Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

bioligically wrong, due to diseases and the natural reproductive system

1. Heterosexuals get AIDS as well.
2. Infertile people can't reproduce.

religiously wrong ( most of the bible)

Irrelevant, as we live in a secular society.

leads to further 'freedom' which is actually ddestroying our society

So you'd prefer oppression, which fosters utopia?

animals who do it only do it cause they cant find an opposit sex partner.

Evidence?

we are not animals

Yes we are.

all ur and the people supporting it have no valid points to make apart from " but their no hurting anyone" (think of how many faimlies, friendships have been destroyed. arguments between politicians us and som many others wasting their time opr resources)

Such problems only occur because of bigots like you.

 

[bshoc]

1. Heterosexuals get AIDS as well.

Perspective is important

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/25/1164341446659.html

2. Infertile people can't reproduce.

Infertile people are screwed in the repro system, not in the head.

Irrelevant, as we live in a secular society.

Actually we live in a christian society where the belief rights of minority groups are protected by law, nothing more.

So you'd prefer oppression, which fosters utopia?

Certain levels of oppression produce better results than anarchial or near anarchial society, even a libertarian seeks some forms of limited oppression - called "laws" in the non-libertarian reality WAF.

Yes we are.

Depends on how you define animal, I'll tell you what, I'll aknowldge that you and your gay friends are "animals" so long as you aknowlege that I'm not, that way we're both happy.

Such problems only occur because of bigots like you.

Bigotry? Aren't libertarians about following self intrest, in that case what the allah are you doing promoting gay rights and an expansion of the governmental umbrealla, unless you wanna come out on BoS ..

 

[bshoc]

All diseases you can gain from sex between partners of the same gender also exist for sex between partners of different genders. I'd also wager sex between two women is safer than between a man and a woman given there is no penetration.

There is no such thing as sex between two women in the proper meaning of the word.

Just because our bodies are capable of reproducing does not mean they must or should, the church also does not reject opposite sexed couples who choose not to have children.

The ultimate goal of biological existance is reproduction

Regardless of whether it is religiously wrong, it is a christian mandate that you not judge others for what you percieve as sinful 'let he who has not sinned throw the first stone' etc. Further, christianity is not the only religion in this country (some do not even have any religion) so the bible's authority is limited in scope.

Um your quote implies that that the non-sinner should throw "the first stone" at the sinner. Also, the bible's authority is actually fairly broad, the state cannot force one to be a christian, but it can create and enforce laws derived from people who are christians, which if you check are the majority of the population, as for those "other religions," how would you like if we let muslims decide out "gay policy" ?

How does same-sex marriage open up destructive freedoms?

How doesen't it? It violates the very core of what marriage is, it accords adoption rights to a community where 1 in 5 are infected with AIDS, its promotes anal sex and sodomy to a rights base, gays have it too good as its is.

It has been established quite a few times in this thread that there are a variety of animals who will even reject partners of the opposite sex for a same sex mate.

It is the rejection of many animal instincts that allowed human society to develop beyond "animal," to that end we created laws, morality, imposed involuntary self control upon people etc. Many natural urges must be supressed for society to survive, history generally shows that society collapses when it permits too many "urges" to be followed up on. Homosexuality should be on the books as illegal, not enforced, but illegal to make a point.

And homosexuality and bisexuality doesn't hurt anyone - oppression of it does. Homosexuality and bisexuality also doesn't break up friends and families. Prejudice does however.

Bisexuality has been proven as a conditional non-reality hasn't it? To the point where peoples brains only react with arousal towards one gender even though they are willing to have sex with both possibly for the reason of pleasure derived from physical stimulation reguardless of gender.

Homosexuality hurts alot of people, starting with homosexuals themselves who suffer an aids infection rate that rivals most african countries .

Your argument that political and social debate on this issue wastes resources can be equally applied as reasoning to stop debate against homosexuality.

Whose idea is the gay rights and gay this gay that debate? Gays or the people who disagree with you in this thread, who created it, who brainwashed many highschoolers into thinking of homosexuality as acceptable through their left leaning instituions, think hard now, I know I did , thats how I got from "gays should be allowed to marry highschool bshoc" to "gays have no rights uni bshoc" ..

