Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Name_Taken]

Sorry about not responding earlier, I only just found this.

Just because it's caused by genes, it does not make it a defect or a condition or anything negative, just as having red hair is not a defect. And there's no doubt that it is gene-based at least in part, even though we haven't found the exact genes responsible yet. This is not a flaw in the argument, considering we only sequenced the human genome a few years ago and there's more important things to find (i.e. the gene mutations that cause genetic diseases).

Rofls, can't you see the fundamental contradiction there? Only if you found the "exact genes responsible" could there actually be "no doubt". You have found nothing, but you claim there is "no doubt".

And if I was gay, I would be praying to God (yea thats right) that in fact homosexuality wasn't caused by genetics. That would by definition make it a genetic defect, as it is a somewhat serious divergence from the norm which promotes behaviour which in the context of biology, is counter-productive to the continuation of the species.

Incorrect. There is no proven case of anyone successfully being an ex-something. Those who go through "sexual preference reassignment therapy", particularly by Bible-based initiatives, instead show signs of psychological brainwashing.

You can talk someone into believing they're not gay, but that doesn't make them straight.

'Gay'-rights leader quits homosexuality

How exaclty would you "prove" someone's sexuality anyway? All you have really is what they say, and what they do. The guy in this case isn't just a random off the street either, he was a leader in the Gay "rights" movement, one would suspect that his resolve would have been strong.

It happens both ways, there have been plenty of cases where heterosexuals became gay (often leaving behiend a loving family with kids or after bieng released from prison).

And citation of the bolded please.

Lol, and? You've chosen a very specific set of circumstances here, and those are explained more by sociology than sexual preference. It's usually rape and it's usually used to demonstrate dominance or social stature.

It has been very well documented however. And I found it, the percentage of rape is around 22%, however the accuracy of this number is disputed, as men obviously may deny they were raped (to avoid harrassment form other inmates) or say they were when they were in fact not (in an attempt to reclaim their dignity). Either way, the majority of cases (approx 80%) would appear to be consentual.

Just like dogs and humping. We're just animals, after all.

Yeah, except for those rare few among our kind that rise to a higher level through Christ and live their lives for something more meaninful than the pursuit of orgasm.

Yeah but not everyone sees homosexuality as fundamentally wrong. That's the point.

This is meaningless, the same could be said of any other sin.

 

[evilflic]

Actually, Name_Taken, if the 'gay rights' activist 'suddenly' decided to be straight, chances are he was actually bi and hadn't realised it until this point. If you initially find yourself attracted to a guy (assuming you are a guy), then you'd consider yourself gay. You'd then probably continue pursuing men, not giving women any time because you think you're gay. But one day, the right woman comes along and pretty quickly you realise that, in never pursuing women, you've missed the fact that you're actually bisexual.

 

[Name_Taken]

Oh, now it gets interesting. So, Name_Taken, you think I have only a superficial understanding of Christianity?

I went to Anglican schools since I was 4. I have not only read the bible, I could quote it. I went to sunday school, church, bible studies, was a member of Cru for years, and believed wholeheartedly in all Christian beliefs.

That was for 14 years of my life.

But then, I realised the hypocrisy behind Christianity; the 'holier than thou' mentality that has arisen out of what was fundamentally supposed to be Jesus' message of love and peace. So-called Christians judging others and attempting to justify their prejudices whilst reassuring themselves they were doing things in the name of God.

My faith crumbled.

I'm now about as atheist as it gets, and attitudes such as yours sicken me.

Interesting, my life story would appear to be the polar opposite of yours.

Your weakness in character is unfortunate.

 

[Name_Taken]

Actually, Name_Taken, if the 'gay rights' activist 'suddenly' decided to be straight, chances are he was actually bi and hadn't realised it until this point. If you initially find yourself attracted to a guy (assuming you are a guy), then you'd consider yourself gay. You'd then probably continue pursuing men, not giving women any time because you think you're gay. But one day, the right woman comes along and pretty quickly you realise that, in never pursuing women, you've missed the fact that you're actually bisexual.

