Homosexuality in Australia (4 Viewers)

[dieburndie]

Jesus changed the laws anyway, so that's probably why we don't stone adulterer's and homosexuals.
Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.

Christians have no right to be anti-homosexual, I mean, they have no right to discriminate against homosexuals, as long as they themselves do not practice it. Discriminating against them is breaking one of the two most important commandments, according to J.C.

John 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you.

Just because you love someone, it doesn't mean you don't condemn their actions.
If "loving" meant "ignoring the sins of", then I would really like to see how christians could develop a functioning legal system. Would they rely on god to strike down every criminal with lightning?
Basically, you're wrong, you haven't addressed the real issue here, and no you cannot separate homosexuality from murder or whatever because they are both fucking sins, and the retarded christian goof god believes all sins should be judged equally.
And SamTan, you're an idiot, why didn't you try contradicting the points yourself instead of idly observing them then agreeing with someone elses post? Try saying something worthwile.
OOH look! Someone agrees with my baseless perspective! I'll just act all superior with this person, dismissing the legitamite points raised LOL!

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Christians are also told to obey the laws of their county, so the issue of what a Christian should do with a sinner becomes 'what is the law?' and the law in Australia is 'it's none of your business who people have sex with!'


Besides, I said they shouldn't discriminate, not that they can't condemn. They can condemn them all they want, privately.

 

[dora_18]

I personally think we should respect others; this includes their sexuality and cultural differences etc.


Seriously it's 2006; therefore I believe we're sensible enough as individuals to except people the way they're.

You think because its 2006 we should respect each others opinions? what about next year when it's 2007?

 

[ur_inner_child]

lol

You know what I mean though - not necessarily opinions, but humans rights and freedoms.

I was only referring to 2006 because we have come along way in regards to respect and gratitude towards others, and the whole "homosexual is not right" attitude went out the door in the late 1990's.

I agree with you to an extent, although I feel that it still has a long way to go.

Decades even.

 

[dieburndie]

lol

You know what I mean though - not necessarily opinions, but humans rights and freedoms.

I was only referring to 2006 because we have come along way in regards to respect and gratitude towards others, and the whole "homosexual is not right" attitude went out the door in the late 1990's.

I disagree. The same people who thought it was wrong 10 years ago think it's wrong now. Unless religion is eliminated, or completely transformed, nothing will change with a sizeable minority being against homosexuality.

 

[kami]

I disagree. The same people who thought it was wrong 10 years ago think it's wrong now. Unless religion is eliminated, or completely transformed, nothing will change with a sizeable minority being against homosexuality.

I think its passing the buck too much if we blame bigotry solely on religion, all of us possess some sort of bias and often we attempt to justify it anyway we can. Perhaps a good example is how so many people may dislike lies but they brush them off fairly easily, yet that is a far more important (and direct) teaching in christianity (and presumably islam and judaeism). We also have a range of cultures that have religions that don't condemn homosexuality yet there seem to be degrees of homophobia there also. So I think eliminating religion is not the answer. I think what needs to be done is create some sort of sympatico core in our society - that way we consider someone's actions in their own context without judging the person as an object.

 

[dieburndie]

I think its passing the buck too much if we blame bigotry solely on religion, all of us possess some sort of bias and often we attempt to justify it anyway we can. Perhaps a good example is how so many people may dislike lies but they brush them off fairly easily, yet that is a far more important (and direct) teaching in christianity (and presumably islam and judaeism). We also have a range of cultures that have religions that don't condemn homosexuality yet there seem to be degrees of homophobia there also. So I think eliminating religion is not the answer. I think what needs to be done is create some sort of sympatico core in our society - that way we consider someone's actions in their own context without judging the person as an object.

Ok, I didn't intend to blame bigotry on religion but to blame a great deal of homophobia alone on it. I don't think eliminating religion is ultimately the answer either, I'm just saying that for there to be the possibility that homophobia will disappear, religion would have to go as well, or be transformed to the point where it no longer endorses homophobia.

 

[kami]

Ok, I didn't intend to blame bigotry on religion but to blame a great deal of homophobia alone on it. I don't think eliminating religion is ultimately the answer either, I'm just saying that for there to be the possibility that homophobia will disappear, religion would have to go as well, or be transformed to the point where it no longer endorses homophobia.

I disagree - religions can hold a wide variety of views (and there are a number of them I don't support) and it is usually the people interpreting those views that generate the bigotry (which in this case is homophobia and gender identity bias). For example, both Christianity and Islam promote the whole 'love mankind' type stuff yet people have selectively interpreted that mesage too and if you take down religion then you'll simply get people claiming they are disagree with it for the good of society and so forth. Its also interesting to note Buddhism doesn't condemn homosexuality at all(and I don't think Shinto and Confuscianism have any stance on it) yet there are still plenty of homophobic people in Japan, China etc. as well.

