Homosexuality in Australia (12 Viewers)

[zaxmacks]

No, it's not dumb. What are you trying to refute? So far you haven't provided a reason why my post is dumb.

And here's a credible case; the law is unconstitutional. There is no reason (other than Christian beliefs) why same sex couples should have less rights than a male/female couple.

Respond to my post, Name_Taken.

 

[Name_Taken]

But does the bible say anything about transexuals?

Also, insider trading is obviously wrong. Does the bible forbid it?

As far as I am aware, no it doesn't.

The Bible sys "one must not bear false witness", this is usually interpreted to forbid the carrying out of any dishonest conduct. Lying, concealing the truth, white-lies etc. Insider trading is a dishonest fraud.

 

[Iron]

You guys should realise that the Church regrets much of the secular (and misguided) law of this country, but we do sort of expect it. No-fault divorce, for instance, is still a very raw wound.
We are obligated to fight like wild-cats for our cause - Truth - but it's not the end of the world when we fail on this or any other issue. Understand that or you will mistake us.

We want to spread the word in a constructive/useful/genuine way, but ultimately we can only look after our members; baptised Catholics.

 

[Name_Taken]

Respond to my post, Name_Taken.

No, it's not dumb. What are you trying to refute? So far you haven't provided a reason why my post is dumb.

And here's a credible case; the law is unconstitutional. There is no reason (other than Christian beliefs) why same sex couples should have less rights than a male/female couple.

Lol, its already been covered.

First of all I would dispute whether marriage and adoption are even human rights to begin with.

(However, with things such as all the taxation and medical privideges currently not issued to homosexual couples, I think that should be ammended. Gay couples should get equal rights as married heterosexual couples, aside form the name of the union, i.e. "marriage" reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples and adoption which should only be granted to stable heterosexual couples joined in marriage).

Adoption is not even recognised within the UN Charter for Human Rights, and the desription of marriage would imply that it is between a heterosexual couple, for the purposes of facilitating a family.

It is unclear if the charter would condone gay marriage, as it does not specify it (to either confirm it or to deny it). This is enough to imply that it wasn't intented for inclusion, but w/e at best article 16 is open to interpretation.

And there are plenty of non-religious arguements which promote the keeping of gay relationships in the "civil union" level. I've posted them before.

 

[SnowFox]

And here's a credible case; the law is unconstitutional. There is no reason (other than Christian beliefs) why same sex couples should have less rights than a male/female couple.

(However, with things such as all the taxation and medical privideges currently not issued to homosexual couples, I think that should be ammended. Gay couples should get equal rights as married heterosexual couples, aside form the name of the union, i.e. "marriage" reserved exclusively for heterosexual couples and adoption which should only be granted to stable heterosexual couples joined in marriage).

But Christianity does not own the title of marriage, fuck how many times do we have to say this. The only reason the law has not been amended is because of religious babble cock spreading its legs in politics, the exact same thing is occurring with the R18+ rating, one daft buck toothed religious prat is spoiling it for everyone because he believes "Introducing a R18+ rating will harm kids".

As for adoption, homosexuals should have the choice of what to do, adoption should only be allowed when economical and social standards are reached.

 

[Iron]

/takes indefinite leave from team no homo

 

[Name_Taken]

Wow, this is coming from a guy..

So there really are guys who aren't horny, and don't masturbate at least once a month..

It's amazing what humans, especially this particular male, can withstand under all lustful pressure.

Good Job! You deserve an award for this.

GET REAL.

Self control, personal responsbility and a purpose in life; get some.

Umm, Well, in All the Asian countries, homosexuality is really normal.

Because of Yin-Yang, and Japan's Yaoi Manga, etc etc.

Probably because Christianity wasn't hugely popular there..

Because of Yin-Yang and a bunch of cartoons, homosexuality is totally accepted in Asian countries? Lol... ok. Like half of the Christians I know happen to be Asian, just so you know.