At the very least it raises doubt.

And doubt is all that is needed for a "law" to become a "theory", especially since there was no actual evidence to support said "law" (that sexuality is fixed throughout life) in the first place.

 

[Kwayera]

And doubt is all that is needed for a "law" to become a "theory".

Say what?

Do you know anything about what those words mean in the scientific vernacular (which I assume you're applying)?

 

[Name_Taken]

Say what?

Do you know anything about what those words mean in the scientific vernacular (which I assume you're applying)?

Somewhat incorret terminology I will admit, my mistake.

However you expressed the notion that a person cannot change their sexuality, and that sexuality was fixed for life.

This you expressed as a fact, despite having no evidence to support it, other than your assumptions and speculation.

The case I linked at the very least raises serious doubts to the "fact" that sexuality changes are in fact impossible.

 

[evilflic]

Interesting, my life story would appear to be the polar opposite of yours.

Your weakness in character is unfortunate.

It takes a lot more strength of character to go against religious brainwashing and stand up for justice than it does to preach the doctrines that have been repeatedly fed to you.
My good decision cannot be called a 'weakness in character'.
It's called a desire for all human beings to live a life free of prejudice from others and ideological restrictions, whilst still behaving in a manner which causes no mental, physical or emotional harm to others.
I suppose it's several shelves higher than your narrow-minded self-righteousness, and I don't think you'll ever experience the truly liberating and enlightening moment of reaching that shelf.

Ah well, you're only in year 11. You've got enough of your lifetime ahead of you in which to do some real questioning and growing up - and I wish you all the best with that.

 

[NewiJapper]

I think evilflic has only become stronger, not weaker for realising the true face of Christianity.

 

[Name_Taken]

It takes a lot more strength of character to go against society's brainwashing and stand up for justice than it does to preach the doctrines that have been repeatedly fed to you.

LOL I agree totally! It's what I'm doing right now, and its much harder and less convenient than it would be for me to just shutup and ignore the various problems that exist all around us in our community.

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth"

- Gandhi​

I suppose it's several shelves higher than your narrow-minded self-righteousness, and I don't think you'll ever experience the truly liberating and enlightening moment of reaching that shelf.

You know nothing of liberation, only of submission; to yourself and to the opinions of others.

Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32 (NLV).

Ah well, you're only in year 11. You've got enough of your lifetime ahead of you in which to do some real questioning and growing up - and I wish you all the best with that.

Um... yeah riiight. Sorry to break it to you, but you finished the HSC last year. You havn't even been out of school for more than 12 months, what great, life-changing experiences have you had in that time? You're probably not even 18 yet, society has granted you no more privelages or rights than I do.

And being in school means very little in terms of your exposure to the "real word". Everything is out there, one simply needs to open their eyes and experience it.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

And being in school means very little in terms of your exposure to the "real word". Everything is out there, one simply needs to open their eyes and experience it.

You'd do well to take your own advice. As if looking in one book for all the answers provides a person with true experience.

Also, I find it ironic that you use a quote from Ghandi to support your narrow-minded, paternalistic views towards gays, which ultimately suggest that gays should not have equal rights. Ghandi was someone who advocated greater open-mindedness, rejected paternalism and fought for the rights of Indian people.

 

[evilflic]

LOL I agree totally! It's what I'm doing right now, and its much harder and less convenient than it would be for me to just shutup and ignore the various problems that exist all around us in our community.
You changed my words. I said religious brainwashing, not society's brainwashing. There is a big difference, considering society is comprised of a mixture of religions AND of many people who do not have any religion, such as myself.

You know nothing of liberation, only of submission; to yourself and to the opinions of others.
Submitting to myself? Nice paradox there. And don't tell me what I know, kid.

Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you remain faithful to my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32 (NLV).
He taught love. You preach hate, hypocrite. Jesus never said 'stop gays from being married'.

