Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[marthastuart]

There are no scientifically plausible reasons and no morally plausible reasons why homosexual marriage should be banned. If you have a legally recognised gay marriage overseas, it won't be recognised in Australia for one reason:
Howard is a bible basher.

That's all there is to it. There's no other basis for it.

Catholic church strives to utilise the Gospels and know Jesus, but on the other hand, they've fabricated all of these rules and applied them through what I would call the unimportant bits of the New Testament.

Not to mention they fabricated Jesus and the Divnity in the first place, and the two alternate books of revelations. Romans, will they ever learn?

 

[kay90]

i remember i did an oral presentation about legalising gay marriages in australia in year 9, i went to a catholic school (still do) and i got a C for my presentation.
in my opinion, and also seeking the opinion of others, the mark i got was too low.
i had enough content/information that covered all the criteria that was being assessed, i asked for a remark but the teacher refused saying that the C was my final mark.

she was my favourite teacher, but i still thought i deserved a higher mark.
maybe she was against the topic i chose?
oh well, we all have our opinions.

i still support homosexuality in australia.

 

[ccc123]

Personally, i can never possibly understand homosexuality- i see no logic in their behaviour. However, i wouldn't agree with those who say its immoral. Ultimately, i suppose they're still human beings capable of falling in love, albeit to the same sex. Considering the increasing acceptance of homosexuality, i don't see why same sex marriages shouldn't be legalised. However, it's not going to happen while Howard is in power, because he's joined Bush is opposing same sex marriages and recently bloked a proposed legalisation.

 

[Tulipa]

Logic?

Hmm... logic in matters of who you are as a fundamental human being... Yeah that's doesn't make sense to me either.

I just had someone compare homosexuality to pedophilia. I mean, even homophobes can argue that that's ridiculous right?

 

[ogmzergrush]

Logic?

Hmm... logic in matters of who you are as a fundamental human being... Yeah that's doesn't make sense to me either.

I just had someone compare homosexuality to pedophilia. I mean, even homophobes can argue that that's ridiculous right?

Depends on how the comparison was made I suppose. I can see parallels, in that they're both taboo to varying extents around the world.

There's also a certain extent of deviation from "default" in both, I guess, except one is not a big deal at all, and the other makes you a fucking cretin.

Beyond that though, no, I don't think anyone much could (sensibly) argue for comparison.

 

[cute.asa.button]

Personally, i can never possibly understand homosexuality- i see no logic in their behaviour. However, i wouldn't agree with those who say its immoral. Ultimately, i suppose they're still human beings capable of falling in love, albeit to the same sex. Considering the increasing acceptance of homosexuality, i don't see why same sex marriages shouldn't be legalised. However, it's not going to happen while Howard is in power, because he's joined Bush is opposing same sex marriages and recently bloked a proposed legalisation.

Nice comment.
I have tonnes of gay friends, a few at my school (yes, they know they are gay even if they are only 18), and i love them. The guys are hilarious, and it doesnt' make them any less human or any less acceptable, if anything, they are stronger human beings than many of us for having the bravery to declare that they aren't 'mainstream' (in the way most people consider heterosexuality to be mainstream) and be proud of it. We made one of them a 20metre by 15 metre (or so) gay pride flag for his 18th. They unfolded it in front of his family and all 100 of his closest friends, including a number of other gays and everyone loved it. I think thats so amazing.
Anyhow, i agree with ccc123 in that there is no reason, except for a cultural base in christianity, that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. They can love people just like us, but as ccc123 said, Howard won't legalise it because he is so conservative and right wing, and don't get me started on the non-existent separation of church and state in the US political system.

If you think about it, way back in the beginning of time, what made it normal to like people of the opposite sex. Only the purpose of reproduction. Otherwise, it would seem more normal wouldn't it to actually like people of the same sex. What would happen if modern civilisation was based aroun the notion that homosexuality was in fact normal, and that it was people who liked the other sex that were wierd.

think about it.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Nice comment.
I have tonnes of gay friends, a few at my school (yes, they know they are gay even if they are only 18), and i love them. The guys are hilarious, and it doesnt' make them any less human or any less acceptable, if anything, they are stronger human beings than many of us for having the bravery to declare that they aren't 'mainstream' (in the way most people consider heterosexuality to be mainstream) and be proud of it. We made one of them a 20metre by 15 metre (or so) gay pride flag for his 18th. They unfolded it in front of his family and all 100 of his closest friends, including a number of other gays and everyone loved it. I think thats so amazing.

