• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Homosexuality in Australia (4 Viewers)

What do you think of homosexuality in Australia?

  • Yes, i strongly support it.

    Votes: 674 48.5%
  • I somewhat support it.

    Votes: 201 14.5%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 182 13.1%
  • I do not support it.

    Votes: 334 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,391
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
YouTube - Weathering the Storm (Response to NOM Gathering Storm)

YouTube - Offense Taken

Those against gay marriage primarily base their arguments around those found in texts written TWO THOUSAND years ago and fail to acknowledge that perhaps things may have changed since then. We obviously don't base our entire lives around the Bible anymore, otherwise we'd still be stoning adulterers etc etc. We've dropped those traditions because we understand them to be outdated and cruel. So what gives the lines within the Bible anymore credence than those advising the stoning of adulterers? Tell me that. If you, and others like you were truly, truly as intent on sticking to the Bible as you seem, go and live your life by such gems of wisdom as:

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

22:29 Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
I mean, they're such great pieces of advice, really. Who wouldn't want to kill their kids for 'cursing' them, or give up their first born child?
 
Last edited:

GAYCU

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
24
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
There is nothing wrong with being gay. The Bible teaches that it is wrong to have homosexual sex.

This guy failed to address this crucial point.
I think they dealt with that very extensively actually. Have another read. You will find that they state that the Bible does not condemn gay people nor homosexual sex per se. They address those verses which have been erroneously used to condemn homosexual sex.
 

GAYCU

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
24
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
This is an abridged copy of a post I have posted elsewhere in this forum. It is here for the person I was discussing with to continue that discussion in this more appropriate thread. It was in reference to the same Soulforce link I posted earlier.

************************************
My reading of the link I posted is that it is very much about looking closely at what the Bible says but obviously our understanding of what the Bible says is different.


1) Genesis - Adam and Eve

I agree with you. It is about God the Creator and about human relationships.

In the first account of Creation, God creates humankind:

Genesis 1:27 (NRSV) "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them"
What do we find out: God created all of humankind. Humans can be male or female. People can multiply. Fantastic. Thank you. Praise to God. Nothing condemning homosexuality.

In "Another account of Creation", Genesis 2:18

"It is not good that the man should be alone; I shall make him a helper as his partner."
God doesn't want the man [Adam] to be alone. So God creates animals.

2:20 "but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner"
So God creates "Woman".

Fantastic. First human relationship. First the man had a relationship with God then God created animals to be his partner, that didn't work so then he created the Woman to be his helper. Brilliant. Fantastic for them both.

Then:

Gen 2: 24"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
This one I find interesting because Adam had no father and mother as such, he was made "out of dust" but I digress.

There's no talk of same-sex relationships. There's no talk of "marriage".

Even if there was it doesn't necessarily fit that "He made marriage to be between a man and a women [sic]". God made both the man and the woman, that does not make same-sex relationships "unnatural".

Cain magically finds a wife in 4:17. In 4:19, Lamech takes two wives (the 7th generation according to 4:19 but the 9th in the different genealogy given in 5). If you want an interesting summary of how the Bible talks about marriage, watch: YouTube - Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else

As Alan Segal puts it, marriage in the Bible is "one man and as many women as he could pay for."

Genesis 2 does not "clearly show that God created sex to unite a husband and wife and to reproduce". "And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed" does not talk about "sex", nor does it talk about "reproduction". It certainly doesn't follow that naked = "sex" = husband and wife = reproduction. That is reading what you want to read. There is nothing about same-sex relationships, there is nothing about "unnatural". How does "unnatural"= bad (eg polyester)? How can something God creates be "unnatural"?


2) Romans 1:26-27 (and the one you did not quote, Romans 2:1)

I've been quoting the NRSV so I will post those:
For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error - Romans 1:26-27
Romans 1:28-31 lists more behaviour eg murder, gossip, slanderers etc.

You dismiss the context that the soulforce readings puts on the passage so maybe you'll listen more closely to the Bible. To read in context, if you go back and read Romans 1:18-25, Paul is talking about those who worship false Gods and do not honor God:
21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...
23 they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
The reason that God gave them up in Romans 1:26, the bit you quoted, is in the preceding passage:
25 because they exchanged the truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed forever.
Ok so now that the Bible has told you that people weren't honoring God and were worshiping false idols and the soulforce reading has told you about people worshiping false gods in other temples through orgies and prostitution, let's look at Romans 1:26.

