Homosexuality in Australia (18 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Yes, the high-classes probably used to do that. I doubt the majority of people (who were peasants) felt the need to marry for a business arrangement.

How is this relevant to the current context anyway? You want to revert back to this?

That's obviously the point I was raising.

i mean to say that the marraige itself has changed.

 

[supercalamari]

Yes, but did any European culture accept homosexual unions as legitimate, let alone as equal to heterosexual marriage?

Rome and Greece are a part of southern Europe.

I have never claimed it is illegitimate because it is uncommon.

Okay. Fair enough. But you have failed to provide any solid proof that homosexuality is wrong, because your only 'proof' are six bible verses, Catholic catechism and sources about smoking and STIs from uncredible sources. Also your claims of there being no possibility of long term monogamous gay relationships are wrong- they might not be as common as in straight relationships, but you can't deny they exist.

When it comes down to it, you believe what you believe. But your religious views cannot and should not have any place in our nation's legislative system. And if your church takes any kind of political action, be it officially supporting a candidate or doing activism to support any kind of law, they should betaxed.

 

[Name_Taken]

Rome and Greece are a part of southern Europe.

I find it quite ironic that you look to Greence and Rome as an example to support an agruement relating to human rights.

Both of these nations' relied on slavery as a means of supporting their economies and maintaining the relatively high standard of living of the middle and upper classes. There was no equality in either of these empires.

A similar line of thought would allow me to bring up the example of Hitler in the support of free healthcare, "Its about equality! Adolf knew this, look how Nazi Germany prospered" - it is a futile arguement.

Now I accept that in terms of human rights violations, outright genocide is "worse" than slavery, though the Nazis used slave labour to support much of their industry throughout the war as well, the principle is the same.

Regardless, homosexuality in Ancient Rome was not universally accepted and there was a large amount of moral (however not necessarily Christian) opposition to it, however largely it was permitted. It was certinly not a common practise and was not part of mainstream culture. The Emperor Nero is reported to have had a homosexual marriage (despite having female wives as well), but he was Emperor so TBH he could have married anyone or anything he wanted, and it isn't proof that homosexual marriages were conducted between people of lower social standing (plus Nero was mad lol). Furthermore there were laws enacted at by various Emperors which prohibited homosexuality and gay unions. You could hardly say that Rome supported gay marriage in the way that it is being campaigned for nowadays...

In Ancient Greece, by far the most common manner in which homosexuality was practised was in the form of pedastry, whereby a older man would tutor and often subsequently covert a younger adolescent male. It was even considered a rite of passage among many people for all young males to go through, and wasn't done exclusively by people who would fit the modern classification of an actual homosexual. Moreover, this practise was not universally accepted in Greece by everyone, and was not a part of mainstreme culture, however it was fairly common. Furthermore these were not true parnterships in the sense of the modern appreciation of the meaning of a monagomous couple;

While the relationship was generally life long and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture and the relationship continued even after participants entered into traditional marriage to women as was expected in the culture when men reached age 30.

It wouldn't be wrong to assume that homosexuality in Greece was moreso part of the male bonding culture (very male dominated society) and certinly wasn't practised in the way that gay people today are argueing as justification for gay "rights".

Lastly, pedestry is as much pedophillia as it is homosexuality.

[I'll respond to then second bit tomorrow].

 

[supercalamari]

I find it quite ironic that you look to Greence and Rome as an example to support an agruement relating to human rights.

I find it quite ironic that you now unconsciously imply gay marriage is a human right (it's a civil rights issue) when you have called us gays (yes, I'll admit I am gay) and our relationships all manner of horrible things in this thread.

I also find it ironic that you read the bible so literally and feel your beliefs are valid reasons to ban or disapprove of gay marriage. It's also ironic that you believe Christianity is the be all and end all of good groups in society... ever heard of the Crusades? the holocaust? You quote Adolph Hitler. He claimed to be a christian too.

Yes pederasty was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome... it happened elsewhere too.

I think you need to read this if you want to understand my argument: Metropolitan Community Churches | The Bible and Homosexuality

What is "Natural"?
Significant to Paul's discussion is the fact that these "unclean" Gentiles exchanged that which was "natural" for them, physin, in the Greek text, for something "unnatural," para physin. In Romans 11:24, God acts in an "unnatural" way, para physin, to accept the Gentiles. "Unnatural" in these passages does not refer to violation of so-called laws of nature, but rather implies action contradicting one's own nature. In view of this, we should observe that it is "unnatural," para physin, for a person today with a lesbian or gay sexual orientation to attempt living a heterosexual lifestyle.

 

[Bereie]

stop arguing with religious people

 

[meeatu]

I find it quite ironic that you look to Greence and Rome as an example to support an agruement relating to human rights.

Both of these nations' relied on slavery as a means of supporting their economies and maintaining the relatively high standard of living of the middle and upper classes. There was no equality in either of these empires.