 

[bshoc]

Murder is wrong because it involves a severe infringement upon another's liberty. Tax fraud is about as wrong as having someone on the street mug you, giving them the $20 in your wallet, but neglecting to mention the $50 you have stuffed in your sock.

Well you've just proved to yourself that things can be "wrong" for many reasons ..

 

[kami]

There is no such thing as sex between two women in the proper meaning of the word.

How is this an argument for gay women transmitting sexual disease? If anything you are helping argue against that premise...

The ultimate goal of biological existance is reproduction

Primarily it seems biological existence is to continue to survive - sometimes the individual need not pass on their own genetic material in order to aid survival and growth of a species. There are also birds and mammals (fairy wrens, certain whales, hyenas etc.) who fit under this dynamic where they have a singular breeding pair and a 'clan' of non-breeding animals that contribute to the gathering of resources, raising of young and defense of territory. This suggests that it is certainly not instinctual and mandatory for some natural model that we all reproduce.

Um your quote implies that that the non-sinner should throw "the first stone" at the sinner.

Bshoc, that quote is well known to refer to the idea that no one is a 'non-sinner' and thus no one may 'throw the first stone'. Therefore no one who follows a christian path may impose judgement on any person, only their christian god.

Also, the bible's authority is actually fairly broad, the state cannot force one to be a christian, but it can create and enforce laws derived from people who are christians, which if you check are the majority of the population,

That fact that the most populous religion in Australia is christianity does not mean the bible defines our society and law. Especially in a secular country which plays host to a wide range of religions for whom the bible does not apply.

as for those "other religions," how would you like if we let muslims decide out "gay policy" ?

Then I'd make a similar argument against religious dogma defining law in a secular country which plays host to a wide range of religions for whom the koran does not apply. I'd even disagree with us becoming a buddhist state, regardless of the fact that buddhists are far more in line several of my own views.

How doesen't it? It violates the very core of what marriage is, it accords adoption rights to a community where 1 in 5 are infected with AIDS, its promotes anal sex and sodomy to a rights base, gays have it too good as its is.

The core of what marriage is, is what we as a society define it to be. That core has also been violated far more severely by the imposition of the divorce procedure upon it. That core has, in many cultures, also included same-sex couples at various times.

Each individual adoptive-parent ought to be based on their own merits - if they meet the standards then there is another decent family, another opportunity for a child in need.

Anal sex is not a 'gay' process and has no place in an argument on gay rights:

• Gay women do not practice it in the way you concieve of it,
• Not all gay men regularly practice anal sex, in fact many don't.
• Straight couples practice anal sex as well, and given how many more heterosexuals exist, then the number of heterosexuals practicing anal almost certainly outweighs the number of homosexuals to do so.

It is the rejection of many animal instincts that allowed human society to develop beyond "animal," to that end we created laws, morality, imposed involuntary self control upon people etc. Many natural urges must be supressed for society to survive, history generally shows that society collapses when it permits too many "urges" to be followed up on. Homosexuality should be on the books as illegalYe, not enforced, but illegal to make a point.

And? There is nothing that says we must suppress this.

Bisexuality has been proven as a conditional non-reality hasn't it? To the point where peoples brains only react with arousal towards one gender even though they are willing to have sex with both possibly for the reason of pleasure derived from physical stimulation reguardless of gender.

Since when was this proven? By whom?

Homosexuality hurts alot of people, starting with homosexuals themselves who suffer an aids infection rate that rivals most african countries .

No, thats unsafe sex which causes the infection rate, not a person's sexuality. Especially considering there is no sexual act a same sex couple can do that a mixed sex couple cannot do.

I'd also say given the fact that so many gay and bi men and women are in the closet then you can't get a very good statistic of how many are infected compared to how many not.

Whose idea is the gay rights and gay this gay that debate? Gays or the people who disagree with you in this thread, who created it, who brainwashed many highschoolers into thinking of homosexuality as acceptable through their left leaning instituions, think hard now, I know I did , thats how I got from "gays should be allowed to marry highschool bshoc" to "gays have no rights uni bshoc" ..

