Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

[NewiJapper]

The U.S, a Christian dominated country, has signs saying God hates fags.

www.godhatesfags.com is the website of that particular church I think. Great example of christians...

 

[supercalamari]

Can't we just live in peace and let people love who they want to love, believe what they want to believe?

 

[Flissty]

Can't we just live in peace and let people love who they want to love, believe what they want to believe?

No way. People are naturally generous and gracefully impose their greatness on the lesser human paeans.

 

[Flissty]

What? Like Christians?

No, god had nothing to do with it.

It's the filthy humans writhing in their own feces who have a god complex.






yeck.

 

[0bs3n3]

Well, non-Christians get Bibles shoved in their faces (metaphorically) upon walking in some unis etc. There is also persecution of gay people, as BlackDragon said.

Umm, no. Aren't unis cesspits for the left?

The U.S, a Christian dominated country, has signs saying "God hates fags". On the other hand, you don't have "I hate Christians" (God knows what will happen if you put that up in Alabama).

GG generalizing. All fags are flamboyant and flaunt their sexuality.

c i can do it 2

 

[ilikebeeef]

Umm, no. Aren't unis cesspits for the left?

No. You have all sorts of people in uni, political-wise. Religion also =/= right/left. Not all Christians are conservative. I, for example, was a non-conservative Christian.

GG generalizing. All fags are flamboyant and flaunt their sexuality.

c i can do it 2

I did not generalise, it is a fact that there are signs saying "God hates fags" in the U.S., most likely set up by the Westminster Baptist Church.

It is also a fact that in Alabama, there have been cases where people threaten to hurt those who show any sign of homosexual pride, as seen in one episode of Top Gear.

 

[Name_Taken]

Well, non-Christians get Bibles shoved in their faces (metaphorically) upon walking in some unis etc. There is also persecution of gay people, as BlackDragon said.
LOL No-one ever forces a Bible onto you, you can always just politely refuse, its not like they actually chain you down and make you read it, let alone believe. Belief in anything, can never be forced.

Persecution; please define what you mean by this. I am not persecuting anyone, condemning filthy behaviours as immoral is hardly persecuting anyone. I could say that theft is also immoral and should also not be tolerated, you would hardly say that I am persecuting thieves.

Then again, that analogy is too strong, since I don't care if people choose to be gay and carry out said immoralities, thats their decision.

The U.S, a Christian dominated country, has signs saying "God hates fags". On the other hand, you don't have "I hate Christians" (God knows what will happen if you put that up in Alabama).

Rofl, those signs are not Government endorsed and hardly represent the view of the US population. God doesn't hate anyone.

Those people (who belong to some rogue Church more resembeling a cult, condemned by other Christian groups) are either as ignorant as you can get or are just IRL trolls.

I am not ignorant. I have been a Christian before. I have experienced what it feels like to be Christian, "not easy" as you said and all. I was no longer Christian after I started to make full use of my logic. Christians on the other hand, do not use their logic on the matter of God, and accept their religion blindly.

Can I just ask how you logically came tol the position you currently have accepted (forgive me if I have forgotten, but you are agnostic right?).

That is not true. Not all homosexual relationships are based solely on sex, in the same way that not all heterosexual relationships are based solely on sex.

I would not say most heterosexual relationships are good examples of sexual morality either. Don't assume that we think a heterosexual relationship is good simply because it is heterosexual.

This is irrelevant however we are discussing the inherent immorality present in homosexuality.

We are human. Everyone has sexual desires. Don't tell me you don't, lol. There is nothing wrong with sex as long as it is between two consenting partners and use protection (unless they are trying to conceive).

I never said I didn't.

This saddens me. You think that sex is only good with contraception, as if it is merely some game you play with someone else for your own pleasure, and that the creation of life (lets face it that is it's fundamental purpose religious or not) should actually be avoided.

This is where discrimination comes in. The bit highlighted in bold is not only applies to heterosexual couples, but homosexual too.

Yes I know, I have never disputed that...

We stand against all forms of immorality, of which homosexuality is merely one example.

That is not true at all. A homosexual couple can have a better relationship than a heterosexual's. Clearly, yo see them as merely animals, when they are human just like you.

Whats a better relationship?

Yes, and why not? Why alienate them? What is wrong with giving people a sense of belonging? << lol

They don't have to be alienated, I don't want them to feel as such, let alone harrassed.

Its like you saying we're alienating alcoholics because we don't tolerate their behaviour...

There's nothing wrong with them as people, but Christian or not, some behaviours simply shouldn't be accepted in a civilised society. As a society that values individual freedom, I believe people should be able to get engaged in said practises, regardless of what I think of them, but we should not be promoting it as a perfectly healthy and normal "alternative" lifestyle when it is so very clearly not.