"women exchanging natural intercourse for unnatural" - it doesn't necessarily follow that "natural intercourse" = penis in vagina sex and "unnatural" = everything else.

Men "consumed for passion with one another" and committing "shameless acts" does not mean the "shameless acts" were about being gay or about gay sex. Just because two men commit a "shameless act" does not automatically make the shameless or unnatural bit the gay bit. In the same way, a man and a woman can commit 'shameless" or "unnatural" acts together, that does not mean opposite sex relationships are blanketly bad. God is not condemning them because of their sexuality, He is condemning them because they are obsessed with pleasure and not honoring Him.

The people in Romans 1 were rejecting God. I and many other same-sex attracted people do not reject God. We love Him and honor Him. God has not abandoned us. Our sexuality is not some kind of punishment.

I have not given up heterosexuality for homosexuality because I was never heterosexual.

I am not any more "lustful" than heterosexuals. I am in a long-term committed relationship with my partner. It is as fulfilling and natural as any heterosexual relationship. To compare my relationship to some mass orgy in a temple is offensive and downright wrong.

To sum up, I'll quote from the next verse in the Bible:

Therefore, you have no excuse, who ever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself - Romans 2:1
 
Last edited:

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
And having it remain illegal isn't forcing your morality on us? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I’m giving reasons why I think gay marriage (an oxymoron if ever there were one) should not be introduced.

You are doing the opposite, so to be technical you are advocating a lack of morality. And you have yet to raise a substantial and credible case as to how this obtuse rejection of morality serves to benefit society (and not just provide anything more than an ego boost to the leaders of the "gay rights" movement.

No, no, and ah, no. Churches already have the right to not marry anyone they choose. A friend of mine is getting married at a very strict pre-Vatican II congregation (there's like one of them in Sydney) and she has to prove that her fiancee isn't atheist (he is) otherwise the head dude won't marry them. And that's legal, and fair, to be honest. A church can marry whomever the hell they want to, and not who they don't want to. No one is demanding that churches set aside their "morals" and marry gay couples.

What largely isn't and shouldn't be legal is discrimination in hiring, but that's an unrelated issue.
We all know marriage is only one goal of the “gay rights” movement. To them it is nothing but a milestone, to atheists it is nothing but a party, to me it is a holy sacrament, and to see it being defiled in ways which do not bear contemplation is disheartening to say the least.

There was a case where a group of gay people sued a dating website for not allowing an option for users to search for same sex couples.

There was another case where a lesbian couple sued a wedding photographer because they refused to sell their service to them because they were opposed to gay marriage.

Kwayera, you cannot seriously deny that legalising of gay marriage would lead to a higher occurrence of such incidences and encourage greater exploitation of sexual orientation discrimination laws - the end result of which would be to promote greater tensions between religious groups and homosexuals (and their sympathesisers). This need not occur.

And lets get this straight (no pun intended ;)) you’re saying that Churches should have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to reject homosexual couples from being married? (Personally I think if gay marriage has to happen, this would have to be an essential component of a compromise). If every Church was perfectly serious about their interpretation of the scripture, NO Church would undertake such a ceremony.

(Now I know there are those institutions who are too lax in their interpretation of God’s word who already have conducted such ceremonies; among other blasphemies, for example allowing female bishops etc). My point is any religious institution who is more dedicated to the following of the fundamental scriptures of their religion (not just Christianity) rather than looking “cool” in the social light would reject gay marriage anyway.

Eventually, gays, once allowed to marry, will start demanding all Churches respect their unions.

And there are much the same discriminations against women in the Bible as there are exhortations about the supposed evils of homosexuality (much more actually). Or do you disagree with women's rights and equality amongst races and ethnic backgrounds? Do you disagree with interracial marriage? Is teaching about the feminist movement forcing ideas of gender equality onto you and your kids? What's the difference between that and the teaching of sexual orientation equality?

:rolleyes:
You cannot equate the homosexual “struggle for rights” to that of blacks in America, Aborigines in Australia and women’s suffrage.

Firstly, women, blacks and Aboriginies were being unfairly exploited by society. None of them had equal rights. Gays do not face such persecution.

Everyone in our society has the same rights. Everyone is allowed to marry, everyone is allowed to adopt kids and everyone is allowed to have kids. There are provisos however to all of these; to marry you must be marrying one consenting person of the opposite sex.

