Homosexuality in Australia (16 Viewers)

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

You make an interesting point.

I do believe all of us have the potential to be Bi-sexual, and I believe most people fall inbetween, I doubt many are strictly hetero or strictly homosexual.

you doubt incorrectly. girls are icky pants. the vag looks like a dark tunnel.

period

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Ah k, so most gay people are in fact, somewhat attracted to both sexes, its just they exhibit a preference (of varying strength I assume, depending on the individual) for those of the same sex.

Ergo it is a choice...

don't agree with what he says! his statement is totally barbaric.
i have no choice but to be a homoexual.

 

[supercalamari]

Ah k, so most gay people are in fact, somewhat attracted to both sexes, its just they exhibit a preference (of varying strength I assume, depending on the individual) for those of the same sex.

Ergo it is a choice...

FUCK OFF IT'S NOT A CHOICE
WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT?
I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO BE VICTIMIZED, PREACHED AT AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY SO-CALLED 'CHRISTIANS' WHO MIGHT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS BUT HURT AND RUIN LIVES.

/end rant

 

[Name_Taken]

FUCK OFF IT'S NOT A CHOICE
WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT?
I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO BE VICTIMIZED, PREACHED AT AND DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY SO-CALLED 'CHRISTIANS' WHO MIGHT HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS BUT HURT AND RUIN LIVES.

/end rant

Everytime I have sex with a chick, I am choosing to be straight. Sure, I have conceeded that I may not, not be able to "think" straight, if you want to describe desire as such, but my actions are all my own choices, as are yours.

Genes do not make you do anything.

There is nothing wrong with loving a person of the same sex, it is the physical exploitation of sex which is what is described as the sin. Engaging in such behaviours is always a choice.

So yes it is a choice. And typing in all caps doesn't make your message any more correct or engaging.

 

[Will Shakespear]

No it isn't at all, how is it?

I would admit there are ex-heteros as well, which are actually well represented in the homosexual community, as people who were in happily married (possibly with kids) before reverting to homosexuality for some reason or another.

Come on, if homosexuality is actually genetic, it would be pretty clear cut, you would think? People have either red or brown hair etc, people should either be gay or straight.

Genes don't change. Consciously chosen behaviours do.

Well, for starters ur disagreeing with the American and Australian Psychological Associations here.

Genes do change over the course of ur life. Are u saying u consciously chose to go thru puberty, or age?

 

[Name_Taken]

Well, for starters ur disagreeing with the American and Australian Psychological Associations here.

Genes do change over the course of ur life. Are u saying u consciously chose to go thru puberty, or age?

Your body is affected by hormones, which are secreted, partly on the basis of genetics.

Genes cause puberty and aging, but pretty sure they don't actually change as a result of it, like a person's DNA and w/e, which is the basics of genetics, isn't it?

But this is all a bit off topic, since the real issue at hand is whether or not its a choice, and genes play no role in you choosing to have sex, just as they don't play any role in you deciding to say hello to a person you may meet on the street, these are actions, the desires of which to do may be party genetic, but the actual carrying out of them and chosing to do so is seperate.

 

[supercalamari]

Everytime I have sex with a chick, I am choosing to be straight. Sure, I have conceeded that I may not, not be able to "think" straight, if you want to describe desire as such, but my actions are all my own choices, as are yours.

Genes do not make you do anything.

There is nothing wrong with loving a person of the same sex, it is the physical exploitation of sex which is what is described as the sin. Engaging in such behaviours is always a choice.

So yes it is a choice. And typing in all caps doesn't make your message any more correct or engaging.

1. Are you saying that you're closeted? If so, you can have as much straight sex as you want. But you're still gay.

2. Uhhh... they do.

3. I thought we had this argument earlier.

4. I never 'chose' to be gay. It's not a 'lifestyle choice' or whatever pervserse term you want to use. Driving a certain car or being vegetarian are lifestyle choices. Sexuality is innate, intrinsic to who we are.

5. I was angry. Still am a bit.

 

[JasmineNuytre]

The sexual act is a choice, but you cant choose who you love or are attracted to.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Your body is affected by hormones, which are secreted, partly on the basis of genetics.

Genes cause puberty and aging, but pretty sure they don't actually change as a result of it, like a person's DNA and w/e, which is the basics of genetics, isn't it?

But this is all a bit off topic, since the real issue at hand is whether or not its a choice, and genes play no role in you choosing to have sex, just as they don't play any role in you deciding to say hello to a person you may meet on the street, these are actions, the desires of which to do may be party genetic, but the actual carrying out of them and chosing to do so is seperate.

it's not the changes in genes themselves, it's changes in whether they're turned on or not

if a gene for making more testosterone or whatever (i'm not saying that's actually how it works, but in the end genes control what the body makes) can be switched on or off as the body ages, why couldn't a set of genes that affects sexual orientation do the same?

 

[Name_Taken]

1. Are you saying that you're closeted? If so, you can have as much straight sex as you want. But you're still gay.

2. Uhhh... they do.

3. I thought we had this argument earlier.

4. I never 'chose' to be gay. It's not a 'lifestyle choice' or whatever pervserse term you want to use. Driving a certain car or being vegetarian are lifestyle choices. Sexuality is innate, intrinsic to who we are.