We are doing homosexuals a disservice themselves by promoting such behaviours as acceptable.

Half of my this debate consists of saying WHY it would be fair to give them exactly the same rights as everyone else, backed up with facts. The other half of what I have said consists of refuting your "facts".

But as citizens of this country, a person who identifies themselves as a homosexual does have exacly the same rights...

Point to me, please, where in any law in this country that the law states something along the lines of "an individual is entitled to ....., unless they identify themselves as homosexual in which case they are not".

There is no descrimination in our laws regarding gays. The law simply, and rightly so, doesn't recognise the legimitacy of such unions as being equal to that of marriage.

De facto couples are still recognised by the state and are protected by it.

First of all, what you have called "heterosexual unions" are legally referred to as "marriage". On the other hand, homosexual unions are not legally recognised as marriage. The word "marriage" should be analogous to saying the word "fruit" to include both apples and oranges.

No becuase marriage means apples.

Oranges are recognised as well, but an orange can never be recognised within marriage, since it isn't an apple.

They choose their behaviour because it is what feels right for them, but society condemns it. If you were Christian in an Atheistic society, then you would be alienating yourself. by your definition.

Yes, I most likely would be.

Simply because you or I feel the urge to act on a certain behaviour does not make it right for either of us, or for anyone else.

What is wrong with being politically correct? What is wrong with freedom?

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct. It is when people start believeing in a notion supported by flimsy pseudoscience and a lack of principles, and then demand that other should accept their behaviours as normal do disputes such as this occur.

Is it really any of your business how people dress? No. They do not have to change their behaviour for the sake of you, just as you do not have to change your behaviour for the sake of others.

If I dressed up as a Nazi and walked into a synagogue, is there a problem with that?

They are clothes after all, right? Just bits of fabric and leather and a few metal buttons.

But there is a problem with me doing that, because to do so would be offensive and even hurtful to many people in that context.

What makes the clothes that transvestites wear more "stupid" than yours? They are clothes after all.

I don't try and judge people by their appearance, but it is something that we are all guilty of doing.

Behaviour is part of who people are. Behaviour forms identity.

Not all behaviours are acceptable.

Behaviours are habits which are prone to change.

You say that all people deserve the same rights aka be treated equally, then you say that not all people should be treated equally. That is a contradiction on your behalf.

No I say that while all people are equal that doesn't make all behaviours by all people acceptable.

Fariness comes out of the fact that what is unacceptable for one person is also unacceptable for everyone else.

Once again, morality is subjective. Yes, change should only occur for the better, and giving people equal rights is a change for the better. This whole "equal rights for gay people"; wave is analogous to the feminist campaign "equal rights for women". Do you not oppose feminism then, too? Or maybe you do?

While there are some things about the modern feminist agenda which I am opposed to (abortion etc) I have no problem with the principle of women having legal and social equality as men.

It is not the homosexuals' fault that they can't reproduce, either.

Um... yes it is...

If I am capable of producing children but choose to engage in sexual practises which are unable of procuring life (be I having homosexual or heterosexual intercourse) it's entirely my fault.

It does not matter whether otherwise they will/will not be able to produce life or not, as they don't produce life anyway, both infertile and homosexual couples.

Yes, but the infertile heterosexual couple is not choosing to engage in activities which under normal circumstances are incapable of procuring life.

They are doing everything right, but are unable to, through no fault of their own, concieve.

Dude, I do biology. xD

K

Please stay on topic.

Thread isn't just about gay "marriage" but homosexuality in general, involves gay adoption.

If you define "pleasure" as bad, and infertile couples have sex BECAUSE they want pleasure (why would they have sex to conceive if they KNOW they are infertile?), then by your definition, it would be immoral.

No, experiencing personal pleasure from having sex is not immoral at all. Sex is a pleasurable thing and a natural way for a man and women to physically celebrate their love for one another, as well as how new life is created.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexual sex, within the context of marriage, provided it is not only enjoyed selfishly for the pleasure of the individuals involved, but as a means of celebrating their love for each other (and of God, should you believe) as well as being the (only) natural way by which a child can be brought into this world, and a family created. Simply becuase a couple cannot concieve does not mean sex is not meaninful or becomes an evil.

Then if you were gay, you would be a hypocrite.

I don't understand exaclty what you mean by this (I have a hunch) but can you clarify, please?

 

[0bs3n3]

No. You have all sorts of people in uni, political-wise. Religion also =/= right/left. Not all Christians are conservative. I, for example, was a non-conservative Christian.



