Of course gay marriage won't work- there's no woman to oppress. With no women in the house, who will scrub the toilet? I can't believe that gay men would want to get married, given straight men's fear of it.

I am hoping for great things from the Copper Lady once the election is over and the Christian Right is safely locked away in its box. Sadly, you have to make compromises if you want power, even with people who are stupid and misguided. As the religious lobby dwindles into insignificance, however, we should see more and more enlightened decisions -- from BOTH sides.

Sam, What's this about Gillard breaking the glass ceiling? Stop deluding yourself. Gillard was elevated above it by the ALP backroom boys who could see their party losing the next election with Rudd at the helm. They only need to capture more of the wymens' vote to get across the line.

Can't imagine a woman like with you with your glaring women are the victim mentality voting for a bloke if you have the choice of voting for a woman, regardless of what their policies are.

(‘Penultimate’ doesn’t mean ‘the mostest’; it means second last.)

“The institution of marriage has long been enshrined in patriarchal and religious values that have done nothing to improve the lot of women.”

Let’s do a thought experiment on that. Before physical paternity was understood, and therefore when patriarchy was impossible, do you think the lot of women was better off or worse off, with no moral or legal obligation on a man in his capacity as father to make any contribution to a woman’s child? How might a woman obtain supplementary subsistence in the absence of an obligation on a particular man to make any contribution in his capacity as father? Think about it.

And if what you are saying is right, then presumably you have no objection to the abolition of compulsory child support?

“Ultimately it’s not the relationship form that’s the problem.”
It’s not the relationship that’s in question, since gays have the same right as anyone else to make explicit commitments to each other to be lifelong partners with all the same commitments as heterosexuals customarily undertake in marriage; and to hold ceremonies to celebrate the making of such commitments. The question is whether the government should register and regulate the relationship.

“If Gillard represents, as a woman and an atheist, a challenge to those values, why her resistance to gay marriage rights?”

Good question. But that is not an argument in favour of government recognition of gay marriage because that would only extend the same privilege and exclusion you are unhappy about. It’s an argument in favour of the abolition of government regulation and registration of sexual relationships.

If two women or two men want to tie the marital knot, then why not?

And why stop there? Can’t Australia legalise marriages for one man and two women? And for gender equality, women should be allowed to marry two men, or three, or four or more.

I know of a basketball team that had three or four of its key players all bunked down in the same apartment. For many reasons, especially on game days, it would have been more than convenient if they could all have made use of special allowances usually available to married couples involving car pooling and shared laundry.

You're the feminist lost soldier fighting away in the jungle long after the war is won.

Even if your fantasy world was accurate, what's wrong with doing the bulk of domestic duties when you're working in a smaller capacity outside the home? Marriage is a partnership. It's been shown that adding up paid and unpaid work, women and men in couples do nearly exactly the same hours of work.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs10/chesterspaper.pdf

Your distorted picture of 'today’s most liberated households' is pure agenda driven speculation, painting most marriages as a gender war over the cleaning of the toilet. Families and couples choose what work/caring mix each man/woman does based on economic realities, standard of living, their attitude to child care and private schools, and a whole range of other factors.

Trade-offs are made by both partners, influenced more by each partner's needs, salary, breast feeding, career ambitions of BOTH parents, availability of part time work in both parents jobs, all sorts of factors.

'Societal expectations' are a mere side show in all this and they affect the wage slave working dads (Sorry patriarchal oppressors) just as much as your poor downtrodden working mums.

I don't see many people staying in bad marriages these days, and definitely no more women than men would stay in marriages due to the status of marriage.

Really, in today's society, it's men who are more likely to stay in bad marriages because of the perception (correct or otherwise) they will end up living in a 1 bed flat and working their ass off for the Mansion they no longer live in and the kids they rarely get to see. I don't think Barren Gillard's life choices, or one feminists commentary on them, or your idiotic commentary here have anything to do with anything.

"have done nothing to improve the lot of women"

This is a very broad statement, and a tribute to the state of our universities how this statement can be made by a university lecturer.

I don't think there is any statement that can be believed from a university lecturer.

While universities continuously have their hand out for more and more money from the public, it would be interesting to know how much of that money comes from a family with a married husband and wife.

Most of the money I would think.

Let's not confuse philosophies here. Gay 'marriage' has absolutely nothing to do with women, won't make an skerrik of difference to what she does or doesn't do in the home.

Women get the bulk of the household chores and child rearing because historically they were the only ones who could feed the offspring so HAD to remain at home; they had less testosterone therefore less musculature and stamina and less able to run all day to catch the dinner. SOMEONE had to do the menial chores. Of course all this was then dyed in blood by religion and what is written in the various 'holy books' making it an edict from their Gods.

Nowadays it's different - many households have two working parents, it's only right that the chores and the childrearing should be shared. Religions should be seen for what they are - out of date instition that continues to promote patriarchal values that have no place in modern society. The 'holy books' should be seen for what THEY are - ancient misogynistic ramblings.