5. I was angry. Still am a bit.

I'm not trying to make you angry

My point is I see hopmosexuality as something which is wrong. I also see murder as wrong. I don't believe someone is a murderer until they have "pulled the trigger" before which they have done nothing wrong. Same loosly speaking goes with homosexual sex. I don't see anything wrong with absinence, and as such, I don't see anything wrong with someone who is attracted to those of the same sex and abstains.

I think it may someday be shown that some people have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. However this does not make them homosexual. People may have a genetic disposition to violence or alcohol abuse, but that doesn't make them necessarily violent, or alcoholics. What determines what label we fall under is not what we think about, its not what our genes say we are probably thinking about, its what we do. In this regard having a genetic predisposition to something which is wrong, is no excuse for doing that wrong in the first place.

I find the notion of labeling someone who abstains from sex as homosexual or heterosexual quite absurd in this regard. A person is not a rapist, for example, simply becuase they dream or even scheme about raping someone.

 

[Will Shakespear]

in that case u have to ask what act on a continuum becomes sinful?

to love another dude?
to hold his hand?
kiss...
etc.

when does the non-sinful inherent attraction end and the sinful behaviour start?

coz in the case of the murderer it's fairly clear cut, once he pulls the trigger n kills someone then u've got a sin (murder), but here it's not obvious at all

 

[Name_Taken]

The sexual act is a choice, but you cant choose who you love or are attracted to.

It is the sexual act which is what is condemned in the scripture, and which is what we find deplorable.

 

[supercalamari]

Okay, now I get it.

I understand your point... not that I agree, but some of it is at least logical.

 

[Titburger]

I'm not trying to make you angry

My point is I see hopmosexuality as something which is wrong. I also see murder as wrong. I don't believe someone is a murderer until they have "pulled the trigger" before which they have done nothing wrong. Same loosly speaking goes with homosexual sex. I don't see anything wrong with absinence, and as such, I don't see anything wrong with someone who is attracted to those of the same sex and abstains.

I think it may someday be shown that some people have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. However this does not make them homosexual. People may have a genetic disposition to violence or alcohol abuse, but that doesn't make them necessarily violent, or alcoholics. What determines what label we fall under is not what we think about, its not what our genes say we are probably thinking about, its what we do. In this regard having a genetic predisposition to something which is wrong, is no excuse for doing that wrong in the first place.

I find the notion of labeling someone who abstains from sex as homosexual or heterosexual quite absurd in this regard. A person is not a rapist, for example, simply becuase they dream or even scheme about raping someone.

For the third time, who else is affected by this act? By legalising same sex marriage is it going to affect you as an individual? I'm fairly sure you are going to remain a heterosexual male and I see no reason that anyone else is suddenly going to catch the "homosexual disease". But somehow you think that what doesn't apply to the parts, applies to the whole. You think that society is going to be undermined even though the effect on the individual will be non-existent.

 

[supercalamari]

I think he's just saying he deplores it. I don't think Name_Taken is the kind of guy who would actively perscute or try and stop laws for equality being passed. So I don't have a big problem with him but wish he'd change his mind.

 

[Name_Taken]

in that case u have to ask what act on a continuum becomes sinful?

to love another dude?
to hold his hand?
kiss...
etc.

when does the non-sinful inherent attraction end and the sinful behaviour start?

coz in the case of the murderer it's fairly clear cut, once he pulls the trigger n kills someone then u've got a sin (murder), but here it's not obvious at all

Well if you put all the Bible verses on it together, it is still quite ambigious. IMO it is the individuals decision to make, as to what point they should stop, if they intend to.

The Bible also teaches not to deliberately put yourself into situations which may tempt you into sin. So while pashing 1/2 naked on a deserted beach may not have reached the point of sin (nor is it a sin to be tempted), but it basically warns against it because it may lead you into sin, though I guess its rather irrelevant, provided you have the strength of character to know when to stop, but thats not within everyone.

 

[Name_Taken]

For the third time, who else is affected by this act? By legalising same sex marriage is it going to affect you as an individual? I'm fairly sure you are going to remain a heterosexual male and I see no reason that anyone else is suddenly going to catch the "homosexual disease". But somehow you think that what doesn't apply to the parts, applies to the whole. You think that society is going to be undermined even though the effect on the individual will be non-existent.

Its a reflection on society itself.

Its not nice for anyone to live in a society which hold the natural family in contempt and holds it to ransom to the everchanging whims of desire of its population.

We need a totally objective moral code, which should be adhered to, regardless of its popularity. Abosolute morals exist, absolute truth exists.

The problem with relative morality is that it effectively means no-body is actually right, its all opinion and as such no-body should have any obligation to subscribe to anothers moral stance, and to force them to do such would be an infringement of their fundamental liberties.

That was a bit of a rant but oh well...

Theres all the religious reasons, the social ones, the legal ones and the basic point that homosexual unions are not worthy of marriage simply because they do not at all refelct the purpose which it serves.

