Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

Nah you can get some good christian apologists.

 

[yy]

Well, what your saying is coming from the Old Testament, which the Christians and the Jews believe. We "ignore" these sections becaue they're JEWISH laws. Jews would obey these laws, but our laws and ideologies are found in the New Testament, in the Gospels and the letters by Saint Paul. We obey the Ten Commandments obviousally, but the laws found in Deutonomery (or whatever the correct spelling is) and the law books we will not neccesarily follow, especially if it contradicts Jesus' teachings.

Besides, you shouldn't attack a Religion like that by calling or indirectly referring to it as ignorant, despite the fact that you probably meant no offense.

in NT, women are not allowed to speak in churches

 

[dagwoman]

You guys, off-topic. If you want to discuss the contradictions of Christianity, start a new thread. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but Christianity should be a very small aspect of views on homosexuality in Australia.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Matthew 5:17:

"Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the Prophets. I have not come to do away with them but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as Heaven and Earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away with - not until the end of all things."


Although Jesus does go on to say things such as:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you." - Matthew 5:38-39, also Luke 6:29-30


The point being that Christians should be following both the Old and New Testaments.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Actually a lot of the NT we ignore too. Its natural to have selective reading, ie which passage has more importance/attention etc.

There is no "greater sin" also, which a lot of christians forget about. Drunkedness and downloading illegal music is as foul as homosexuality.

You guys, off-topic. If you want to discuss the contradictions of Christianity, start a new thread. Correct me if you think I'm wrong, but Christianity should be a very small aspect of views on homosexuality in Australia

True to an extent... Although for some, homosexuality is wrong because their religion dictates it. Religion is their basis of morality and nothing else. That sort of tangent, I'll allow, as long as it refers back to homosexuality.

 

[dagwoman]

True to an extent... Although for some, homosexuality is wrong because their religion dictates it. Religion is their basis of morality and nothing else. That sort of tangent, I'll allow, as long as it refers back to homosexuality.

Yep, I agree.

 

[bshoc]

Religion is nothing more than a system of beliefs, dagowoman, anyone's beliefs can be considered religion under the such a definition, so why should people have to live under your secular-humanist values and your secular-humanist definition of marriage when most people are clearly not secular-humanists.

And whats with the attacks on christians? "Outdated" , "contradictory" who the fuck are you to lower other peoples beliefs like that, especially with zero proof as you always do. Why is it that atheists seriously come off as the most contradictory, hypocritical and ignorant people of all? Douchebags.

 

[poloktim]

And whats with the attacks on christians? "Outdated" , "contradictory" who the fuck are you to lower other peoples beliefs like that, especially with zero proof as you always do. Why is it that atheists seriously come off as the most contradictory, hypocritical and ignorant people of all? Douchebags.

*snicker*

 

[dagwoman]

Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, bshoc, don't write posts. You've taken my posts out of context for the sole purpose of slinging insults. If you really feel the need to do that, PM me, don't put irrelevant messages in the forums.

 

[bshoc]

Unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion, bshoc, don't write posts. You've taken my posts out of context for the sole purpose of slinging insults. If you really feel the need to do that, PM me, don't put irrelevant messages in the forums.

I wasn't slinging insults anymore latnently or anymore personally than you were at christians, dont cry when you get your own medicine given to you.

Also even if the second paragraph made you cry, the frist paragraph contains no "insults" and I dont see how the substance does not warrant an answer.

 

[dagwoman]

I went through an entire mini-pack of Kleenex. I wasn't insulting anyone personally, I was rather harshly criticising a set of beliefs. I don't think you can talk about insults anyway considering you've made comments about how you don't care if gay people all die etc.

I'm not sure what answer you're demanding. Fill me in.

 

[bshoc]

I went through an entire mini-pack of Kleenex. I wasn't insulting anyone personally, I was rather harshly criticising a set of beliefs. I don't think you can talk about insults anyway considering you've made comments about how you don't care if gay people all die etc.

I'm not sure what answer you're demanding. Fill me in.

"Religion is nothing more than a system of beliefs, dagowoman, anyone's beliefs can be considered religion under the such a definition, so why should people have to live under your secular-humanist values and your secular-humanist definition of marriage when most people are clearly not secular-humanists."

 

[dagwoman]

That's not even worth replying to. I haven't ever said that. Unless you can offer something constructive to this argument, I will not reply to your posts anymore.

 

[bshoc]

That's not even worth replying to. I haven't ever said that. Unless you can offer something constructive to this argument, I will not reply to your posts anymore.

You're just upset that you don't have an answer that doesen't put your beliefs over someone else, hence irrelevating all the stuff you said about no-one's beliefs dominating the issue etc.

 

[dagwoman]

What?! I'm not upset about anything. This is an internet debate. Anyone who gets upset about such a thing needs serious help. You're not asking a legitimate question, although kudos on the invention of the term "irrelevating", you're simply attempting to insult me, so there's no point in having a discussion with you.

 

[bshoc]

What?! I'm not upset about anything. This is an internet debate. Anyone who gets upset about such a thing needs serious help. You're not asking a legitimate question, although kudos on the invention of the term "irrelevating", you're simply attempting to insult me, so there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Ok since you can't engage in self-critisism lets try and pose this another way:

Whose beliefs should guide the law regarding marriage?

 

[dagwoman]

How condescending do you want to be?

I don't think such a question can be answered. Laws shouldn't be based on one person's set of beliefs. Obviously you're implying that I want them to be based on my beliefs.

This is a debate. This debate is guided by the opinions of individuals. Obviously each person will want the law to match their own beliefs. You want the laws on marriage to match yours, I want them to match mine. That's why we're having this debate.

Are we done?

 

[gerhard]

Whose beliefs should guide the law regarding marriage?

why should there be laws regarding marriage?

 

[dagwoman]

To protect the blessed union of man and wife from being eroded by the sodomising filth that kill bunny rabbits and recruit our children, of course.

On a slightly more serious note, I think there should be laws regarding age of the people getting marriage.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

"Religion is nothing more than a system of beliefs, dagowoman, anyone's beliefs can be considered religion under the such a definition,

So government is a religion? sigh...