I was under the impression that in today's
society the feminine role, like the
masculine role is now more ambiguous, more
flexible, more subject to interpretation by
the individual. That resolving this kind of
ambiguity is part of the challenge of social
and cultural change. Uner the "old" system
everyone knew what their roles were, and most
people unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to. The system constrained people,
but if freed them from the need to make choices.

Today, there are fewer constraints, but the
individual now has the liberty (or the burden)
to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Today's society is individualistic and highly open
to change and experimentation, and men and women
can explore a wide variety of possible roles.
I'm not aware that gender restrictions limits
anyone today. From my experience and those of my
friends all possible options are open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. It's simply a question
of individual choice, and whatever works for the
people involved in the relationship.

Pathetic! Just because Gillard is non-religious, she might be OK with sexual perversion and such rubbish as gay marriage? Not surprising, for the normal among us, she is not OK with it.

The lesbians and homos cannot seem to get the silly belief out of their minds that religion is the only thing stopping people from pandering to perverts.

One does not have to be religious to be turned off by homosexuality and appalled at the suggestion that any mainstream politician would not feel exactly as Gillard apparently does about the absurdity of same sex ‘marriage’. Most people don’t give two hoots about what these poor, sad creatures do in the private lives; but recognising their shenanigans officially? Give us a break!

Marriage or de facto: who cares? But to equate either natural relationship with same-sex ones is ludicrous.

The 'unnatural' or 'abnormal' criticism doesn’t need to come from religion; it’s to do with anatomy and biology.

As for 'women doing it tough'. I did all of the washing, as usual today, and half the cleaning - including the bathroom. When I retired and my wife continued working, I did the lot, including cooking.

If women think they have it tough, don't blame society. Do something about it. Perhaps joining the army and being shot at on the front line might help you feel better.

Foxy

I see marriage in similar terms as you, another excellent and balanced post.

Leigh

The topic has nothing to do with sexual perversions, it is about gay marriage and acceptance of flexibility of roles within a relationship.

If you wish to discuss sexual perversion you are fully aware you can start a thread on this topic whenever you choose.

@ Leigh

Because there are heterosexuals who sell their body for money, then that makes you a pervert, oh and one does not have to be religious to hold that view. Now can you not see how your judgements on homosexuality is flawed with little logic. Because you judged me, its only fair that I judge you and make wild assumptions. I will repeat, Now can you not see how your judgements on homosexuality is flawed with little logic. Keep smiling.

Leigh, homosexuality is not a choice for most homosexuals - it is probably an innate feeling or desire in most.

Given the variations in heterosexual practices these days, anatomy is probably not an issue.

Whatever this article sets out to achieve it loses with its old hat undergraduate lesbian radical feminist view of marriage, men and society. The author is betwixt and between: she dumps on marriage, but at the same time she sees it as something that is worthwhile to gays, something they might aspire to. Meanwhile she also hopes that marriage will fail as an institution.

If marriage is so awful shouldn't it be done without rather than force it onto others through State intervention? If she wants to demolish marriage, go ahead but be honest about it and come up with alternatives.

Many women want to marry and many women want to have children. Bettina Arndt was trying to communicate some of the hard-won experience of others for the benefit of that group.

It can always be expected that those who see a gender divide will always disagree with Bettina Arndt and as usual they put their own spin on what they say she writes. What about some large slabs of quotes if another author's work is to be the mainstay of an article that takes issue with the first, in this case Arndt? After all, if the meanings are in fact there and there is often doubt that is the case, why not let the readers make up their own minds?

I don't see this article as really being about gay marriage at all. Rather, it seems to be about dumping on the old foes of radical feminism, unrealistic and imaginary though they are. What this article is also about is dumping on the informed choices that many women make. The happiness of the substantial majority of women who are happily managing their families and children must be hard for the jealous to bear. Will the author make them feel guilty for their choices and happiness? Don't think so!

Cornflower,

I would agree. I would also like to ask what alternatives are being put forward by academics that denigrate heterosexual marriage?

Particularly in veiw of the increasing amount of data now available for the benifits of heterosexual marriage.

For example:-

"Dr. Waite also traced better health to marriage. Divorced men, her study showed, had twice the rate of alcohol abuse that married men had, and almost as many indulged in other "risk taking" behavior. Divorced women showed similar patterns, though at lower rates.

"Marriage may provide individuals with a sense of meaning in their lives," Dr. Waite said, "and a sense of obligation to others, inhibiting risky behaviors and encouraging healthy ones."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04/10/us/studies-find-big-benefits-in-marriage.html

The author is an academic that offers no supporting data for her statements. This is the opposite to what science and education are supposed to be for.

Next academics will be saying 1 + 1 = 11

Why not, (when an academic does not have to give any supporting evidence for what they say).

Is this article arguing that allowing homosexuals to marry makes marriage more beneficial for heterosexual women.

If so, I fail to see the connection. I shared a communal house for some time as a student and arguments about cleaning toilets or sharing responsibility were mixed between the genders. We generally muddled through working out a fair deal based on jobs we all preferred or disliked the least.

There may be some women out there holding down a job and still doing most of the household duties but perhaps some men are also in the same position.

If you take gender out of the equation, and you can these days because we are closer to equality than we have ever been, it is really up to the partners involved whether gay or not, to work out what works best.

