Homosexuality in Australia (11 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

Lol... Why is it that every gay person takes this stance and acts so bloody defensively? Do any of you know anything about the Christian faith?!

Ahahahaah roflcopter

Here's a hint: he knows much, much more than you do.

 

[kelly tully]

Imagine arguing with Pwar about the Bible and Christianity.

Imagine.

 

[Name_Taken]

I just want to kill myself.

Dun do it muder is a sin

No it doesn't. By legalising gay marriage, nobody is forcing you to change your view. You can still sit in your corner and believe that gay marriage is wrong. You do not have to accept it.

I'm sure there are many things which are legal which you do not accept or agree with. Am I correct with this statement?

Lol, yes OFC.

Homosexual marriage is not in the scripture. Lots of things that are in the scripture are contravened by every day life.

1. According to the scripture, you're not supposed to have sex before you marry. Lots of people co habitat and have sexual relations before marriage. Marriage is still permitted in these circumstances.

Lots of people do it so that makes it ok amirite? I also condemn such behaviour as I do homosexuality.

2. According to you this is wrong because it is against the scripture, yet you do not preach from the corners against those who have premarital sex with the same ferocity that you do with homosexual marriage.

Um... yes I do. This thread is about homosexuality, and gay marriage to a lesser extent, not about sex outside of marriage. If we had a thread about general sexual immoralities or sex out of wedlock, I’d be saying the same things.

3. This leads me to believe that your underlying motive is not actually this undying belief in the scripture (which I will get to), but that you're actually a latent homophobe.

Read above.

4. I draw this conclusion because according to you, homosexuals are ok - until they engage in homosexual activity. I don't buy this, I think deep down you still have a tendency to dislike homosexuals and homosexuality.

If you don’t accept what I say as my actual opinion then that’s fine for you, though its wrong, I have gay friends (not saying that this proves much, since you could just deny that if you didn’t feel it was true) but for what its worth I am not a homophobe. I detest the sin, and not the sinner.

5. You're an idiot and you're insane and you're not a great person. You are taking these morals you believe were created by God (pop quiz, they weren't) and you are not questioning them, you are just accepting them as being correct because God says so. Ignoring the historical context in which the Bible was written.

Lol, I’m not an idiot, I’m not insane and I am a nice person (once again for what its worth, reject what I say as much as you are content to).

Other than that, read above.

I know this was directed at Kway, but cut out the strawman arguments. They're petty and ridiculous. OMG GROW UP KWAYERA U CANT EVEN DONE SPEEK PROPERLY COZ U IS MEAN LOL

No I was telling her to grow up, there is a difference.

Correct! Just like if gay marriage is legalised, nobody is forcing the Churches to marry homosexuals. They will still have the right to refuse, as they have the right to refuse anyone else they do not see fit to marry. I don't get why this is an issue for you. Legalising same sex marriage does not automatically mean the Churches are legally mandated to marry homosexual couples.

Get a grip.

If every Church was true to the scripture, then gays would be unable to get married anywhere anyway. It just so happens however that some have forsaken the Truth for popularity (The Uniting Church comes to mind) so they and every other unbeliever can (and in the case of gays, probably will) be able to have their “marriage” if you call it that, there.

What does that even mean? What is "the flow"? Are you suggesting that homosexuals "choose" to go against the flow? That homosexuals "choose" to encounter the discrimination and the stigma and the brick wall they face, despite the fact that if they pretended to be in a heterosexual relationship, they could get married tomorrow. Despite it being a bold faced lie?

Are you going to sit here and say to all the homosexuals posting that they really choose to go against the flow deliberately? Are you fucking nuts?

I didn't see what Kwayera posted, but people do not choose to be homosexual. It's the opposite. In many instances it's homosexuals CHOOSING TO DENY THEIR HOMOSEXUALITY in order to "fit in" according to whatever bullshit constraints of normality you think exist.

Eurgh, I’m sick of repeating myself... Yes it is a choice, just like heterosexuality is a choice. No-body is ever forced to sin, a person’s fate is always in their own hands. They can only commit evil when they allow themselves to. (Not saying homosexuality is the only sexual immorality, heterosexuals are on average are usually just as bad).

Homosexuality isn't an art you dick, they don't "practice" homosexuality, just like I don't "practice" heterosexuality.

Yea you are, every time you have sex.

Society has nothing tangible to gain from homosexual marriage, just like it has nothing to gain from heterosexual marriage. Your argument is invalid. Marriage in any capacity does not contribute to society, except to produce this figments of what "should" and "should not" be.

I dare YOU to challenge me on that.

Done. Well firstly, marriage to society means little to me; personally it is a holy sacrament, a way of celebrating your love for another and of glorifying God.

At large however, marriage serves a very fundamental purpose. It celebrates the combining of a man and women, so that they may unite into one. It represents the beginning of a family, whereby a mother and father (joined by marriage) care for their children in a secure, loving environment.