And I actually don't know what your post is trying to demonstrate.

God's a victim now?

Once he was a perfect guy, now he's a victim.

What's next?

What is this meant to mean?

Just because He is perfect does not mean you can't cause Him pain.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Umm, Well, in All the Asian countries, homosexuality is really normal.

Because of Yin-Yang, and Japan's Yaoi Manga, etc etc.

Probably because Christianity wasn't hugely popular there..

I don't agree with that statement.

 

[Name_Taken]

I LoL'd when you said half of the Christians you know happen to be Asian..

I mean c'mon half of the freakin' world is Asian!

Fair point I guess, but the distribution (to borrow a term from my biology textbook) of a population is varied in different locations. In other words, while 50% of the world is Asian, not necessarily 50% of people in Australia are Asian.

Oh yea, what's your purpose in life anyways? Right now I'm kinda lacking a purpose..

I gave up trying to study. I couldn't study for 10 hours like my parents requested.

Asian parents never change..

It would be hard to summise a purpose in like a single scentence of phrase, but;

To live by Gods law, to resist remptation, to love God and my fellow man and to glorify God through all my accomplishments and endeavours

- or something to that accord sounds about right.

Lol study, I'm starting to study for next year now, out of sheer boredom. In my somewhat dire state, any intellectual stimulation will suffice.

 

[SylviaB]

hey iron post a picture of yourself and your address okay

 

[Tangent]

This is getting a bit off topic.
Legally, religion has nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married. Therefore theoretically aust should allow same-sex marriage, because there is no other opposition to it.
Though aust. doesn't function like this because people always have their opinions, and these will always influence their decisions. This leads to remarks and speculations made by ignorant people who do not know what they are talking about, and who's lives it will never affect.
I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of sexuality, because it isn't. It's not like we are any different from anyone else. Sexuality makes up a small part of our lives. When will it be seen as accepted? When will it been seen as 'normal'? When will we be treated like individuals, instead of grouped together with other prejudice?

Maybe the glass ceiling is here to stay for a while yet.

 

[Name_Taken]

This is getting a bit off topic.
Legally, religion has nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married.

Australia is a democracy, not a theocracy, thus religious "rules" are not automatically made into laws. However, this nation has a past which has historically been based on the morals of the Christian faith, of which a large number of the population follows. This moral stance against homosexuality and gay marriage has to date been reflected in law.

Just as religious people can't force laws onto unbelievers, secular society can't force laws onto relgious people. Everyone has an opinion and has the right to campaign for their opinion (and those of others) to become law. It doesn't mean that simply because they believe in something that it must become law, and thus binding on everyone else.

Just because the Church and state are seperated (and rightly so in a demoncarcy) does not mean the religious arguements are to be ignored, they represent the views of a portion tax paying votering citizens and are to be respected.

Therefore theoretically aust should allow same-sex marriage, because there is no other opposition to it.

One never does something simply because there is no reason not to.

One does not make laws, because there is no opposition to it. One makes laws because they will benefit society. Rarely is it the case where everyone agrees with a new law, but the law is made nonetheless if the arguements in favour of its implementation are stronger than those against - if the expected benefits are greater than the expected cost.

As one who is in support of gay marriage being made law, it is up to you to provide the arguements in favour of the proposal.

And the very fact that this thread is now like over 300 pages long shows that there is indeed opposition to it being made law, despite your opinion.

The fact that the arguements proposed by your opposition do not hold much creidbility with you does not make them invalid, I'm sure many in your opposition may hold the same stance on your position.

So far, not a single arguement has been made by the pro-gay "rights" side which hasn't been shot down by its opposition. In fact not only has the "against gay marriage" side rebutted the case so far provided by the gay "rights" side, but it has put forwarded its own reasons (admittidly, however largly based on religiously inspired values, but reasons nonetheless) why it shouldn't happen.

Though aust. doesn't function like this because people always have their opinions, and these will always influence their decisions. This leads to remarks and speculations made by ignorant people who do not know what they are talking about, and who's lives it will never affect.