Just because a small selection of the population doesn’t seem content to marrying someone of the opposite sex, does not mean the institution of marriage is to be defiled in such a heinous manner.

Are you gay? Because that's pretty much the only way such laws could affect you.
Nah I’m not but a large number of people ask for reasons I can't identify.

And a law by its definition affects everyone. I can say (as an example) laws regarding driving don't affect me becuase I don't ahve a car (or a lisence) and I catch public transport pretty much everywhere or walk.

This would be wrong, because laws are binding on everyone, and just because I don't drive doesn't mean the road laws will affect me (not directly, but they still do).

What institution of marriage? The one where women were sold to husbands as property? Where her virginity was the price of her life? Where men could have as many wives as he could afford because they were a business transaction?

Institution of marriage? Lol. You don't even know what that means.
Haha, enlighten me then.

Mathew 19:4-6

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
Sure. But you've been unable to successfully argue against our arguments except for "but the Bible says so!" which is an invalid argument in this kind of debate, being an entirely subjective one.
What have you’re arguments even been? May I ask for a summary, please? Likewise, I’ll concisely rebut each and provide a summarised version of the conservative counter-argument if you want.

So far, the pro gay case seems to be limited to “we choose to be gay and we want you to treat us as if we haven’t made the choice, despite what your sense of morality may tell you, most people think being gay is ok, so it is”. Not worded that way, of course, but words to that effect and arguments to that futility.

Easier to promote freedom and equality! Shock! No, we wouldn't want that!

We already have equality. Marriage is an option for all Australians; the proviso being it must be between one man and one women (because thats what marriage is by fundamental definition). Ergo "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Discrimination (as in violence, insults etc) (usually) occurs when gays openly segregate themselves from the rest of society and make a point of being different. But as I have said, I'm not pro-violence or oppression, people should be able to do what they want, but keep what belongs behiend closed doors where it should be kept.

What gays don’t want is the right to marry (since they already have that) they want the alteration of marriage to encompass their individual lifestyle choices. This is akin to legalising a behaviour (which only a small minority of the population even takes part in). It could be compared to legalising a drug (just a comparison, homosexuality =/= drugs I know) because a group of people think it is fine and ok, even if only a small proportion of the pro-drug movement actually use it themselves.

And freedom from what? Gay people can hardly claim they are being persecuted (like IDK in some cases where they are getting bashed up or attacked, I could see why, but I’m not involved in that and I don’t stand for that at all). Gay people are free, they have the right to love each other, to practise their homosexuality as they see fit, and to celebrate their “individuality” and choice to do so every year in Mardi Gras parades...

Except that lesbian couples do better on average than heterosexual ones, and there's no difference between gay and heterosexual couples.
I’ve seen this tossed around a lot. Can you provide a citation please?

Either way, IMO it demonstrates nothing. Heterosexual couples and the family will always be the preferable, natural institution through which a child should be raised. I’m not saying some individual homosexual people wouldn’t be great parents or that some heterosexual couples aren’t terrible parents, but every child deserves both a mother and a father. Some don't get them, because one parent may die or may get a divorce (but even then they still have a mother an a father). Homosexual adoption is unfair and immoral since it fundamentally denies a child this right. Sure many heterosexual marriages don't work the way they should be, but gay adoption never even provides the initial chance of the child being raised properly.

Being homosexual is not a behavioural preference. Homosexual sex admittedly is, as much as heterosexuality is, but that has little to do with marriage legality. And how do you get special rights? If anything, heterosexuals have special rights, not the other way around. We're fighting to extend those rights to homosexuals and thus make it equal.

What about that is so hard to understand?
I hold nothing at all against a homosexual person who practises abstinence. As far as their sex-life is concerned they are doing nothing immoral.

I don’t oppose homosexuality as in the sexual preference towards people of the same gender; it is the practising of such lust which is the sin.

Sin relating to sex is hardly restricted to homosexuals either, as I have pointed out numerous times, in our society, heterosexuals commit just as heinous perversions openly. In general our society is obsessed with immoral sex, I don’t blame a small group for this, its not just homosexuals, society’s entire direction has diverted off the track and is slipping towards the abyss.

The slippery slope is very real. (As a light hearted example) How many times have you been watching TV when you should have been studying and you say “oh just one more ad break...” – it just doesn’t happen.

