Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[Durga]

Lol democracy means that the government passes laws based on what the people want. It just so happens that many people are in fact religious, and the proportion of the population who holds such views is entitled to some extent see this translated into law.

Many people are also gay and/or support gays right to marry. And the proportion of the population who holds such views is entitled to some extent to see this translated into law.

Sorta like how, if God doesn't exist, how we invented a set of universal rights for ourselves, which we are for some obscure reason forever entitled to?

What rights are you talking about? Humans did not have a set of universally recognised rights before human rights. It is not absolutely necessary that we need them, but it does prevent unnecessary harm coming to people. We got along fine as a species without them, as we did without Christianity, or religion for that matter.

Now if you're trying to claim human rights were brought along by the Judeo-Christian God (just in case, I really hope you aren't), they weren't. Human rights are an entirely MAN CREATED idea. Human rights were not around in the Bible days, and this magical sky-man of yours has no regard for them, as shown in the numerous demonstrations of genocide, mass slaughtering and general lack of regard for human life throughout the work of fiction you regard as sacred.

Ok, let me explain. What I meant was by "it means nothing" is that just because a motion is popular it isn't necessarily right.

For example....Christianity?

 

[NewiJapper]

From the beginning of humanity in time there have always been gods. Fire gods, nature gods, sky gods, food gods etc. Think of any type of god and the probability is there already has been one. God's provide an explanation and a somewhat "comforting reassurence" to the people, so I don't there really needs to be an arguement whether or not god exists and if he created the bible solely on his own. There really is no PHYSICAL evidence that god 100% exists (I'm not going to delve into my own knowledge or evidence why this is so because i simply dont have the time) but people rely on their own PSYCHOLOGICAL evidence that their is a god. It seems that a god is more of a manifestation of thoughts and ideals rather than a physical being that has literally "created" the universe.

Ok, now onto my point...the bible written to honour a manifestation of thoughts, experiences and ideals and events that could of happened shouldn't dictate how we live today. Yes, it is that marriage is defined as between a woman and a man but there has been countless re-definitions of words within our lifetime and it should soon to be that marriage can be re-defined aswell to something along the lines as a unity of love between two people (my personal definition of marriage) rather than an inclusive definition.

GAHHH. Hope that didn't read as pointless rabbling. But my point is in there XD

 

[Titburger]

The pope is actually fighting to actively discrimate against homosexuals

Pope attacks British human rights reform

He says that "Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society." But cries out when this equality stands in the way of their discrimination.

What a douche

 

[Name_Taken]

The Pope is in the right, and stop misquoting him, or quoting out of context to be more precise.

''Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs,'' he said.

''In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.''

What he wants is the ability for religious institutions to exercise discretion regarding whether or not they will permit homosexual employees. There is nothing wrong with that, and it should be the religious organization's right to do so, especially if it has a strong moral objection to homosexuality.

Show me a business which has existed for over 2000 years, the whole time condemning a certain act and whose employees and clients share the same opinion on said act, and they too would merit the ability to choose not to hire people on the basis of whether or not they willingly engage in said morally repugnant act.

Of course if the Church was inciting hatred towards homosexuals then it would be a different matter, however intolerance is a right.

 

[Durga]

The Pope is in the right, and stop misquoting him, or quoting out of context to be more precise.



What he wants is the ability for religious institutions to exercise discretion regarding whether or not they will permit homosexual employees. There is nothing wrong with that, and it should be the religious organization's right to do so, especially if it has a strong moral objection to homosexuality.

Show me a business which has existed for over 2000 years, the whole time condemning a certain act and whose employees and clients share the same opinion on said act, and they too would merit the ability to choose not to hire people on the basis of whether or not they willingly engage in said morally repugnant act.

Of course if the Church was inciting hatred towards homosexuals then it would be a different matter, however intolerance is a right.

Discrimination is not a right. Employees should not be turned away on the basis of who they have sex with at home, but solely on the basis of what they can bring to the Church as an employee. Being homosexual does not hinder them in performing the jobs that would be available to them at the Church (lets be honest, they probably don't have aspirations to become priests or nuns).

In all honesty, I don't know if a homosexual would want to work at a Church in the first place. Considering all the hardship you've caused them.

 

[thongetsu]

Let them have it! Everyone should be entitled to their choice of lifestyle.

 

[Name_Taken]

Discrimination is not a right.

Intolerance is a right.

Employees should not be turned away on the basis of who they have sex with at home, but solely on the basis of what they can bring to the Church as an employee.

Hahaha...

Ok lets just say, a person who willingly commits sin and argues for their right to commit said sin and expects everyone else to tolerate their repulsive behaviors; wouldn't really fit into the workplace culture.

Being homosexual does not hinder them in performing the jobs that would be available to them at the Church

Lol its not the point, they are committing a sin and they are aware of it, but yet they continue to take pride in their sin.