I did not generalise, it is a fact that there are signs saying "God hates fags" in the U.S., most likely set up by the Westminster Baptist Church.

It is also a fact that in Alabama, there have been cases where people threaten to hurt those who show any sign of homosexual pride, as seen in one episode of Top Gear.

Yeah, but you took it further and said that all American Christians do these things.

 

[Name_Taken]

No. You have all sorts of people in uni, political-wise. Religion also =/= right/left. Not all Christians are conservative. I, for example, was a non-conservative Christian.

True, but lets not delude ourselves, Unis (and public schools) really are undeniably leftist.

I did not generalise, it is a fact that there are signs saying "God hates fags" in the U.S., most likely set up by the Westminster Baptist Church.

Its a massive generalisation on your behalf to assume that all Christians are like these f-tards. I saw an black guy drunk in the city the other day, does this mean all black people abuse alcohol?

One of those signs says "Pope in Hell" - I'm a Catholic and so I sorta don't subscribe to these idiot's moronic messages about Christianity.

It is also a fact that in Alabama, there have been cases where people threaten to hurt those who show any sign of homosexual pride, as seen in one episode of Top Gear.

Top Gear is TV, its all scripted, and if not, edited in such a way to make it as funny as possible.

Besides, once again it is a massive generalisation to assume all Christians are like the stupid inbred rednecks portrayed in the gas station scene in the US special.

All athiests are like Stalin and Mao, zmog oppressive communist scum!!11

 

[zaxmacks]

I saw an black guy drunk in the city the other day, does this mean all black people abuse alcohol?

Probably.

 

[ilikebeeef]

LOL No-one ever forces a Bible onto you, you can always just politely refuse, its not like they actually chain you down and make you read it, let alone believe. Belief in anything, can never be forced.

That's how us non-Christians feel like when Christians try to "evangelise" us. The pressure just gets annoying, no offence.

Persecution; please define what you mean by this. I am not persecuting anyone, condemning filthy behaviours as immoral is hardly persecuting anyone. I could say that theft is also immoral and should also not be tolerated, you would hardly say that I am persecuting thieves.

Then again, that analogy is too strong, since I don't care if people choose to be gay and carry out said immoralities, thats their decision.

Christians and homosexuals alike are persecuted in other nations.

Rofl, those signs are not Government endorsed and hardly represent the view of the US population. God doesn't hate anyone.

The government doesn't ban them, what does that say?

Haha, you would be surprised that the U.S. does have more conservative Christians than you think. Who voted for George Bush?

Does God hate people who go to hell?

Those people (who belong to some rogue Church more resembeling a cult, condemned by other Christian groups) are either as ignorant as you can get or are just IRL trolls.

They are just more extreme versions of conservative Christians, hence their more extreme ignorance.

Can I just ask how you logically came tol the position you currently have accepted (forgive me if I have forgotten, but you are agnostic right?).

Yes I would define myself as an agnostic, more specifically a secular humanist. While I neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of a higher being, I do not believe in "God" as Christians interpret it to be.

It does not make sense how a God can give humans "free will" and then threaten to send them to Hell if they do not use it in a way that HE wants them to. It is plain blackmail, and does not reflect his true all-loving nature which Christians claim that he has. Giving true free would involve saying something like "Okay do whatever you want, I won't intervene in your businesses, have fun"

EDIT: And, may I add, that if The Christian God is really that smart, then he wouldn't think that humans are so dumb to rely purely on faith and no proof or reliable evidence.

I would not say most heterosexual relationships are good examples of sexual morality either. Don't assume that we think a heterosexual relationship is good simply because it is heterosexual.

Exactly. That is why homosexual and heterosexual relationships should be viewed equally.

This is irrelevant however we are discussing the inherent immorality present in homosexuality.

I never said I didn't.

Well homosexuals would have sexual desires too. Hopefully you can understand that.

This saddens me. You think that sex is only good with contraception, as if it is merely some game you play with someone else for your own pleasure, and that the creation of life (lets face it that is it's fundamental purpose religious or not) should actually be avoided.

No that is not true, I do not oppose the creation of children.

It is better to have cherished children with parents who meant them to be here, then unwanted and illegitimate children sent to an orphanage, not to know who their parents are. Think about it.

Yes I know, I have never disputed that...

Exactly. That is why homosexual and heterosexual couples should be viewed equally.

We stand against all forms of immorality, of which homosexuality is merely one example.

Once again, morality is subjective.

Whats a better relationship?

More sustained and full of love. In the same way you suggested earlier in this debate that heterosexual relationships are "better" than homosexual ones. In the same way you said that heterosexual relationships work, but homosexual relationships are doomed to fail from the start.