If one were to legalise gay marriage, why not polygamy next (after all, it’s just consenting adults, and its impeding their happiness and “rights” if we don’t let them). After that, what about incest (people may claim possible birth defects affecting potential children, but this could be averted if it were made law that couples had to undergo a vasectomy or w/e prior to marriage). What makes the homosexuals’ “right” to marriage and adoption more legitimate and greater than that of these people?

Except they don't, and except we have addressed your reasons. It's not our fault if you stick your fingers in your ears because you don't like the answers.
But there have already exists multiple examples of precedence where gay couples are seen exploiting sexual orientation discrimination laws, even before marriage is legalised (if it is to be).

Like what? (And lol at the melodrama)
A society which has forsaken all morality and indulges in a perpetual orgy of it's citizens pleasure and stands for the freedom of individuals to destroy themselves in this way has nothing. Accept it or not, this is the direction we are heading. Legalising gay marriage is just another small step towards the West’s oblivion.

In 200 or so years someone will wake up, but let’s just not hope it’s too late by then.

LOL

Case in point eh?
I am expressing my view. Please, this country is not a theocracy; it encourages sex before marriage, the use of contraception, homosexuality, divorce and now gay marriage. And that’s just sexual immoralities.

This is not a Christian state, unbelievers are hardly being oppressed here. If anything I could be a cry-baby and say that in fact it is the faithful who are being persecuted by heathen saying “oh because your argument is based on a religion which I don’t believe in, its invalid”.

Being gay is not a personal choice. Being Christian, however, is. Your personal choices are affecting the freedoms of those who can't help being born gay.
Lol...

Every time you have sex with someone you are making a choice are you not? Every time you have sex outside of marriage you are making that choice. Every time you have sex with someone of the same gender as you, you are making a choice.

Everytime you have sex with your spouse after marriage, you are making a choice.

Feeling a lust towards a person or not may not be a conscious decision, but having immoral sex always is, and society shouldn’t have to make allowances for those who choose to do wrong.

A person is not defined by what they think or feel, but by their actions, hence homosexuality and heterosexuality and abstinence are all choices of the individual.

You’re in the young Liberals, shouldn’t you understand the notion of personal responsibility?

And the "personal choice" of homosexual sex has absolutely nothing to do with marriage in this context, so your argument is invalid.
So sayeth the unbeliever.

For the same reason we gave women the right to vote?
Homosexuals can vote. A homosexual can do everything a heterosexual can in our society, and likewise a heterosexual can do everything a homosexual can. There should be no differentiation between “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” this just emphasises the differences between individuals, I prefer to think of everyone collectively as “people” - some of which choose to participate in immoral sexual behaviours (can be between two people of the same sex or of opposite sexes) while others choose the path of the righteous.



This is not an issue of equality.

Marriage is a public statement to.. who? You have no right to interfere with the marriage of any heterosexual couple. Why do you suddenly claim a right when they're gay?
Because heterosexual marriage is always wholesome, good and natural. Homosexuality by itself is a perversion of love and sex, it shouldn’t be made one of marriage as well.

Does marriage mean anything to you?

Change every instance of "homosexual" here to "female suffrage" and see why your argument is just retarded.
No I disagree. You cannot see its merits nor appreciate them, this does not make it “retarted”.


As we have discussed before, there was very real exploitation by women prior to women’s liberation. Homosexuals do not have the same social and moral imperative for change required to instigate gay marriage, they are not being denied any rights, they simply want more and for the sake of all things moral left in this world the answer must be "no".
 
Last edited:

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,874
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
If marriage truly is a religious institution, then I'm assuming that you agree we should take away any legal rights associated with being married, no?
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Can you stop changing the font, font colour and size? It's really annoying when quoting to have to remove it all.

I’m not forcing anything on anyone. I’m giving reasons why I think gay marriage (an oxymoron if ever there were one) should not be introduced.
If you would vote against a proposal to legalise gay marriage, then it is forcing your opinion. Hence, my accusation stands.

You are doing the opposite, so to be technical you are advocating a lack of morality. And you have yet to raise a substantial and credible case as to how this obtuse rejection of morality serves to benefit society (and not just provide anything more than an ego boost to the leaders of the "gay rights" movement.
Once again you cannot force your version of morality onto society. You can follow it yourself, but you cannot make it the basis of legislation. It may be an obtuse rejection of morality, but it's an obtuse rejection of your morality, not an objective one.

