• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Homosexuality in Australia (5 Viewers)

What do you think of homosexuality in Australia?

  • Yes, i strongly support it.

    Votes: 674 48.5%
  • I somewhat support it.

    Votes: 201 14.5%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 182 13.1%
  • I do not support it.

    Votes: 334 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,391

NewiJapper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,010
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Name_Taken said:
Friend, read your bible.

I'd rather read a biography about Paris Hilton than read the bible.

Though editing your post that now makes my post seem slightly out of context was a great move by you too...

Name_Taken said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilflic
Don't even compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

They are all sins, one should never take pride in evil, whatever people around you say.

They are sins in the eyes and minds of heavily religious people.
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Ok, lets lay out the facts. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes, or if I've missed something important out.

Marriage:
- The first man was Adam and the first women was Eve. They were married, in first human marriage, conducted by God. This model marriage, was between one man and one women.
Uh. Please cite the verse where it says they were married.

Lol I actually read some interpretation of this - that God supposedly married them in the creation of Eve. Now that's some hokey interpretation, given it never actually says they were married.

But I digress.

Can you explain what you mean by this (I looked it up BTW, cool word).
Obfuscating by pedanticism. We're asking for gays to be allowed to be married, and you say "oh they are - just not to each other! AHAHAHAAHA" like it's really funny. It isn't, and one would hope you're smart enough to know what we mean when we ask for gays to be able to be married.

Apparently not.

Yeah because morality is a totally foreign concept to people these days >.<
Your morality. Morality is alive and well; it's just a different one than what you subscribe to.

Good grief, now you want polygamy as well!! :speechless:

Leave marriage alone, please!!
Yeah, and? Your point?

Make up other words, grant legal equality, do what you want in your own house, but marriage forever will remain defined as the union between one man and one women, regardless of what people want, regardless of what however many people think, a lie told and believed by millions is still a lie.
Why must it be forever defined thus? Heck, it used to be defined as between one man and many women (hence the polygamy argument). Definitions change. Get over it?
 

Boxes

Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
806
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
:D HAHA that's kinda true.

Damn, I'd like to, but I'm still 14.

I think I'm too young :tongue:

But if a hot guy comes along, and I like him..
there's a friend of mine called townie. i think you'd like him

i can put you into contact with him if you'd like
 

kelly tully

Banned
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
90
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Basically, prove to me that marriage is a Christian construct. Prove to me that marriage did not exist before the Bible was written, before Christianity, before Jesus.

Fact is, marriage is not a Christian construct. People were joined "legally" well before the Bible was written, and for the Church to suggest it now has a monopoly over the term "marriage" is ridiculous and ignorant.
 

NewiJapper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,010
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
kelly tully said:
Fact is, marriage is not a Christian construct. People were joined "legally" well before the Bible was written, and for the Church to suggest it now has a monopoly over the term "marriage" is ridiculous and ignorant.

+1. According to people who have critically analysed the bible, it has been proven from accurate historcal event and archealogical sites that the bible starts life around 1000BC. From my own knowledge Jesus and christianity hadn't started till 1AD, sure over the period of A THOUSAND YEARS. People were conjoined by their bonding love.

Also I prefer to call BC Before Catastrophe. It seems to fit better in modern times aye?
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Marriage by definition of a dictionary. Back in the past, when there were no computers, was there a definition for computers? Gay Marriage hasn't been legalized in many parts around the world, so of course there is no definition yet. Though I'm sure, that once the world accepts gay rights, then the definition will change.

If marriage was so 'purely' heterosexual.. It's not. That's your definition, not mine.
Ok, you're definition vs mine (actually not mine, rather the Bibles). At best this leaves us with two conflicting definitions. Who are you to say that mine isn't the right one? (and vice versa for you etc.)

For what it's worth, I treat marriage for what it is, and don't demand its definition be changed to suit me, for conveneivne or in the name of personal liberty.

Marriage doesn't have to remain as it is. Things change and go. Before, women didn't have any rights. At least not equal rights to men. WE CAN CHANGE. People always change.
Yes but computers were invented like 30/40 years ago.

Homosexuals have always existed, and homosexuality has very rarly ever been accepted in human soceities, gay marriage has never been (as far as I am aware IDK, maybe some place in Ancient Greece - oh and Canada I think but w/e).

It is only very recently that homosexuality has been treated with any degree of mainstream acceptence.