Marriage is something not defined by society, and as such will remain true to itself, despite what liberals wish to call it. Marriage and families are natural institutions and have always been a staple aspect of human "tribes", it is only recognised by society.

 

[Titburger]

Well if you put all the Bible verses on it together, it is still quite ambigious. IMO it is the individuals decision to make, as to what point they should stop, if they intend to.

The Bible also teaches not to deliberately put yourself into situations which may tempt you into sin. So while pashing 1/2 naked on a deserted beach may not have reached the point of sin (nor is it a sin to be tempted), but it basically warns against it because it may lead you into sin, though I guess its rather irrelevant, provided you have the strength of character to know when to stop, but thats not within everyone.

But murder hurts and affects so many more people than just those directly involved while the physical side of a homosexual relationship is contained solely within the confines of consenting adults. How can the two be comparable on levels of sin?

 

[Name_Taken]

I'm feeling unloved Mr Name_Taken :[

First of all, let me just say two things:
1) The point of my initial comment was not to point out WHY people get married, but why homosexual marriage should be permitted.
Because on a whole, I agree with you and your questioning of what the legal contract of marriage is and means when it no longer holds religeous relevance.

Um, marriage to me and quite a lot of other people still holds religious significance... Civil marriage isn't involved with religion, or love or anything like that though.

The point I'm trying to make is, regardless of the significance of marriage as a religous ceremony, or as a civil union/legal contract, marriage as a symbol is deserved by all.

So polygamous relationships, relationships between people and animals, older people and children, between people of the same family, these are all deserving of marriage as well? Desrved by all means just that, right?

My point is that marriage is not deserved by all, and as such discrimination if you call it that, against every union that isn't a single (unrelated) adult man and women shouldn't be accepted.

Which raises a question: If matrimonial union outside of what purist christians believe to be gods will is meaningless, what is their issue with homosexuals wanting to be able to claim it? If you believe that a union between a homosexual couple is not recognised as a mariage (Note: "the union between a MAN and a WOMAN under god") by god, then who is harmed by us using the word - as that is all it has become in your eyes, a word.

Um because religion aside, a marriage and a family is a natural structure of all human societies and should this should be reflected in the law. It is different to all other types of relationships for reasons I have demonstrated already, and as such merits to be in a class of its own.

2) What about my previous question on the whole OT/NT thing?
I'm feeling awfully unloved by your lack of an answer :[

Lol we can't have that can we?

I'm feeling lazy so I'm just going to paste this article, hope you don't mind, and that it clarifies for you.

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB)

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (NASB)
​

While the meaning of these passages seems clear, pro-homosexual advocates argue that since Leviticus 18:22 appears in the holiness codes for the Levitical priesthood it refers to ritual, not moral impurity; ceremonial, not moral prohibitions.

Others argue that since these passages condemning homosexuality are surrounded by other commands that were purely ceremonial in nature and no longer apply to believers under the New Covenant, the same applies to the command against homosexuality: it is ceremonial in nature, and no longer applicable to NT believers.

These lines of argumentation are flawed for several reasons. First, they ignores the fact that the New Testament condemns homosexuality as well.

Secondly, it is not true that these passages are surrounded by ceremonial commands pertaining to ritual purity. The immediate contexts of both passages are filled with moral commands that apply to all men, not just the Levitical priesthood. Among them are commands forbidding incest and other inter-family sexuality (18:6-17; 20:11-14, 17, 19-21), adultery (18:20; 20:10), child sacrifice (18:20-21; 20:2-5), bestiality (18:23; 20:15-16), and the seeking of diviners (20:6). There are only two non-moral commandments in the immediate context: killing kids for cursing their parents (20:9); forbidding sex with a woman on her period (18; 20:18). While there are many non-moral commands in other parts of Leviticus, that does not detract from the fact that the immediate context in both anti-homosexuality passages consists of a host of moral sins.

Some argue that God's condemnation of homosexuality was limited to homosexual acts associated with idolatrous worship. "Normal" homosexuality apart from this context was acceptable. If such were the case, why does the text not make this explicit? Furthermore, following this line of reasoning one could cheat on their wife, have sex with their daughter, have sex with animals, and kill their children so long as those acts were not in the context of idolatrous worship!

The fact of the matter is that there is no way to get out of the plain reading of these passages without doing serious injustice to the normal methods of interpretation and common sense.

P.S. About the quote above: you forget the rights of a married couple to make decisions for eachother when the other is deemed unnable to (ie: surgery in hospital) etc.

P.P.S. are those such rights included in civil partnerships (between homosexuals)? -I'm not interested in the whole gay marriage issue for myself (only out of sympathy for gays who do actually care) so I am uninformed on such things.

I don't think this is an issue in Australia, I think this is only in America. Otherwise, there is family relatives who can make the call and these rights can be secured outside of marriage.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

It is the sexual act which is what is condemned in the scripture, and which is what we find deplorable.

maybe you are simply grossed out by two guys getting it on .

also, what does the bible say about oral sex?