We all know marriage is only one goal of the “gay rights” movement. To them it is nothing but a milestone, to atheists it is nothing but a party, to me it is a holy sacrament, and to see it being defiled in ways which do not bear contemplation is disheartening to say the least.
Um, tell that to the gay couples who want to get married?

And fuck you, you clearly have no idea what marriage would mean to an atheist like myself. It's more than a fucking party, you arrogant and ignorant fool.

Marriage means different things to different people. Your religious wankers have no claim on the title of marriage; they never had that right and they should not have it now.

Unless you advocate the return of polygamous business transactions as marriages, as in the Bible.

There was a case where a group of gay people sued a dating website for not allowing an option for users to search for same sex couples.

There was another case where a lesbian couple sued a wedding photographer because they refused to sell their service to them because they were opposed to gay marriage.
Your point? There was a case recently when a couple sued their civil celebrant (!) for refusing to marry them because they were an interracial couple and he didn't agree with that.

We should be fighting against discrimination everywhere, unless you think that civil celebrant was well within his rights.

Kwayera, you cannot seriously deny that legalising of gay marriage would lead to a higher occurrence of such incidences and encourage greater exploitation of sexual orientation discrimination laws - the end result of which would be to promote greater tensions between religious groups and homosexuals (and their sympathesisers). This need not occur.
If it leads to equality as it has for women and those of ethnic heritages, then that can only be a GOOD thing. As far as I'm concerned, religious groups can kiss the arse of those homosexuals if it means they're treated equally.

It is BEYOND RETARDED RETARDED that you discriminate against someone based on who they choose to sleep with. My god, enough is enough.

And lets get this straight (no pun intended ;)) you’re saying that Churches should have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to reject homosexual couples from being married? (Personally I think if gay marriage has to happen, this would have to be an essential component of a compromise). If every Church was perfectly serious about their interpretation of the scripture, NO Church would undertake such a ceremony.
Churches already have this right.

(Now I know there are those institutions who are too lax in their interpretation of God’s word who already have conducted such ceremonies; among other blasphemies, for example allowing female bishops etc). My point is any religious institution who is more dedicated to the following of the fundamental scriptures of their religion (not just Christianity) rather than looking “cool” in the social light would reject gay marriage anyway.
Well, okay, good for them. No one's asking them to accept it/marry gay couples. Your point?

Eventually, gays, once allowed to marry, will start demanding all Churches respect their unions.
Just like churches have to respect interracial unions? (Actually I don't believe they even have to do that)

You cannot equate the homosexual “struggle for rights” to that of blacks in America, Aborigines in Australia and women’s suffrage.

Firstly, women, blacks and Aboriginies were being unfairly exploited by society. None of them had equal rights. Gays do not face such persecution.
Don't they?

*pointed look*

Everyone in our society has the same rights. Everyone is allowed to marry, everyone is allowed to adopt kids and everyone is allowed to have kids. There are provisos however to all of these; to marry you must be marrying one consenting person of the opposite sex.
Just like there used to be provisos that you had to marry someone of the same race, right?

Just because a small selection of the population doesn’t seem content to marrying someone of the opposite sex, does not mean the institution of marriage is to be defiled in such a heinous manner.
Doesn't seem content?! Again, you display your breathtaking ignorance and contempt.

And a law by its definition affects everyone. I can say (as an example) laws regarding driving don't affect me becuase I don't ahve a car (or a lisence) and I catch public transport pretty much everywhere or walk.
Those laws affect you if you, say, drive a car. You can't be fined for speeding if you don't drive a car.

Ergo, you can't be affected by gay marriage if you aren't gay.

This would be wrong, because laws are binding on everyone, and just because I don't drive doesn't mean the road laws will affect me (not directly, but they still do).
No, they affect your bus driver. You're not going to get arrested if he speeds.

Haha, enlighten me then.

Mathew 19:4-6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage
Ah, so here we get into it! It's not generic religious marriage you care about, it's CATHOLIC marriage! And presumably all of Australia must then bow to the 26% of the population that are Roman Catholics!

You disgust me.

What have you’re arguments even been? May I ask for a summary, please? Likewise, I’ll concisely rebut each and provide a summarised version of the conservative counter-argument if you want.
- that the only "valid" arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, which is invalid as this is a secular country and laws promoting equality/removing discrimination trump the protection of religious sensibilities
- arguments that detail gay marriage "destroying society" are ludicrous
- arguments that detail gay marriage as "destroying the institution of marriage" are ludicrous, as religion has no claim over what marriage means for people not of their faith, nor does it have any claim over the word
- something something
- there are no sane arguments against gay marriage
- profit?