"Which isn't to say marriage should no longer be an option. Rather, that it must be a choice for everyone, and not an ultimatum via its continued confirmation as the relationship pinnacle - for only a husband and his wife."

I think the author might be pushing for options that are already won. Many people opting to live together without the official sanction of marriage. Sanctioning gay marriage (which I support) won't improve or add anything new to this evolving phenomenon.

I cannot believe how 1950's this author thinks the world is.

Seems like there have been so many singlet wearing University feminists who've made good mileage and money out of this old saw,the author doesn't realise time has passed and this stuff is like the mumblings and grumblings of an old 1940's Communist who still believes the revolution is coming.

An anti-female plot is seen at every turn thus proving one's firmly held beliefs over and again.

Maybe we can lock them together in a University somewhere and let them bore each other to death and then blame it on the patriarchal capitalist military industrial complex.

I found the article a little confusing. I'm not actually sure what she was trying to say.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage or heterosexual women. The countries where Gay marriage is legal have not suffered catastrophes or mass homosexual recruitments, as was feared by some narrow-minded citizens.

Gay marriage will not affect any heterosexual marriage, and it should be allowed in a forward thinking country like Australia.
If anyone is disgusted by the thought of Gay marriage, then they can choose not to marry people of the same gender as themselves!

It is no one else's business really.

jason84,

“Because there are heterosexuals who sell their body for money, then that makes you a pervert….”

Pardon me? How does it make me a pervert? Apart from the fact that I have never bought sex in my life, selling of sex is said to be the oldest profession for both sexes. Rent boys flog it, too.

You are entitled to present any argument you wish, but please try make sense.

In the meantime, homosexuality is a perversion, and if you are part of that perversion, that’s your business. Just don’t try to pretend that it is normal behaviour and expect the social institutions you scorn to accept you.

Not normal behaviour for you Leigh if you are heterosexual, but normal for someone who is homosexual.

No-one is advocating the forcing of homosexuality on heterosexuals but it appears some are comfortable with forcing an 'unnatural' sexuality on those who are born different from the mainstream.

@ Leigh

Well like I said in my previous post. If your going to judge me and label me a pervert simply because Im gay, well fair is fair so Im also going to make wild assumptions about you - because thats what you did to me. I pity you.

The opponents of gay marriage have been arguing for ages that allowing same-sex couples to marry will fundamentally change the character of heterosexual marriage. Generally this claim depends on the view that the purpose of marriage is to produce children, an argument that falls flat on its face the minute anyone produces a happily married childless couple, or a pair of pensioners who are tying the knot.

This is the first time I've seen someone arguing that allowing same-sex couples to marry will bring about fundamental change by altering the power relations within heterosexual marriage. The argument does seem to rely on a very jaundiced view of contemporary marriage, ignoring the fact that everyone has to negotiate the mores of their relationship these days, not just those in de facto relationships (straight or same-sex). Long gone are the days when immediately after their wedding the happy couple settled into a set of pre-ordained roles and duties. Today every couple works out their respective roles, and adjusts this arrangement constantly.

It's kinda nice that Stevenson thinks gay marriages will be a model for the utopian pairings she has in mind, but the fact is that today's successful gay couples are doing the same as straight ones: using a genuinely loving relationship as the platform for negotiating the household chores, and seeking the least uncomfortable way to meet all the shared responsibilities.

Gay marriage isn't going to save heterosexual marriage – each of us has to put in the effort to make our relationships work.

It is indeed a sad inditment on our society if the future direction of this once great nation is decided by the preferencial use of our toiletry body functions. Me thinks you look before you leap for the rock you despise may be your downfall.

"Marriage has long been enshrined in patriarchal and religious values that have done nothing to improve the lot of women."

Absolute utter tripe!

"Marriage" is the joining together of a man and a woman in the act of reproducing ourselves (when possible) in a supportive and cooperative context where each has a role which is defined by our physiology and culture.

"And the two shall become one"

Try to re-invent the wheel if you want.. and even try to make it have 4 sides instead of a circumference, but in the end the good old circle version works best.

Take faith out of marriage and let her rip!..... see where it all ends.

Gay marriage is a against 'natural law', Gods pattern, social cohesian, moral stability and common sense. It also involves the abuse of children through an un-natural family structure.

Richie 10

>> "toiletry body functions" <<

You claim our nation's future direction is decided by the above?

By a lavatory?

Well I've heard of pissing competitions, maybe you are correct.

PS

What is it about Christians and sex - if they could look into the bedrooms of so-called heterosexual couples..... I doubt there would be such an load of anguish about what gays do in the boudoir.

As for the author's article, I think her point is more about viewing marriage as a far more flexible and adaptable partnership than it was in the past. The acceptance of gay marriage would simply be a further advancement of equity between people; male and female, male and male, female and female.

I wonder if Ms Gillard having knifed Mr Rudd in the back and doing a deal with the grubby Greens has promised them the okay for 'perverted' marriage. Of course she will be silent on this one like her treachery against Rudd until after the election.

