Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Kwayera]

because waa waa freedom and “rights”. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Amirite?

*sigh*

 

[Name_Taken]

*sigh*

It isn't a question of equality Kwayera. My point is that anyone over the age of 18 can marry.

Marriage by definition is between 1 man and 1 women. Gay people don't want marriage, because they can have it now, they want marriage to mean something other than what it does.

You have yet to prove otherwise, or why it should be changed to accomodate this one alternative, and if it is to be changed, why only to accomodate homosexual couples, what makes them more important and deserving of "marriage" than polygomous relationships or incest couples?

If you change it for one, you have to change it for all.

The solution (whether you are religious or not) is to keep marriage as what it was, what it always should be - what it is something between 1 man and 1 women, nothing else.

Yes legal equality of course should be granted to same sex couples but "marriage" means something very specific and a same-sex couple will never meet the criteria for marriage.

 

[NewiJapper]

What ever happened to homosexuality in Australia? This has kinda turning into a bible-bashin' ethical war :S

How bout we get back to the main focus. Whats happening in Australia, how are australian gays perceived, are we different than anyothers?

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

It isn't a question of equality Kwayera. My point is that anyone over the age of 18 can marry.

Marriage by definition is between 1 man and 1 women. Gay people don't want marriage, because they can have it now, they want marriage to mean something other than what it does.

You have yet to prove otherwise, or why it should be changed to accomodate this one alternative, and if it is to be changed, why only to accomodate homosexual couples, what makes them more important and deserving of "marriage" than polygomous relationships or incest couples?

If you change it for one, you have to change it for all.

The solution (whether you are religious or not) is to keep marriage as what it was, what it always should be - what it is something between 1 man and 1 women, nothing else.

Yes legal equality of course should be granted to same sex couples but "marriage" means something very specific and a same-sex couple will never meet the criteria for marriage.

Oh my god!!! the purpose of marriage is not to fulfill the age old criteria of having ONE male and ONE female in a relationship!!! I mean, who the hell goes, "alright dear, i am a man and you are a woman. looks like we have just the right amount of genders needed to marry! whoopdeedoo!"

 

[Name_Taken]

Oh my god!!! the purpose of marriage is not to fulfill the age old criteria of having ONE male and ONE female in a relationship!!! I mean, who the hell goes, "alright dear, i am a man and you are a woman. looks like we have just the right amount of genders needed to marry! whoopdeedoo!"

Lol you don't get it, the purpose of marriage is not to fufill those criteria, but for a couple to get married then their relationship must meet these requirements.

Strictly speaking, both people in the relationship have to be baptised and Catholic (this is for Catholic marriage obviously) among other things. That the couple consists of 1 man and 1 women is only one requirement for them to be eligible for marriage.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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).

'Implication' is one of the worst words when it comes from some religious person citing scripture.

There is no 'implication' that people should or should not do something from my example. Unless you think your God is an idiot or doesn't know how to express himself, you need to read everything and understand it, not extrapolate it for your own purposes.

There are passages in the OT and in the NT (Pauline Epistles) which say that homosexuality is bad. They essentially say something along the lines of 'when a man has sex with a man, they are evil' or something. The passage we discussed and the example I created from it does not say that. It says 'marriage is good'.

Not sure how that's confusing for you. Unless you're calling your God an idiot who can't communicate properly.

Oh and by the way, that passage also says that when a man and woman join together that it is holy. This clearly means that when a male dog has sex with a female dog (neither is a man or woman) they are both evil. Clearly that's the implication, right? Or am I just an idiot who created some extrapolation which really is clearly false?

 

[Kwayera]

It isn't a question of equality Kwayera. My point is that anyone over the age of 18 can marry.

That's obfuscation and you know it.

Marriage by definition is between 1 man and 1 women. Gay people don't want marriage, because they can have it now, they want marriage to mean something other than what it does.

You have yet to prove otherwise, or why it should be changed to accomodate this one alternative, and if it is to be changed, why only to accomodate homosexual couples, what makes them more important and deserving of "marriage" than polygomous relationships or incest couples?