Homosexuals cannot naturally produce children (to be more precise, they choose to engage in activities which prevent them from doing so). Homosexual sex merely provides pleasure to those involved, it serves no higher purpose. Heterosexual sex however (within marriage) is a celebration of God’s gift to humanity, a way of glorifying Him and the way by which a child is brought into this Earth. It is good and wholesome on all levels.

Homosexual sex, is merely a perversion of God’s gift, and while it is fine to feel love towards one of the same gender to you (e.g. as a boy would love his father) it is wrong to be tempted into physical romance with people of your own sex (this is established very clearly within the Bible so I won’t go into details). As such a homosexual relationship is by default not equal to that of a heterosexual couple in Gods eyes. Now fine should you reject God you can do what you want, the state is able to provide the same legal protection to homosexual couples as it can heterosexual couples without having to destroy marriage for those who use it as it was intended.

Well I've finally found the crux of your issue. You're an imbecile.

Well obviously it was a drastically simplified example, but considering the amount of times I’ve had to repeat myself on this thread this far, simple is probably the only way I can get the Truth across.

No, nobody is asking you to accept it. Just like I don't accept your beliefs or practices. But I don't vote against them because they have no impact on my every day life. Just like homosexual marriages is going to have no bearing on your life.

That’s just great, because I’m not going to accept it. Think of this post as me simply expressing my unacceptance of it, as yours is basically you declaring your acceptance of it.

People defile marriage every day. So unless you are going to campaign against marriage for:

people who are divorced
people who have children outside of marriage
couples who live together before marriage
two athiests getting married in a church because they think the church is pretty
etc

You have no logical argument against homosexual marriage.

But I do oppose all of these; among others.

I can come up with a hundred examples of things that had "always been" that changed. I want to see your list of things that have changed that shouldn't have

Yea but I bet you couldn’t give me one hundred reasons as to why society should change in the case of homosexual marriage, actual reasons as to why it should be accepted, not pre-emptive attacks towards the predicted counter arguements.

For the record, homosexuality has also "always" been.

Murder has always been as well, do we accept that nowadays?

Marriage between a man and a women as always been as well. Care to comment?

The argument for homosexual marriage is that these people are humans, that they are in loving and stable relationships, raising children, contributing to society (much better than a lot of heterosexual married couples) and that despite their heterosexual counterparts, they are not awarded the same rights.

A pair of 15 year olds can be in a loving and stable relationship, and they can really mean their attraction for each other, do we let them get married?

Marriage by definition is between a man and a women, gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Marriage is not a right.[/quote]

My doctor is a lesbian and has a child with her girlfriend. If they should ever break up, she has no legal parental rights in relation to that child (because she did not give birth or donate an egg). Yet she is contributing financially and emotionally to this child, just as a heterosexual mother or father.

You said it was for a loving and stable relationship first of all, how would that possibly be the case if they broke up?

This problem can be solved without marriage. Either by giving gay couples and defacto relationships the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage, or by prohibiting adoption by gay couples.

Homosexual couples that have been in long term relationships are not entitled to claim their deceased significant others superannuation or belongings (unless specified in a will and even then because their relationship is not legally acknowledged it can be contested).

This problem can also be solved by awarding gay couples equal legal status to married heterosexual couples without the need to defile marriage.

Definitions change. Language is fluid. Values are fluid. Culture is fluid. etc etc etc

Morals are absolute, the Truth is also.

Say we concede it does not directly benefit society (apart from the benefits it would bring those in a relationship). It doesn't harm society either.

Lol... if it doesn’t benefit society – then why are we doing it?

One doesn’t make a law, because there is no reason not to (despite the fact that in this debate there is very strong opposition), can’t you see the obvious stupidity in that suggestion?

Historically, let’s have an example. Women’s lib wasn’t just granted because women wanted rights and asked for them.

Women were actively treated as inferior members of society and denied fundamental rights (e.g. to vote etc) this is not the case with homosexuals who presently enjoy equal rights under the law.

Society had so much to benefit from allowing women into the workforce (women were and are just as proficient as men in most jobs). Society could suddenly tap into this vast reservoir of labour and intellect which was being wasted before. Obviously there was much more to it than that, but it is one reason why society benefited from women’s lib.

We have yet to see such justification as to why legalising gay marriage would benefit us. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative to demonstrate this and they haven’t. The best we’ve seen are some various attacks on religion, but attacking points in the counter argument when you don’t even have a case of your own (which by default you require, having the burden of proof) is why this discussion hasn’t got very far.

There are reasons as to why we should not do it, however of these it could be said that many of them (not all) relate to religion and are therefore only relevant to a small aspect of society, but they are reasons nonetheless. And even if it were weak; a feeble case still defeats a nonexistent case.

Well aren't you an upstanding member of society!

Iknorite?

Probably not going to get bashed, no. I know plenty of instances where people have gone to the Mardi Gras with the intent of preaching. None of them have come back on a stretcher. Do you have examples to the contrary?

Yea, I do. One of many:

Religious Liberty Cases | Harry Hammond

Of course homosexuals are not immune to perpetrating violence. This is because despite their sexual preference, they are human? Dude what is wrong with you?

But yet they claim to be the victims of such a cruel, oppressive society, indifferent to their hardship...