I just think the belief that religion as we know it must cease to exist before there even be a possibility of a society that no longer permits homophobia is too limiting.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Its also interesting to note Buddhism doesn't condemn homosexuality at all(and I don't think Shinto and Confuscianism have any stance on it) yet there are still plenty of homophobic people in Japan, China etc. as well.

I just think the belief that religion as we know it must cease to exist before there even be a possibility of a society that no longer permits homophobia is too limiting.

It's true, Hinduism doesn't condemn homosexuality( they have a very sympathetic stance towards them) either and there are homophobic Hindu's...but, and I don't know/can't really speak for the people of Japan and China, however my grandfather is a bit of a homophobe, sadly, but he was brought up in a time when homosexual= child molester, so whilst he is far too polite and kind to say anything to a gay person, they make him feel very uncomfortable because of the way he was brought up.

 

[dieburndie]

I disagree - religions can hold a wide variety of views (and there are a number of them I don't support) and it is usually the people interpreting those views that generate the bigotry (which in this case is homophobia and gender identity bias). For example, both Christianity and Islam promote the whole 'love mankind' type stuff yet people have selectively interpreted that mesage too and if you take down religion then you'll simply get people claiming they are disagree with it for the good of society and so forth. Its also interesting to note Buddhism doesn't condemn homosexuality at all(and I don't think Shinto and Confuscianism have any stance on it) yet there are still plenty of homophobic people in Japan, China etc. as well.

I just think the belief that religion as we know it must cease to exist before there even be a possibility of a society that no longer permits homophobia is too limiting.

I think a society no longer permitting homophobia is too limiting. Again, I wan't saying homophobia can be entirely attributed to religion.
However, the frequency of it within a society is greatly dependent on the prevalence of Christianity and Islam, examples being the U.S (Radical and obvious homophobia in some areas, eg Westboro baptist church and Matthew Shepard murder) and anywhere you want in the middle east (Public stoning)
I'm not sure I understand all you're saying or what you disagree with specifically. Are you saying that religion can remain in it's current form, with the same participation rate, and homophobia can cease to exist? That seems irrationally optimistic.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the reason homophobia and religion corrolate probably has more to do with other things than that there is any causation from religion to homophobia.

 

[dieburndie]

I think the reason homophobia and religion corrolate probably has more to do with other things than that there is any causation from religion to homophobia.

Christianity and Islam both condemn homosexuality in doctrine and in practice. Do you think the participants just ignore this?
And what other things are you talking about?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

I think the reason homophobia and religion corrolate probably has more to do with other things than that there is any causation from religion to homophobia.

Interesting. What other things?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Interesting. What other things?

I'm thinking of things like.... well for examples, people who are more conservative seem to be more likely to follow a religion, they're also likely to be homophobic. What I'm getting at is that there are other connections that I think can be made.

As for the significance of religion in forming these beliefs, I don't think anyone reads the bible then decides gays are bad. It possibly reinforces their negative view of homosexuals but that's about it.

 

[bshoc]

I'm thinking of things like.... well for examples, people who are more conservative seem to be more likely to follow a religion, they're also likely to be homophobic. What I'm getting at is that there are other connections that I think can be made.

No kidding? And people with lungs are more likely to breathe? Sir you are a genius.

As for the significance of religion in forming these beliefs, I don't think anyone reads the bible then decides gays are bad. It possibly reinforces their negative view of homosexuals but that's about it.

For the first time ever I agree with you, there has only been one time in history where people have actively tried to exterminate homosexuals, and those people were not christians (whether Nazism was a religion upon itself is another debate).

I also think the link with conservatism is also not set in stone, ever heard of the log cabin republicans?

Also dieburndie, your perception of who the minority and majority in this debate are skewed, on this forum people like you are the overwhelming majority, sure, and you should know why, but in terms of the 20 million people of Aus., your are a minority, thats why gays aren't getting married or a gay agenda isnt being promoted in our schools unlike societies like Sweden.

In the end people have as much right to oppose homosexuality as homosexuals have to promote it, the only question is, who is the minority?

 

[Stott Despoja]

In the end people have as much right to oppose homosexuality as homosexuals have to promote it, the only question is, who is the minority?

What do you mean by oppose? Do you mean that people are free to discriminate against homosexuals? If so, it's a good thing that ultra conservatives such as yourself are in the minority.