Anyhow, i agree with ccc123 in that there is no reason, except for a cultural base in christianity, that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. They can love people just like us, but as ccc123 said, Howard won't legalise it because he is so conservative and right wing, and don't get me started on the non-existent separation of church and state in the US political system.

No real objection apart from the bit where you make it sound like gay guys are your personal substitute for cute little puppies put here for your amusement. I'm sure the sentiment is ok and it's just the wording that gives off this impression, so even that is probably a non-issue.

If you think about it, way back in the beginning of time, what made it normal to like people of the opposite sex. Only the purpose of reproduction. Otherwise, it would seem more normal wouldn't it to actually like people of the same sex. What would happen if modern civilisation was based aroun the notion that homosexuality was in fact normal, and that it was people who liked the other sex that were wierd.

think about it.

So what you're saying is that "if things were different, things would be different". Seems quite profound?

 

[cute.asa.button]

thanks, i thought so too.

 

[jb_nc]

I just had someone compare homosexuality to pedophilia. I mean, even homophobes can argue that that's ridiculous right?

is it comparable in the sense that they're both genetic traits not preferences? u tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BritneySpears]

somewhere in the leveticus and deuteronomy said pork is dirty and you must not touch or eat it, yet most christians eat pork all the time.

 

[kami]

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=267192

Interesting; despite its source. Refugees being persecuted for their sexuality (some are stoned, whipped or mutilated) can gain entry should they sleep with someone of Australian residency would then testify as to their sexuality. However a monogamous couple were recently rejected because of 'lack of evidence' as no one could testify to their sexual proclivities except for each other, though other factors include a lack of whipping scars. End result being, a gay arbitrator told them they were not gay and had the alleged couple shipped back.

 

[marthastuart]

There is no logic behind Christianity. They pick and choose which parts of the bible to accept and which not to accept. Now, if we take the bible as an example of God's word, and God is perfect, why does he change his views? Second guessing yourself isn't exactly a helpful factor when explaining God as infallible. Homosexuality is not addressed in the New Testament according to many scholarly theologists, despite this:

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Now, maybe it's just me, but there's a large negative vibe in the New Testament about homosexuality, and in the old testament. Badum Tish, bible bashers stop talking, fiction has no place in worldy matters.
[/FONT]

 

[xeuyrawp]

Now, maybe it's just me, but there's a large negative vibe in the New Testament about homosexuality, and in the old testament. Badum Tish, bible bashers stop talking, fiction has no place in worldy matters.

Just so everyone's aware:
1. There is no evidence of Jesus himself being anti-homosexual. Unless I am mistaking, you will not find any evidence of Jesus being anti-homosexual in the Gospels. I know there are some issues with translations, but these are really negligable. In fact, I don't think homosexuality is actually mentioned anywhere in the Gospels even by the authors outside of Jesus,
2. however, other parts of the New Testament are hideously riddled with anti-homosexual sentiments. The New Testament is the part of the Bible which is the main part of official Christian norms. Once you get past the Gospels and Acts (into the Pauline Epistles, the Epistles, and Revelation), you get massive amounts of anti-homosexual references. Same goes for a fair amount of the Apocrapha, except, notably, the Gospels of Judas and Thomas which try to depict the actual life of Jesus in the spirit of the canonical Gospels.

So thus whilst the OT is very anti-homosexual as is some parts of the NT, the main Christian character, Jesus, does not display any anti-homosexual sentiments that are recorded. The people who spread his church, though, especially Paul, re-instated anti-homosexual believes.

Christians are supposed to aim to be like Jesus, and, unless the 4 canonical and innumberable apocryphal surviving Gospels are coincidentally lacking, Jesus did not preach homophobia. The Jews and pretty much the rest of that area of the world did.

Depending on how much emphasis you place on the Gospels, you could argue anywhere from Christianity has no problem with homosexuality to Christianity, like Judaism, frowns upon it as a very evil act.

:wave:

And what's it with all these morons on bos consistently just calling the Bible fiction? Makes me lulz.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=267192

Interesting; despite its source. Refugees being persecuted for their sexuality (some are stoned, whipped or mutilated) can gain entry should they sleep with someone of Australian residency would then testify as to their sexuality. However a monogamous couple were recently rejected because of 'lack of evidence' as no one could testify to their sexual proclivities except for each other, though other factors include a lack of whipping scars. End result being, a gay arbitrator told them they were not gay and had the alleged couple shipped back.

Woah, thanks for that!

 

[shsshs]

terrorist, paedophiles, rapists.

obviously the majority of people consider these sick people.