Come on Pelican. You know better than that. Homosexuals thinking they are normal are just kidding themselves. What these people do in private is their own business and, if they shut up and got on with it, few people would take any interest in them at all. But, when they start screeching about 'rights', marriage and even adopting children, they are really asking for a serve.

Jason,

If you are going to say "what (you) said in (your)previous post", you are wasting your time. In these days of anything goes for the sake of political correctness, most people keep their thoughts to themselves. I don't. But never kid yourself that you and your behaviour is accepted just because of the silence of the majority. The average person is not as tolerant as you have kidded yourself into believing.

It is quite sad of you to call me a pervert when you are the one who has a totally unnatural problem. Like all people with odd-ball ideas and abnormal practices, you have been fooled into believed that by denigrating human standards and societal mores, held dear by the majority of human beings, you will somehow become more acceptable. You have more to fear from the do-gooders claiming to be tolerant than you have from me, Jason. The likes of the writer of the article, the extremist politicians getting votes from 'tolerance', and all of the Left-wing do-gooders and self-haters are using you, my friend. They are using you and those like you as a weapon to bang the rest of us over the head in pursuit of their own political agendas.

Dear runner,

Like John Howard was with the GST
and Tony Abbott is with WorkChoices?
Don't point fingers, there's four more
pointing back at you...

Dear AGIR,

People's entire way of thinking about
marriage has changed; it is now viewed less as an
economic arrangement or a kinship alliance, and
more as a companionship based on the emotional
commitment of two individuals.

This transformation is, of course, a general trend,
not a hard and fast rule. Hard and fast rules are
no longer relevant in today's society. People make
their own individual choices.

By the way, if a man loves Jesus, does that make him
gay?
;-)

Foxy

I am giving you a big warm woolly winter hug, simply because you continue to inspire me.

We may well have our differences in the future, but I know you are a genuine, sincere person and that is worth more than anything your detractors (and mine) have to offer - if all they can offer consists of character attacks and cherry-picking proselytising.

Gay marriage is good for everyone because it means we are a step further to a fairer and more humane society.

@ Leigh

People choose to hold prejudiced views about homosexuality because its then easier for them to act in a prejudiced manner towards us gays and lesbians. Its very easy to pick the gay community apart and find reasons to be prejudiced. At the end of the days your likely to contine to hold your beliefs and Im going to continue to hold mine, so instead of calling gays and lesbians "unnatural" which is not helpful, why not use some basic tolerance.

Dear Severin,

I forget who said, "We fear things in proportion
to our ignorance of them.." (Aldous Huxley?)
And, the greater the ignorance the greater the
dogmatism. Ignorance can, with will and effort, be
cured. However, the key is having the will and
many simply don't - and more problematic is the fact
that so many of the voices in this sermonising
(for its rarely a dialogue) merely talk across
each other.

Anyway, I'll take that hug from you at any time,
and right back at you with a bigger hug!
It's a joy sharing cyberspace with you, and as
I've said so many times in the past - it's Thanks
to people like yourself that I'm still posting!

By the way, pay no attention to the "nutters,"
don't let them get to you. I saw a bumbper sticker
that summed them up rather well:

"Jesus loves you,
Everyone else thinks you're
an arse-hole!"

Jason,

You got one thing right. I will never tolerate poofters. What you do is your affair.

Dear Leigh,

Tolerance works both ways, old chap ...

As for not tolerating "poofters," well
I don't blame you. It's a poor man's term,
a word made famous and most commonly
associated with Monty Python.

"Oh poof's not good enough for HIM,
he has to be a bleeding FAIRY!"

@ Leigh

Well you obviously do tolerate "poofers" as you admitted "What you do is your affair". It must be a sad life having to make all your decisions based on your own prejudice.

Foxy and Severin,
don't hug too much or Leigh, Runner, Richie and AGiR will need extra oxygen.

I'm sure that Australia will follow the example of about ten other countries in where same-sex marriage has been legalised between 2001 (Netherlands) and 2010 (Argentina).
Same-sex marriage will enrich society. It is accepting that people as well as families and relationships come in all kinds of shapes and sizes.
Marriage should be defined as a bond between two people who love each other, rather than between people of the opposite sex.

I really don't understand the 'homosexuality is not natural' argument.
First of all, it is natural because it exists in nature.
Secondly, even if it were unnatural, then so what? Using a computer is unnatural, driving a car, hopping on a plane and so on, are unnatural.

I also don't understand the "God thinks that homosexuality is a sin/bad" argument because if your god created people, then who created homosexuals?

Jason84

>> Well you obviously do tolerate "poofers" as you admitted "What you do is your affair" <<

I thought so too. ROFL

Celivia

Big hugs to you too! I think a big bunch of bigots are breathless.

Other unnatural acts include typing on blogs, using microwaves, watching TV and demanding respect after having insulted and bullied people.

Jason, two doors up in my street there’s a house where, every time the owner goes out, his dog starts barking. It drives several other neighbours nuts, but somehow I’ve learned to ignore it (while feeling terribly sorry for the dog, of course). The neighbour has been told about his dog’s behaviour, but because as soon as he comes home the dog becomes happy and well-behaved again, he simply doesn’t believe it.

