Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[bshoc]

Christianity doesn't say that.

• "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
• See also Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 19, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7.

 

[littlewing69]

• "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
• See also Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 19, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7.

Romans 6:23 (New International Version)
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[bshoc]

Romans 6:23 (New International Version)
23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Do homoseuxals take steps to renounce their sins or do they accept and love their sin? That statement doesent even conflict with the one I posted.

 

[littlewing69]

Do homoseuxals take steps to renounce their sins or do they accept and love their sin? That statement doesent even conflict with the one I posted.

There's reasonable doubt about whether the Bible can be thought to refer to monogamous homosexual relationships...

 

[bshoc]

There's reasonable doubt about whether the Bible can be thought to refer to monogamous homosexual relationships...

You havent provided one statement that endorses it and I've provided plenty that put it on the level of sin worthy of death in life and hell in the afterlife.

 

[kami]

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

Yup. Lucky there is still reproduction going on then since not everyone is homosexual.

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

1. Presumption.
2. Ad hominem.

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

You still haven't addressed the real point - christianity is meant to be the ultimate form of pacifism - you can't 'throw stones' at someone for who they are. You just forgive because only god/jesus can make the true judgement.

Inaccurate see: baptism, confession

Uh, to go to confession you have to have sinned and be capable of sinning so you're not free of sin. Baptism similarly operates on the idea that one possesses sin that must be cleansed (the original sin). So both support the idea that unlike Jesus, people are not pure.

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

Time? Place? Cultures? Evidence?

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

How can they not? A same-sex couple can provide financial and emotional support to a child, they are capable of teaching the child basic skills in interacting with society (speech, literacy, numeracy, basic manners and ethics etc.), they can provide a home and sustenance, someone to oversee a child's basic health needs and so on. There also exists the possibility of an extended family in the couples own relatives. What is it that a mixed-sex couple can extend to an adopted child that a same-sex couple cannot?

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

Exactly. So why advocate repeating them?

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

Here, agreed?

Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn.
...............
He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions.
..............
"To claim on the basis of this study that there's no such thing as male bisexuality is overstepping, it seems to me," said Dr. Gilbert Herdt, director of the National Sexuality Resource Center in San Francisco.
............
A study published last November by the same team of Canadian and American researchers, for example, found that most women who said they were bisexual showed arousal to men and to women.
...........
"There's a whole lot of movement and flexibility," Dr. Diamond added. "The fact is, we have very little research in this area, and a lot to learn."

This hardly proves bisexuality as nonexistent bshoc - this article admits that not only does it have insufficient evidence to claim such a thing, but it only claims it on men.

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.

Edward O. Laumann's The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that about 20% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex, and sex researcher Alfred Kinsey found that number to be closer to 40%. More recently, a researcher from the University of British Columbia (quoted in the May 5, 2005 issue of The Georgia Straight) puts the number of heterosexuals who regularly practice anal sex at between 30% and 50%.

Here is a statement from wikipedia with 3 references from different sources indicating that the number of straight couples practicing anal sex is far greater than an extreme minority.

What about all the good things Hitler did?

What Hitler did for the german economy is as nothing when one compares it to the insane crimes he committed against humanity - starting with suppression of rights and leading into getting rid of the 'shitty little minorities'.

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.

You presume people don't declare their heterosexuality out of some respect for social convention that homosexuals lack, however you ignore the fact that people are presumed heterosexual until stated otherwise. And why should you care if someone admits they 'do faggy things'? It doesn't affect you in anyway.

And if businesses were able to discriminate without limit then the state would essentially have to begin supporting people based on their inclusion in a minority, even if they possess the skills and education to function well in the workplace. It also means the business loses a better employee anyway if they're judging based on who you are rather than what you can do. Anti-discrimination laws for the business place hurt no one, and help prevent people from being discriminated against.

The very basic ones yes, which it already does.

If it already did then everyone would possess access to the same rights and the same ability to exercise those rights that everyone else does. Which is currently not the case.

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.

They aren't crusades against marriages and adoption, they're arguments against inequity and prejudice.

 

[withoutaface]

IRONY lol

Lol the monkey doesn't get satire.

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

And that's relevant to anything, how?

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

I've never seen you farm a field or form a parliament, and even the most brilliant of scientists still have no fucking idea what causes gravity, much less be able to explain all the complexities of quantum physics.

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

The difference between you and me is that I can argue my point along utilitarian lines, you must continually appeal to the way things are and always have been without providing any evidence to suggest this is the best way for things to be.

 

[withoutaface]

• "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.
• See also Leviticus 18:22, Genesis 19, Romans 1:18-32, I Corinthians 6:9-11, I Timothy 1:10, and Jude 7.