I don't think 'you started it' really gets us anywhere bshoc but oh well if you wish to take this tack... the state could be considered to have 'started it' by originally supporting the inequities homosexuals and bisexuals experience. They can then be considered to have furthered this not only by not redressing the inequity when it has been brought to their attention but also by arguing against the need to redress the inequity.

It also saddens me that such a simple thing as 2 semesters in an economics degree could serve to make you see anyone in the seemingly sub-human way you view homosexuals.

 

[withoutaface]

Perspective is important

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/11/25/1164341446659.html

You're showing that sub-saharan african heterosexuals are subhuman, the same way that homosexuals are?

Infertile people are screwed in the repro system, not in the head.

But they're still screwed and shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?

Actually we live in a christian society where the belief rights of minority groups are protected by law, nothing more.

Care to point me to the part of our constitution where it says Australia has a state religion?

Certain levels of oppression produce better results than anarchial or near anarchial society, even a libertarian seeks some forms of limited oppression - called "laws" in the non-libertarian reality WAF.

Libertarians only seek government intervention when, on the whole, that intervention creates greater negative liberty than it removes. For example taking $20 a week in tax to prevent someone getting mugged for $200 every week is justified.

Depends on how you define animal, I'll tell you what, I'll aknowldge that you and your gay friends are "animals" so long as you aknowlege that I'm not, that way we're both happy.

So you'd contend that humans are not, in fact, part of the kingdom animalia?

Bigotry? Aren't libertarians about following self intrest, in that case what the allah are you doing promoting gay rights and an expansion of the governmental umbrealla, unless you wanna come out on BoS ..

I'm not promoting the expansion of anything. I'm promoting the removal of marriage as a legislative entity, but also arguing with people who are worried that they'll get AIDS from the big scary gay man because their viewpoints are stupid and unjustified, and encouraging them to look at their views on one situation critically and in a logical manner may well encourage them to view all situations in such a way.

 

[KFunk]

bshoc, a lot of your points don't address the issue (or my post, I might add), e.g.:

- Statements about libertarianism
- Essentially claiming that you don't want to be considered an animal, therefore you are not an animal (invalid?).
- Making stabs at muslim values.
- Talking about homosexual mindwashing of highschool students

... etc., which are beside the point. You do, however, raise points about christianity (which I can't properly address, not being christian), animals, and reproduction.

The ultimate goal of biological existance is reproduction.

Do biological organisms function so as to propogate/replicate (etc) themselves? Yes, they do. Does this then make reproduction a 'moral good'? No. As I stated above:

"Biological functionality does not run parallel to moral worth. For example, our knowledge of genetics suggests that we could create a smarter, stronger human race by killing those who are weak of limb or mind. However, most would recognise that such action would be wrong, despite the 'benefits' for the gene pool. The problem with your claim of biological 'wrongness' is that you're assessing their behaviour in a reproductive sense. Homosexual sex is 100% a social phenomenon and I'm very sure they're aware that they're not able to reproduce. It's like a teenage heterosexual couple having sex with birth control --> it's a form of social interaction engaged in for pleasure (generalising). Yes, it is the 'wrong' way to reproduce, but they have no pretense of trying to do so - hence the reproductive argument is void. "

It is the rejection of many animal instincts that allowed human society to develop beyond "animal," to that end we created laws, morality, imposed involuntary self control upon people etc. Many natural urges must be supressed for society to survive, history generally shows that society collapses when it permits too many "urges" to be followed up on. Homosexuality should be on the books as illegal, not enforced, but illegal to make a point.

Animal instincts, you mean like attachment behaviour in order to form loving bonds with our parents? Or our ability to take in a situation and assess it using eyesight? Or is it our tendency to be social creatures? Note that a lot of the good parts of human society are 'animal in nature'. You're simply taking the bad connotations of 'animal' such as savage, wild and dirty. The main point I wish to make is that there are both good and bad behaviours/instincts etc. which are attached to the concept of 'animal'. When you talk about transcending animal nature then it makes sense that we wish to reject the bad and keep the good. Unfortunately, I think you're wrong to paint 'animal' as an entirely 'bad' thing. Hence, to use gay = animal nature in order to show that homosexuality is wrong is fallicious because in order to reject it you first have to show that it is bad (i.e. that it is one of the animal qualities which should be rejected). Of course, this is the point of this whole debate. Nice try on the whole, but you should go back to the drawing board. EDIT: also, if you don't buy this argument, then it's likely because you're defining animal as 'that which is bad' or as 'the bad qualities which animals possess' and hence if you reject homosexuality as wrong on these grounds then it's because you have assumed it to be wrong and once again we would find fallacy, with you begging the question (as before).