However, go back 100 years+ to the 1800s, and you can add homosexuals to the list.

Yet today the attitudes towards homosexuals is very different.
"Homosexuals shouldnt be discriminated just because they have a sexual preference for the same sex" would be a generally accepted argument.

Then consider 100 years in the future (if the earth hasnt burnt up or been flooded by the ice caps). Will our 'sick' list of paedophiles, rapist, terrorists etc grow smaller?

"Paedophiles shouldnt be discriminated just because they have a sexual preference for younger people" may be the generally accepted argument.

 

[ari89]

terrorism isn't even a religious thing anyway.
Religion is a good way for us people who think these people are terrorists not freedom fighters to classify as the reason for their actions, but realistically, it is not religion that makes them do it.
It is things like low socio economic status, frustration, especially as globalisation means that those who aren't constantly connected to the internet or on their phones feel alienated from the world, feelings of repression and exclusion, loss of cultural and national sovereignty (the effects of americanisation) and in the case of those terrorists who are our current focus, feelings of anger towards an imperialist west which has the arrogance to think that they can just go in and fix the Middle Easts problems with their solutions.

I don't have any problems with religion. I am not religious myself at all.
HAving watched two shows recently it highlighted how i feel. Watching Andrew Denton's God on My Side was really interesting in seeing the depth of some peoples belief (they think that Armageddon is coming...bit outrageous if you ask me), but i was happy to think that they were entitled to their opinion, even if i didn't agree with it.
I probably came to this conclusion in light of watchign "the God Delusion" the night before on ABC in which a University of Oxford professor proceeded in indiscriminantly offending all religions and those who follow them. I was actually offended myself with what he said/did and i am not even religious. So i am glad that i felt that way in a sense, because it confirmed my feelings about religion - i am not religious, but i respect all other peoples religions and don't like people who try to disprove them.

Anyhow, that was a random speel, just thought i would say it.

Yes, it was a random speel.

 

[sam04u]

Same people different thread? Get out of this thread and leave it for discussions on homosexuality.

I wont even address the things which you've said because this is neither the place nor the the time. In relation to homosexuals in Australia, I think it's great that they can freely express how they feel and think in this democratic society.

(I also think it's healthy for people to express their feeling and thoughts towards homosexuals. Hopefully with not so much discomfort either.)

Now, It would be appreciated if this pack left this thread for discussions of homosexuality and things of that nature.

(ari89, zimmerman8k, MaNiElla and cute.asa.button)

 

[ur_inner_child]

In this case religious people choose to believe Homosexuality is wrong. They have no evidence (apart from the bible), but of course there is no evidence to prove that they are wrong. It comes down to a personal choice.

I disagree.

You could use the same logic about racism and "back it up" about how it is natural to stick with your own. So we should just leave racism as personal choice?

Like racism, I think it is a matter of education and experience when it comes down to your prejudices. Why not debate it?

 

[ari89]

But my generalisations are correct and yours are fallatious, generally. Just because you know some muslims that aren't terrorists and rapists doesnt mean that MOST OF THEM IN GENERAL are not like this. Clearly it is part of there culture, as your own quotes about Mohummed being a peadophile prove. Therefore, not all muslims are bad, but many of them do hold dangerous beliefs.

Finally I'm not a habitual muslims basher, I'm just criticising aspects of their religion which I think are wrong.

Every time someone disagrees with you you call anything they say 'fallatious'. Other than the fact I don't believe it to be a word, if you mean fallacious or on a further extreme fellatio I find my arguments free from falsified generalisations and oral stimulation. I state that I knew two muslims who weren't terrorists and one that wasn't a rapist. What generalisation was put forward? Unless you assumed that I only know two muslims which would make my second claim far from being a generalisation as it meant 50/50 on the issue of them being rapists. Is it possible you assumed that from your own prejudices and applied them to my clearly facetious stated 'facts'?

You are correct that so much, such as terrorism, is associated with their religion. It's a known fact and if anyone denies that it is obvious they are living in a different world. Anyone who has seen a terrorist attack clip would have a negative engraved view on muslims after seeing trucks mortared for no particular reason "in the name of Allah". However, this is not to say all of them are irrational murders.

However, as with all cultures, whether they be grouped by religion, geopgrahy or time, by todays standards so much is seen as wrong. Mohammed was a Paedophile, the Jews accepted slavery...even our ancestors accepted slavery not too long ago and Saudi Arabia only abolished it 40 or so years ago. Is it up to us to continue to judge these cultures through time or should we do as Von Ranke suggested and accept them on their own terms and not force our own judgements onto history. But the thing is - Australian culture is a fusion of judeo-christian culture...just as slavery was slowly made unacceptable both legally and morally in the western world, it may only be a matter of time until homosexuality gains that same status.