I think something similar happens when Leigh’s wife goes to work.

Dear Celivia,

Welcome back, we've missed your posts.
Group hugs all round!

As for what's natural and what isn't?
What's categorically missing is
the humility to understand that our own
self-declared wisdom is often more
limited than we admit, that when we
criticise and lecture those with
different histories and sociologies,
we often expose little more than our own
ignorance. As Waleed Aly tells us in his
book, "People like Us,":

""It is possible, and even desirable, to
speak - and even to argue - across social,
religious, and cultural borders. But it
requires a level of knowledge that a grotesque
proportion of those engaged in the conversation
are either too arrogant or lazy to obtain...
It requires the discovery of what is deeper...
They prefer instead to pontificate from an
impossible distance in furtherance of their
respective causes. They decide what the symbols
and practices of others mean on their behalf
because it boosts their predetermined, and often
prejudiced, narratives...Yet such ignorance
does nothing to dent the confidence of those who
espouse it..."

Foxy,
"They decide what the symbols
and practices of others mean on their behalf
because it boosts their predetermined, and often
prejudiced, narratives...Yet such ignorance
does nothing to dent the confidence of those who
espouse it..."

Sounds like a university feminist going on and on and on about "patriachy"

Odd how it is virtually impossible to find a university academic prepared to say one good word about the male gender, and also say one good word about heterosexual marriage.

So many must be male hating homosexuals who do not believe in life-long commitment.

Dear Severin,
Jesus created sex and it was good.
When I was a young man we knew a raised prick had no brains and no concience and I am sure nothing has changed.

Dear Leigh,
Jesus came to save the lost and he saves ALL "who come to him". No favorites, ALL. It is the Holy Spirits job to convict of sin not ours and I know that he is much more capable. Our job is to love others and to tell them what a wonderful savior we have in Jesus

ALGOREisRICH: <"Gay marriage is a against 'natural law', Gods pattern, social cohesian, moral stability and common sense. It also involves the abuse of children through an un-natural family structure.">

... and if God wanted me to have an operation he'd have given me a zipper.

God's pattern may well be that about 5% (or whatever it is) of the population is attracted to their own sex. We see it throughout history and in other species.

It even makes sense in cave man terms. Imagine a settlement of women and small children - food gathering etc. but limited in their nomadic wanderings by having to herd and carry children and tots. How handy would it have been to still have some males of the species on hand who were not interested in having sex with the women. Still some superior strength to help protect the bunch as well as transport them while the rest of the males were off chasing mammoths or warring or something. I am just saying that if you believe that all humanity is driven to reproduce the species, there are still ways that all humans help the group as whole to reproduce (including grandparents and people who choose not to have kiddies). There are more ways to contribute to a species reproducing itself than just making babies.

The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual men living in nuclear family configurations. If you cared about child abuse, you would be questioning all types of living arrangements including that of the nuclear family to discover how we can work out which people are abusive and which are not. In any case, social history tells us that many types of families have existed throughout time.

I also agree with what Richie 10 is saying. I am sure that we were not given jurisdiction over any one but ourselves.

Hey Foxy, I loved the comment about men loving Jesus! Lol!

Woulfe, also loving the comment about Leigh and his wife- very clever!

Can I join in with the tolerant poster's group hugs too? :)

I too am happy to see Celivia back, and to read the confident, wise posts from Severin on this subject.

We will never change the narrow-minded, ancient, and intolerant views about homosexuality from Runner, AGIR and Leigh, but gee it is fun trying!

As for Vanna and his continuing love affair with female university academics - well, I really think he needs to get some help......

Ritchie10, you seem a nice person, the sort of person I would feel happy to say is a true 'Christian'.
I agree that if there is a God, I am sure he/she would love all people on earth, no matter their colour or sexuality.

Maybe the other so-called Christians ranting and raving about their particular brand of hatred on these posts would do well to take a leaf out of Ritchie10's book?

Jason, ignore people who are prejudiced against another's lifestyle, religion, sexual orientation, for the basis of their prejudice, such as Leigh's is all FEAR. He/she is to be pitied, as you rightfully pointed out, Leigh's prejudices have dictated his/her life. Indeed a sad situation.

Leigh you posted: "Like all people with odd-ball ideas and abnormal practices, you have been fooled into believed that by denigrating human standards and societal mores, held dear by the majority of human beings, you will somehow become more acceptable".

You were incorrect assuming and speaking for the Australian population,in addition to being wrong regarding the above. How many heterosexual people enjoy anal sex? Many do: believe me. Married men, single men, guys with female partners, single and married women; many enjoy anal sex without their spouses ever knowing.

Why are you not out there judging heterosexual couples regarding anal sex if you feel so strongly about gay people? Fear? That a male will latch onto you? If you have been abused at some stage, do not blame gay males. The high percentage are NOT paedophiles and are or have enjoyed long term relationships.

Those Aussie ocker blokes who feel the strongest anti gay emotion are often the most likeliest to either become gay or enjoy some of the benefits of a gay relationship.

Note the term: some of the benefits. A gay relationship is NOT about sexual intercourse/the physical.