Not to say that other people don't sin, because everyone does, and homosexuality is hardly the "worst" sin or anything particularly heinous. It's just such a person, be their sin relate to homosexuality or something else isn't really the role model, spiritual leaders the Church is looking for.

(lets be honest, they probably don't have aspirations to become priests or nuns).

Probably, but lets not pretend it wouldn't happen, because it will, and Churches should reserve the right to be able to reject people on the basis of immoral behaviors from becoming part of the clergy.

Not to say that homosexuals should be universally excluded from employment. A person who, despite feeling homosexual urges, stays true to the Truth and adheres to moral standards of human decency should have no problem in acquiring a job. And lets be real, joining the Church is not like any other job, its a lifetime commitment really.

Most members of the clergy (in the Catholic Church at least) abstain their entire life, be they homosexual or not.

In all honesty, I don't know if a homosexual would want to work at a Church in the first place. Considering all the hardship you've caused them.

I have not intentionally caused hardship to anybody.

Please explain how if you think I have.

 

[Name_Taken]

Let them have it! Everyone should be entitled to their choice of lifestyle.

Defiling marriage for a minority has nothing to do with preventing a person to choose to live a homosexual lifestyle if they so wish... What are you trying to say?

 

[Kwayera]

Intolerance is a right.

What?

 

[zaxmacks]

Defiling marriage for a minority has nothing to do with preventing a person to choose to live a homosexual lifestyle if they so wish... What are you trying to say?

What do you think he's trying to say?

 

[Name_Taken]

What do you think he's trying to say?

That somehow, refusing to give into the demands of a misguided and immoral minority, constitutes a breach of their ability to carry out said immorality in the first place.

 

[BlackDragon]

Defiling marriage for a minority has nothing to do with preventing a person to choose to live a homosexual lifestyle if they so wish... What are you trying to say?

'I think we should ban marriages for heterosexuals because preventing these people from participating in marriage has nothing to do with preventing them to chose the heterosexual lifestyle if they wish.'

Lol, it is ignorant to view homosexuality as a lifestyle in that sexuality has nothing to do with lifestyle. It is like refering to the heterosexual lifestyle, what is that exactly? It makes no sense. Sexuality is a part of who you are as a person, but if you feel that people 'choose' to participate but probably shouldn't in this than you are callous. Its like saying that heterosexuals should not choose to particpate in their lifestyle, which makes zero sense on two levels. 'People should not participate in how they naturally feel!' or 'People can choose to participate in how they naturally feel if they want to!' (which is what you say). Both these things make no sense. Oh well..

 

[Titburger]

What he wants is the ability for religious institutions to exercise discretion regarding whether or not they will permit homosexual employees. There is nothing wrong with that, and it should be the religious organization's right to do so, especially if it has a strong moral objection to homosexuality.

Since when does equality mean the same thing as intorelence?

 

[Durga]

Intolerance is a right.

Personal intolerance is a right. If you happen to run a business, then intolerance is no longer a right, it is then considered prejudice.

Ok lets just say, a person who willingly commits sin and argues for their right to commit said sin and expects everyone else to tolerate their repulsive behaviors; wouldn't really fit into the workplace culture.

Lol its not the point, they are committing a sin and they are aware of it, but yet they continue to take pride in their sin.

Not to say that other people don't sin, because everyone does, and homosexuality is hardly the "worst" sin or anything particularly heinous. It's just such a person, be their sin relate to homosexuality or something else isn't really the role model, spiritual leaders the Church is looking for.

Sin in whos eyes? The Church's? It's about time you realised (because you've been pulling that card the entire thread) that not everybody has your same idea of sin, and acting like they do is not getting you anywhere. Homosexuals don't see their life as sin, just like you don't view your life as a 'lie' because Muslims believe Allah is the one true God. If you don't belong to a certain religion, you don't run your life as if you we a part of that religion.

In any other business, lets say a cafe, if the majority of the employees are Christian, they do not have the right to turn away homosexuals based on the premise of 'sin.'

I have not intentionally caused hardship to anybody.

Please explain how if you think I have.

You actively and proudly stand behind an institution that frequently makes bigoted and offensive claims against minority groups, and has done so throughout history.

 

[NewiJapper]

So many big words used in arguements...My brain is going to explodeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

 

[Name_Taken]

'I think we should ban marriages for heterosexuals because preventing these people from participating in marriage has nothing to do with preventing them to chose the heterosexual lifestyle if they wish.'

But marriage is an exclusively heterosexual affair. Marriage between two heterosexuals is always a good thing (provided its consensual etc ofc). In fact, marriage can lead people away from sin, heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage will no longer be doing so etc.

The difference is in regards to homosexuality, its the homosexual sex itself which is the sin.