(Btw, care to address my previous post?)

 

[bshoc]

Primarily it seems biological existence is to continue to survive - sometimes the individual need not pass on their own genetic material in order to aid survival and growth of a species. There are also birds and mammals (fairy wrens, certain whales, hyenas etc.) who fit under this dynamic where they have a singular breeding pair and a 'clan' of non-breeding animals that contribute to the gathering of resources, raising of young and defense of territory. This suggests that it is certainly not instinctual and mandatory for some natural model that we all reproduce.

Survival is irrelevant without reproduction.

Bshoc, that quote is well known to refer to the idea that no one is a 'non-sinner' and thus no one may 'throw the first stone'. Therefore no one who follows a christian path may impose judgement on any person, only their christian god.

This coming from the GAY expert on the christian faith I presume? Maybe thats the strict catholic interpreation of it, the concept of sin doesent work for all denominations that adhere truly to the religious text - ie. baptists, orthodox christians

That fact that the most populous religion in Australia is christianity does not mean the bible defines our society and law. Especially in a secular country which plays host to a wide range of religions for whom the bible does not apply.

No, it means that more often than not christians are the ones who define our society and law, the very basis of Australian society, law etc. is judeo-christian values, whether you like it or not.

Then I'd make a similar argument against religious dogma defining law in a secular country which plays host to a wide range of religions for whom the koran does not apply. I'd even disagree with us becoming a buddhist state, regardless of the fact that buddhists are far more in line several of my own views.

The variety may be wide, but the numbers are not, you're not going to stop the influx of christian influenced values anymore than you can stop those values from being infused into people in the first place. Why? Look at the makeup of society. Something like 80% of the country believe in a religion where homosexual burn in hell.

The core of what marriage is, is what we as a society define it to be. That core has also been violated far more severely by the imposition of the divorce procedure upon it. That core has, in many cultures, also included same-sex couples at various times.

Nope not gonna fly, divorce has existed for as long as marriage has, and the definition itself stretches long before christianity into the very core foundations of "western" values.

Each individual adoptive-parent ought to be based on their own merits - if they meet the standards then there is another decent family, another opportunity for a child in need.

Correct - parent - gays can in no way be parents

And? There is nothing that says we must suppress this.

Theres history.

Since when was this proven? By whom?

Some multi university study in the US, it was on NatGeo so it must be true lol

No, thats unsafe sex which causes the infection rate, not a person's sexuality. Especially considering there is no sexual act a same sex couple can do that a mixed sex couple cannot do.

Yes but most stright couples can engage in proper sexual practice using proper sexual organs rather than jab poo ...

That said the gay infection rate in this country is >20%, which over 20 times the population rate, heh maybe AIDS is gods way of killing off fags eh? Or is there a better explanation?

I don't think 'you started it' really gets us anywhere bshoc but oh well if you wish to take this tack...

Well gays are a shitty little minority who's destruction would benefit the rest of the world ever so much.

the state could be considered to have 'started it' by originally supporting the inequities homosexuals and bisexuals experience.

Which:

1. It doesen't
2. It has every right to do
3. I hope it does in the future

They can then be considered to have furthered this not only by not redressing the inequity when it has been brought to their attention but also by arguing against the need to redress the inequity.

What can I do that gays can't?

It also saddens me that such a simple thing as 2 semesters in an economics degree could serve to make you see anyone in the seemingly sub-human way you view homosexuals.

No it has nothing to do with economics, its thinking for yourself.

 

[bshoc]

You're showing that sub-saharan african heterosexuals are subhuman, the same way that homosexuals are?