EDIT: I know formatting sorta screwed up, oh well, I can't really be bothered fixing it now, its too late, you can still read it I guess.

 

[kelly tully]

Dun do it muder is a sin

Suicide, you dolt.

 

[kelly tully]

Heterosexual sex however (within marriage) is a celebration of God’s gift to humanity, a way of glorifying Him and the way by which a child is brought into this Earth. It is good and wholesome on all levels.

By that logic, people who cannot have children should also be precluded from marriage.

 

[xeuyrawp]

That’s great, I was quoting the NIV, but w/e thanks for your interpretation as well. Both translations (yours and the NIV) equate to the same message however, I don’t see what your point is.

The article cites the passage to mean that homosexual marriage is sinful, which, according to my interpretation of that passage, is incorrect. Rather, the message of the passage is that marriage is important. I can't disagree. This is why I want to get married.

The Bible condemns homosexuality quite clearly (this is not in dispute I assume?).

I'm not sure if you realise, but the Bible wasn't written by one person. It's not a homogeneous text.

The books Old Testament clearly condemn homosexuality. In a New Testament passage you cited, Jesus said something along the lines of 'You cannot follow my laws without following the laws of Moses'; ie, it's trying to reconcile the differences between ancient (at that time) laws and the more modern laws of Jesus.

Therefore, by the logic of that passage, you said that since Jesus followed the laws of the OT, Jesus would have disapproved of homosexuality. I completely agree with this; I would have been very surprised if Jesus would have accepted any forms of homosexuality - it was forbidden by Jewish law, other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, and even (technically) by the Roman military.

However, you want to judge homosexuality by that (reasonable) logic, yet not judge others, including yourself, by it? Homosexuality breaks the law against it. How many are you breaking? In fact, if I were a queer Jew, I would be breaking far fewer laws than you, not least of all one of the Decalogue - 'keep the Sabbath holy'.

As an informed Christian, you surely know that the Decalogue would have been far more important to Jesus than the rest of the Jewish laws. For argument's sake, I could easily respect the Sabbath (really not that hard), and you would be a far greater sinner than I.

I am just as evil, corrupted and sinful as you or anyone else on this Earth, or anyone throughout history.

If you say so. I don't want to prove Godwin's Law, but I for one am certainly not as evil, corrupted and sinful as some other people I can think of.

If I were religious, I'd hope that I wouldn't want to walk around with that incredible guilt you seem to carry.

 

[kelly tully]

Iron is the only one I know of that flagellates himself. The only true repentant on the BOS forums.

 

[NewiJapper]

quoting the love thy neighbour as they would do to you etc.

If your nextdoor neighbour was a gay couple and you and your partner got married and they had nothing wrong with it, would you still follow judgement and be fine with their bonding of love or is it still wrong?

I'd prefer a Yes or No answer.

 

[Name_Taken]

quoting the love thy neighbour as they would do to you etc.

If your nextdoor neighbour was a gay couple and you and your partner got married and they had nothing wrong with it, would you still follow judgement and be fine with their bonding of love or is it still wrong?

I'd prefer a Yes or No answer.

"Love thy neighbour" doesn't actually refer to ones like actual neighbour, its a reference to your fellow man, to everyone.

And can you explain your question, I don't really get what it is you're asking (IDK it might just be because I'm tired but w/e). Thanks alot if you can.

 

[NewiJapper]

sorry not the love thy neighbour one, the do what as one does to you one. Sorry, not much of a bible quoter at all. Going off my 3 years of primary scripture lol

If a gay couple was happy for you to get married with a woman, would you be happy if they got married as well seeing as they had no problem with yours?

 

[Name_Taken]

The article cites the passage to mean that homosexual marriage is sinful, which, according to my interpretation of that passage, is incorrect. Rather, the message of the passage is that marriage is important. I can't disagree. This is why I want to get married.

Ah ok I see where you're comming from with that. Yeah ok, just because it doesn't mention it doesn't mean homosexual marriage is specifically described as evil.

But as I said before, the fact that it was establishing Gods plan for marriage and it did not describe homosexual marriage as being part of that plan, would strongly imply that it is not what God intended. Sort of like how it did not describe a polygamous relationship, likewise it can be inferred that that was not a part of God's plan for marriage etc.

I'm not sure if you realise, but the Bible wasn't written by one person. It's not a homogeneous text.

Lol, yes I was aware of that.

The books Old Testament clearly condemn homosexuality. In a New Testament passage you cited, Jesus said something along the lines of 'You cannot follow my laws without following the laws of Moses'; ie, it's trying to reconcile the differences between ancient (at that time) laws and the more modern laws of Jesus.

Therefore, by the logic of that passage, you said that since Jesus followed the laws of the OT, Jesus would have disapproved of homosexuality. I completely agree with this; I would have been very surprised if Jesus would have accepted any forms of homosexuality - it was forbidden by Jewish law, other Ancient Near Eastern cultures, and even (technically) by the Roman military.