It's called democracy, no-one ever gets everything that they want. The best you can ever realistically hope for is a compromise, that goes for everyone. Stop complaining.

I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of sexuality, because it isn't. It's not like we are any different from anyone else. Sexuality makes up a small part of our lives. When will it be seen as accepted? When will it been seen as 'normal'? When will we be treated like individuals, instead of grouped together with other prejudice?

Why would someone make such a big deal out of stealing? Especially if its only something of little value, such as a loaf of bread? Its not the value of the item, its because stealing on a universal level is morally wrong.

Christians take the same approach to homosexuality. It doesn't matter if its consentual (well, TBH better consentual than not, but still); its becuase on a universal level it is morally wrong.

Now stealing can be tolerated, in some extreme circumstances, eg. a homeless guy stealing some food to eat. However, this is a matter of life and death, and so the man, despite having done wrong, can be excused; homosexuality and especially gay marriage are not matters of life and death. They are choices.

Furthermore, disallowing gay marriage will not hinder a persons right to choose to have gay sex or enter a relationship with someone of the same gender as them (however morally wrong it may be). One does not need the title of "marriage" to love another.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

GET REAL.

Lol you remind me of a maths joke.

GET RATIONAL!

edit: or is be rational?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

This is getting a bit off topic.
Legally, religion has nothing to do with same-sex couples getting married. Therefore theoretically aust should allow same-sex marriage, because there is no other opposition to it.
Though aust. doesn't function like this because people always have their opinions, and these will always influence their decisions. This leads to remarks and speculations made by ignorant people who do not know what they are talking about, and who's lives it will never affect.
I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of sexuality, because it isn't. It's not like we are any different from anyone else. Sexuality makes up a small part of our lives. When will it be seen as accepted? When will it been seen as 'normal'? When will we be treated like individuals, instead of grouped together with other prejudice?

Maybe the glass ceiling is here to stay for a while yet.

Spoken like a true homosexual!

We are not defined by our sexuality! It's time people see past that and accept us as equal human beings.

quote from simpsons: We're here! We're queer! Get used to it!

 

[GAYCU]

Interesting reading:What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

 

[Tangent]

Australia is a democracy, not a theocracy, thus religious "rules" are not automatically made into laws. However, this nation has a past which has historically been based on the morals of the Christian faith, of which a large number of the population follows. This moral stance against homosexuality and gay marriage has to date been reflected in law.

Yes, hence the theoretical part, and the ramble i posted about opinions of those in power stopping them acting logically (taking into account that this is a democracy, and that allowing same-sex marriage makes more sense than not allowing it...i suppose ill have to elaborate on this later, right now i just wanna get to bed, so ill let u get away with saying "nu-uh")

Just as religious people can't force laws onto unbelievers, secular society can't force laws onto relgious people. Everyone has an opinion and has the right to campaign for their opinion (and those of others) to become law. It doesn't mean that simply because they believe in something that it must become law, and thus binding on everyone else.

The major flaw with that statement is that some laws dont affect everyone. There is actually a law made for one person to keep him in jail after he served out his original term (which is against his human rights, but aust. doesnt have a bill of rights to protect them)...but i digress
If you are religious, then allowing same-sex marriages will not affect you at all. It will only affect the people who are getting married. It also affects their families and friends to a lesser extent (as it would any other marriage). Im guessing if one is religious and homosexual, bisexual etc. then they wouldnt even have a partner to get married too (with vow of celibacy and homosexual acts are the ultimate sin etc.).
You have no right to interfere in others lives, it is theirs to live. I respect that it works both ways, but in this instance it doesnt affect both groups of people.

Just because the Church and state are seperated (and rightly so in a demoncarcy) does not mean the religious arguements are to be ignored, they represent the views of a portion tax paying votering citizens and are to be respected.

