Homosexuality in Australia (2 Viewers)

[Tangent]

There has to be something to call 'evil', otherwise nothing is 'good'

 

[SylviaB]

i meant people married children

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Yes examples of sexual immorality are rife in the Bible, e.g. the city of Sodom, Gomorrah and several others.

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. - Jude 1:7 (NIV)

oh stop using the bible. :mad1:

The bible is fiction mate. Anyone who still "believes" in it just hasn't found the right time to fall off the bandwagon.

 

[Name_Taken]

oh stop using the bible. :mad1:

The bible is fiction mate. Anyone who still "believes" in it just hasn't found the right time to fall off the bandwagon.

I disagree.

 

[Kwayera]

But you keep on making the mistake that the Bible should prove anything to people who don't believe in it.

Lol.

Which is why religious arguments are invalid when they only have the Bible to stand on.

 

[xeuyrawp]

But you keep on making the mistake that the Bible should prove anything to people who don't believe in it.

But God didn't make the Bible or his presence too convincing because he wants people to have free choice. Free choice to live in the kingdom of God or to burn in hell with other sinners.

Notice the subtle difference in outcomes based on your choice.

Then again, how can we have free choice in whether we believe if we don't have access to enough evidence. Theism is inherently contradictory.

 

[BlackDragon]

But God didn't make the Bible or his presence too convincing because he wants people to have free choice. Free choice to live in the kingdom of God or to burn in hell with other sinners.

Notice the subtle difference in outcomes based on your choice.

Then again, how can we have free choice in whether we believe if we don't have access to enough evidence. Theism is inherently contradictory.

Yes theism is the first metaphysic that is taken out of the picture. Deism, on the other hand, I don't have a problem with.

If an educated person is to be defined as someone who learns enough to realise how little he knows as a person, then theists are the first not to be included in this; because they think they know the mind of god. Our positions must be congruent with uncertainty and continual learning in the face of an overwhelming universe, and the theist is not someone who has this. They think they have the answer, the answer being a god who listens to our prayers, commands us to do arbitrary actions at arbitrary times and who watches us and supervises our thoughts every second of our existence. A god who thought the best way to 'redeem' the human species was to sacrifice a man in primitive palestine over a hundred thousand years since humans first started existing. What a joke of a belief.

 

[SylviaB]

hwo can we have free choice if god already knows what we'll decide


HMMMM?

 

[Name_Taken]

But you keep on making the mistake that the Bible should prove anything to people who don't believe in it.

Lol.

Which is why religious arguments are invalid when they only have the Bible to stand on.

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on (religiously inspired) moral grounds.

However, in regard to gay marraige, I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. This is to do with values; if we lower the bar now and set a precedent that indeed tweaking definitions is "a-ok" then it invites further tweaking down the track, further lowering the bar etc. I won't go into the details of the "slippery-slope" since you probably see my point.

I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not religious. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids.

I raised concerns regarding the ramifications on churches and religious groupps (and there will be, despite whatever some individuals on this forum may advocate what the law should state). That’s a legal stance.

Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. That is when it starts affecting everyone.

We both agree that all people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. I say everyone already has equal rights to marriage (marriage ofc being defined as between a man and women) you say gays are being discriminated against etc.

Just as you resent the implications of my religion dictating that without Christ you will be doomed to eternal torment, I resent being told that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle choice.

But it is wrong for you to suggest that all points raised against gay marriage are the by product of religious beliefs.

 

[Name_Taken]

hwo can we have free choice if god already knows what we'll decide


HMMMM?

What do you even mean by this?

God knowing what you're going to do before you do it, doesn't at all affect your "right" or ability to choose whatever it is that you're going to choose for yourself.

Many Christians believe knowledge of what the outcome of a man or woman's free will will be does not preclude his or her freedom. They contend that it is possible for God to know how a man or woman will exercise their free will and at the same time not interfere with it.

Some believe that this creates a logical paradox, but the paradox hinges on the concept of time. That is, if God knows what a person will choose before the person makes that choice, how does the person actually have a free choice about that when the time comes?

But this paradox relies on the fact that God experiences time as we do. If it is said that God exists outside of time (as He created it), thus "time" does not pass for God. He is not only everywhere at once, but in all of time at once. Consequently, the time factor of the apparent paradox is removed, and the paradox disappears. That is, God does not know what the person will choose before they do so. Rather, God has always known what the person did freely choose in that person's future.

 

[Kwayera]

I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not religious. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids.

You may think that. But as usual, you're incorrect. If you're unhappy with the news articles, well, here is the actual clinical research behind them.

