Homosexuality in Australia (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

But being celibate, or the relationship you have with your friends and biological family is equally 'closed to life'? I'm talking about a relationship that is basically friends with a high level of intimacy and exclusivity.

 

[katietheskatie]

However a homosexual relationship is built on nothing but lust, and cannot ever be equal to a committed heterosexual relationship.

But this is where you're wrong again. A heterosexual relationship is always more wholesome than that of homosexual couples. It doesn't mean that heterosexual couples don't sin, because most do and regularly.

if you honestly think this is true, you are a complete moron.

 

[Name_Taken]

If a homosexual couple don't have sex, and don't profess a desire to have sex in the foreseeable future, is it still sinful for them to have this relationship? What if they simply profess love and a desire for lifelong companionship, possibly with some hugging and kissing?

Well, as far as I can interpret it, the Bible refers to homosexual sex as being the sin.

A loving relationship between two people while not sinful per se (well I don't see it as breaking any code), may lead some into having sex, and thus committing a sin. However, if a level of self control is maintained then I can't find anything wrong with it (others may object with me though IDK).

Hugging and kissing are not sex, as far as I see it, the Bible is referring to like actual like physical stimulation (not just like penetration) etc It would really come down to the individuals interpretation however, as they are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

At what point does it become 'sex' per se, and therefore sinful?

Yeah its really quite ambiguous as to the precise extent where a person starts sinning etc.

However the Bible warns as to allow yourself to be caught in situations where you would be tempted into sin. So while being tempted is not a sin in itself, it is still not behaviour that is encouraged by the Bible (however somewhat condoned I believe, provided one refrains from sin itself).

This question pertains to heterosexual couples also.

Definately.

Is holding hands too much? Are you allowed to kiss outside marriage?

Yes to both IMO.

Can I place my hands on any other parts of the body?

Well IMO depends. Like I suppose you could obviously touch OFC, but like any behaviour that would fall under sexual interaction would classify as sex outside of wedlock.

What if my partner is stimulated to orgasm unintentionally without any genital touching, would this be wrong?

IDK TBH.

I've not heard of someone experienceing orgasm without sexual contact though, but I guess it could hypothetically happen. Once again this is up to the individual to decide for themselves (personally I would call sin, or at least a deviation from acceptable behaviour), since best practise would have been not to expose oneself to such a situation where such an issue would arise.

 

[xeuyrawp]

But being celibate, or the relationship you have with your friends and biological family is equally 'closed to life'? I'm talking about a relationship that is basically friends with a high level of intimacy and exclusivity.

Why the fuck do you bother? Just stop reading and get in an argument with someone with an intelligence greater than an average moose, imo.

 

[Graney]

I'm really bored.

There is no one else to argue with. I should really leave this place and focus on living a faadu lyf.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Yeah its really quite ambiguous as to the precise extent where a person starts sinning etc.

That's the problem.

 

[Name_Taken]

And it is also contradictory that you say you oppose homosexual sex because it is a sin and then you give reasons not related to the bible at all in rejecting homosexuality.

Homosexuality is wrong because it is immoral.
Gay marriage and adoption are opposed not only because homosexuality itself is immoral (and gay adoption and marriage simply encourage immoral behavioru) but also because of the various harmful consequences which will befall our society should they be legislated for, as I have already established.

No thinking person could ever say that different types of relationships are not equal in the way you did.

But they are not!

Heterosexual relationships are a natural thing of beauty. Within the bounds of marriage they are capable of procuring new life into this world. and bringing up new individuals with which to carry forth into future generations.

Homosexual relationships cannot achieve anything but sustaining the carnal demands of those involved, regardless of the sin which is encouraged by such a union. No amount of liberal BS or pseudoscience will ever be able to dispell this inherent fact.

I think you best stick to the argument that marriage is a christian institution, because these aren't logically coherent and are offensive; But the thing is in more secular society both christianity and the other religions do not have ownership of this and all people will be able to get married soon enough, people of any belief.

Marriage is by definition, a union between one man and one women. You can change the legal definition all you like, but the Truth will surface and triumph over the forces of darkness.

 

[BlackDragon]

'Homosexuality is wrong because it is immoral'

This makes no sense. All you are saying here is 'homosexuality is immoral because it is immoral', wrong is a moral term.

I'm with PwarYuex on this..

 

[ilikebeeef]

Homosexuality is wrong because it is immoral.
Gay marriage and adoption are opposed not only because homosexuality itself is immoral (and gay adoption and marriage simply encourage immoral behavioru) but also because of the various harmful consequences which will befall our society should they be legislated for, as I have already established.

Morality is subjective.

Heterosexual relationships are a natural thing of beauty. Within the bounds of marriage they are capable of procuring new life into this world. and bringing up new individuals with which to carry forth into future generations.

Your "arguments" that "heterosexual relationships are natural" are invalid. It has been proven that animals do engage in homosexual activities in the natural world.

Homosexual relationships cannot achieve anything but sustaining the carnal demands of those involved, regardless of the sin which is encouraged by such a union. No amount of liberal BS or pseudoscience will ever be able to dispell this inherent fact.