However, you want to judge homosexuality by that (reasonable) logic, yet not judge others, including yourself, by it? Homosexuality breaks the law against it. How many are you breaking? In fact, if I were a queer Jew, I would be breaking far fewer laws than you, not least of all one of the Decalogue - 'keep the Sabbath holy'.

I do. I know I have fallen short of many if not most of the laws of the OT, as does almost everyone else (gay or straight etc). I'm not judging people because they break these laws (I break them as well), rather I am urging them to see that despite that, these rules are important and should be obeyed at all times when possible.

I know I can't help it often in spite of my intentions but when I do break said rules, I don't take pride in my sin. If you see where we're comming from in regards to the whole "gay pride" movement? There are many things in life that everyone should celebrate, but their choice to sin (whatever sin it may be) should never be one of them.

As an informed Christian, you surely know that the Decalogue would have been far more important to Jesus than the rest of the Jewish laws. For argument's sake, I could easily respect the Sabbath (really not that hard), and you would be a far greater sinner than I.

Well all sins are equal (and forgiveable, except for blasphamy against the holy spirit). The sabbath mentioned in the Bible does not (I think) refer specifically to a Sunday, it was just the chosen day (logically, being the 7th day) to celebrate God by most religoius insitiutions. I usually have at least one day of rest every week anyway (however I admit it is not often set aside purposly to give thanks to the Lord). But as I have already conceeded, we're all sinners.

If you say so. I don't want to prove Godwin's Law, but I for one am certainly not as evil, corrupted and sinful as some other people I can think of.

If I were religious, I'd hope that I wouldn't want to walk around with that incredible guilt you seem to carry.

I wouldn't think of it as guilt weighing you down, rather the Truth sets us free.

 

[kelly tully]

Lots of people do it so that makes it ok amirite? I also condemn such behaviour as I do homosexuality.

If lots of people do things that do not lead to the detriment of others, I can't see why not. At this very moment, there would be countless people engaging in homosexual activities. There are also countless homosexual couples, right at this very moment, showing love and affection for each other and their family.

This does not pose a burden on you. You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it - the only time this burdens you is when you go out of your way to oppose it.

m... yes I do. This thread is about homosexuality, and gay marriage to a lesser extent, not about sex outside of marriage. If we had a thread about general sexual immoralities or sex out of wedlock, I’d be saying the same things.

Of course, and you'd still be wrong.

If you don’t accept what I say as my actual opinion then that’s fine for you, though its wrong, I have gay friends (not saying that this proves much, since you could just deny that if you didn’t feel it was true) but for what its worth I am not a homophobe. I detest the sin, and not the sinner.

The old 'of course i like gays, i have gay friends canard lol'. Do these friends engage in homosexual sexual activities? Do you preach to them often? Do you tell them on a regular basis that they're sinful and that their actions are an offense to God? And they're still your friends?

I don't believe you have homosexual friends. Not for a minute.

If every Church was true to the scripture, then gays would be unable to get married anywhere anyway. It just so happens however that some have forsaken the Truth for popularity (The Uniting Church comes to mind) so they and every other unbeliever can (and in the case of gays, probably will) be able to have their “marriage” if you call it that, there.

Sure they would. What makes your following of the scripture more correct than that of a Church? Who are you to judge whether they are following it correctly or not? Is that not God's job?

They could still be married by the state. As it stands, they can not do this. Why would a secular marriage by the state be an offense to your religion? Oh that's right, you still think that the Church holds the monopoly over marriage, as though the Church "invented" marriage.

Eurgh, I’m sick of repeating myself... Yes it is a choice, just like heterosexuality is a choice. No-body is ever forced to sin, a person’s fate is always in their own hands. They can only commit evil when they allow themselves to. (Not saying homosexuality is the only sexual immorality, heterosexuals are on average are usually just as bad).

You're sick of repeating yourself, I'm sick of reading your contrived bullshit. Homosexuality is not a choice. They do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex. It doesn't make sense to me that you say homosexuality is okay, they just can't have homosexual sex.

Done. Well firstly, marriage to society means little to me; personally it is a holy sacrament, a way of celebrating your love for another and of glorifying God.

If that is the case, why do you keep insisting that homosexual marriages are going to ruin society? Why did you ask what benefit homosexual marriages have to society if you don't believe marriage itself has anything to do with society?

Nobody cares what you think personally. Not even God. If two homosexuals want to get married, celebrate their love for another and glorify the same God you believe in (as some homosexuals are Christians), who are you to decide whether they have that right? Who are you to decide that God doesn't want this.

Isn't that God's job on judgement day? Do you think when you get to heaven, God is going to pat you on the head for standing up for his teachings, despite the fact you claim God is this omnipresent, all knowing being?

t large however, marriage serves a very fundamental purpose. It celebrates the combining of a man and women, so that they may unite into one. It represents the beginning of a family, whereby a mother and father (joined by marriage) care for their children in a secure, loving environment.

It only celebrates the combining of a man and woman because you think it does. Homosexuals also have families, whereby two loving parents care for their children in a secure and loving environment.