Same people different thread? Get out of this thread and leave it for discussions on homosexuality.

I wont even address the things which you've said because this is neither the place nor the the time. In relation to homosexuals in Australia, I think it's great that they can freely express how they feel and think in this democratic society.

(I also think it's healthy for people to express their feeling and thoughts towards homosexuals. Hopefully with not so much discomfort either.)

Now, It would be appreciated if this pack left this thread for discussions of homosexuality and things of that nature.

(ari89, zimmerman8k, MaNiElla and cute.asa.button)

Great approach, Sam. "Maybe if we leave it alone it'll go away." As you said, we're in a democratic society where we can freely express how we feel and think. Don't be such a hypocrit and let us do just that

I think you are basically expressing the same beliefs against me in a different way. We agree that:

*Discriminating against homosexuals is stupid (as much as racism which is less accepted).

But racist people are entitled to their beliefs so long as they don't actively practice discrimination. Unfortunately, so are homo-haters, freedom of speech means we tolerate all sorts of crazy ideas.

We also agree that hatred of homosexuals arrises from ignorance and lack of education. It is precisely because of this ignorance that homo-haters cannot be convinced by anything you can say on this thread. They will simply respond with rubbish like "but the bible says.." as though it is a definative authority. Thats why it really isn't worth debating.

Your argument here is about as confusing as what I wrote above. A bible believing Christian has no right to claim they 'hate homosexuals' with the justification that the bible says so. Why? Because if they were truely following the bible they would accept the person and love them rather than rejecting the continual theme of loving one another and embracing anti-homosexual concepts. Maybe this was just your own concoction to attack the Christian religion, which I believe you have a shallow understanding of, by associating them all as 'homo-haters'. However, in my time with the Christian community I have never met a person who hates people because of their sexual preference. As I have read through this forum I am yet to see hate justified by "but the bible says so". (And Fred Phelps is not a representation as he is extremely skewed, attacking on a personal scale without biblical justification. To say God is punishing America by killing soldiers in Iraq because it is a 'fag enabling nation' is about as logical as the muslim exteremist argument that Allah sent a tidal wave to Indonesia to cleanse the muslim community of those only pretending to be muslim.)

I'm sure that the more probable reason that people disagree with homosexuality to an extent (whilst still accepting it) is that it doesn't correspond to the natural order in nature that male and female partner as opposed to same sex relationships.

I believe you have a point about debating this topic here. I'm sure most people don't come here with open minds. And if they take the time to post, they most probably have a side that they well intend to stick to no matter what argument is thrown that way. An athiest won't take the side of a theist based on a theological argument as it would be against their rationale. Similarly, a theist would not defy the values they uphold as it may be comparable to turning their back on their religion and God. Therefore, a topic of such nature can only be dealt with encountering numerous convergences and may never end in an answer as everyone, no matter how unbiased they claim to be, are full of their own prejudices and values that are so deeply a part of who they are that they will never accept anything otherwise.

 

[lengy]

People are going to interpret the 'Bible' however they choose to regardless of what you think they 'should' interpret it as.

 

[ari89]

Well I not going to defend my first post where I said I hated muslims...because ummm, it was clearly a Troll. But I will defend the second post you quote which was actually serious.

You were supposed to tell me my argument was infact orally stimulating.

You talk about a "bible believing" christains. The thing is Ari, people interpret the bible in all sorts of crazy ways and they all believe their different, often contradictory interpretations are correct. Who is to be the judge of which ones are truly "bible believing."

The core belief of 'love one another as you love yourself, there is no greater commandment than thiese' isn't too open to interpretation. It is said to be the recorded word of Jesus (whose word is authority over all other writers in the bible) and as the 'greatest commandment'(after loving God). If your sole argument is in conflict with that point you are ignoring the most important aspect. So those who persecute full of hate and ignore the greatest rule to carry out something much more peripheral aren't truely 'bible believing'.

You go on to say that most christains accept homosexuality and don't discriminate against people. I agree. Most christains are rational with moderate beliefs. I wasn't attacking them. Just the minority, who have emerged on this thread who openly discriminate against homosexuals. I say that these people are ignorant and you yourself would probably agree because they are basing their hatred on ignorance.

I never stated that most Christians accept homosexuality as morally right, however, they don't (and shouldn't) persecute or discriminate against them in my opinion.