So far, the pro gay case seems to be limited to “we choose to be gay and we want you to treat us as if we haven’t made the choice, despite what your sense of morality may tell you, most people think being gay is ok, so it is”. Not worded that way, of course, but words to that effect and arguments to that futility.
For the last time:

BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.

How many times do we have to say this before it penetrates your very thick skull?

We already have equality. Marriage is an option for all Australians; the proviso being it must be between one man and one women (because thats what marriage is by fundamental definition). Ergo "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
Just like being the same colour used to be the proviso? :rolleyes:

Discrimination (as in violence, insults etc) (usually) occurs when gays openly segregate themselves from the rest of society and make a point of being different. But as I have said, I'm not pro-violence or oppression, people should be able to do what they want, but keep what belongs behiend closed doors where it should be kept.
Oh so they should hide what they are. Your argument essentially is: "WOMEN WHO DRESS LIKE SLUTS DESERVE TO BE RAPED/GAY MEN WHO ACT GAY DESERVE TO BE BASHED"

What gays don’t want is the right to marry (since they already have that) they want the alteration of marriage to encompass their individual lifestyle choices. This is akin to legalising a behaviour (which only a small minority of the population even takes part in). It could be compared to legalising a drug (just a comparison, homosexuality =/= drugs I know) because a group of people think it is fine and ok, even if only a small proportion of the pro-drug movement actually use it themselves.
No, they want the same marriage rights as anyone else. Clearly this is a foreign concept for you.

And freedom from what? Gay people can hardly claim they are being persecuted (like IDK in some cases where they are getting bashed up or attacked, I could see why, but I’m not involved in that and I don’t stand for that at all). Gay people are free, they have the right to love each other, to practise their homosexuality as they see fit, and to celebrate their “individuality” and choice to do so every year in Mardi Gras parades...
They just can't do what heterosexuals do, and get married and adopt. Because that would be bad. Uh huh.

I’ve seen this tossed around a lot. Can you provide a citation please?
Gays make fine parents, psychologist testifies

Lesbian parents raise happy, healthy children according to 22-year study - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

Lesbian women 'make better parents', says Government adviser | Mail Online

etc

Either way, IMO it demonstrates nothing. Heterosexual couples and the family will always be the preferable, natural institution through which a child should be raised.


Why? They're not better. Are you saying every single parent should shack up with someone because it's the "preferable, natural institution" through which you think a child should be raised?

I’m not saying some individual homosexual people wouldn’t be great parents or that some heterosexual couples aren’t terrible parents, but every child deserves both a mother and a father. Some don't get them, because one parent may die or may get a divorce (but even then they still have a mother an a father). Homosexual adoption is unfair and immoral since it fundamentally denies a child this right. Sure many heterosexual marriages don't work the way they should be, but gay adoption never even provides the initial chance of the child being raised properly.
The studies indicate that overall - overall, not just anecdotally - lesbian parents are BETTER that heterosexual parents. So, really, for the good of the child, all children should be raised by lesbian parents. Right?

And where is this right to a mother and a father stated? Where does it come from? Why is it the "preferred" or "best" method? (Hint: it isn't.)

I hold nothing at all against a homosexual person who practises abstinence. As far as their sex-life is concerned they are doing nothing immoral.
Oh so you only care when they have sex. Because it's immoral to you. And because it affects you so much what someone does in their bedroom.

Seriously dude, no-one likes a nosy parker.

(blah blah sin blah blah destroying society, jesus dude, cite your references please that prove that "immoral sex" is destroying society, unless you're part of the crazy fringe that believe gays did the Haiti earthquake)

The slippery slope is very real. (As a light hearted example) How many times have you been watching TV when you should have been studying and you say “oh just one more ad break...” – it just doesn’t happen.
..okay?

If one were to legalise gay marriage, why not polygamy next (after all, it’s just consenting adults, and its impeding their happiness and “rights” if we don’t let them).


And what's wrong with that? Hey, polygamous marriages are in the Bible. They're traditional. You should have no problem with it!

After that, what about incest (people may claim possible birth defects affecting potential children, but this could be averted if it were made law that couples had to undergo a vasectomy or w/e prior to marriage). What makes the homosexuals’ “right” to marriage and adoption more legitimate and greater than that of these people?
It doesn't. Let them get married!