That, is a fallacy in itself.

Marriage is by definition, a union between one man and one women. You can change the legal definition all you like, but the Truth will surface and triumph over the forces of darkness.

Who told you truth is absolute?

 

[Name_Taken]

Morality is subjective.

No it isn't.

Your "arguments" that "heterosexual relationships are natural" are invalid. It has been proven that animals do engage in homosexual activities in the natural world.

Lol ok, so basically anything I say is totally invalid if you don't agree with it?

And there is no animal species yet observed which engages in homosexual behaviours as seen in humans. Sure, in some species sporradic cases of homosexual sex have been observed within in a select few individuals, but those individuals within the various species seen to commit such indecent acts have never been observed to display an exclusive preference for individuals of the same gender, and engage in sex with members of the opposite sex as well. Homosexuality is not natural.

Regardless, simply because animals engage in an activity is harldy justificiation as to why it should be tolerated, let alone encouraged within civilised human society.

That, is a fallacy in itself.

No it isn't... Even if you reject the notion of God and throw morality out the window, heterosexual unions serve a vital biological purpose, that is the continuation of the species.

What can be said of homosexual relationships?

Who told you truth is absolute?

Who told you it wan't?

 

[xeuyrawp]

I'm really bored.

There is no one else to argue with.

We should totally argue about Biblical historicity or something equally mundane.

Edit: hahah wikipedia is so shit: 'Biblical scholars almost universally dismiss the historical nature of the Exodus story,[5][6][7].'
- First paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus It cites the three dodgiest 'scholars' of all time.

 

[Graney]

You should get into an edit war on that wikipedia page, that would be a productive use of your time.

 

[ilikebeeef]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. Australians generally would see slavery as morally wrong today, but for the Ancient Egyptians, it was part of their everyday life.

Lol ok, so basically anything I say is totally invalid if you don't agree with it?

You need to distinguish between fact and opinion. I was proving your opinion irrational by making use of a fact. You need to put facts in your arguments in order to sound more convincing. The Bible does not count as a reliable source of facts.

And there is no animal species yet observed which engages in homosexual behaviours as seen in humans. Sure, in some species sporradic cases of homosexual sex have been observed within in a select few individuals, but those individuals within the various species seen to commit such indecent acts have never been observed to display an exclusive preference for individuals of the same gender, and engage in sex with members of the opposite sex as well. Homosexuality is not natural.

Please get your facts right.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Regardless, simply because animals engage in an activity is harldy justificiation as to why it should be tolerated, let alone encouraged within civilised human society.

I was proving your point that "Homosexuality is unnatural" wrong.

We are animals, only more complex-minded.

No it isn't... Even if you reject the notion of God and throw morality out the window, heterosexual unions serve a vital biological purpose, that is the continuation of the species.

What can be said of homosexual relationships?

We are not talking about biology, we are talking about why or why not people should have the freedom to be able to have loving relationships with whoever they desire. Your argument that "heterosexual unions serve a vital biological purpose" is flawed. What about people who are infertile? Should they be denied the right to have relationships? No they should not.

You need to distinguish between religion and morality. Just because I'm not Christian does not mean that I am immoral.

Who told you it wan't?

My own logic. Everyone has different perceptions of truth. E.g. me and you.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

No it isn't.

lol thats where you're wrong alex. I may agree with euthanasia but you might not.

 

[ilikebeeef]

lol thats where you're wrong alex. I may agree with euthanasia but you might not.

Exactly.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You should get into an edit war on that wikipedia page, that would be a productive use of your time.

I've done that once. Haven't even edited a page since.

 

[Name_Taken]

Yes it is. Australians generally would see slavery as morally wrong today, but for the Ancient Egyptians, it was part of their everyday life.

Slavery means different things to different people, but yeah I see your point. Forcing someone to work in squalid conditions for little or no payment constitutes a several breach of moral conduct.

Other than that, if you're implying that your notion of morality (in this case, that homosexuality is ok) is more popular today and therefore, "right" and mine because it is not as popular, is therefore invalid; then that would be an appeal to popularity?

You need to distinguish between fact and opinion. I was proving your opinion irrational by making use of a fact. You need to put facts in your arguments in order to sound more convincing. The Bible does not count as a reliable source of facts.

Please get your facts right.

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

If what you are argueing is that, because a behaviour has been observed in nature, is therefore natural and morally acceptable for humans, then you are committing an appeal to nature.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simply because a behaviour has been seen in nature (even if it is widespread) does not make it necessarily acceptable in civilised society. Poor hygine, rape and canibalism all play prominant parts of the "natural" world, yet you (I assume) would condemn all three, yet you support homosexuality because it has been observed in animals.

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reporductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

Excuse the website, I don't think you are an Evangelical Christian so you may not approve of the organisations purpose, but the article is free from any Biblical references or the like.

I was proving your point that "Homosexuality is unnatural" wrong.

Even if you believe this it gives no excuse whatsoever to embrace all the various behaviours exhibited by individuals within other species.

We are defined by our actions, if you choose to behave like an animal, that is probably how others will percieve you.

We are animals, only more complex-minded.

