Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Iron]

No because they make no choice to be infertile. They have no moral responsibility for their inaction and they are not seeking to make others infertile.

 

[SylviaB]

god that iron chick is a cunt

 

[Ethanescence]

No because they make no choice to be infertile. They have no moral responsibility for their inaction and they are not seeking to make others infertile.

People don't choose their sexuality. Someone doesn't choose to be homosexual, just like someone doesn't choose to be heterosexual.

People might choose whether or not to have sex, yes, but who they are sexually attracted to is ultimately not a choice.

And what about heterosexuals who choose to be celibate for one reason or another? Does your previous post apply to them, since they undeniably made a choice not to have sex or reproduce?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Neither IVF or adoption represent a way for you to produce life. Perhaps you can care for the product later, but you have not produced life without artificial interference. You still also require a female vessel. And adoption means taking care of ANOTHER's offspring, you idiot, how is that producing?.

Artifical interference huh? What about heterosexual couples who require IVF in order to procreate? And I didn't say that adoption=reproducing. I mean that that is another option for homosexuals wishing to have children, and may very well be our way of cleaning up your mess.

Nonetheless, this argument against homosexuals on the basis of them not being able to reproduce simply pathetic. Try again.

He didn't say it makes you unemployable. Re read what he wrote.

"cannot contribute meaningfully to the economy or community"

Well, I'm a working homosexual. I pay tax. My tax goes to the government, who uses it to fund public goods, transfer payments, infrastructure etc. That's not contributing to the economy/community? Homosexuals may also remove children stuck in orpahanages and give them a proper home. Not contributing you say? You've lost your marbles.

My god you're dumb, I wouldn't give you access to IVF or adoption either

Too bad it's not a quetion of what you would allow, but the majority of Australians who can see that homosexuals have been purposely underhanded by the likes of conservative pricks such as yourself.

 

[bio_nut]

I'm not arguing his points, just pointing out your mistakes.

I'm not comfortable with how easy it is for non-homosexuals to get IVF either, actually. I particularly feel there should be age restrictions.

He meant by being unable to reproduce you don't contribute to the economy, as that is necessary to keep society functioning.

Again, didn't say I agree with this.

I highly doubt that you don't get all your tax returned, you wouldn't earn enough income to be a tax payer.

I'm not "against" homosexuals, because I don't think they can help it. I don't believe it's a choice.

So again, you're a moron, learn to read.

 

[Iron]

People might choose whether or not to have sex, yes, but who they are sexually attracted to is ultimately not a choice.

And what about heterosexuals who choose to be celibate for one reason or another? Does your previous post apply to them, since they undeniably made a choice not to have sex or reproduce?

Whether sexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant; actions are always choices. The human will not die without sex.

I'm not saying that it is the duty of every living being to procreate ok. I'm saying that our highest duty is to be life-giving and open to life in all that we think and do and etc. The celibate heterosexual is not closed to life like the homosexual. He/she is not determined to engage in a life-giving act without any chance of new life being made. Maybe theyre just showing their intense respect for the dignity and value of life by refraining from actions that create life bc theyre not as certain as he/she can be that they are bringing that life into a stable and loving relationship?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Whether sexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant; actions are always choices. The human will not die without sex.

I'm not saying that it is the duty of every living being to procreate ok. I'm saying that our highest duty is to be life-giving and open to life in all that we think and do and etc. The celibate heterosexual is not closed to life like the homosexual. He/she is not determined to engage in a life-giving act without any chance of new life being made. Maybe theyre just showing their intense respect for the dignity and value of life by refraining from actions that create life bc theyre not as certain as he/she can be that they are bringing that life into a stable and loving relationship?

He's trolling. Ignore him.

 

[Matt2233]

Whether sexuality is a choice or not is irrelevant; actions are always choices. The human will not die without sex.

I'm not saying that it is the duty of every living being to procreate ok. I'm saying that our highest duty is to be life-giving and open to life in all that we think and do and etc. The celibate heterosexual is not closed to life like the homosexual. He/she is not determined to engage in a life-giving act without any chance of new life being made. Maybe theyre just showing their intense respect for the dignity and value of life by refraining from actions that create life bc theyre not as certain as he/she can be that they are bringing that life into a stable and loving relationship?