They don't have to be alienated, I don't want them to feel as such, let alone harrassed.

While you may not explicitly say that you support the alienation of them, you are supporting it through your action of opposing Gay marriage, and through your arguments in this debate.

Its like you saying we're alienating alcoholics because we don't tolerate their behaviour...

Well, why don't we help them? I would support helping them out of their problems. On the other hand, homosexuality is not a problem. No one is getting hurt (if they are, it is because of discrimination).

There's nothing wrong with them as people, but Christian or not, some behaviours simply shouldn't be accepted in a civilised society. As a society that values individual freedom, I believe people should be able to get engaged in said practises, regardless of what I think of them, but we should not be promoting it as a perfectly healthy and normal "alternative" lifestyle when it is so very clearly not.

By not promoting it, you are suppressing it. This is discrimination, much like not employing actors with red hair to star on TV shows, so that the audience don't see people with red hair, as red hair "should not be promoted".

We are doing homosexuals a disservice themselves by promoting such behaviours as acceptable.

No. They WANT a fairer share of accepted society. It is not a disservice. In what way is it a disservice to themselves?

Half of my this debate consists of saying WHY it would be fair to give them exactly the same rights as everyone else, backed up with facts. The other half of what I have said consists of refuting your "facts".

But as citizens of this country, a person who identifies themselves as a homosexual does have exacly the same rights...

I already said that they are not legally allowed to marry. Please let us not go into this again. I have already proven you wrong on this matter several posts ago.

There is no descrimination in our laws regarding gays. The law simply, and rightly so, doesn't recognise the legimitacy of such unions as being equal to that of marriage.

This is discrimination in itself.

De facto couples are still recognised by the state and are protected by it.

It is still not the same. Nothing can refute the truth that homosexuals cannot legally marry, please stop trying to wade around the fact, and move on.

First of all, what you have called "heterosexual unions" are legally referred to as "marriage". On the other hand, homosexual unions are not legally recognised as marriage. The word "marriage" should be analogous to saying the word "fruit" to include both apples and oranges.

No becuase marriage means apples.

Oranges are recognised as well, but an orange can never be recognised within marriage, since it isn't an apple.

I already said that marriage can change to mean fruit if it becomes part of our law. Please be more flexible.

They choose their behaviour because it is what feels right for them, but society condemns it. If you were Christian in an Atheistic society, then you would be alienating yourself. by your definition.

Yes, I most likely would be.

Then it would not be fair for you in that situation, right?

Simply because you or I feel the urge to act on a certain behaviour does not make it right for either of us, or for anyone else.

Morality is subjective.

What is wrong with being politically correct? What is wrong with freedom?

There is nothing wrong with being politically correct. It is when people start believeing in a notion supported by flimsy pseudoscience and a lack of principles, and then demand that other should accept their behaviours as normal do disputes such as this occur.

Intolerance is formed from a lack of principles. Human rights in themselves are a principle.

Is it really any of your business how people dress? No. They do not have to change their behaviour for the sake of you, just as you do not have to change your behaviour for the sake of others.

If I dressed up as a Nazi and walked into a synagogue, is there a problem with that?

I do not have a problem with that.

I am Chinese. The Japanese murdered heaps of my ancestors. But if someone wore military Japanese clothing and said hi to me, I wouldn't have a problem, as long as they don't mean to harm me.

They are clothes after all, right? Just bits of fabric and leather and a few metal buttons.

Yes they are, indeed.

But there is a problem with me doing that, because to do so would be offensive and even hurtful to many people in that context.

Andrew Hansen dressed up as Hitler and walked into a Polish club for The Chaser's War on Everything. The club members took it in good humour.

I don't try and judge people by their appearance, but it is something that we are all guilty of doing.

It is your own opinion that they are stupid. Not everyone shares your opinion. Stupidity in that matter is subjective.

Behaviour is part of who people are. Behaviour forms identity.

Not all behaviours are acceptable.

Therefore you don't find all identities acceptable. Therefore you are intolerant of some identities and wouldn't mind alienating them.

Behaviours are habits which are prone to change.

It is still part of identity. Identities change. But people choose their identity. Who people are are none of your business unless they hurt you directly.

You say that all people deserve the same rights aka be treated equally, then you say that not all people should be treated equally. That is a contradiction on your behalf.

No I say that while all people are equal that doesn't make all behaviours by all people acceptable.

I already said that behaviour forms who people are. It is a known fact. Through this, you are saying that they are NOT equal. Please don't make me say this again.

Fariness comes out of the fact that what is unacceptable for one person is also unacceptable for everyone else.

So would you say that it is fair to make it unacceptable for anyone to have red hair?