I agree. though i dont think the argument should be heard just because it is religious, and i definitely dont think that it should be valued higher than anyone elses opinion. We're all citizens of australia.

One never does something simply because there is no reason not to.

One does not make laws, because there is no opposition to it. One makes laws because they will benefit society. Rarely is it the case where everyone agrees with a new law, but the law is made nonetheless if the arguements in favour of its implementation are stronger than those against - if the expected benefits are greater than the expected cost.

As one who is in support of gay marriage being made law, it is up to you to provide the arguements in favour of the proposal.

And the very fact that this thread is now like over 300 pages long shows that there is indeed opposition to it being made law, despite your opinion.

The only reason that this thread is 300 pages long is because the argument keeps going around in circles, and neither side relents. One stands for their faith, the other for their rights as human beings and happiness for themselves and others.
The reason why the burden of proof rests in religion is because there is no reason other than "because the bible says so"...and that isnt even a good one. Though i have to hand it to you guys, you do not lack in blind belief. I know many christians who are fine with homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, because they can see what the term "greater good" means.

on your position.
So far, not a single arguement has been made by the pro-gay "rights" side which hasn't been shot down by its opposition. In fact not only has the "against gay marriage" side rebutted the case so far provided by the gay "rights" side, but it has put forwarded its own reasons (admittidly, however largly based on religiously inspired values, but reasons nonetheless) why it shouldn't happen.

you have to be kidding me. you havent shot done any of the arguments our side poses, and that is why this thread is so long.

It's called democracy, no-one ever gets everything that they want. The best you can ever realistically hope for is a compromise, that goes for everyone. Stop complaining.

I could say the exact same to you. You have nothing to lose, and we have everything to gain.

Why would someone make such a big deal out of stealing? Especially if its only something of little value, such as a loaf of bread? Its not the value of the item, its because stealing on a universal level is morally wrong.

Christians take the same approach to homosexuality. It doesn't matter if its consentual (well, TBH better consentual than not, but still); its becuase on a universal level it is morally wrong.

I find it funny that u can compare stealing to homosexuality. And it does matter if you steal a loaf of bread compared to a bar of gold, mainly the sentence/fine and how pissed off the victim is (hence why its such a bad analogy).
You say it is morally wrong, yet it is only morally wrong for christians, or those of other religions who hold the same moral. Unless you push your religious beliefs on everyone else, then not everyone will hold it to be universally wrong. There is also the argument of "is there such a thing that is universally morally wrong", but i do believe there is another thread on that.
If its not consensual, the i find the that horribly disgusting and wrong. Though, morals are subjective. Consensual homosexual sex (as thats the only thing that religion finds wrong with homosexuals) i find to be universally right.

Now stealing can be tolerated, in some extreme circumstances, eg. a homeless guy stealing some food to eat. However, this is a matter of life and death, and so the man, despite having done wrong, can be excused; homosexuality and especially gay marriage are not matters of life and death. They are choices.

Now your analogy goes way out of hand. The rule of law still applies, even it is a homeless stealing a loaf of bread. Though i think you contradicted yourself there anyway.

in what way do u mean homosexuality is not a matter of life and death?
and although same-sex marriage is not a matter of life and dead, it can affect the rest of the lives of those involved. There is a lot in this world that we have that is not a matter of live and death. Actually, in this world there are those that die so we can have such a comfortable lifestyle. Dont you think that is universally wrong? Or are you to comfortable?

Furthermore, disallowing gay marriage will not hinder a persons right to choose to have gay sex or enter a relationship with someone of the same gender as them (however morally wrong it may be). One does not need the title of "marriage" to love another.

A valid point, though again i can say the same thing. Disallowing heterosexual marriage will not hinder a person s right to choose to have gay sex or enter a relationship with someone of the opposite gender (however morally wrong it may be). A couple does not need the title of "married" to love one another.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes, hence the theoretical part, and the ramble i posted about opinions of those in power stopping them acting logically (taking into account that this is a democracy, and that allowing same-sex marriage makes more sense than not allowing it...i suppose ill have to elaborate on this later, right now i just wanna get to bed, so ill let u get away with saying "nu-uh")

Lol, k.