We live in a civilised society, simply because we may feel the need to do something, does not make it acceptable, much less so if our excuse is becasue some other animal engages in similar behaviour.

We are not talking about biology, we are talking about why or why not people should have the freedom to be able to have loving relationships with whoever they desire.

Homosexuals already have this "right", even though it offends or moral sensibilities of many in society.

Refusing to make special allowances for a small minority who chooses to act in a certain way does not for an instant, deny them the right to have sex with whoever they choose or engage in loving relationships.

I think gay unions where they currently don't should have equal legal rights to married heterosexual ones, but marriage remains strickly the domain of a union formed by a single male and female.

Your argument that "heterosexual unions serve a vital biological purpose" is flawed. What about people who are infertile? Should they be denied the right to have relationships? No they should not.

Ah but infertile people do not choose to be as such. An infertile couple may engage in acts which otherwise would be able of creating life, they are doing no wrong.

Homosexuals in contrast, consciously choose to engage in acts of sexual perversion which cannot create life and serve merely to gratify physical desires.

You need to distinguish between religion and morality. Just because I'm not Christian does not mean that I am immoral.

Not entirely, no. But you shape your morals to embrace your personal desires. Even if someone who isn't Christian doesn't want to engage in X behaviour and thinks it wrong, if you do want to do X then you (unless you adhere to a religion) are almost guaranteed to see nothing wrong with X.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Slavery means different things to different people, but yeah I see your point. Forcing someone to work in squalid conditions for little or no payment constitutes a several breach of moral conduct.

Yes indeed, as we see it.

If what you are argueing is that, because a behaviour has been observed in nature, is therefore natural and morally acceptable for humans, then you are committing an appeal to nature.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simply because a behaviour has been seen in nature (even if it is widespread) does not make it necessarily acceptable in civilised society. Poor hygine, rape and canibalism all play prominant parts of the "natural" world, yet you (I assume) would condemn all three.

I was not making a point that that homosexuality should be accepted because it is natural, I was refuting your point that "Homosexuality is unnatural, hence we should not allow it". The same thing that you have now said to me applies to yourself. Heterosexuality is also natural, must we not accept it either? No.

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reporductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Well that sentence contradicts that whole paragraph.

The Animal Homosexuality Myth

While this article hypothesises the purpose behind the behaviour (we are not addressing this, we are talking about facts here), it does NOT destroy the fact that animal homosexual behaviour is present in nature.

Even if you believe this it gives no excuse whatsoever to embrace all the various behaviours exhibited by individuals within other species.

We are defined by our actions, if you choose to behave like an animal, that is probably how others will percieve you.

Humans ARE animals, only that we are more complex and we can communicate more effectively. Once again, BOTH homosexuality and heterosexuality occur in nature. You cannot say that either one is "bad", unless if a WHOLE species is homosexual lol.

We live in a civilised society, simply because we may feel the need to do something, does not make it acceptable, much less so if our excuse is becasue some other animal engages in similar behaviour.

Yes. So heterosexuality should not be tolerated? The irony in your saying is that you say that "heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not that's why homosexuality should not be tolerated" then you say that "we should not act natural aka like animals, instead act "civilised" ". Another thing, the term "civilised" is subjective.

Homosexuals already have this "right"

They do not have the right to "marry". Also, we are discussing WHY should or should not they have the right, not the fact that they do or don't.

Refusing to make special allowances for a small minority who chooses to act in a certain way does not for an instant, deny them the right to have sex with whoever they choose or engage in loving relationships.

It is discrimination. The rights that they deserve are not special - all heterosexual (non-incestual, adult etc) couples have this right already. By allowing them to share this right, we are only accepting them as they are. By NOT allocating these rights to them, you are basically alienating them.

I think gay unions where they currently don't should have equal legal rights to married heterosexual ones, but marriage remains strickly the domain of a union formed by a single male and female.

Well this can change, can't it? Definitions do not necessarily stay still, as with the English language in general.

Ah but infertile people do not choose to be as such. An infertile couple may engage in acts which otherwise would be able of creating life, they are doing no wrong.

If they are infertile, they will not be able to create life, much like homosexuals.

But of course it may possible that homosexuals can actually create life through the help of science.

CGS�:�Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon?

Homosexuals in contrast, consciously choose to engage in acts of sexual perversion which cannot create life and serve merely to gratify physical desires.

Can't that be said for infertile couples? Why would they choose to have sex if they knew that they won't be able to produce offspring?

Not entirely, no. But you shape your morals to embrace your personal desires. Even if someone who isn't Christian doesn't want to engage in X behaviour and thinks it wrong, if you do want to do X then you (unless you adhere to a religion) are almost guaranteed to see nothing wrong with X.

For your information, I am straight, but I still support gay marriage. It does not satisfy any said "personal desires" of mine. I simply see that they should have the same rights as anyone else. It makes sense. How would you feel if you were the only straight person in a non-straight society which rejects straight people? (I am assuming you are straight)

 

[NewiJapper]

Homosexuality is not natural.

If I was heterosexual, I'd feel unnatural.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

If I was heterosexual, I'd feel unnatural.

you're a homosexual? YOu're one of us?