The heterosexual family unit has been the basis for every society in human history (possibly with the exception of some rogue communist states).

Yes all people are equal, in terms of rights etc. But a group of people who choose to actively peruse a different lifestyle, can't honestly expect that society accept their choices as being acceptable, much less so if they were to demand that society change laws affecting everyone else, just because they chose a lifestyle thats different, but want to be treated as if they didn't.

As people we are all equal. However a homosexual relationship is built on nothing but lust, and cannot ever be equal to a committed heterosexual relationship.

Lol, it is ignorant to view homosexuality as a lifestyle in that sexuality has nothing to do with lifestyle. It is like refering to the heterosexual lifestyle, what is that exactly? It makes no sense.

Your overall lifestyle it could be said is defined by the various lifestyle choices you make. Smoking, eating lots of fast food, sleeping around, these are all different lifestyle choices. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are likewise choices people make.

Of course all gays and all straight people don't have the same lifestyle, everybody is unique, but who you sleep with is your choice.

Sexuality is a part of who you are as a person, but if you feel that people 'choose' to participate but probably shouldn't in this than you are callous.

I hate someone, really. Every night I dream about killing them. Does this make the actual killing of said person justified? No ofc not.

Now you may say well its not the same since homosexuality =/= murder, which ofc it doesn't. But the principle still stands, especially if you see homosexuality as a sin (just as murder).

Its like saying that heterosexuals should not choose to particpate in their lifestyle, which makes zero sense on two levels.

But this is where you're wrong again. A heterosexual relationship is always more wholesome than that of homosexual couples. It doesn't mean that heterosexual couples don't sin, because most do and regularly.

'People should not participate in how they naturally feel!'

People should act on the basis of moral judgements, not on what they feel they want, often driven by innate physical desires which should always be resisted should they tempt one into committing evil.

or 'People can choose to participate in how they naturally feel if they want to!'

Everything you do is a choice, stop trying to escape that. Who you or I sleep with is entirely up to us. We will always be responsible, for doing the right thing and for when we do wrong. If we feel drawn to do something right, then fine, ok w/e, but to be tempted into sin simply because you felt like it isn't an excuse.

You have to accept that yes, ofc you're free to do whatever you want, but ultimately your blood will be on your own hands.

 

[mcflystargirl]

Discrimination is not a right. Employees should not be turned away on the basis of who they have sex with at home, but solely on the basis of what they can bring to the Church as an employee. Being homosexual does not hinder them in performing the jobs that would be available to them at the Church (lets be honest, they probably don't have aspirations to become priests or nuns).

In all honesty, I don't know if a homosexual would want to work at a Church in the first place. Considering all the hardship you've caused them.

Religious institutions should have the right to turn down applicant's who's lifestyle does not reflect the religious or moral beliefs of an organisation.
I am not a catholic, and openly disagree with many catholic beliefs so i would completely understand if a catholic school would not want to hire me. It does not or should not apply exclusively to homosexuality but a person's lifestyle in general.

 

[Graney]

Your overall lifestyle it could be said is defined by the various lifestyle choices you make. Smoking, eating lots of fast food, sleeping around, these are all different lifestyle choices. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) are likewise choices people make.

Of course all gays and all straight people don't have the same lifestyle, everybody is unique, but who you sleep with is your choice.

If a homosexual couple don't have sex, and don't profess a desire to have sex in the foreseeable future, is it still sinful for them to have this relationship? What if they simply profess love and a desire for lifelong companionship, possibly with some hugging and kissing?

At what point does it become 'sex' per se, and therefore sinful? This question pertains to heterosexual couples also. Is holding hands too much? Are you allowed to kiss outside marriage? Can I place my hands on any other parts of the body? What if my partner is stimulated to orgasm unintentionally without any genital touching, would this be wrong?

 

[BlackDragon]

However a homosexual relationship is built on nothing but lust, and cannot ever be equal to a committed heterosexual relationship.

A heterosexual relationship is always more wholesome than that of homosexual couples.

These are some of the most naive statements I have ever heard. And it is also contradictory that you say you oppose homosexual sex because it is a sin and then you give reasons not related to the bible at all in rejecting homosexuality. You are seemingly just using whatever you can to support your anti-gay view, which is the opposite of observing the evidence without conclusion and then making a statement from that. No thinking person could ever say that different types of relationships are not equal in the way you did. No grounded thinking person, that is. I think you best stick to the argument that marriage is a christian institution, because these aren't logically coherent and are offensive; But the thing is in more secular society both christianity and the other religions do not have ownership of this and all people will be able to get married soon enough, people of any belief.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

If a homosexual couple don't have sex, and don't profess a desire to have sex in the foreseeable future, is it still sinful for them to have this relationship? What if they simply profess love and a desire for lifelong companionship, possibly with some hugging and kissing?

It probably still is, since its a relationship "closed to life".