A similar line of thought would allow me to bring up the example of Hitler in the support of free healthcare, "Its about equality! Adolf knew this, look how Nazi Germany prospered" - it is a futile arguement.

Now I accept that in terms of human rights violations, outright genocide is "worse" than slavery, though the Nazis used slave labour to support much of their industry throughout the war as well, the principle is the same.

Regardless, homosexuality in Ancient Rome was not universally accepted and there was a large amount of moral (however not necessarily Christian) opposition to it, however largely it was permitted. It was certinly not a common practise and was not part of mainstream culture. The Emperor Nero is reported to have had a homosexual marriage (despite having female wives as well), but he was Emperor so TBH he could have married anyone or anything he wanted, and it isn't proof that homosexual marriages were conducted between people of lower social standing (plus Nero was mad lol). Furthermore there were laws enacted at by various Emperors which prohibited homosexuality and gay unions. You could hardly say that Rome supported gay marriage in the way that it is being campaigned for nowadays...

In Ancient Greece, by far the most common manner in which homosexuality was practised was in the form of pedastry, whereby a older man would tutor and often subsequently covert a younger adolescent male. It was even considered a rite of passage among many people for all young males to go through, and wasn't done exclusively by people who would fit the modern classification of an actual homosexual. Moreover, this practise was not universally accepted in Greece by everyone, and was not a part of mainstreme culture, however it was fairly common. Furthermore these were not true parnterships in the sense of the modern appreciation of the meaning of a monagomous couple;



It wouldn't be wrong to assume that homosexuality in Greece was moreso part of the male bonding culture (very male dominated society) and certinly wasn't practised in the way that gay people today are argueing as justification for gay "rights".

Lastly, pedestry is as much pedophillia as it is homosexuality.

[I'll respond to then second bit tomorrow].

HAHAHAHA! I like how you condemn homosexuality AND slavery in the same sentence! When the bible clearly states that "you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

and even Hebrew slaves were permittd to some degree

"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

It even condones the mistreatment of said slaves

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You were saying about equality...?

Note how your religeons 'accepting' nature and 'unquestionally moral' ideals make it so that I don't even have to argue with you, merely quote your own holy text at you and laugh at the hypocrisy of it all

 

[Bereie]

please

 

[Bereie]

stop ittttttttt

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

please

i agree. they aren't receptive to our tational arguements. they can't tell right from wrong without a book written thousands and thousands of years ago.


PS: you know i still love you name-taken

 

[Name_Taken]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.............

I'll reply to all of this stuff tomorrow, I has an assignment

@Meeatu, SuperCalamari and Seck;

In short however, Christians believe in the NT. OT rules more or less don't apply, at least anymore than moral guidelines of behaviour (definately not rules) to us nowadays, unless something is mentioned in the same light in both the OT and NT.

Homosexuality is condemned in both, and as such OT passages on it are relevant. Both the OT and NT describe marriage as a sacred union between one man and one women, Jesus even goes as far to quote the OT in regards to this issue.

So this debate of should gays be allowed to marry remains sterile. You can argue, I will admit, (however I disagree with the points raised by the article, I'll explain later) whether a loving homosexual relationship is a sin or not, quoting the Bible. However by the same token, the Bible defines what consititutes marriage very clearly.

NT doesn't mention slavery (one human being owned by another) as evil nor does it mention is at a good thing. As such it is up to an individual to decide, both, Biblically speaking are acceptable, provided the slave is not abused and treated with dignity as a child of God.

That said, slavery nowadays is not accepted by society and this view is in total harmony with that expressed by the Bible.

 

[Name_Taken]

Okay. Fair enough. But you have failed to provide any solid proof that homosexuality is wrong, because your only 'proof' are six bible verses, Catholic catechism and sources about smoking and STIs from uncredible sources.

If you believe our arguement is futile because of its lack of scientific data supporting its claims then you have completely missed the point.

Even arch athiest Richard Dawkins ackowledges that science is very limited in what it can give us. It can provide answers, identify trends, but it cannot teach us morals. Our arguement is not based on scientific principles, nor on religious principles, but on moral principles.

It just so happens that many people on "our" side hold religious views and their notion of morality is inevitably shaped by these views. One does not have to be religious however to have a moral objection to homosexuality.

Scientific evidence was brought up by myself and others to demonstrate fallacies brought up by the "pro gay rights" side, including that homosexual intercourse occurs in nature and therefore should be acceptable and that it is a perfectly healthy alternative.

That said it would be irrelevant if homosexuality was in fact as healthy or even "healthier" than heterosexuality (hypothetically speaking), we would still be opposing it on moral grounds.

And on a side note, the sources I provided were vcry reputable. The US National Library of Medicine for example.

The article on the Baptist Press was merely reporting the findings of a survey, whose results were initially published in the New York Times. I did not complain when earlier, when articles were published expressing the view that lesbian parents were better than heterosexual parents that the articles were all from gay activist websites.

However I am resigned by now to accept that double standards are a staple aspect of all liberal movements.