Being married and heterosexual does not mean that by default the marriage is going to be happy and secure for the children. And you keep acknowledging that heterosexual marriages are not always perfect, so why do you insist on putting them on a pedestal anyway?

Homosexuals cannot naturally produce children (to be more precise, they choose to engage in activities which prevent them from doing so). Homosexual sex merely provides pleasure to those involved, it serves no higher purpose. Heterosexual sex however (within marriage) is a celebration of God’s gift to humanity, a way of glorifying Him and the way by which a child is brought into this Earth. It is good and wholesome on all levels.

Lots of people cannot produce children naturally. Thus they undergo "unnatural" assisted reproductive technologies. Having not had sex, you would not realise that heterosexual sex provides pleasure to those intended, often without the result of a sacred bundle of joy.

Are children conceived by barren couples through assisted technologies a glorified way of bringing a child into the world? Should these people not have sex for pleasure, knowing they will not bring a child into the world?

Homosexual sex, is merely a perversion of God’s gift, and while it is fine to feel love towards one of the same gender to you (e.g. as a boy would love his father) it is wrong to be tempted into physical romance with people of your own sex (this is established very clearly within the Bible so I won’t go into details). As such a homosexual relationship is by default not equal to that of a heterosexual couple in Gods eyes. Now fine should you reject God you can do what you want, the state is able to provide the same legal protection to homosexual couples as it can heterosexual couples without having to destroy marriage for those who use it as it was intended.

Why do you keep quoting God's wishes and God's eyes to me when you really actually have no idea what God wants or thinks? Why do you act like God's spokes piece? You still have not demonstrated to me how homosexual marriage ruins heterosexual marriage.

Yea but I bet you couldn’t give me one hundred reasons as to why society should change in the case of homosexual marriage, actual reasons as to why it should be accepted, not pre-emptive attacks towards the predicted counter arguements.

I could, if I had the time or the inclination. Or if I thought it'd be worth the effort for you. You still didn't answer my question.

Murder has always been as well, do we accept that nowadays?

Are you likening homosexuality to murder?

A pair of 15 year olds can be in a loving and stable relationship, and they can really mean their attraction for each other, do we let them get married?

We used to. What do you think changed?

Marriage by definition is between a man and a women, gay marriage is an oxymoron.

Well marriage just means coming together, so gay marriage isn't really an oxymoron.

Marriage is not a right.

It is for everyone except homosexuals.

You said it was for a loving and stable relationship first of all, how would that possibly be the case if they broke up?

Plenty of people break up for a variety of reasons. You are extremely naive. Just because a couple break up, does not mean that at some point, or for the majority of their union, they were loving and stable.

Divorce is no longer illegal. Why is that?

This problem can be solved without marriage. Either by giving gay couples and defacto relationships the same legal rights as heterosexual marriage, or by prohibiting adoption by gay couples.

So they would be married in all but name. Why are we prohibiting adoption to gay couples? You're going to deny a child the right to be brought up in a loving and secure home, just because you disagree with homosexual sex?

Do you tell your homosexual friends that they don't have the ability to be loving parents?

Keeping in mind that these same people can pretend to be heterosexual, marry, have children and raise them in a heterosexual marriage. This person is still, in essence, the same person they would be if they were in a homosexual union 0- the only difference is the context.

Lol... if it doesn’t benefit society – then why are we doing it?

You said earlier marriage doesn't benefit society either. So why do we do that? blah blah blah glorifying god, yeah okay come up with a new one.

One doesn’t make a law, because there is no reason not to (despite the fact that in this debate there is very strong opposition), can’t you see the obvious stupidity in that suggestion?

Except in this case there is a reason to.

Historically, let’s have an example. Women’s lib wasn’t just granted because women wanted rights and asked for them.

Yeah you've said this, I don't care. Women are also inferior in the Bible, so I don't know, your claims of supporting womens Lib means nothing to me.

Women were actively treated as inferior members of society and denied fundamental rights (e.g. to vote etc) this is not the case with homosexuals who presently enjoy equal rights under the law

They don't enjoy equal rights under the law. And they were and are treated as inferior members of society.

Society had so much to benefit from allowing women into the workforce (women were and are just as proficient as men in most jobs). Society could suddenly tap into this vast reservoir of labour and intellect which was being wasted before. Obviously there was much more to it than that, but it is one reason why society benefited from women’s lib.

Most of the oppression of women over history has been based on religious teachings. Why is this different?

We have yet to see such justification as to why legalising gay marriage would benefit us. The burden of proof lies on the affirmative to demonstrate this and they haven’t. The best we’ve seen are some various attacks on religion, but attacking points in the counter argument when you don’t even have a case of your own (which by default you require, having the burden of proof) is why this discussion hasn’t got very far.

We've provided the proof, you're just too ignorant to acknowledge it.

There are reasons as to why we should not do it, however of these it could be said that many of them (not all) relate to religion and are therefore only relevant to a small aspect of society, but they are reasons nonetheless. And even if it were weak; a feeble case still defeats a nonexistent case.

Thread over, I win.