But there have already exists multiple examples of precedence where gay couples are seen exploiting sexual orientation discrimination laws, even before marriage is legalised (if it is to be).
Exploiting or using for intended purpose? But oh, you don't think that gays should be able to fight for rights. They should be CONTENT with what the overly-generous society has given them, right? Put up or shut up?

Legalising gay marriage is just another small step towards the West’s oblivion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
GAYS DID 9/11

I am expressing my view. Please, this country is not a theocracy;


THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A THEOCRACY. THEREFORE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE THEOCRATIC VALUES UPON IT.

it encourages sex before marriage, the use of contraception, homosexuality, divorce and now gay marriage. And that’s just sexual immoralities.
Tell someone who cares?

This is not a Christian state, unbelievers are hardly being oppressed here. If anything I could be a cry-baby and say that in fact it is the faithful who are being persecuted by heathen saying “oh because your argument is based on a religion which I don’t believe in, its invalid”.
It IS invalid because your religion affects YOU. YOU. It shouldn't have to affect anyone else who doesn't choose to believe in it.

What about this is so hard to understand?

Feeling a lust towards a person or not may not be a conscious decision, but having immoral sex always is, and society shouldn’t have to make allowances for those who choose to do wrong.
Wrong to YOU. Not the country! Not everybody! Fucking hell, ARE YOU SO ARROGANT AND EGOTISTIC THAT THIS DOES NOT MAKE SENSE?!

You’re in the young Liberals, shouldn’t you understand the notion of personal responsibility?
Personal responsibility and personal liberty.

Homosexuals can vote. A homosexual can do everything a heterosexual can in our society, and likewise a heterosexual can do everything a homosexual can. There should be no differentiation between “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals” this just emphasises the differences between individuals, I prefer to think of everyone collectively as “people” - some of which choose to participate in immoral sexual behaviours (can be between two people of the same sex or of opposite sexes) while others choose the path of the righteous.
Yeah but you are creating difference. You are CREATING difference by not allowing them to marry people they love, while heterosexuals can marry those they love.

Now that I think of it, that was a dehumanising technique used by conquerors on vanquished cities/civilisations. Make them second class citizens by not allowing them to vote, own property, marry..

This is not an issue of equality.
"BLACK IS WHITE BECAUSE I SAY SO"

Because heterosexual marriage is always wholesome, good and natural. Homosexuality by itself is a perversion of love and sex, it shouldn’t be made one of marriage as well.
Ahahahaahahahah

Does marriage mean anything to you?
Clearly more than it does to you.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
he understands that being gay is not a choice. he says that having homosexual sex is a choice, however, and that we (as in homosexuals) should try, with all our might to not to engage in homosexual activity.
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
he understands that being gay is not a choice. he says that having homosexual sex is a choice, however, and that we (as in homosexuals) should try, with all our might to not to engage in homosexual activity.
Sometimes he appears to understand that and sometimes not. I'm just clearing it up.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Sometimes he appears to understand that and sometimes not. I'm just clearing it up.
lol, one can understand your frustration. however, might i ask you to put yourself in his shoes. he was most probably brought up his entire life to believe in something. something that deep - almost innate - doesn't go away that easily. but i have hope for him yet. don't you worry name_taken. we'll save you.:haha:
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
lol, one can understand your frustration. however, might i ask you to put yourself in his shoes. he was most probably brought up his entire life to believe in something. something that deep - almost innate - doesn't go away that easily. but i have hope for him yet. don't you worry name_taken. we'll save you.:haha:
Both my parents are Bible-loathing libitarian nutcases like many on these forums. (None of my grandparents are religious either and neither is anyone in my close family).

I don't go to a Catholic school, I can't go to Church until I move out.

I chose to go to scripture classes after school, I chose the right path, ok and it sure as heck wasn't forced down my throat.

Don't make assumptions on how I was probably "religiously indoctrinated" because let me tell you it didn't happen. My mum would freak if she should I had a Bible in my room.

***

Kwayera, I'll deal with your post later. Its too much effort at the moment; its just so... flawed. And I was going to say that I appreciated your civil approach to the deabte so far, but I guess I can't anymore. You can hardly condemn me for being the insensitive prick with the amount of personal attacks in your last post.