 

[dieburndie]

Also dieburndie, your perception of who the minority and majority in this debate are skewed, on this forum people like you are the overwhelming majority, sure, and you should know why, but in terms of the 20 million people of Aus., your are a minority, thats why gays aren't getting married or a gay agenda isnt being promoted in our schools unlike societies like Sweden.

In the end people have as much right to oppose homosexuality as homosexuals have to promote it, the only question is, who is the minority?

Not opposing homosexuality does not mean approving gay marriage.
What defines a gay agenda in schools?
I think those that oppose homosexuality are a minority, albeit a large one, but I don't know this as fact. Give me some evidence that people like me are a minority.
Also, just because I think people have the right to choose their own sexuality without losing rights because of that, it doesn't mean I think homosexuals should have more rights, or any advantages over anyone else.
You are making false assumptions and misrepresenting my view.

 

[bshoc]

What do you mean by oppose? Do you mean that people are free to discriminate against homosexuals?

No thats not what I mean, but sure in terms of you proposal, free speech is the essense of democracy, people discriminate against homosexuals already and homosexuals against normal people likewise. What I was referring too is homosexuals making a scene everytime normal people defend their territory of existance, such as when we banned gay marriage an so on.

If so, it's a good thing that ultra conservatives such as yourself are in the minority.

Ok lets be diplomatic about this, you get to call me an ultra right conservative , so long as you're a far left pinko commie, my views dont fit neatly on left right or liberal conservative lines, and I'm pretty sure yours dont either, so maybe lose the shallow labels?

 

[bshoc]

Not opposing homosexuality does not mean approving gay marriage.
What defines a gay agenda in schools?

The teaching of it in classes, or passing it of as "acceptable," in a class of 30 students, only 2 will be gay, seems like a minority leverage to me.

I think those that oppose homosexuality are a minority, albeit a large one, but I don't know this as fact. Give me some evidence that people like me are a minority.

Well I've seen polls both ways, polls are useless, the best proof as they say is in the pudding (our governmental and legislative pudding that is), also you can still accept gays but oppose the gay agenda.

Also, just because I think people have the right to choose their own sexuality without losing rights because of that, it doesn't mean I think homosexuals should have more rights, or any advantages over anyone else.
You are making false assumptions and misrepresenting my view.

Ok take gay marriage for exaple, I'll assume you support it in some dynamic.

Marriage is man-woman institution that has existed since recorded history, there have always been gays but never gay marriage. Everyone in society has a right to marriage, including gays, so long as they marry the opposite sex, when we force new laws into the system, such a civil union or gay marriage laws, we cater for a minority and de-value the bonds of the majority, thus anyone who supports gay marriage or gay anti-descrimination legislation supports the creation of "more rights."

Also there are other more disturbing things about homosexuality in general, such as homosexuals being six times more likely to engage in pedophilia, it dosen't make mainstream news often obviously, as we all know both the science community and media have a particular political agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

The teaching of it in classes, or passing it of as "acceptable," in a class of 30 students, only 2 will be gay, seems like a minority leverage to me.
...
Also there are other more disturbing things about homosexuality in general, such as homosexuals being six times more likely to engage in pedophilia, it dosen't make mainstream news often obviously, as we all know both the science community and media have a particular political agenda. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

My old school only had one aboriginal girl at it. It was a private school that I got into through a scholarship, and there was one aboriginal girl. Are you suggesting that it would have been okay for our teacher to say something like "the presence of aboriginal people in our society is unnacceptable...I dissaprove of the Aboriginal way of life" and if not, why not? She was a minority. In fact, Aboriginals in general are in the minority, so why did I get taught about Aboriginal culture from Year1 to Year9?

As for the other stuff...both you and that article writer assume that men who abuse young boys are homosexual...when I would submit they are simply paedophiles...they are not attracted to men in general...but young children...ask your average gay man on the street if they find young boys attractive and they would be just as disgusted at you or I.

They are a tiny, sick minority...and as for the priests...I think it's possible that they molest young boys because of their frustrated sexual desires...because they live in celibacy, which is far more unnatural than homosexuality.

"Based on notifications (or reports) to child protection departments around Australia in 2001-2002, 3,254 Indigenous children under 17 years had some form of abuse substantiated - that is, the statutory protection authority believed that abuse or neglect had occurred (AIHW 2003). This rate of substantiation was on average 4.3 times higher (for all types of abuse) in the Indigenous population than in the non-Indigenous population. The rate varied widely between states, with Victoria and Western Australia having a substantiation rate nearly eight times higher for Indigenous children than non-Indigenous children..."

"As these departmental child protection figures are based on reported child abuse and neglect only, they are likely to be an under-estimate of actual levels of child maltreatment"

So can I use this to justify Aboriginal people being banned from marrying and having kids?