 

[Name_Taken]

sorry not the love thy neighbour one, the do what as one does to you one. Sorry, not much of a bible quoter at all. Going off my 3 years of primary scripture lol

If a gay couple was happy for you to get married with a woman, would you be happy if they got married as well seeing as they had no problem with yours?

Lol k.

Well firstly you have to understand, that despite how lovely people they are (I mean this sincerely) I see what they are doing (or at least, one of their life choices) as fundamnetally wrong and immoral.

I don't oppose gay people being allows to, well be gay and to have sex and involve each other in committed relationships.

I think that is their choice, and I am not going to make them choose something they don't want.

I oppose to gay marriage (and subsequently adoption by gay couples), for a variety of reaons, none of which relate to a hatred towards gay people.

I believe their relationship should be treated equally by the state in terms of legal equality and that they should be allowed to live with each other in a formal relationship recognised by the state. However I do oppose the use of the word "marriage" to decribe their union and I would disapprove if the Catholic Church (my Church) started recognsing and carrying out same - sex marriages.

 

[Name_Taken]

Thread over, I win.

Lol, dream on sister.

There are more Roman Catholics in Australia than there are gays, so excluding all other Christian denominations that stay true to the scripture and other religions altogether, we still have a situation where more people will be upset about the introduction of gay marriage than those whould be happy because of it.

I'll deal with the rest of your post later when I can be bothered. Its just the same tripe over and over again.

 

[SylviaB]

we still have a situation where more people will be upset about the introduction of gay marriage than those whould be happy because of it.

So? Majority shouldn't be able to vote away the rights of a minority (or in this case prevent the minority from getting equal rights in the first place).

 

[Absolutezero]

here are more Roman Catholics in Australia than there are gays, so excluding all other Christian denominations that stay true to the scripture and other religions altogether, we still have a situation where more people will be upset about the introduction of gay marriage than those whould be happy because of it.

Of course, that's still disregarding all those who are not gay but support it. Similarly, it disregards those who support the church. Hence, proves nothing.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Ah ok I see where you're comming from with that. Yeah ok, just because it doesn't mention it doesn't mean homosexual marriage is specifically described as evil.

But as I said before, the fact that it was establishing Gods plan for marriage and it did not describe homosexual marriage as being part of that plan, would strongly imply that it is not what God intended. Sort of like how it did not describe a polygamous relationship, likewise it can be inferred that that was not a part of God's plan for marriage etc.

Absolutely not. Imagine all the good things the Bible mentions as being in God's plan. You can't possibly suggest that something is evil simply because it isn't mentioned as being in the plan.

 

[NewiJapper]

we still have a situation where more people will be upset about the introduction of gay marriage than those whould be happy because of that.

I disagree.

The statistics and modern society are there for yes. 47% of people are strongly happy with it 28% somewhat support or don't care. This combined outweighs people who do not support it around 2:1.

Times are a changin'. I believe to see gay marriage in the not too distant future in some parts of Australia. (Not too distant future = give or take 5 years at most)

 

[Name_Taken]

Absolutely not. Imagine all the good things the Bible mentions as being in God's plan. You can't possibly suggest that something is evil simply because it isn't mentioned as being in the plan.

Yes but the implication is if God said (following your earlier example) that public transport is good, then flowing from that, one who believes in Him and follows His scripture should (or you imagine at least should) be catching public transport if they are commuting, or not go anywhere. (Especially if scripture condemned cars in various seperate verses as it does homosexuality).

He didn't say gay marriage was specifically not on, but when he described marriage He only ever described in in terms of between one man and one women, that I believe tells you something. (Now I know there are cases of polygomy in the Bible, its just everytime Christ refers to marriage it appears as 1 man 1 women e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Now in addition to this, the Bible (quite strongly in many cases) condemns homosexuality and its perpetrators, I again assume this is not in dispute? The Bible it could be said has a fairly negative outlook towards such practises in general. This is why I was describing it as evil, in the same way that other sins are evil, such as theft or slander etc.

Now, fornication (sex outside of marriage) is condemned. Does this mean that homosexual sex will become ok if same sex couples are allowed to marry? I think the answer to this is no, because all the verses which condemn homosexuality don't describe the sin as being (just) sex outside of marriage, but the actual sex itself. Granting marriage for same-sex couples won't prevent the people from sinning as it would if it was a heterosexual couple who were having sex outside of marriage, as hetersexual marriage is permitted within marriage (if you get my point).

Then you have the additional issue of even if it was the sex outside of marriage and not the homosexual aspect which was the sin, then should gays be able to marry anyway? I'd say (again) the answer is no, because it wasn't described in "Gods plan" as we keep referring to it. I think marriage should remain the domain of what He described it as only, one man, one women, united as "one flesh" etc. This is not because I think gay people are scum who don't deserve marriage, its because marriage refers specifically to a union between man and women, and shouldn't be taken to mean anything else(including polygomy and etc.).

 

[Name_Taken]

If lots of people do things that do not lead to the detriment of others, I can't see why not. At this very moment, there would be countless people engaging in homosexual activities. There are also countless homosexual couples, right at this very moment, showing love and affection for each other and their family.