Dude, you fail. By your reasoning, couples who use condoms, the pill, have operations 'down there' and utilize other 'methods that allow them to engage in sex without the chance to create life are immoral.

I've read a page or two of your posts and have come to the conclusion your either a closeted homosexual or one of those people everyone on the planet wants dead.

 

[Iron]

Dude, you fail. By your reasoning, couples who use condoms, the pill, have operations 'down there' and utilize other 'methods that allow them to engage in sex without the chance to create life are immoral.

I've read a page or two of your posts and have come to the conclusion your either a closeted homosexual or one of those people everyone on the planet wants dead.

What? Of course i'm saying that contraception is immoral. Why would this surprise you? lol. It's the denial of life.
How can we be open with eachother and build meaningful, good societies based on mutual trust and respect when we're not even willing to be open to life? When we disagree so fundamentally on the very value of life? When we abuse our bodies in a way that makes us ashamed and unable to reach out to and connect with others due to this shame?

 

[Ethanescence]

He/she is not determined to engage in a life-giving act without any chance of new life being made.

I'm guessing this "life-giving act" would be sexual intercourse?

And the difference between the sexually active homosexual and the celibate heterosexual is that the homosexual is engaging in sexual intercourse without expecting to give new life, while the heterosexual is refraining from intercourse? Correct?

So do you feel the same way about heterosexual couples who engage in sexual intercourse with contraception as homosexuals who engage in sexual intercourse?

Since they are both engaging in a "life-giving act" without any expectations of producing life, are their relationships equally invalid and detrimental? If not, what are the differences?

 

[Iron]

They are detrimental but I wouldnt say this was equally as detrimental. They are not embarking on a whole lifestyle that seeks to deny life and abuse sex. They will probably tell themselves that they are in a relationship open to the prospect of life in the future. This is wrong and unsatisfactory because they have not allowed the relationship to mature etc, but not exactly the same evil represented in homosexuality

 

[dolbinau]

What is the difference between two homosexuals, and two heterosexuals who choose to have a vasectomy AND Tubal ligation?

"are their relationships equally invalid and detrimental?"

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

what is the difference between two homosexuals, and two heterosexuals who choose to have a vasectomy and tubal ligation?

"are their relationships equally invalid and detrimental?"

both is detrimental! We must alert the church elders!

 

[Iron]

See above. The heterosexuals are engaging in an act that in most circumstances must be condemned. However they are not giving themselves over to a culture and lifestyle of godless self-abuse. No one in public would know or need to know of their medical information and they are not actively seeking out others to have this operation also. That's the difference.

 

[Ethanescence]

They are detrimental but I wouldnt say this was equally as detrimental. They are not embarking on a whole lifestyle that seeks to deny life and abuse sex. They will probably tell themselves that they are in a relationship open to the prospect of life in the future. This is wrong and unsatisfactory because they have not allowed the relationship to mature etc, but not exactly the same evil represented in homosexuality

But since you feel that homosexuals can refrain from their actions: a couple having sex with contraceptives that say they never want to have children is just as much a lifestyle choice as homosexuality, correct? Since both are choices with equal consequences, and you feel both lifestyles can be averted, then they must be equally detrimental?

Unless you're implying that homosexuality is a harder choice/lifestyle to change? Which then would negate the greater implications on society that a homosexual relationship would impose, since it would be more difficult for a homosexual to procreate heterosexually - compared to a heterosexual couple who would just have to stop taking/using contraceptives.

Hence you agree that a homosexual relationship is no more detrimental to society than a heterosexual couple using contraceptives?

Or at least that the actions of the individuals in each situation are equally "wrong" (in your opinion)?

 

[dolbinau]

. However they are not giving themselves over to a culture and lifestyle of godless self-abuse. No one in public would know or need to know of their medical information and they are not actively seeking out others to have this operation also. That's the difference

So, hypothetically.

Two homosexual virgins, become long-time partners. Participate in consensual sex with each other and only each other, remain faithful to each other for life.

They haven't 'given themselves over to a culture and lifestyle of godless self-abuse' (though perhaps not depending on how you define this), they aren't putting the public in danger of any infection or disease (i.e. No one in public would know or need to know of their medical information), and since they are faithful to each other, they aren't seeking out others to have the 'operation' (well, sex with 0 chance of procreation) either...