From what I read though - you STILL havn't listed any actual reasons as to why gay marriage should be legalised. All you've done is attack the religious portion (only) of the counter case. The burden of proof is on you. Fufill it or fail. I'll post a summary of the religious and non-religious points against the defilement of matrimony only once you are able to put a case for the proposal together in the first place.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Both my parents are Bible-loathing libitarian nutcases like many on these forums. (None of my grandparents are religious either and neither is anyone in my close family).

I don't go to a Catholic school, I can't go to Church until I move out.

I chose to go to scripture classes after school, I chose the right path, ok and it sure as heck wasn't forced down my throat.

Don't make assumptions on how I was probably "religiously indoctrinated" because let me tell you it didn't happen. My mum would freak if she should I had a Bible in my room.
mate chill! i never said anything about you being "religiously indoctrinated" but whatever.
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
mate chill! i never said anything about you being "religiously indoctrinated" but whatever.
You said I was like brought up to believe this for my whole life or w/e.

I've been atheist most of my life anyway, only found faith maybe 2 years ago? and for the first 18 months I wasn't really true to it, its only been recenlty that I've "really" started believing if that makes sense.

Lol I am "chilling" ;P
 

Name_Taken

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
846
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Ok just in general, message for team gay/rights w/e you call yourselves, please just come up with some points as to why gay marriage should be legalised; don't try and pre-empt counter arguements yet - just focus on building a case first. Please.
 

abbeyroad

Active Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
891
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Both my parents are Bible-loathing libitarian nutcases like many on these forums. (None of my grandparents are religious either and neither is anyone in my close family).

I don't go to a Catholic school, I can't go to Church until I move out.

I chose to go to scripture classes after school, I chose the right path, ok and it sure as heck wasn't forced down my throat.

Don't make assumptions on how I was probably "religiously indoctrinated" because let me tell you it didn't happen. My mum would freak if she should I had a Bible in my room.

***

Kwayera, I'll deal with your post later. Its too much effort at the moment; its just so... flawed. And I was going to say that I appreciated your civil approach to the deabte so far, but I guess I can't anymore. You can hardly condemn me for being the insensitive prick with the amount of personal attacks in your last post.

From what I read though - you STILL havn't listed any actual reasons as to why gay marriage should be legalised. All you've done is attack the religious portion (only) of the counter case. The burden of proof is on you. Fufill it or fail. I'll post a summary of the religious and non-religious points against the defilement of matrimony only once you are able to put a case for the proposal together in the first place.
blah blah blah yeah why don't you exercise your freedom to kill yourself.
 

SeCKSiiMiNh

i'm a fireball in bed
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,618
Location
island of screaming orgasms
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Ok just in general, message for team gay/rights w/e you call yourselves, please just come up with some points as to why gay marriage should be legalised; don't try and pre-empt counter arguements yet - just focus on building a case first. Please.
ohhh team gay... i like that.

well my point is:
- if 2 males or 2 females love each other, then they should have as much right as anyone to marry each other. the reason why people want to marry is to solidify their commitment, celebrate their relationship and to declare their love for one another to the world, not to fulfill the traditional criteria of having one male and one female in a relationship.
 

GAYCU

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
24
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Ok just in general, message for team gay/rights w/e you call yourselves, please just come up with some points as to why gay marriage should be legalised; don't try and pre-empt counter arguements yet - just focus on building a case first. Please.
I want to marry my long-term partner. I am denied that right because my partner is female. I love her and want to spend the rest of my life with her. I want our commitment and our love to be recognised by the state in a ceremony for the same reasons that straight people want to marry their partners. I want our relationship to be recognised as equal to a man and woman getting married because our relationship is equal and should not be treated as anything less by the state.
 

lonely-lass

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
330
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
I somewhat support it. Homosexual people are never wrong coz they feel that way simple! There is no reason to look upon them with abomination or disgust.
 

GAYCU

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
24
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
please just come up with some points as to why gay marriage should be legalised.
1. Please come up with some points as to why YOU should be able to get married.
2. Should opposite sex marriage be legalised?
3. Why should you be able to marry the person you love when I can't?

After you have answered these questions, your right to marriage will then be put to a vote (cause human rights are decided by popular vote, dontcha know?). Even if the majority are on your side, the minority will still claim the majority and deny you your rights under the guise of "it's tradition" or "even though 70% support it's still not popular enough in the electorate so we'll just bury the reports recommendations" :p

It disgusts me that my rights are subject to a vote and are debated as if I was not a fellow human being.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)

Top