Also your claims of there being no possibility of long term monogamous gay relationships are wrong- they might not be as common as in straight relationships, but you can't deny they exist.

I think you are getting the wrong impression.

I believe that most heterosexual relationships thes days are not what they should be either. Its not like all heterosexual relationships are indeed shining beacons of morality, while all homosexual relationships are the essence of evil incarnate.

Homosexuality however is not a morally acceptable behaviour, neither is premaritial sex etc. Most heterosexuals are just as guilty of defiling the meaning of marriage as homosexuals would be if they were given access to it as well.

When it comes down to it, you believe what you believe. But your religious views cannot and should not have any place in our nation's legislative system. And if your church takes any kind of political action, be it officially supporting a candidate or doing activism to support any kind of law, they should betaxed.

My values and notion of morality do have a place in our nations legislative system, as does yours; regardless of how misguided it may be.

I love how all liberals universally renounce the ability of people with different views than them the right to express them.

Really, you claim to stand for fairness and equality, but what you are saying is simply undemocratic.

Morality is vital for a nation to prosper and for people to be happy and live in harmony, religious or not. Your animosity towards organisations which appreciate this simple fact will not result in a better Australia for anyone.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/04AVRslVRbY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/04AVRslVRbY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

lol name taken sounds like these church dudes in this clip

edit: part 3 might interest you.

 

[Name_Taken]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/04AVRslVRbY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/04AVRslVRbY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

lol name taken sounds like these church dudes in this clip

edit: part 3 might interest you.

Dude seriously, what is it that I'm saying is hard to understand?



Forget the Bible for a minute, the male and female body were made for each other (whether you believe they were made by God or by nature is irrelevent). That much is undeniable.

Now back to the Bible... Homosexuality is a sin, please don't make me have to explain all of that again. Easiest thing is for you to read the Bible and make up your own mind, but so far all the arguements I've seen saying that the Bible doesn't condemn it are quite weak.

The most important thing about Christianity is basically that we are all sinners, but we can always be forgiven for all our sins, regardless of how henious. Its not like being gay is a special class of sin in itself or anything.

Homosexuality is a sin, but homosexuals are no worse sinners than anyone else. There is no sin in abstinence, for either homosexuals or heterosexuals.

You have been confusing the desire with the act. The desire (while it isn't a good thing, as it can tempt you into evil) isn't necessarily under your control, but simply experiencing a desire does not equate to doing the behaviour which is what is condemned by the scripture.

Do what you want, as long as you have accepted Christ you should be fine, though that doesn't make some behaviours acceptable, simply becuase you know you will be forgiven.

Its not really a difficult message to understand...

 

[Name_Taken]

Know what the greatest irony of that documentary is though?

Gays; "my genes made me do it".

Comming out soon, to a cinema near you.

What a joke.

 

[Titburger]

Know what the greatest irony of that documentary is though?

Gays; "my genes made me do it".

Comming out soon, to a cinema near you.

What a joke.

Do you realise how ignorant that stament is?

 

[Name_Taken]

Do you realise how ignorant that stament is?

It represents a central pillar to the gay rights movement, don't mock it lol.

"We are not responsible for our actions, our genes made us gay". Some even have the gall to blame their imperfections on God, "He created me like this" etc.

What they fail to realise is that having a desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things. We have never condemned the desire towards others (of the same or opposite sex), it is the physical behaviour of homosexuality which represents the "abomination".

They don't like to think it, but they are no different to the stupid rednecks who bash up gays and adulterers, blaming their actions on the Bible and using it as a weapon to support their own misguided hateful views. They both deny personal responsibility in order to carry out acts of immorality, and attack those who expose them for their actions.

 

[Titburger]

It represents a central pillar to the gay rights movement, don't mock it lol.

"We are not responsible for our actions, our genes made us gay". Some even have the gall to blame their imperfections on God, "He created me like this" etc.

What they fail to realise is that having a desire to do something and actually doing it are two different things. We have never condemned the desire towards others (of the same or opposite sex), it is the physical behaviour of homosexuality which represents the "abomination".

They don't like to think it, but they are no different to the stupid rednecks who bash up gays and adulterers, blaming their actions on the Bible and using it as a weapon to support their own misguided hateful views.

Abomination is used in the same sense as non-customary. In the same way that eating pork is said to be an "abomination", but is not innately immoral.

 

[Titburger]

Know what the greatest irony of that documentary is though?

Gays; "my genes made me do it".

Comming out soon, to a cinema near you.

What a joke.

I'm not mocking it, I'm mocking you.

"my genes made me do it, LoLz science!1"

 

[Will Shakespear]

Know what the greatest irony of that documentary is though?

Gays; "my genes made me do it".

Comming out soon, to a cinema near you.

What a joke.

i reckon

next they'll be expecting us to believe the earth really is more than 6000 years old!

 

[Name_Taken]

i reckon

next they'll be expecting us to believe the earth really is more than 6000 years old!

Dude I rkn...

Who do they think they are?