homosexual couples. Its not a requirement for a relationship, especially one which is based on a perversion and lust instead of true love in the first place.

 

[Kwayera]

Whats more marriage is not required by homosexual people to be with each other. Disallowing marriage will not separate homosexual couples. Its not a requirement for a relationship, especially one which is based on a perversion and lust instead of true love in the first place.

So marriage is a requirement for a relationship with heterosexual couples in your world, but the same does not apply to homosexuals.

Because that.. makes no sense at all?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Name_Taken!!!!:

Christians may frown upon homosexuality and do their utmost best to discourage it. Everyone else may frown upon christianity, but in no way do they impede upon people practicing it.

Comment?

 

[allzy]

Damn right!!
Very true

 

[Ethanescence]

If the government were to make it clear that the Church is under no obligation whatsoever to marry homosexual couples if it is not willing to, then I would feel more at comfort, but it I believe it would alienate the Church.

Firstly, the church alienates itself, because it is a static and regressive institution. The church can not blame society for progressing and beginning to recognise the value of a union of two people, regardless of gender.

If the church wishes to be free from pressure to perform same-sex marriages, yet feels as though they will be "alienated" if the government legislates this protection for them, then this really just shows the transparency of this entire argument.

Essentially they are unwilling to compromise either way; they don't want same-sex marriages to be legal because they feel it will put pressure on them to validate or carry out same-sex wedding ceremonies. But if the government legally protects them from this issue ever occurring, they will just make up another unfounded, illogical excuse to cover for their bigotry.

 

[Graney]

I could continually tear Name_Taken apart, but he doesn't have the intel testicular required to even begin to form a response when provided with some legit criticism of sound reasoning, so fuck it.

 

[SnowFox]

I could continually tear Name_Taken apart, but he doesn't have the intel testicular required to even begin to form a response when provided with some legit criticism of sound reasoning, so fuck it.

Fuck, please?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

um, name_taken? did you turn your tail and run mate?

 

[SnowFox]

Graney's presence is the only thing to kill of tarts.

 

[Name_Taken]

um, name_taken? did you turn your tail and run mate?

No sorry, but I do have a life outside of Bored of Studies, even in the holidays when every day just seems to snail by...

Good grief though, theres like 20 posts on the last 2 pages that people want me to comment on, sigh. :mad1:

 

[Name_Taken]

Why not prohibit it legally, as we prohibit other immoral behaviour such as drug taking, the censorship of offensive media etc...

If the state is to be ideally an expression of the will of god, and there is a necessary relationship between church and state (as I believe you've mentioned before), what greater discouragement can there be than legal prohibition and penalties for this behavior?

Why discourage people with words and not legislation?
Would you support the legalization of all drugs, and merely say they should be 'discouraged with strong words'.

Hey, as I keep getting told, just because I don't agree with someone's choices, who am I to stop them?

As I expect homosexual people to allow people to pursue faith in God, I would expect people of all religions to allow people to practice homosexuality. I think people should be given as much freedom as possible in order to take advantage of their free will, as long as of course, people do not harm others (so things like drugs and murder need to be outlawed).

Homosexuality can only harm the individual, and provided it is between two consenting adults, I'm not going to stand up in a huff and try and stop them from having sex.

However gay marriage is something which will harm society at large (especially people who still follow a religion). Adoption by gay couples also stands (in my view) to threaten society, and as such I oppose that as well.

The states role should be to oppose evil. Homosexuality is evil, however I respect a persons right to choose who they have sex with (male or female), and I don't expect the state to intervene in homosexual relationships or descriminate against gay people.

Maybe you misinterpreted me by saying discouraging. I oppose homosexuality being encouraged as it is now (Gay "pride" parades, speakers going to schools and talking to children about how being gay is perfectly healthy and ok). I'm not suggesting a church minister goes around schools telling 5 year old kids that homosexuality is a perversion and they should reject gay people, and that its evil etc etc. It is a persons right to decide whether they accept religion or not.

I would take an indifferent approach towards homosexuality. I am not going to force my religion down the throats of people who have chosen to reject God. I wouldn't want the government to outlaw and arrest homosexual people. In my mind they are as evil and sinful as the rest of us anyway, so singling them out is futile and hypocritical.

However movements such as the "gay marriage" movement and fighting for "gay adoption" rights pose a threat to all society and should be opposed.

(Sorry if this reads like a dogs breakfast, I've got this hangover from last night lol, just woke up ).