And not all change is for the better. Simply because something will bring about change does not mean anyone will be better off or happier because of it, too many people make that assumption.

OKAY THE LAST BIT I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. What do you mean we by HOMOSEXUALS HAVING EQUALITY? AND WE'RE NOT TRULY MARGINALIZED? YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME.

You've never been gay, (At least I assume) so you don't know the abuse and hate we go through. So don't act as if you know how homosexuals go.
No, I'm not gay.

I'm not saying you're not given a hard time by pricks in the street and even in extreme cases where gay kids are bashed up at school etc. However I think it is important that like all of thses cases that occur these days are because of mindless thugs, and are not condoned by religious people (or encouraged at all) by religious teachings in Australia, Christianity included.

I'm not saying its on the same level, but most people are discriminated towards at some point in their life, be it because of their gender, race, religion or w/e.

I think, going back to my previous post, that other groups within society, most notably the Aboriginal people are in a much less desirable situation than gay people are.

When people give us weird looks when we walk across the street. When every bad thing they would use the world 'gay' or 'fag'. When people bully you and abuse you for being gay. When Christians like you say it is a sin BEFORE knowing what we go through. Before knowing what we do to the world. How we are stereotyped as the 'bad' in comparison to the heterosexual majority.

You must be joking me.
Once again, I express sympathies for your situation, so you know, I don't take part in such behaviour nor do I endorse those who do. But as I said before, gays are not the only people who face these problems (though OFC that doesn't make it any more acceptable).

I'd be interested to know how you think the legalising of gay marriage is actually going to help solve these issues.

I would have thought that the introduction of gay marriage, if anything, would simply grant further reason for those who already do so to continue intimidating homosexuals and inspire them to even more henious acts of persecution and discrimination.

Oh and BTW Name_Taken, What's your name? 'Cause it's kind of awkward calling you Name_Taken :haha:! Mine's Ming..
Hello, Ming, lol. My name is Alex.

It's okay though, Sorry for arguing with you, I'm kinda stubborn!:bomb:
It's just that I'm just trying to reason with you that's all..
Lol I don't mind argueing with you, or anyone for that matter, as long as it is somewhat intellectual.

Don't feel bad, some whould say "stubborness" can be a good quality (granted it is better in some situations than others but w/e)...
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Uh. Please cite the verse where it says they were married.
Lol... making me work huh? I'll do it in my next post, I'll have to find them. I don't see hows its going to convince you however, since you don't really accept the Bible but anyway...

Obfuscating by pedanticism. We're asking for gays to be allowed to be married, and you say "oh they are - just not to each other! AHAHAHAAHA" like it's really funny. It isn't, and one would hope you're smart enough to know what we mean when we ask for gays to be able to be married.

Apparently not.
Rather, gays (being citizens of Australia) are free to marry whomever they want (provided its consentual OFC). The legal definition of marriage in this country (putting aside religious doctrine) is between a man and a women. As such a person (be they gay or not) can only marry someone of the oppoite gender.

The issue here is whether marriage should be changed to include same sex couples as well.

Your morality. Morality is alive and well; it's just a different one than what you subscribe to.
Note mine, that of the scripture, but I will accept, yes the one I follow.

Yours (I will assume) is much more liberal and permits behaviours that someone subscribed to the Bible morality would disapprove of, and hence why I am here talking to you.

Yeah, and? Your point?
Stop defiling marriage for the sake of liberty and pleasure. It means much more than (as Iron said) a "lolcontract", so stop treating it as such and give it the respect and dignity it deserves.

Why must it be forever defined thus? Heck, it used to be defined as between one man and many women (hence the polygamy argument). Definitions change. Get over it?
One would hope the definitions for "theft" and "murder" would also not change in a similar manner, wouldn't they?

Look its like apples and oragnes. If you want a fruit salad (admittedly a simple one) you need both an apple and an organge. If you put two apples together, you don't get a fruit salad, you get... apples, the same could be said of putting two oranges together, you just have oranges. Two apples nor does two oranges does not a fruit salad make.

That was only meant to demonstrate my point about gay marriage, it doesn't cover polygamous relationships ;) They're for another thread anyway...

(Lol sorry, was just the simplest and stupidest example I could think of :)).
 

evilflic

Supreme Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2006
Messages
68
Location
Roseville/Chatswood (Sydney)... soon to be St Luci
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Why you ask? - Becuase, he CAN marry. "Marriage" by definition is between a man and a women. He chooses not to marry because he has no interest in the opposite sex, the fact remains however that he can, and has the right to always do so if he wants.
But the difference is: unlike you, he can't marry someone he loves. And that is unfair in any decent person's eyes.