Yeah, please elaborate later tho when you get a chance.

The major flaw with that statement is that some laws dont affect everyone. There is actually a law made for one person to keep him in jail after he served out his original term (which is against his human rights, but aust. doesnt have a bill of rights to protect them)...but i digress

Off topic but, really? Can you provide a citation? Most people I imagine are let out of jail before their scentence expires though (for various reasons; good behaviour, overcrowding, cost of keeping them incarcerated etc.).

If you are religious, then allowing same-sex marriages will not affect you at all. It will only affect the people who are getting married. It also affects their families and friends to a lesser extent (as it would any other marriage). Im guessing if one is religious and homosexual, bisexual etc. then they wouldnt even have a partner to get married too (with vow of celibacy and homosexual acts are the ultimate sin etc.).

I disagree, though you at least have a small point. It won't affect me personally (unless I am a gay getting married, or go to a gay friends wedding) in that sense but laws by default affect everyone and are binding to everyone.

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me (forget the Bible, being gay is ok etc). Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches (for one). If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc (gay people have already commenced their legal assualt on Chruches and buisnesses, and they're not allows to marry yet). So that is forcing it on me and others. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the Aboriginal and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me.

You have no right to interfere in others lives, it is theirs to live. I respect that it works both ways, but in this instance it doesnt affect both groups of people.

I agree. though i dont think the argument should be heard just because it is religious, and i definitely dont think that it should be valued higher than anyone elses opinion. We're all citizens of australia.

I never said because it was religiously inspired that made it superior to another arguement, simply that it was equally as valid and must be heard, since it represents the views of voting citizens. Its fine to disagree with the opinion they express but they have the right to let their voice be heard (as does everyone else).

I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases or be descriminated against etc, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it (marriage, adoption etc) and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no."

The only reason that this thread is 300 pages long is because the argument keeps going around in circles, and neither side relents. One stands for their faith, the other for their rights as human beings and happiness for themselves and others.

One side stands for moral righteousness and purity; the other for sinful lust, the removal of moral standards, and the utter destruction of the institution of marriage for which they have no right.

Both our statements are equally subjective, its all opinion and both as just as valid.

The reason why the burden of proof rests in religion is because there is no reason other than "because the bible says so"...and that isnt even a good one. Though i have to hand it to you guys, you do not lack in blind belief. I know many christians who are fine with homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, because they can see what the term "greater good" means.

The burden of proof in the "Should Australia legalise gay marriage?" debate rests firmly upon the shoulders of the affermative, those who support gay marriage and want it introduced (presumably along with gay adoption etc) into society.

Whether the reasons against gay marraige are religious or not, (and we have numerous points which don't relate to religion at all) does not take the burden of proof away form you in this debate. It always lies on the "affermative".

you have to be kidding me. you havent shot done any of the arguments our side poses, and that is why this thread is so long.

I would say we have. But then again, I'd be interested to hear any of your arguements and especially novel ones for that matter.

We’ve offered many arguments (these among others, these are the biggest you could say though). One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. We also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. We’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. We’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not (I'll assume you don't), we’ve offered a lot (not including religious reaosns lol) which hasn't been addresssed by your side.

I could say the exact same to you. You have nothing to lose, and we have everything to gain.

I don't think you have anything to gain, but we (as in both of us and society at large) have everything to lose.

I find it funny that u can compare stealing to homosexuality. And it does matter if you steal a loaf of bread compared to a bar of gold, mainly the sentence/fine and how pissed off the victim is (hence why its such a bad analogy).

Its all relative. Say the starving homeless guy stole the bread of another starving homeless guy, I would say that person was more inconvenienced than a multi-millionaire would be if someone stole a bar of solid gold from him.