If you change it for one, you have to change it for all.

The solution (whether you are religious or not) is to keep marriage as what it was, what it always should be - what it is something between 1 man and 1 women, nothing else.

Yes legal equality of course should be granted to same sex couples but "marriage" means something very specific and a same-sex couple will never meet the criteria for marriage.

So change the definition. The legal definitions of words have been redefined before. That's what we're asking. Change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to a contract between two or more consenting adults.

And yes, I include polygamy in here, because there is only religious opposition to it. Not any sane opposition.

 

[kelly tully]

Oh man, I have *so much* work ahead of me tonight.

 

[Name_Taken]

'Implication' is one of the worst words when it comes from some religious person citing scripture.

There is no 'implication' that people should or should not do something from my example. Unless you think your God is an idiot or doesn't know how to express himself, you need to read everything and understand it, not extrapolate it for your own purposes.

Ok, lets lay out the facts. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes, or if I've missed something important out.

Marriage:
- The first man was Adam and the first women was Eve. They were married, in first human marriage, conducted by God. This model marriage, was between one man and one women.
- Various passages relating to (ideal) marriage (God's plan for it etc.) always (as far as I am aware) refer to a wife and a husband (for example NIV, 1 Peter 3:1-5 etc refers to wives and husbands).
- There is no mention of homosexual unions, or homosexual marriage at all. As such it is neither expressly described as good or bad, it is ignored.

Sexual Practises:
- Sex outside of marriage is immoral (among other rules etc. - you're prob familiar with them anyway).
- The only form of sex which would appear moral, is between one man and one women, within marriage.
- Homosexuality (or to be specific, homosexual lust and homosexual sex) are condemned throughout.

Now just from the facts, we can see that the Bible condemns homosexual sex (as well as those who "do it"), the Bible describes Gods plan for marriage (in various verses), none of which mention the validity of a homosexual union (however they do constantly refer to monagomous, heterosexual marriages).

I will conceed that the Bible does not describe homosexual unions as specifically not allowed (especially in the manner it does homosexual sex), it fails to mention them altogether.

However I would invite you to conclude that since homosexual unions are not mentioned in amongst any of the various passages relating to what is sexually moral and God's plans for marriage, that they are in fact not part of His plan.

Don't belittle me for making this assumption but it would only appear logical to assume, that if homosexual unions (as well as various other relationships) are in fact as valid as heterosexual marriage and were indeed part of Gods plan, then they would have been mentioned at least once in the scripture (irrespective of what the Bible says of homosexual sex).

OFC everyone is free to their own interpretation.

 

[NewiJapper]

Homosexuality (or to be specific, homosexual lust and homosexual sex) are condemned universally.

Not any more

 

[Name_Taken]

That's obfuscation and you know it.

Can you explain what you mean by this (I looked it up BTW, cool word).

So change the definition. The legal definitions of words have been redefined before. That's what we're asking. Change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to a contract between two or more consenting adults.

And yes, I include polygamy in here, because there is only religious opposition to it. Not any sane opposition.

Yeah because morality is a totally foreign concept to people these days >.<

Good grief, now you want polygamy as well!!

Leave marriage alone, please!!

Make up other words, grant legal equality, do what you want in your own house, but marriage forever will remain defined as the union between one man and one women, regardless of what people want, regardless of what however many people think, a lie told and believed by millions is still a lie.