See:

Goldberg. A.E. (2009) Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. J Fam Psychol 23 (6): 861-70.

Greenfield, D.A. (2005) Reproduction in same sex couples: quality of parenting and child development. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 17 (3): 309-12.

Patterson, C.J. (1992) Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Dev 63 (5): 1025-42.

Tasker, F. (1999) Children in Lesbian-Led Families: A Review. Clin Child Psychol Psychiat 4 (2): 153-166

Tasker, F. (2005) Lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children: a review. J Dev Behav Pediatr 26 (3):224-40

&etc

 

[Will Shakespear]

we don take kindly to people what done post facts round here maam

 

[Will Shakespear]

lesbians make better parents - Google Search

take your pick

 

[Kwayera]

 

[NewiJapper]

I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not religious. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids.

Excuse me sorry...BUT ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING? That is probably one of the worst pieces of utter tripe I have EVER read on here, more so than many of the blatant racist comments made on some of the rest of the website and the entire internet.

I'm just bewildered for words...

 

[Name_Taken]

[/SIZE]

Excuse me sorry...BUT ARE YOU FUCKING JOKING? That is probably one of the worst pieces of utter tripe I have EVER read on here, more so than many of the blatant racist comments made on some of the rest of the website and the entire internet.

I'm just bewildered for words...

If you really wanted a kid, why don't you get married and have one?

"Concieve or GTFO" as Iron so eloquently put it like 50 pages ago.

Kids are not material items to simply be given out to people to increase their social standing.

 

[Name_Taken]

You're not a homosexual, nor do you have a two pairs of parents one homosexual and one heterosexual, so you don't have facts let alone statistics. In fact, the divorce rate of heterosexuals is extremely higher than that of homosexuals.

And it may not be a strictly religious statement of yours, but it derives from your religious ignorance.

I think you made my day.

One would wonder as to why the bolded might be the case...

 

[NewiJapper]

If you really wanted a kid, why don't you get married and have one?

I don't need to be married to have a kid, I'm happy to live with my life partner and share our own loving bond with our kid because I know our relationship won't fail. I don't need a ring and a pretty piece of paper to have a child. I wouldn't use a surrogate either I'd adopt, why bring another life into this cruel world with racist/sexist (which ever one concerns homosexuality) people like you when I can make an existing life better.

 

[NewiJapper]

think you made my day.

One would wonder as to why the bolded might be the case...

One would know BEFORE you edited your post.

It may not be legal YET in Australia but in other parts of the world it is a fact.

 

[Name_Taken]

I don't need to be married to have a kid, I'm happy to live with my life partner and share our own loving bond with our kid because I know our relationship won't fail. I don't need a ring and a pretty piece of paper to have a child. I wouldn't use a surrogate either I'd adopt, why bring another life into this cruel world with racist/sexist (which ever one concerns homosexuality) people like you when I can make an existing life better.

Lol thats the thing buddy, unless you do just that and get married (as in the true and only definition of marriage) then it won't in fact be your kid.

One doesn't have to think hard to demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act (generalisations I know, but its truthful). And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.)

With same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

Married couples can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. Does it always work the way it should? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it and give in to homosexual adoption. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems. You can't fix the problems of one sexual immorality by promoting another.

If everyone just got some self control and kept it in their pants until they were married, and wasn't obsessed with the notion of doing whatever they want under the (evidently) misguided belief that its not hurting anyone, then we wouldn't have any of these problems.

One would know BEFORE you edited your post.

It may not be legal YET in Australia but in other parts of the world it is a fact.

I edited my post becuase the new phrase sounds better and fits in better with my opening statement. I only edit to fix grammar or spelling or to rephrase things I've said badly.

Its a fact that in the Middle East and much of Africa homosexuality is punishable by death, or if the judge is feeling kind, life imprisonment. Yes some countries are far more liberal than us in terms of gay marriage, but others are not. Sweeping generalisations do not assist you in making your point.

Futhermore the people who actually persecute gays in the community, bash people up at school etc. are hardly going to stop doing so if gay marriage is instated. If you are after the freedom to live your private life the way you want, defiling marriage is not the answer.

And if you are trying to increase the quality of life for gays, why don't you spend money on STI education instead of campaigning for marriage? Over 71% of people in the States who have HIV are gay, and gays are universally overrepesented in every STI. If I were being cynical I could make the conclusion that gay sex is actually not good for you, but I won't as its your decision, just stop acting as if the reason why gays aren't smiled upon by everyone is because they don't yet have marriage "rights" and that its all going to change if they do.