You say it is morally wrong, yet it is only morally wrong for christians, or those of other religions who hold the same moral. Unless you push your religious beliefs on everyone else, then not everyone will hold it to be universally wrong.

Christian morals are not pushed on soceity at all. That much is evident by the fact that society actually endorses homosexuality itself (as in being gay in the first place), as well as things like sex before marriage and divorce. This state doesn't follow Christian morals very well at all if you think that it does indeed follow them.

If its not consensual, the i find the that horribly disgusting and wrong. Though, morals are subjective. Consensual homosexual sex (as thats the only thing that religion finds wrong with homosexuals) i find to be universally right.

That is because you (and many others) have abandoned the moral code of Christ and the Bible for your own diluted interpretation. I'm not saying I or anyone else should stop you (or even have the right to stop you) if w/e you're doing isn't hurting anyone but it doesn't make it any less wrong in my eyes, if you see where I'm comming from.

When gays campaign for marriage however, that when your personal choices are being brought into the public sphere and you try and force others to accept them, exaclty what you accuse me and other Christians of doing to you.

Now your analogy goes way out of hand.

Really, how? (It was only used as an example to draw parallels to other immoral deeds).

The rule of law still applies, even it is a homeless stealing a loaf of bread.

Thats sick, I wouldn't charge a starving guy for stealing bread, in fact I'd like to think that had I known, I would have given it to him out of charity before he would have to steal.

Though i think you contradicted yourself there anyway.

Explain how please.

in what way do u mean homosexuality is not a matter of life and death?

Well like some immoral things can be permitted in dire circumstances. For example, the afformentioned starving guy can't be judged if he is stealing food to stay alive, or especially if he is stealing to keep someone else alive.

Likewise, something like divorce, which is immoral (I'm against no-fault divorce, if you don't think you can last all the way with someone you shouldn't get married IMO) but has to be legisated for in some instances. Like an abusive partner, or a cheating partner etc.

There is no such imperative to allow homosexual marriage. It doesn't need to be done (well at least so far, no-one has provided any credible reasons why it has to be done).

and although same-sex marriage is not a matter of life and dead, it can affect the rest of the lives of those involved.

It's doesn't. Marriage is not required for love, or to live in a committed relationship to another. Nor does it infringe on a persons right to have sex with whoever they want (male or female, as long as its consentual ofc). I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have actually suggested be done). You have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society.
Marriage is a very public statement. A person can live happily in love with another for their entire life, but when they get married, that is when they bring their relationship into the public forum, thats when it becomes mine, and everybody elses buisness.

There is a lot in this world that we have that is not a matter of live and death. Actually, in this world there are those that die so we can have such a comfortable lifestyle. Dont you think that is universally wrong? Or are you to comfortable?

Ofc its universally wrong, as would be same sex marriage, I don't want either happening, whats your point?

A valid point, though again i can say the same thing. Disallowing heterosexual marriage will not hinder a person s right to choose to have gay sex or enter a relationship with someone of the opposite gender (however morally wrong it may be). A couple does not need the title of "married" to love one another.

I believe people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. Heterosexual marriage has been an integral part of every religion and culture in history. Homosexuality has openly been permitted in only a very select few (only very recently), and homoseuxal marriage has never been permitted before. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way (any person, whether they have homosexual urges or not can have a heterosexual marriage, we all have equal rights in that regard).

Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not always the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that homosexual behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice.

On a side note about heterosexual marriage, I think that heterosexual people should think longer about who they marry before they make the vows (else we wouldn't have such a high divorce rate). Marriage in general has become a much to flippant committment nowadays, and legalising homosexual marriage just brings the bar down to an all time new low.

Lol, massive post

 

[Name_Taken]

Interesting reading:What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality

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.

This guy can kid himself all he wants, its pretty clear to be frank that the Bible does not condone homosexuality.

I'm not saying gay people should be discriminated against and abused, they should be allowed to be gay if they so wish, its entirely their choice and I am no-one to tell them how to live their lives, as a gay person can't tell me who I should live mine.