Thats certainly one way to interpret it lol

But they're still screwed and shouldn't be allowed to marry, right?

But they're not screwed in the head, thats the vital difference.

Care to point me to the part of our constitution where it says Australia has a state religion?

Ofcourse there is no state relgion, thats the whole premise the concept, that the government cannot force or convert its citizenry, but you're not going to stop 60% of the population voting or getting into government based on their beliefs.

So you'd contend that humans are not, in fact, part of the kingdom animalia?

If they are they are certainly a very unique example.

I'm not promoting the expansion of anything. I'm promoting the removal of marriage as a legislative entity, but also arguing with people who are worried that they'll get AIDS from the big scary gay man because their viewpoints are stupid and unjustified, and encouraging them to look at their views on one situation critically and in a logical manner may well encourage them to view all situations in such a way.

"critically and logical manner" = "the way I (WAF) view things"

 

[withoutaface]

Thats certainly one way to interpret it lol



But they're not screwed in the head, thats the vital difference.

I'd argue that homophobes are screwed in the head. I base this on my own opinion, and one obscure study conducted by a group with a vested interest.

Ofcourse there is no state relgion, thats the whole premise the concept, that the government cannot force or convert its citizenry, but you're not going to stop 60% of the population voting or getting into government based on their beliefs.

Appeal to the majority is a fucking fallacy. Just because 60% of people agree with you doesn't make you right, because 90% of the general public are ignorant morons anyway.

If they are they are certainly a very unique example.

So unique they're 99% the same as chimpanzees.

"critically and logical manner" = "the way I (WAF) view things"

= not influenced by religion or irrational hatred of a group that does nothing to harm me.

 

[HotShot]

But they're not screwed in the head, thats the vital difference.

How can you make that statement? I mean some of the most intelligent, capable people are gay.

We are animals - how are we different from them?

Religion - is just a belief and not everyone shares that belief. Thus you might believe in christanity and christanity in ur perspective might not allow homosexuality but another person who believe in christanity might have a different perspective and might allow homosexuality - essentially - who gives a fuck what religion says.

U arguments is like this - dont eat broccoli and eat chicken instead. Broccoli is not food, broccoli is not the typical diet of teenager, Chicken has more protein therefore dont eat broccoli, Finally i dont like broccoli so i wont allow other people to eat it.

 

[kami]

Survival is irrelevant without reproduction.

There still is reproduction though. As displayed in the animal example there is a fair bit of reproduction occuring - its just not every individual that is reproducing.

This coming from the GAY expert on the christian faith I presume? Maybe thats the strict catholic interpreation of it, the concept of sin doesent work for all denominations that adhere truly to the religious text - ie. baptists, orthodox christians

1. Ad hominem. Me being gay does not have anything to do with whether I understand a religious saying or not.
2. The concept of sin exists in christianity in all of its denominations.
3. Its also pretty well established in the christian faith that no human is without sin except Jesus.

No, it means that more often than not christians are the ones who define our society and law, the very basis of Australian society, law etc. is judeo-christian values, whether you like it or not.

That's just building a straw man...

I am protesting any religious text having authority over our legislature bshoc, i.e bible =/= law.

Nope not gonna fly, divorce has existed for as long as marriage has, and the definition itself stretches long before christianity into the very core foundations of "western" values.

No divorce has not existed as long as marriage has - though there is the example of the graeco-romans performing it (who did not begin the marriage tradition). However once christianity arose divorce was snuffed out until it was forced into being by the King of England. Its also still not permitted in a wide range of christian denominations - especially catholicism. Which when you consider that '80 percent of australians' are christians (your words not mine) then honestly we should ban divorce too (there's also more biblical statements against the procedure as well than there is on homosexuality).

Correct - parent - gays can in no way be parents

They could adopt, then they would be parents.

Theres history.

There is nothing to say we must do whatever has been done before, especially when in the doing we are creating an inequity. I could also mention that there's history that says we don't have to supress it either.

Some multi university study in the US, it was on NatGeo so it must be true lol

Link? Thanks.

Yes but most stright couples can engage in proper sexual practice using proper sexual organs rather than jab poo ...