A gay relationship is an emotional and intellectual loving profound relationship exactly the same as a heterosexual relationship.

Btw: whether a couple adopt a child is not your business or anyone else's business; other than the adopted child's families.

An uncle of mine used to take a similar stance to you Leigh, until one of his sons arrived home to inform his parents that he was gay and enjoying a wonderful loving relationship. Love won out and my uncle's fears and [behavioural patterns] evaporated.

A confident intelligent beautiful person is one who is not fearful of people from all walks of life.

Suzanonline,
Perhaps you could help me with something.

If marriage has "done nothing to improve the lot of women", then why is gay marriage good for straight women?

Perhaps that is a little over my head, but how would a heterosexual, married male be treated in an Australian university, considering no Australian academic can seem to write anything positive about men or heterosexual marriage.

And if heterosexual, married men are not greatly welcome in an Australian university, (considering the hatred directed at them by university academics such as the author), then why do university academics still want their money.

Dear Pynchme,
The good book says that we must take the whole book not just the pieces we agree with, for if we add to, the plagues are added to us, and if we cherry pick, our part of the blessing is taken from us. But thanks be to God Jesus has paid the penalty for our sin and if we believe we live under grace which is an unearned favour, for All have missed the mark (sinned) and fallen short of Gods best (glory). You are spot on when you say men miss the mark. But it was not a hetrosexual man who raped my 8 year old and destroyed his self esteem so now he can't enjoy Gods greatest blessing, children of his own. God hates divorce because children get hurt. But until we suffer enough we refuse to humble ourselves and God only resists the proud. I was really blessed on another thread here for all put aside their differences and where united in sharing the joy in researching family history. I get the same kick in searching out the hidden truths of the bible, but my starting point is always God is good and wants the best for us all, for who among you who love your children would give them a snake when they asked for a fish. God is a loving father, But like any good dad the buck stops with him.
Regards Richie 10

Aw Shucks, Suzeonline

You flatter me.

Consider yourself hugged as well.

However the people who need it (hugs) most are the most prickly to reach. But here goes, Vanna I wish for you find a person who truly cares for you and understands your pain. Leigh I can only hope that you have a 'road to Damascus' experience like that of WAU's uncle.

Richie 10, I know you mean kindly, you need to understand your religion is but one among many. Please, I am much interested in you and your thoughts than I am in your proselytising, however kindly meant.

Woulfe

Love that sense of humour - whenever I see a post from you in my email I always check it out. And good to see you post on a variety of topics, sometimes it is easy to get caught in that which affects you most personally and deeply, however you produce some great thought on a variety of topics.

Why is gay marriage good for straight women? Because it means we are a more tolerant, accepting and equitable society.

"" homosexuality is a perversion, and if you are part of that perversion, that’s your business. ""
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 19 July 2010 10:40:53 PM

Leigh, homosexuality is not a choice for most homosexuals - it is probably an innate feeling or desire, in most (Monday, 19 July 2010 5:51:21 PM)

Homosexuality is a variation on the continuum of humanity, just like other variations such as physical intersexuality (aka hermaphroditism), two wombs, two aortas, or one kidney.

Richie10 - debasing sex to toilet function is a little simplistic.

Severin,
So if academics in universities cannot write anything positive about heterosexual married men, then are they welcommed into universities or not?

Thanks for your welcoming hugs, sinners :+)

Yeah, no wonder that Jesus, being wise and all, never came back as he promised. Fundamentalist males, who love him just a little too much, would be a good repellent.

You have worked out a great way to have fun, Suze!

I too ROFL when I read Woulfe’s comment about Leigh and his wife. But HELP!...now I will have this image in my head everytime I read a typical “Leigh” post.

Foxy you always manage to find the most appropriate quotes. I seem to have too little time to post, but will whenever I can.

Richie10,
“The good book says that we must take the whole book not just the pieces we agree with…”
I don’t disagree that it is better to take 'any' whole book into consideration rather than just the parts one likes, but I wonder how it is possible applying that to the Bible, as there are so many contradictions.

Pynchme, I found it very interesting what you wrote about cavemen etc. I once read an article that there indeed is an evolutionary advantage of having a presence of some homosexual people in the family and community especially because in those rough times, a proportion of parents died at a young age- at an age when their children were still too young to be able to care for themselves. Then, it was of much advantage of the group’s survival that there were some childless family members who could take over the care of the kids.

You might have already come across this article but it’s an interesting read, too:
“Having Older Brothers Increases a Man's Odds of Being Gay”
http://tinyurl.com/2vggfyy

Vanna,
You can always “hire a crowd” to applaud heterosexual males at a uni’s entrance. I’m sure they’ll understand your pain, too.

I think that Samantha Stevenson makes a mistake by singling out straight women in her title.
Including same-sex marriage is good for everyone (not just straight women); it means that a society is civil and does not discriminate against people because of their different sexual orientation.

Dear Vanna,

I wasn't able to respond to you earlier because
I'd used up all of my posts.

Finally, here I am.

You stated to me that it, "sounds like a university
feminist going on and on about patriarchy..."