If a homosexual man lies with his penis inside another man's vagina he is committing a sin against logic, I'd agree.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Perhaps homosexuality is God's way of saying "stop overpopulating", since we commit acts like abortions and stuff.

 

[littlewing69]

Perhaps homosexuality is God's way of saying "stop overpopulating", since we commit acts like abortions and stuff.

Maybe he's saying "dress better, okay?".

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Perhaps God has better things to think about than who people have sex with

 

[S1M0]

Interesting posts.

Alright, here's my opinion in regards to Homosexuality

First of all, as a Christian, i was taught to accept everyone of any Relgion, or of any ideology (if you would like to consider homosexuality an "ideology"), so that does apply to Homosexuality. However, it does not disregard the fact that homosexuality IS a sin and that although acceptance of gays is alright, and is in fact taught according to Christians, however. It should not be encouraged, as it goes against the laws of nature, which were created by God, its a sin, since it goes against the laws of God, which says that a man and a woman will be attracted to each other and have sex for the sake of reproduction.

As the Government is Christian (although secular), it should support and enforce the above statement.

Oh, and please dont flame this with Athiest rantings. Seriously, you guys are annoying, and dont insult any Relgion after reading this post, i hate it how you athiests always try to insult a Religion when a person types out their thoughts. Not all of you however, but some do.

 

[ur_inner_child]

How does one encourage someone to be homosexual but at the same time is "accepting"?

Say a gay guy who's your friend tells you he's really into this other guy. What would you say that is acceptance but not encouragement?

I can see a massive grey field.

 

[withoutaface]

As the Government is Christian (although secular), it should support and enforce the above statement.

Wow, you just pissed allllllllllllllllll over the concept of separation of church and state. Congratulations.

 

[dagwoman]

Wow, you just pissed allllllllllllllllll over the concept of separation of church and state. Congratulations.

QFE (Quoted for excellence)

 

[S1M0]

How does one encourage someone to be homosexual but at the same time is "accepting"?

Say a gay guy who's your friend tells you he's really into this other guy. What would you say that is acceptance but not encouragement?

I can see a massive grey field.

Not neccesarily. It might just be that i didnt explain right. When i say accept, but dont encourage, i'll put it this way. I dont discriminate him because he's homosexual, but i dont support him in his viewpoint either. If he asks me, for example, to go into a gay-rights parade, i wont do it. But i will be a good friend, and i treat him as an equal person.

Thats my attempt to explain it. Make of it what you will, but as long as its not negative.

Wow, you just pissed allllllllllllllllll over the concept of separation of church and state. Congratulations.

So i did. Thanks for noting.

 

[pete_mate]

Not neccesarily. It might just be that i didnt explain right. When i say accept, but dont encourage, i'll put it this way. I dont discriminate him because he's homosexual, but i dont support him in his viewpoint either. If he asks me, for example, to go into a gay-rights parade, i wont do it. But i will be a good friend, and i treat him as an equal person.

Thats my attempt to explain it. Make of it what you will, but as long as its not negative.

So i did. Thanks for noting.

Essentially your reason for "not accepting" gay people is because its writen in the bible, irrelevant of any social/biological analysis in relation to its effects.

However, why is it that some sections of the bible are ignored, whilst others are embraced. Such as the section that forbids the wearing of clothing of more than 1 thread-type, goat sacrificing, etc.

The bible is merely a system of ethics that is reflective of the extreme lack of scientific and modern thought in relation to ethics that existed 2000 years ago. Christians are merely people that transpose the beleifs of the average person that existed 2000 years ago onto modern people that have the internet, books and libraries to come up with their own systems of ethics.

And this is exactly what we have done; reflective of the fact that religion is exempt from law and government.

 

[S1M0]

Essentially your reason for "not accepting" gay people is because its writen in the bible, irrelevant of any social/biological analysis in relation to its effects.

However, why is it that some sections of the bible are ignored, whilst others are embraced. Such as the section that forbids the wearing of clothing of more than 1 thread-type, goat sacrificing, etc.

Well, what your saying is coming from the Old Testament, which the Christians and the Jews believe. We "ignore" these sections becaue they're JEWISH laws. Jews would obey these laws, but our laws and ideologies are found in the New Testament, in the Gospels and the letters by Saint Paul. We obey the Ten Commandments obviousally, but the laws found in Deutonomery (or whatever the correct spelling is) and the law books we will not neccesarily follow, especially if it contradicts Jesus' teachings.

Besides, you shouldn't attack a Religion like that by calling or indirectly referring to it as ignorant, despite the fact that you probably meant no offense.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Why do christians know so little about their religion? Seriously?

 

[dagwoman]

Because it's an outdated religion with too many contradictions to count, open to interpretation and manipulation to justify all kinds of prejudice.