Um... yeah riiight. Sorry to break it to you, but you finished the HSC last year. You havn't even been out of school for more than 12 months, what great, life-changing experiences have you had in that time?
Life changing? Well, I just spent 3 months working voluntarily in a healthcare facility for disadvantaged indigenous Australians. So, probably more life-changing experiences than you have.

You're probably not even 18 yet
Wrong again, little boy. I'm 19 in 2 months' time.

 

[Name_Taken]

You'd do well to take your own advice. As if looking in one book for all the answers provides a person with true experience.

Just so you know, the Bible is a complilation of 66 different books written by 40 different authors, who lived in various different locations and in eras.

Futhermore, the Bible is simply one aspect of the Christian faith. Yes it is very important, but you would be wrong to assume that it is all there is.

Also, I find it ironic that you use a quote from Ghandi to support your narrow-minded, paternalistic views towards gays, which ultimately suggest that gays should not have equal rights.

There is a difference between striving for the freedom of genuinly oppressed, impoverished people as compared to those who by removing moral regulation simply crave additional personal freedoms which are otherwise unwarrented.

Irrespective of this, the importance of the quote lies in the message of the quote itself, and not the person who originally said it (however context is important OFC). A person could legitimately quote Hitler in defence of human rights.

Ghandi was someone who advocated greater open-mindedness, rejected paternalism and fought for the rights of Indian people.

Yes thank you, but what does this have to do with homosexuality, or to be more precise, why gay marriage should be legalised?

Are you making the assumption that simply because Gandhi was against racism (which I believe is wrong anyway and would have opposed myself) that he would have advocated gay marriage be allowed?

 

[Name_Taken]

You changed my words. I said religious brainwashing, not society's brainwashing.

I corrected your words. It demonstrates the ironic similarity between our two positions on this issue, however while I stand for moral righteousness, you stand for the sinful and carnal.

Submitting to myself? Nice paradox there. And don't tell me what I know, kid.

What makes you think I was telling you what you know, to do so would have had me say nothing.

And if you really need me to spell it out for you;
"You know nothing of liberation, only of oppression, from your own sinful temptations and the opinions of others."

He taught love. You preach hate, hypocrite.

The very fact that you go to the effort of calling me a hypocrite demonstrates your utter ignorance of the faith.

The truth must be spread firmly, it is natural people react poorly when they are told something they do not want to hear. Strength and self sacrifice are required to live a wholesome life within Christ.

Jesus never said 'stop gays from being married'.

He never said don't have sex with children either, though I don't see pedophiles using this as an excuse.

But He did make a point of talking about marriage a fair bit, and He only ever mentioned monagomous, heterosexual couples, one would wonder why?

Life changing? Well, I just spent 3 months working voluntarily in a healthcare facility for disadvantaged indigenous Australians. So, probably more life-changing experiences than you have.

Good on you, though I wonder how this particular life experience relates at all to your perception of the Church and of your lack of faith.

 

[NewiJapper]

You are more frustrating to argue with than a scientologist :S

 

[Absolutezero]

He never said don't have sex with children either, though I don't see pedophiles using this as an excuse.

And if they did... Then what?

 

[Name_Taken]

And if they did... Then what?

I would still say "no"; because the Bible makes it quite clear that the only context where sex is not immoral is between one man and one women, within marriage to create children.

Depending on whether the child in question consented (which is disputable whether or not this is relevent, because depending on their age they may lack the mature understanding of the concept) it would at the very least fall under the description of fornication or (quite probably) rape, and potentially homosexual sex as well.

 

[SylviaB]

what if they got married first

 

[Name_Taken]

what if they got married first

Well society doesn't let kids marry on the basis of immaturity (Bible describes marriage between a man and a women, not between children anyway) so if they did actually marry then they would just be an adult couple, just with a large age gap...

And marriage requires consent anyway.

 

[SylviaB]

it happened a lot in biblical times


is why i said it

 

[Name_Taken]

it happened a lot in biblical times


is why i said it

Yes examples of sexual immorality are rife in the Bible, e.g. the city of Sodom, Gomorrah and several others.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. - Jude 1:7 (NIV)