That doesn't stop alot of straight couples from 'jabbing poo'. Its also not the fact that you 'jab poo' that gives you STIs bshoc, its the fact that you share bodily fluids with someone who is infected in an unsafe manner e.g condomless sex or needles.

That said the gay infection rate in this country is >20%, which over 20 times the population rate, heh maybe AIDS is gods way of killing off fags eh? Or is there a better explanation?

1. It is closer to one fifth of the purported population that is infected.
2. That number can never be anything more than an estimate because of things like closets.
3. That number applies to the inner city sydney region only. I'd also hazard a guess that its composed mainly of members of the clubbing scene - which is as much a statement on the unsafe sex practices of people who go to clubs to hook up as anything else.

Well gays are a shitty little minority who's destruction would benefit the rest of the world ever so much.

I'm sure Hitler agreed with you.

Which:

1. It doesen't

Lets see:

• there have been periods where the state has jailed homosexuals.
• in the 70s homosexuals could still be put into mental institutions.
• until homosexuals were included in a discrimination act it would still have been permissable to discriminate (for e.g employment).
• problems regarding custody and adoption.
• current issues regarding marriage, which includes inheritance, co-parenting, medical things such as being able to visit your dying partner, superannuation, government pensions etc.

So yes, it has and it does.

2. It has every right to do

Australia is a liberal democracy bshoc, not a tyranny. As such our nation does have to respect certain civil rights of its citzenry even if they are a minority.

What can I do that gays can't?

See above.

No it has nothing to do with economics, its thinking for yourself.

Then I feel sorry for you that you have been brought to view the people around you as sub-human over something they have no say in.

 

[littlewing69]

kami:


I'm sorry about all the rednecks.

 

[bshoc]

kami:


I'm sorry about all the rednecks.

you guys should try some makeup sex

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Survival is irrelevant without reproduction.
...

The variety may be wide, but the numbers are not, you're not going to stop the influx of christian influenced values anymore than you can stop those values from being infused into people in the first place. Why? Look at the makeup of society. Something like 80% of the country believe in a religion where homosexual burn in hell.

Actually that's not true. Many Christian groups are far more tolerant of gays than you- actually I think it may be in america where a gay bishop was consecrated?
The fact that 80% of the population put 'Christian' in the census means that they believe in Jesus- it doesn't follow that they believe everything written in the bible is literal, and applicable to modern times. It comes down to interpretation, as well as what segments of the bible you believe implicitly in, and which bits you don't.

Nope not gonna fly, divorce has existed for as long as marriage has, and the definition itself stretches long before christianity into the very core foundations of "western" values.

Nope. Just plain not true.

Correct - parent - gays can in no way be parents

Actually, lesbians can become pregnant through IVF (as long as they are not out) and raise the child with their partner, or homosexuals in general can adopt, thus, as someone else has stated, becoming parents.
It doesn't matter if both are genetically related to the child or not.

Theres history.

Actually, as I already pointed out, gay marriage or an eqivalent has been accepted in many parts of the world- but obviously you didn't read the source, being too busy sniggering adolescently at the website title

Yes but most stright couples can engage in proper sexual practice using proper sexual organs rather than jab poo ...

Well gays are a shitty little minority who's destruction would benefit the rest of the world ever so much.

And finally, resorting to juvenile insults and 'eww, gays!' instead of arguing logically.


I am going on holidays. it shall be fun, but internet free.
:wave:

 

[bshoc]

I'd argue that homophobes are screwed in the head. I base this on my own opinion, and one obscure study conducted by a group with a vested interest.

IRONY lol

Appeal to the majority is a fucking fallacy. Just because 60% of people agree with you doesn't make you right, because 90% of the general public are ignorant morons anyway.

Thats not my point, my point is you cant stop the majority of people from being christians.

So unique they're 99% the same as chimpanzees.

I've never seen a chimp farm a field, create a parliament or dissect the complexities of quantum physics.

= not influenced by religion or irrational hatred of a group that does nothing to harm me.

= still your unproveable opinion, in the end it doesent really matter what, because we're all products of influence, but how many.

 

[littlewing69]

you guys should try some makeup sex

I'm sure that was supposed to be insulting.