This does not pose a burden on you. You don't have to like it, you don't have to accept it - the only time this burdens you is when you go out of your way to oppose it.

Just because it doesn’t (directly) impact on my life (it affects everyone who gets married) doesn’t mean I shouldn’t oppose it. There might be some serial rapist who gets caught and the authorities (hypothetical example) may sentence him to the death penalty. I can still fight this decision because murder is always wrong – it doesn’t affect me directly if he lives or dies, he’s going to be in jail for the rest of his life anyway.
What you fail to grasp is that I oppose homosexuality on a moral level (as in above example I would be opposing murder on a moral level). It is not about whether it affects me or not, it is universally repugnant and must be opposed.

Of course, and you'd still be wrong.

Unless you can provide facts to the contrary, it’s all opinion and thats how a democratic state functions.

The old 'of course i like gays, i have gay friends canard lol'. Do these friends engage in homosexual sexual activities? Do you preach to them often? Do you tell them on a regular basis that they're sinful and that their actions are an offense to God? And they're still your friends?

I don't believe you have homosexual friends. Not for a minute.

How did I see this one coming? Lol Kelly, really I’m sorry, but I don’t care much for what you think of me or what I say. You’re entitled to believe I’m lying here but for what it’s worth I’m not.


And I don’t pretend to know the details of his sex-life, and yes he does know how I feel on this issue in general, I haven’t had the chance to “preach” to him (as you put it) yet, he only “came out” last week of term. As I said before though, I’m not going to force anyone to do anything; it’s their choice, however much I disapprove of it. Ultimately every action has a consequence.

Sure they would. What makes your following of the scripture more correct than that of a Church? Who are you to judge whether they are following it correctly or not? Is that not God's job?



They could still be married by the state. As it stands, they can not do this. Why would a secular marriage by the state be an offense to your religion? Oh that's right, you still think that the Church holds the monopoly over marriage, as though the Church "invented" marriage.

Um well in the case of the Uniting Chuch, quite simply; because the Catholic Church still follows the scripture itself and doesn’t selectively reject aspects of the faith that would cause it to be seen in an unfavourable light (as the Uniting Church does, thats how I know they are wrong). For some people, popularity would appear more important than the spreading of the Truth.
You know Kelly, if you have such little respect for the Church’s approach to marriage, you can just boycott it. No-one is forcing you to get married, and no-one is forcing you to get married in a Church.

You're sick of repeating yourself, I'm sick of reading your contrived bullshit. Homosexuality is not a choice. They do not choose to be attracted to members of the same sex. It doesn't make sense to me that you say homosexuality is okay, they just can't have homosexual sex.

Regardless of the cause of temptation, an individual always chooses who they sleep with (except for rape ofc, but that’s somewhat different). Ergo it is a choice.
One don’t choose to be heterosexual in the sense that they may not always be personally responsible for feeling list, but one always is responsible when they have sex. The same goes for homosexual sex and other sexual immoralities.
Personal responsibility Kelly; “genes” don’t make you have sex; you choose to.
Even if gay people have a genetic disposition to homosexual behaviour (which hasn’t been demonstrated but is considered likely) that provides no excuse for their actions. Some people have genetic dispositions to alcohol abuse of violence, but society (rightly) tolerates neither of these. You could argue many violent people “didn’t choose to be violent” but they must still be held accountable for their actions.

If that is the case, why do you keep insisting that homosexual marriages are going to ruin society? Why did you ask what benefit homosexual marriages have to society if you don't believe marriage itself has anything to do with society?



Nobody cares what you think personally. Not even God. If two homosexuals want to get married, celebrate their love for another and glorify the same God you believe in (as some homosexuals are Christians), who are you to decide whether they have that right? Who are you to decide that God doesn't want this.

Um because I have read the Bible and it never mentions anything about homosexuality in a positive light, and doesn’t mention homosexual marriage as part of Gods specific plan for sex, love or marriage, but it does specifically mention monogamous heterosexual marriage. Feel free to go through the scripture and correct me if I have made a mistake.
And you have been misquoting me, I never said that homosexuals are going to cause this society’s demise, society will cause its own demise, gays are just one small contribution to this failure. After gay marriage there will be polygamy, after that there will be incest, after that who knows what other sick manner of sexual perversions will be introduced? The educations system is telling children an overtly liberal agenda, that being gay is fine, that anything is ok as long as people agree and it doesn’t hurt anyone, that the Church and the Truth have no place in society or their lives; it is these things that will be the West’s downfall. A society that places the freedom and pleasure of its population above everything else is utterly unsustainable.

Isn't that God's job on judgement day? Do you think when you get to heaven, God is going to pat you on the head for standing up for his teachings, despite the fact you claim God is this omnipresent, all knowing being?

Yes it is God’s job, and yes He will do it, and yes people will be held accountable to their sin.

It only celebrates the combining of a man and woman because you think it does. Homosexuals also have families, whereby two loving parents care for their children in a secure and loving environment.