Waleed Aly, the author that I cited happens to be
a married male. I happened to cite from his book,
"People like Us," because he was speaking about
the deep inability of each of us to comprehend
the other; which resulted in
a world of much mutual stereotyping and
consequent ignorance.

As for myself, I'm a happily married young working
mother, with a husband and family.
My husband and I work together
side by side. I'm not an academic, although
I do have several university degrees, however, I don't
see the world in terms of gender, or labels. I believe
that a person's individual human qualities, rather
than his or her biological sex, is the primary
measure of a person's worth and achievement.

As for homosexuality, My attitude is, enjoy your own
sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave
others to enjoy theirs, in private, whatever their
inclinations, which are none of your business.

I trust that clarifies things for you.

Dear Suze,

I'm glad that you liked the Jesus joke,
and you're most welcome to a group hug.
In fact, several group hugs!

Dear Severin,

Keep on posting.

Please!

Hey you lot, we'll have no more of those sinful single-gender group hugs please, you will have the neighbours talking. :P

It is infinitely more harmful to perpetuate this sort of intolerance than it is to accept people for their differences. The test should be - First Do No Harm. There is greater harm from intolerance. Why should people of the same sex be pilloried just because they love each other? Love is perfectly 'natural'.

Homosexuals have been around for centuries which suggests it is nothing new nor anything to be feared.

>> But HELP!...now I will have this image in my head everytime I read a typical “Leigh” post.

Sorry, but it gets worse: on the days he doesn’t post you now have to imagine him vigorously but quietly gnawing on an old slipper.

Foxy,
I really don’t want to know your history.

The author does a critique of our current Prime Minister and mentions their gender, marriage status and sexual preferences.

This breaks the rules of the anti-discrimination policy of the Curtin University (her employer) which states:-

"Harassment is any behaviour that is unreasonable and
inappropriate and which is unwanted by the victim. The
behaviour may be deliberate (for example verbal abuse
or threat of physical violence) or covert (for example
criticism, exclusion or unrealistic/degrading demands).
It is usually based on some real or perceived difference
such as sex, race or disability."

The author should best concentrate on the policies of the Prime Minister, which no one seems to know about as yet.

I have never heard of anyone from an Australian university who has ever made a single positive statement about married, heterosexual males, with ever statement made by academics being negative of married, heterosexual males.

This does clearly appear to be continuous discrimination by university academics, and it does appear to be completely accepted by university admissistration.

I would think start shutting universities down, and divert the money elsewhere in education.

vanna do you have any idea how annoying your obsessive focus on academics is? Anybody who was ever going to pay the least attention has heard you on that. Continuing to go on and on about it does not look good for you and undermines any likely hood of legitimate consideration the issues behind your concerns.

Have you tried submitting a thread proposal on the topic? Submit some of the more glaring examples of gender vilification you have found from Australian academics and see who wants to debate the topic but please stop dragging it into every thread you post in. It's not good for you, it's not good for the image of those with concerns about the excesses of some feminists and it's become rather rude.

R0bert

Dear Vanna,

I think that we're talking at cross-purposes
here. I understood your comments were directed
at the author I cited in my earlier posts,
or at me - seeing as you addressed your post to
me. Therefore I responded as I did.

Apparently your comments were directed at the
author of this article. Why then did you address
your post to me and then tell me you don't want to
know my history?

Crossed wires perhaps?

As for your references to academics - I don't think
you can describe academics as simply one entity
that thinks alike.
People are individuals, especially academics,
with totally different perceptions and views.
The expectation that they are some kind of
"same" is not only impossible, but it also
lacks integrity. Your statements are
simply generalisations and don't allow for
individual perceptions. Are all Australians
the same? There's battling farmers, bronzed beach
babes, metro latte sippers, pompous monarchists,
yuppy republicans, sporting heroes, Aussie ockers,
tireless tradies, soccer mums, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't know what your hang-up with academics is -
but I did not get the same impression that you did
from reading this particular article.

I agree with Robert, Vanna.
No one here is answering your silly questions because we really don't care about these mad academics you go on about!
Stop already!

"Homosexuals have been around for centuries which suggests it is nothing new nor anything to be feared." Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 5:08:10 PM

God created?
....................

""Sorry, but it gets worse: on the days he doesn’t post you now have to imagine him vigorously but quietly gnawing on an old slipper.""
Posted by woulfe, Wednesday, 21 July 2010 5:56:30 PM

a pillow, perhaps?

Foxy,
Well, the author condemns heterosexual marriage, but supports homosexual marriage.

The author also offers no scientific evidence that heterosexual marriage is bad, just states that it is bad.

The author also breaks the anti-discrimination policy of their university, similar to many other academics in universities throughout Australia.

There is also no data being released from universities regards de-facto relationships, which means that such data is being purposely hidden.

I would think nothing of any reliability is now coming from academics in Australian universities.

(And if you think that university research is valuable, almost no research being undertaken in Australian universities reaches the stage of being commercially viable, and for the most part, universities have now become a waste of public funding).