Its possible to be gay, and to even love another person of the same gender, but having homosexual temptations and submitting to them is a sin, and forever will be, despite what anyone claims.

The Bible clearly describes gay sex and lust as a sin. Gays are no different to at all however to any other sinner on this Earth and are equally deserving (or undeserving to be more precise) of God's grace than anyone else. However, do not be fooled, homosexuality remains fundamentally immoral and any serious Christian should not believe that it is can ever be an acceptable "alternative".

A lie is still a lie, even if it is told and believed by millions.

 

[Kwayera]

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me (forget the Bible, being gay is ok etc).

And having it remain illegal isn't forcing your morality on us? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches (for one). If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc (gay people have already commenced their legal assualt on Chruches and buisnesses, and they're not allows to marry yet). So that is forcing it on me and others.

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.

When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the Aboriginal and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me.

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?

I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases or be descriminated against etc, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it (marriage, adoption etc) and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no."

Are you gay? Because that's pretty much the only way such laws could affect you.

One side stands for moral righteousness and purity; the other for sinful lust, the removal of moral standards, and the utter destruction of the institution of marriage for which they have no right.

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.

The burden of proof in the "Should Australia legalise gay marriage?" debate rests firmly upon the shoulders of the affermative, those who support gay marriage and want it introduced (presumably along with gay adoption etc) into society.

Whether the reasons against gay marraige are religious or not, (and we have numerous points which don't relate to religion at all) does not take the burden of proof away form you in this debate. It always lies on the "affermative".

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.

We’ve offered many arguments (these among others, these are the biggest you could say though). One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future.

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

We also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples.

Except that lesbian couples do better on average than heterosexual ones, and there's no difference between gay and heterosexual couples.

We’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference.

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?

We’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not (I'll assume you don't), we’ve offered a lot (not including religious reaosns lol) which hasn't been addresssed by your side.

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.

I don't think you have anything to gain, but we (as in both of us and society at large) have everything to lose.

Like what? (And lol at the melodrama)

Christian morals are not pushed on soceity at all.

LOL

Case in point eh?

When gays campaign for marriage however, that when your personal choices are being brought into the public sphere and you try and force others to accept them, exaclty what you accuse me and other Christians of doing to you.

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.

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

There is no such imperative to allow homosexual marriage. It doesn't need to be done (well at least so far, no-one has provided any credible reasons why it has to be done).

For the same reason we gave women the right to vote?

Marriage is a very public statement. A person can live happily in love with another for their entire life, but when they get married, that is when they bring their relationship into the public forum, thats when it becomes mine, and everybody elses buisness.

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?

Heterosexual marriage has been an integral part of every religion and culture in history. Homosexuality has openly been permitted in only a very select few (only very recently), and homoseuxal marriage has never been permitted before. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way (any person, whether they have homosexual urges or not can have a heterosexual marriage, we all have equal rights in that regard).

Change every instance of "homosexual" here to "female suffrage" and see why your argument is just retarded.

 

[Kwayera]

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.

This guy can kid himself all he wants, its pretty clear to be frank that the Bible does not condone homosexuality.

I'm not saying gay people should be discriminated against and abused, they should be allowed to be gay if they so wish, its entirely their choice and I am no-one to tell them how to live their lives, as a gay person can't tell me who I should live mine.

Its possible to be gay, and to even love another person of the same gender, but having homosexual temptations and submitting to them is a sin, and forever will be, despite what anyone claims.

The Bible clearly describes gay sex and lust as a sin. Gays are no different to at all however to any other sinner on this Earth and are equally deserving (or undeserving to be more precise) of God's grace than anyone else. However, do not be fooled, homosexuality remains fundamentally immoral and any serious Christian should not believe that it is can ever be an acceptable "alternative".

A lie is still a lie, even if it is told and believed by millions.

You.. didn't read it, did you?

Answer his theological premises, if you please.