What he really wants is to change the definition of marriage to encampass the relationship he chose... he chooses to act differently and then demand that society treat him as if he doesn't.
Homosexuality is not a 'choice'. It is a setting within your biological engineering that determines your choice of partners. You are born gay, straight or bi. Nobody wakes up one morning and says "hey, I think I'll just be gay from now on".

Marriage is... not the domain of polygamous relationships
Pretty sure Islam disagrees with you. Who are you to decide the domain of marriage, anyway, especially without valid reasons?

marriage must remain what it actually is.
Must it? Really? So if I say you must remain silent, will you?

gays already have equality.
Utter bullshit, and you know it. Your entire post is an example of prejudice towards them.

They are all sins
Firstly, this is a subjective statement. Secondly, if you're Christian, as you claim to be, you'd know it's a sin to impose your beliefs upon others and to judge another human being. So I guess you just bought a ticket to hell. :)
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Ok, lets lay out the facts. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes, or if I've missed something important out.

Marriage:
- The first man was Adam and the first women was Eve. They were married, in first human marriage, conducted by God. This model marriage, was between one man and one women.
I'll stop you there.

We were talking about a specific NT passage, which you incorrectly interpreted. You clearly either have trouble reading or trouble remembering things. In case it was unclear the first five times I said it, I'll say it again: The Bible as a whole is generally against homosexuality. The passage you cited, however, is not. End of discussion, really, unless you'd like to continue elsewhere.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Why is change a bad thing?
Just because it is doesn't mean it should be.
I agree!!! We progress! We adapt! Just because some rule or law was relevant 2000+ doesn't necessarily mean that its relevant today.

Edit: I mean you yourself name_taken (whats your name btw?) have stated that you agree with everything the bible says, though when I asked you if you would put a homosexual to death for sleeping with another guy, you said no!
 
Last edited:

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Lol... making me work huh? I'll do it in my next post, I'll have to find them. I don't see hows its going to convince you however, since you don't really accept the Bible but anyway...
Well, it is your religious text. Not mine.

I'm admittedly painting you rather deliberately into a corner because I'm 95% certain there isn't such a verse.

Rather, gays (being citizens of Australia) are free to marry whomever they want (provided its consentual OFC). The legal definition of marriage in this country (putting aside religious doctrine) is between a man and a women. As such a person (be they gay or not) can only marry someone of the oppoite gender.

The issue here is whether marriage should be changed to include same sex couples as well.
No shit. Now stop saying they're free to marry whomever they want as long as they're the opposite sex. WE ARE AWARE OF THIS VERY OBVIOUS FACT. That is the status quo we're trying to change and therefore arguing about, Sherlock.

Note mine, that of the scripture, but I will accept, yes the one I follow.
That of a scripture. Somewhat uncuriously, there are many religious scriptures. So when I refer to yours, or your morals, I'm referring to the particular one you subscribe to.

Yours (I will assume) is much more liberal and permits behaviours that someone subscribed to the Bible morality would disapprove of, and hence why I am here talking to you.
Yep. Being atheist and all, I believe in personal freedoms and equality for all.

Stop defiling marriage for the sake of liberty and pleasure. It means much more than (as Iron said) a "lolcontract", so stop treating it as such and give it the respect and dignity it deserves.
Agreed, and it would mean much more than a contract to the gays who wish to get married.

One would hope the definitions for "theft" and "murder" would also not change in a similar manner, wouldn't they?
Again you equate homosexuality to a crime. Hm.

Look its like apples and oragnes. If you want a fruit salad (admittedly a simple one) you need both an apple and an organge. If you put two apples together, you don't get a fruit salad, you get... apples, the same could be said of putting two oranges together, you just have oranges. Two apples nor does two oranges does not a fruit salad make.
...
(Lol sorry, was just the simplest and stupidest example I could think of :)).
Yeah, that was a pretty stupid analogy that means.. nothing? A better example is mine: the Bible didn't used to allow marriages between people of different faiths (i.e. Christians and non-believers or Christians and Musilms or whatevs), and society based on a religious interpretation didn't allow interracial marriage. Now it does. Do you think these innovations should be repealed, especially marriage between those of the faith and not of the faith?
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Is the pink symbolic?