I have no problem with the principle of women having legal and social equality as men.

Gay people want their rights too. Now don't say that they do have equal rights, I have clearly demonstrated that they don't, due to their inability to legally marry.

It is not the homosexuals' fault that they can't reproduce, either.

Um... yes it is...

I meant homosexual couples. It's not their fault homosexual couples can't reproduce.

the infertile heterosexual couple is not choosing to engage in activities which under normal circumstances are incapable of procuring life.

It does not matter whether or not children are produced. Please distinguish the topic of children from the topic of homosexual relationships.

Thread isn't just about gay "marriage" but homosexuality in general, involves gay adoption.

I was debating from the start about the rights of gay people, not gay adoption. I started the debate between me and you.

If you define "pleasure" as bad, and infertile couples have sex BECAUSE they want pleasure (why would they have sex to conceive if they KNOW they are infertile?), then by your definition, it would be immoral.

No, experiencing personal pleasure from having sex is not immoral at all. Sex is a pleasurable thing and a natural way for a man and women to physically celebrate their love for one another, as well as how new life is created.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexual sex, within the context of marriage, provided it is not only enjoyed selfishly for the pleasure of the individuals involved, but as a means of celebrating their love for each other (and of God, should you believe) as well as being the (only) natural way by which a child can be brought into this world, and a family created. Simply becuase a couple cannot concieve does not mean sex is not meaninful or becomes an evil.

Exactly the same thing can be said for homosexuals, except the pleasure and "celebration" is not between a man and a woman.

Then if you were gay, you would be a hypocrite.

I don't understand exaclty what you mean by this (I have a hunch) but can you clarify, please?

If you were gay, you would you support your own homosexuality?

 

[ilikebeeef]

Yeah, but you took it further and said that all American Christians do these things.

I did not.

 

[0bs3n3]

I did not.

The U.S, a Christian dominated country, has signs saying "God hates fags".

Not Westboro Baptist Church, but the "U.S, a Christian dominated country". The whole country?

 

[ilikebeeef]

Not Westboro Baptist Church, but the "U.S, a Christian dominated country..." as if you're implying there is some sort of correlation?

The U.S. is such a Christian-dominated country that religion has gone overboard to the point where you get all this weird paranoid behaviour going on, and people get hurt.

But I did not mean that all American Christians are like that. There are such things as open and accepting non-conservative American Christians, although what proportion of American Christians are like that I do not know.

 

[Name_Taken]

The U.S. is such a Christian-dominated country that religion has gone overboard to the point where you get all this weird paranoid behaviour going on, and people get hurt.

But I did not mean that all American Christians are like that. There are such things as open and accepting non-conservative American Christians, although what proportion of American Christians are like that I do not know.

I think you are very ignorant if you truly believe in the sterotyping of Christians within America as the primary source of the US's various social problems, of which this "gay right" movement isn't one...

The USA is a democratic country, simply because you may not agree with the opinions of many of its people (not saying that I agree with every or even most US Christians on various issues etc.) doesn't make their opinion any less valid than yours.

 

[supercalamari]

Persecution; please define what you mean by this. I am not persecuting anyone, condemning filthy behaviours as immoral is hardly persecuting anyone. I could say that theft is also immoral and should also not be tolerated, you would hardly say that I am persecuting thieves.

I find it sad that some young people still think like this. Who are the gays hurting by loving each other? Not you.

 

[NewiJapper]

i find it sad that some young people still think like this. Who are the gays hurting by loving each other? Not you.

+1.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I find it sad that some young people still think like this. Who are the gays hurting by loving each other? Not you.

its human nature to alienate those who are different.

and god must've had so good "lols" when he put the prostate in the male rectum

 

[supercalamari]

its human nature to alienate those who are different.

and god must've had so good "lols" when he put the prostate in the male rectum

Oh my, I bet he did.

What was he thinking when he invented the pigs?

I'm sure God does have a sense of humour. And he loves people.
Galatians 3:28, guys!

 

[Name_Taken]

I find it sad that some young people still think like this. Who are the gays hurting by loving each other? Not you.

Look thats great ok, I have no problem with other people falling in love and doing whatever they feel is necessary to demonstate this love behiend closed doors.

If I did, I'd be calling for a ban on homosexuality, or to make pracising it punishable.

I respect others enough to allow them to govern their own personal lives, regardless of whether I think what they are doing is right or wrong.

But once again, introducing gay marriage and adoption does not suddenly allow gay people to love each other or to have sex, they can do both of these presently, and have unions which are recognised and protected by the government. Face it or not, there is no need whatsoever for us to defile marraige in the name of making special allowances for an unatural behaviour.