Are they the same thing now :-/?

 

[Iron]

But since you feel that homosexuals can refrain from their actions: a couple having sex with contraceptives that say they never want to have children is just as much a lifestyle choice as homosexuality, correct? Since both are choices with equal consequences, and you feel both lifestyles can be averted, then they must be equally detrimental?

Unless you're implying that homosexuality is a harder choice/lifestyle to change? Which then would negate the greater implications on society that a homosexual relationship would impose, since it would be more difficult for a homosexual to procreate heterosexually - compared to a heterosexual couple who would just have to stop taking/using contraceptives.

Hence you agree that a homosexual relationship is no more detrimental to society than a heterosexual couple using contraceptives?

No homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The use of contraception does not mean that the couple renounce ever having children. I dont support either option, but clearly the heterosexual preventing life on a case-by-case basis isnt as bad as permanently engaging in a lifestyle that necessarily cannot produce life.

 

[Iron]

So, hypothetically.

Two homosexual virgins, become long-time partners. Participate in consensual sex with each other and only each other, remain faithful to each other for life.

They haven't 'given themselves over to a culture and lifestyle of godless self-abuse' (though perhaps not depending on how you define this), they aren't putting the public in danger of any infection or disease (i.e. No one in public would know or need to know of their medical information), and since they are faithful to each other, they aren't seeking out others to have the 'operation' (well, sex with 0 chance of procreation) either...

Are they the same thing now :-/?

:-/ I'm getting a lot of bad options and being asked to say which is worst. I dont like these shades of gray. They should never have engaged in sexual relations. Their very souls would never have consented to such an act. It is marginally better that they have decided not to compound their guilt and sin by insisting on some public expression of their relationship (and thereby potentially corrupting others) but their choices are still 100% immoral.

Contrast this to the souls and consent of the heterosexuals; their relations were technically natural, but they engaged in a faulty discharge of it. Had they gotten to know eachother more and committ to eachother fully, they would have seen the creation of new life as a beautiful, natural expression of their genuine love that propels their existence etc into the future and mirrors the eternity and infinity of our Creator. Having an operation with the express aim of avoiding this merely indicates that the quality of their relationship was very low and will probably not endure. It's like a prenuptial agreement

 

[Ethanescence]

No homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. The use of contraception does not mean that the couple renounce ever having children. I dont support either option, but clearly the heterosexual preventing life on a case-by-case basis isnt as bad as permanently engaging in a lifestyle that necessarily cannot produce life.

In your own words you say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Doesn't a lifestyle choice suggest that they can avert from homosexuality and choose a different lifestyle, such as heterosexuality?

Clearly something isn't a "choice" if they permanently engage in the lifestyle without being able to choose a different lifestyle. If that is the case and homosexuality isn't a choice, per se, doesn't that suggest that the heterosexuals who specifically choose to "prevent life" are more responsible, since they chose it?

And if homosexuality is a choice, doesn't that mean a homosexual can choose to lead a heterosexual lifestyle, just like the hetersexual couple can choose to stop using contraceptives?

 

[Iron]

In your own words you say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Doesn't a lifestyle choice suggest that they can avert from homosexuality and choose a different lifestyle, such as heterosexuality?

Clearly something isn't a "choice" if they permanently engage in the lifestyle without being able to choose a different lifestyle. If that is the case and homosexuality isn't a choice, per se, doesn't that suggest that the heterosexuals who specifically choose to "prevent life" are more responsible, since they chose it?

And if homosexuality is a choice, doesn't that mean a homosexual can choose to lead a heterosexual lifestyle, just like the hetersexual couple can choose to stop using contraceptives?

They could choose a heterosexual life, but I think that in most cases this wouldnt be advisable. Rather they are called to be freed from the prison of all sexuality; to engage in an intense self-discipline that results in the unique and beautiful freedom of self-mastery.

My use of the word 'permanent' was merely meant to indicate the implications of public expressions of sexuality, which most homosexuals seem to insist on (read: gay marriage). Ofc, they are not so moored to their sin if they have wisely chosen to retain their dignity and never make such dark thoughts - which they would know them to be - public.