Why you ask? - Becuase, he CAN marry. "Marriage" by definition is between a man and a women. He chooses not to marry because he has no interest in the opposite sex, the fact remains however that he can, and has the right to always do so if he wants.
But the difference is: unlike you, he can't marry someone he loves. And that is unfair in any decent person's eyes.


Marriage is not just about love. Yes love is one of the main reasons why people get married, and in todays world it is often the primary, if not only reason why people get married.

I however believe there is more to marriage than love and there is more to love than sex. Love provides an incentive to get married, but it should not be the only reason. (I accept this may be hard to grasp if you don't believe in Christ).


What he really wants is to change the definition of marriage to encampass the relationship he chose... he chooses to act differently and then demand that society treat him as if he doesn't.
Homosexuality is not a 'choice'. It is a setting within your biological engineering that determines your choice of partners. You are born gay, straight or bi. Nobody wakes up one morning and says "hey, I think I'll just be gay from now on".


Lol, not true.

1) There has been no creidble investigation into the "cause" of homosexuality which has provided any concrete proof to support the common assertion that it is a genetic "defect" or condition.

2) You are not born "anything". The existence of ex-homosexuals and ex-heterosexuals demonstrates this. Furthermore, homosexuality can be shown to be a behaviour by looking at the sexual practises of prison inmates. Prisoners are seperated by gender. It has been shown that in some cases up to 50% of "straight" men (similar numbers in women) who serve sentences in prison engage in homosexual behaviour. Now it is unknown how much of this was by result of rape or by consent, but even in the case of rape, the rapist in question is very likely to be "straight" himself, owing to the tiny amount of gay people sentenced to prison for rape in the first instance.

3) Even if, it is shown that gay people have a genetic disposition towards homosexual behaviour, then that does not relieve them for the responsibility of their actions. Some people in society have genetic dispositions to alcohol abuse or violence, but we don't tolerate these behaviour. Now I'm not putting homosexuality in the same category as alcoholics or violent people, but my point demonstrates that genetics does not give a person the excuse to act in whatever way they want, especially if you see homosexuality (as I do) as being fundamentally wrong.

4) All sex is a choice. You may not control who you are attracted to even within people of the same sexuality (eg. whether you like people with brown hair or blond hair etc.). I, and many other religious people see homosexual sex as a perversion. Now that doesn't mean I think gays shouldn't be allowed to have sex or live in relationships with one another (these are all their personal choices), but I, and many others don't approve of their choice to engage in said behaviours, as we see it as sin.

Marriage is... not the domain of polygamous relationships
Pretty sure Islam disagrees with you. Who are you to decide the domain of marriage, anyway, especially without valid reasons?


I'm not Islamic so I don't really care what they tell me (as I'm sure you probably don't care what about what I'm telling you).

I didn't decide on what is right or wrong. I believe in God and the Bible and follow the scriptures advice on how to best live a holy and fufilling life, as free of sin as possible.

gays already have equality.
Utter bullshit, and you know it. Your entire post is an example of prejudice towards them.
They do. The law doesn't say everyone can do this, except for homosexuals, anywhere.

And before you bring up "marriage" just know that marriage legally in this country refers to the union between a man and women. Anyone wishing to can get married, as long as they do just that, get married (which by default involves a committment to one of the oppose sex).

They are all sins
Firstly, this is a subjective statement. Secondly, if you're Christian, as you claim to be, you'd know it's a sin to impose your beliefs upon others and to judge another human being. So I guess you just bought a ticket to hell. :)
Lol, this is so silly it doesn't even merit a formal response, and if you understood anything about Christianity, then you would be able to see why yourself. Furthermore I have addressed this point like 5 times before in this thread alone.

Read your Bible before you tell me what it is I believe in and how my religion works, thanks.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
[/color]

Marriage is not just about love. Yes love is one of the main reasons why people get married, and in todays world it is often the primary, if not only reason why people get married.

I however believe there is more to marriage than love and there is more to love than sex. Love provides an incentive to get married, but it should not be the only reason. (I accept this may be hard to grasp if you don't believe in Christ).