Being married and heterosexual does not mean that by default the marriage is going to be happy and secure for the children. And you keep acknowledging that heterosexual marriages are not always perfect, so why do you insist on putting them on a pedestal anyway?

IDK if it hasn’t occurred to you yet, but homosexuals can’t have children. Rather, physically, they are capable of it, but choose to engage in activities which do not lead to the procreation of life. Even in the case of adoption (which is a separate debate altogether) heterosexual couples are always preferable. Boys have to learn how to treat women (and to a lesser degree vice versa). The child has to see male and female interact and care for each other; they have to be influenced by their father in some ways and their mother in others. They do not get this with homosexual parents. Every child deserves a mum and dad, and it is wrong and inappropriate to deliberately put them in a situation where they cannot have access to both.
In the case of heterosexual marriage it is what is mean to be; a man and women are made for each other and are physically complimentary. The vast majority of people are heterosexual. Heterosexual marriage has played an essential role in every society in history (ours included). Marriage provides and institution whereby people can celebrate their love in front of God and start a family. Marriage provides the concrete foundation for this family to occur, and for the couples children to develop.

Lots of people cannot produce children naturally. Thus they undergo "unnatural" assisted reproductive technologies. Having not had sex, you would not realise that heterosexual sex provides pleasure to those intended, often without the result of a sacred bundle of joy.


Are children conceived by barren couples through assisted technologies a glorified way of bringing a child into the world? Should these people not have sex for pleasure, knowing they will not bring a child into the world?

Good point however this has been dealt with before. A heterosexual couple who engages in sex to create life but are unable to are doing nothing wrong. Their intention is good and wholesome, however it is simply unfortunate that they can’t have a child. Once married, a couple does not have to have child. It is not a sin not to, especially in the case of couples who are unable to conceive.
Homosexuals on the other hand however choose to engage in sexual practises which cannot and never will be able to create life.
One is misfortune, the other is a choice, and you cannot pretend otherwise.
And on a side-note, if a (heterosexual) couple is unable to conceive they can always adopt a child. I disapprove of practises such as IVF which are unnatural. A child is a gift, not a possession to be ordered from a laboratory.

Why do you keep quoting God's wishes and God's eyes to me when you really actually have no idea what God wants or thinks? Why do you act like God's spokes piece?

Don’t hear it from me! Go read your Bible and make up your own mind

Are you likening homosexuality to murder?

Yes I am (and I already have numerous times). They are both sins, all sin is equally evil. I don’t expect you are an unbeliever to understand this, but w/e there you have it.

It is for everyone except homosexuals.

Lol so dumb. Anyone, over the age of 18 in this country can get married. Right now. The definition of marriage is between one man and one women; any gay person can get married, they just don’t want to because it refers to a union specifically between them and someone of the opposite sex. They are not content with this and seek its definition to be changed to accommodate their lifestyle choices.

Plenty of people break up for a variety of reasons. You are extremely naive. Just because a couple break up, does not mean that at some point, or for the majority of their union, they were loving and stable.


Divorce is no longer illegal. Why is that?

Becuase so many people don't understand the concept of a lifetime committment, thats why.

"Do you take ___ as your lawful wife/husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish until death do you part?"


No-fault divorce should be abolished IMO, Abbott is right on track with regards to that, if you are not 100% sure you can go the distence, don't get married. You only have yourself to blame.

Obviously in the case of adulterers or highly abusive spouses, divorce should be an option but should only be granted very reluctantly by the court.

Marriage has become a far to flippant affair in our society, and legalising homosexual marriage just destroys what little aspect of purity that remains in this once meaningful committment.

So they would be married in all but name. Why are we prohibiting adoption to gay couples? You're going to deny a child the right to be brought up in a loving and secure home, just because you disagree with homosexual sex?


Do you tell your homosexual friends that they don't have the ability to be loving parents?

Keeping in mind that these same people can pretend to be heterosexual, marry, have children and raise them in a heterosexual marriage. This person is still, in essence, the same person they would be if they were in a homosexual union 0- the only difference is the context.

I never said gays can’t be great people and otherwise would be great parents, but the simple fact is that every child deserves a mother and father. Some are not given this opportunity, as one parent may die, or they get divorced (in which case they still have a mother and father anyway) but it is wrong to deliberately put them in a situation where they will have no chance of having both as in the case of same-sex adoption.
One is not entitled to a child just because they want one. If you want one, you can have one yourself, the old fashioned way (within marriage). If you tried but were still unable to conceive or wish to care for another child, then adoption is acceptable, and a decent thing to do.
If you deliberately engage in activities which do not lead to the creation of a child, one must evaluate how much it is you really want a child in the first place. Human beings are not play things or material possessions.
There are numerous reasons as to why this (only heterosexual parent adoption) is preferable, do you actually need me to explain them to you?

Except in this case there is a reason to. We've provided the proof, you're just too ignorant to acknowledge it.

Well then why has it been so hard for you to explain it? Say it if there is!
Let me guess; 1) because the Church says no and so you immediately are for the suggested notion regardless of what it is or what effect it has on society and 2) because waa waa freedom and “rights”.
Amirite?