Actually that's not true. Many Christian groups are far more tolerant of gays than you- actually I think it may be in america where a gay bishop was consecrated?

There are homosexual clergy in Australia, I believe. Uniting Church? Anyway, the 80% figure is largely nominal rather than indicative of actual religious subscription.

 

[littlewing69]

Something like 80% of the country believe in a religion where homosexual burn in hell.

Christianity doesn't say that.

 

[bshoc]

There still is reproduction though. As displayed in the animal example there is a fair bit of reproduction occuring - its just not every individual that is reproducing.

... there can be no "survival" without reproduction, end of debate.

1. Ad hominem. Me being gay does not have anything to do with whether I understand a religious saying or not.

Most gays would not know much about christianity due to the hostility from both sides.

2. The concept of sin exists in christianity in all of its denominations.

Correct, and unlike your portrayal its not something to be accepted, but rejected, its part of what christians call "saving" the person from sin.

3. Its also pretty well established in the christian faith that no human is without sin except Jesus.

Inaccurate see: baptism, confession

That's just building a straw man...

I am protesting any religious text having authority over our legislature bshoc, i.e bible =/= law.

Then we have no general disagreement, that still doesen't change the fact that the country and its derived laws wont stop being ruled upon by majority christians until christians lose those numbers.

No divorce has not existed as long as marriage has - though there is the example of the graeco-romans performing it (who did not begin the marriage tradition).

I believe it has, it was just alot harder for women to get one.

However once christianity arose divorce was snuffed out until it was forced into being by the King of England. Its also still not permitted in a wide range of christian denominations - especially catholicism. Which when you consider that '80 percent of australians' are christians (your words not mine) then honestly we should ban divorce too (there's also more biblical statements against the procedure as well than there is on homosexuality).

Divorce isn't banned because thats how the majority has ruled, there is no explicity ban on divorce in the christian faith, except that of catholisism and the pope, which most christians do not recognize as any authority on christianity.

They could adopt, then they would be parents.

Gay can NEVER be parents becuase gays can never provide family.

There is nothing to say we must do whatever has been done before, especially when in the doing we are creating an inequity. I could also mention that there's history that says we don't have to supress it either.

People who do no learn from history's mistakes are doomed to repeat (or suffer) them.

Link? Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/h...82f18cadf2ad83&ex=1278216000&pagewanted=print

Here, agreed?

That doesn't stop alot of straight couples from 'jabbing poo'. Its also not the fact that you 'jab poo' that gives you STIs bshoc, its the fact that you share bodily fluids with someone who is infected in an unsafe manner e.g condomless sex or needles.

Most people do not give into every temptation, they have self control. An extreme minority of straight couples may engage in anal for whatever their screwed up reasons are.

I'm sure Hitler agreed with you.

What about all the good things Hitler did?

Lets see:

• there have been periods where the state has jailed homosexuals.
• in the 70s homosexuals could still be put into mental institutions.
• until homosexuals were included in a discrimination act it would still have been permissable to discriminate (for e.g employment).
• problems regarding custody and adoption.
• current issues regarding marriage, which includes inheritance, co-parenting, medical things such as being able to visit your dying partner, superannuation, government pensions etc.

Oh stop you're making me nostalgic.

And its still so .. well ... faggy .. I mean how could your employer fire you for being gay unless you told them that you were gay, people dont walk into the office and declare GUESS WHAT GUYS IM STRAIGHT, which is what gays seem to do, complain about how everyone hates them and yet try to make the statement at every turn that they are fags and do faggy things. For the record employers should be able to hire and fire for whatever reasons they deem necessary, business is private.

Australia is a liberal democracy bshoc, not a tyranny. As such our nation does have to respect certain civil rights of its citzenry even if they are a minority.

The very basic ones yes, which it already does.

Then I feel sorry for you that you have been brought to view the people around you as sub-human over something they have no say in.

Its convenient to make that argument, its far less convenient to actually prove it, if gays dont want this kind of negative attention, they should stop their useless crusades against marriage and adoption.

 

[littlewing69]

Most gays would not know much about christianity due to the hostility from both sides.

What exactly stops a homosexual from reading the Bible?