[/color]
Why else would people get married then?????????
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
And before you bring up "marriage" just know that marriage legally in this country refers to the union between a man and women. Anyone wishing to can get married, as long as they do just that, get married (which by default involves a committment to one of the oppose sex).
You do realise that the law can be ammended right? Laws which are no longer relevant are discarded. The law will change and adapt to reflect society's changing morals.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
1) There has been no creidble investigation into the "cause" of homosexuality which has provided any concrete proof to support the common assertion that it is a genetic "defect" or condition.
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).

2) You are not born "anything". The existence of ex-homosexuals and ex-heterosexuals demonstrates this. Furthermore, homosexuality can be shown to be a behaviour by looking at the sexual practises of prison inmates.
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.

Prisoners are seperated by gender. It has been shown that in some cases up to 50% of "straight" men (similar numbers in women) who serve sentences in prison engage in homosexual behaviour. Now it is unknown how much of this was by result of rape or by consent, but even in the case of rape, the rapist in question is very likely to be "straight" himself, owing to the tiny amount of gay people sentenced to prison for rape in the first instance.
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.

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

3) Even if, it is shown that gay people have a genetic disposition towards homosexual behaviour, then that does not relieve them for the responsibility of their actions. Some people in society have genetic dispositions to alcohol abuse or violence, but we don't tolerate these behaviour. Now I'm not putting homosexuality in the same category as alcoholics or violent people, but my point demonstrates that genetics does not give a person the excuse to act in whatever way they want, especially if you see homosexuality (as I do) as being fundamentally wrong.
Yeah but not everyone sees homosexuality as fundamentally wrong. That's the point.

And before you bring up "marriage" just know that marriage legally in this country refers to the union between a man and women. Anyone wishing to can get married, as long as they do just that, get married (which by default involves a committment to one of the oppose sex).
Yeah. So. Let's change it. There's no reason not to.
 

NewiJapper

Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
1,010
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Name_Taken said:
It has been shown that in some cases up to 50% of "straight" men (similar numbers in women) who serve sentences in prison engage in homosexual behaviour. Now it is unknown how much of this was by result of rape or by consent, but even in the case of rape, the rapist in question is very likely to be "straight" himself, owing to the tiny amount of gay people sentenced to prison for rape in the first instance.
This doesn't support anything about homosexuality being a choice. These prisoners aren't homosexual THEY ARE RAPISTS. Nothing more, nothing less.

Name_Taken I don't see why you try? What are you (and all heavily religious people) going to do when it WILL become legal for homosexuals to marry?

Why not just accept people for who they are now rather than face embarrasment later on when people look down on you as scum, hopefully you will then get bashed and abused on the street by street-go'ers for you life choice. Then and only then will I hope you will truely understand.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Well, it is your religious text. Not mine.

I'm admittedly painting you rather deliberately into a corner because I'm 95% certain there isn't such a verse.
Fair enough, but I can back up all my points from that post with verses, writing it up in word now.

No shit. Now stop saying they're free to marry whomever they want as long as they're the opposite sex. WE ARE AWARE OF THIS VERY OBVIOUS FACT. That is the status quo we're trying to change and therefore arguing about, Sherlock.
Well stop attacking religion and the countercase before building up your own, that much should be elementry my dear Watson. All you have is 1) waa waa religion and 2) its not fair its not fair.

You're the one asserting its not fair, you haven't demonstrated how by making it "fair" (using your teams opinion regarding fairness) it would actually benefit society.

Yep. Being atheist and all, I believe in personal freedoms and equality for all.
Yea because letting people do whatever they want and abandoning the moral foundations that made our civilisation great for the sake of our every hedonistic desire is like totally the best thing we could do for everyone, lets not remember that every action has a consequence.

Again you equate homosexuality to a crime. Hm.
Thats because, according to my moral guideline it is. As well as numerous other things that you almost definately would not consider punishable.

Yeah, that was a pretty stupid analogy that means.. nothing?
No way! It was a great analogy. It demonstrates that w/e you dress it up to be, a gay union will never (regardless what society pretends it is) be compatible with marriage.

A better example is mine: the Bible didn't used to allow marriages between people of different faiths (i.e. Christians and non-believers or Christians and Musilms or whatevs), and society based on a religious interpretation didn't allow interracial marriage. Now it does. Do you think these innovations should be repealed, especially marriage between those of the faith and not of the faith?
I can't find a single verse in the Bible that would condemn an interracial marriage. There unfathomably strong reason (owing to the Bibles staunch stance against all acts of homosexuality as well as its description of "ideal" marriage) to think that it would condemn a gay "marriage".
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 5)

Top