 

[Name_Taken]

Not any more

Friend, read your Bible

 

[evilflic]

I can't believe people are comparing homosexuality with incest and pedophilia.
Incest and pedophilia are crimes. They both have a damaging influence on at least one of the parties affected by them.
Homosexual relationships, however, are relationships. A proper relationship in the romantic/sexual sense of the word entails mutual trust and mutual interest. How is that damaging to anybody?
When I was in New York, I saw a guy holding up a placard saying "Zsa Zsa Gabor has had 9 husbands: I only want one". For the first time I realised how discrimination and injustice is thrown in the face of people like him. He wasn't a Josef Fritzl, he wasn't a Dennis Ferguson; he was an ordinary uni student, faced by the injustice of literally having to beg the government and the general public for permission to marry. Is that fair?!
Don't even compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

 

[evilflic]

I completely agree.
Name_Taken, you seem like one of those hypocritical "Love the sin, hate the sinner" douchebags. If that's what you think, then tell me what's wrong with the 'sinners' loving each other?
I'm straight, but it makes me so angry to see religious zealots like you denouncing homosexuals' intimate relationships and blocking their paths towards equality and justice based upon your own outdated, prejudiced and narrow-minded views.

 

[Name_Taken]

Without change, society doesn't develop.

Nothing remains 'forever'. That's because there's always change. Don't impose your will on others, I don't agree that it'll remain 'forever'.

It's not a lie, because there was nothing to lie for in the first place. There wasn't even 'truth'. So there's no lie.

Morality is completely personal. Your morals might be different from mine. Everyone's different. Not everyone has to follow your rules.

Nothing was said about 'wanting' polygamy. Don't exaggerate and bend the details.

No, I won't leave marriage alone. Because I believe I have a right for it, as a homosexual. And I will fight for it.

Buddy it was in response to Kway's post, she mentioned polygamy etc. Check out what she said, and then read my response.

 

[kelly tully]

Make up other words

Basically your whole, entire, ridiculous argument is based on semantics.

"Oh yes let them have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple just don't call it marriage because something something redundant argument, burning stupidity, I don't actually have an argument against homosexual marriage because essentially I have just agreed to it, JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE"

Let's call it marriage!

A marriage is the relationship between a husband and wife. N-COUNT
In a good marriage, both husband and wife work hard to solve any problems that arise.
When I was 35 my marriage broke up.
His son by his second marriage lives in Paris.
A marriage is the act of marrying someone, or the ceremony at which this is done. N-VAR
I opposed her marriage to Darryl. + 'to'
Marriage is the state of being married. N-UNCOUNT
Marriage might not suit you.
In twenty years of marriage he has only taken two proper vacations.

So technically we *can* call it marriage and it doesn't even have to be a marriage!

 

[MailMofo]

There's nothing wrong with being gay, nor is there with gay marriage.

Those against it are either religious fundamentalist morons, or in denial themselves.

 

[evilflic]

Can I just ask: how does adjusting the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual unions negatively impact on heterosexual marriage?
If Name_Taken can't produce a credible answer to that, then he has no other reason to be 'defending' marriage.

 

[Name_Taken]

For the first time I realised how discrimination and injustice is thrown in the face of people like him. He wasn't a Josef Fritzl, he wasn't a Dennis Ferguson; he was an ordinary uni student, faced by the injustice of literally having to beg the government and the general public for permission to marry. Is that fair?!

YES! - Absolutely and totally fair!

Why you ask? - Becuase, he CAN marry. "Marriage" by definition is between a man and a women. He chooses not to marry because he has no interest in the opposite sex, the fact remains however that he can, and has the right to always do so if he wants.

What he really wants is to change the definition of marriage to encampass the relationship he chose, because he feels somewhat entitled to it, as all the people around him who didn't choose what he did are getting married. Its as if he chooses to act differently and then demand that society treat him as if he doesn't.

Marriage is not the domain of same sex couples, its not the domain of polygamous relationships, incest couples or anyone or anything else, it ia a purely heterosexual affair.

Sure, grant gay couples equal rights to married heterosexual couples, but marriage must remain what it actually is.

Its not about equality, gays already have equality. If your major problem is equality, why are you worrying about gays? Shoudn't you focus on a group that is truly marginalised by society, IDK, perhaps Aboriginals, people who face genuine hardship?

Don't even compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia.

They are all sins, one should never take pride in evil, whatever people around you say.

 

[artist91]

who cares... fuck who you want.

if you have so much time to argue about it you obviously aren't doing it enough anyway.