Dear Celivia,
I Have been studying Gods word for over 30 years and I am
beginning to see the big picture of the jigsaw puzzel of the words, so either I am a slow learner or it takes much meditation to get the hidden gems. A case in point is proverbs 22 verse 6 Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it. The other day while talking to the Lord about my youngest daughter I asked where I had gone wrong and his reply was "She isn't old yet" children have to be given grace to make mistakes so they learn from them and when they are old they will remember the way that they learned from the bible and follow it. We all need to hear the words of God but few want to hear for it is wisdom in handling the pressure of daily life. If you have no pressure in your life you are very fortunate. Churches make mistakes, Governments make mistakes, for they are people and we are not perfect. It is much better to forgive and pray for those who spitefully use us than getting a wrong attitude and holding a grudge as it only destroys our peace and joy. Without a relationship with Jesus you will never know him or understand his word. I thank God daily for all that I have and the have nots fade into insignificance.

There's alot of hugging going on around here. It's like being around a bunch of eight year old girls. It looks nice, if you don't know what is going on, but there is always the unhugged target who understands exactly what is going on.

Oooooh Benk, diddums.

Come here for a hug, but take the spikes off first. Thank you.

Dear Vanna,

A few more clarifications:

Universities are centers of learning. They exist
for one purpose - to further human knowledge and
encourage scholarship. They encourage scientists
and academics to carry out innovative research
which is often of commercial significance.

If you were to google
the achievments and awards of any Australian
university, be it Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra,
South Australia, or any other,
you would be amazed at what they have achieved.
From pioneering research in a diverse range of topics
such as dairy science, the use of probiotic bacteria
in foods, medicine, to the waking effectiveness of different
sound frequencies in smoke alarms in which the research
findings has led to a major policy change to the
smoke alarm warning sounds in all residences occupied
by people suffering hearing loss and in all commercial
sleeping rooms. Then there's the research done in the
reduction of road trauma in the past two years where
the university has worked alongside with the Victorian
Transport Accident Commission, and the list goes on.

You seem to be of the mindset that modern universities should
view education as simply another good to be produced and
sold according to the dictates of accountants.

Therefore according to your theory, people like Charles
Darwin wouldn't get a university job in the 21st century
simply because of his poor publishing record. This is
the tragic situation that you're suggesting. How many
Charles Darwins would therfore be confined to
meaningless work in offices because they don't play
according to your rules?

You seem to have forgotten that education is the prime
public good, and your attempt to apply market principles
is pure economic nonsense. Only those societies able
to produce a suplus - and allocate a reasonable
proportion of it to public education - will be sustainable.
We need ideas and inventions to not end up on the
dust heap of history.

Anyway, I see that there's a huge gap in the way we view
the world. I won't be responding to you any further.
A closed mind is like a closed book, just a piece of
wood.

Foxy,
I once had the opinion that all a government had to do was get organisations such as universities to carry out research, and then base their policies on that research.

Now I believe governments should be gradually shutting universities down, because of the corruption of those universities, the complete lack of reliability of their research, and the biased and subjectivity of their staff.

The author offers no scientific evidence for her assertions regards heterosexual marriage, just feminist doctrine, and if a university accepts this as reliable, then nothing from a university can be regarded as reliable.

Also keeping in mind that Cutin university is the home of Susan Maushart, who would represent the absolute pinnacle of gutter or dunny can journalism in this country.

Dear Vanna,

You obviously have your reasons for thinking
the way that you do.

I've enjoyed our discussion on this thread.
We don't have to agree. I believe that
without intellectual tension there can be
no intellectual development.

Once again thanks for taking the time and
trouble to respond to my posts.

I'll see you on another thread.

"...take the spikes off first..."
Harrrr harrr,!

Foxy, beautiful, clear and edifying post, I wish vanna would take notice!

Vanna,
where else would students at Universities be able to get this kind of education/information, if Universities were shut down?

The opinion of this author is not the general opinion of universities.

Richie10
I'm glad you studied the bible for 30 years, because you might be able to explain what confuses me.

For example...
Take the proverbs 22 verse 6 you mentioned, "Train a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it."

But then, you would also find:
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death...”

So, does God say that a child is still be allowed to learn after making the mistake of cursing his/her parent, or should this child be executed for doing so?

One cannot put a child to death and wait till the child is 'old' enough to know better at the same time. Both cannot both be true at the same time.

Sorry for being seemingly off-topic, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, Richie.
But what I'm getting at is how Christians view same-sex marriage differently. It clearly says in the bible that homosexuals should be put to death. So where is the contradiction that tells Christians to accept and love homosexuals?
If you can't answer this, then perhaps another Christian can explain?

I want to understand how Christians can differ from opinion so much about same-sex marriage (and other issues). All Christians take their morals from the same book, right? But they come to different conclusions.
Is God's word negotiable, or do Christians just pick their favourite bits from the Bible and ignore other bits?

Celivia

you actually ask some very good questions

'But what I'm getting at is how Christians view same-sex marriage differently. It clearly says in the bible that homosexuals should be put to death. So where is the contradiction that tells Christians to accept and love homosexuals?
If you can't answer this, then perhaps another Christian can explain?'

It is true that the old testament teaches homosexuality is punishable by death along with rebellion, adultery, murder and a host of other sin.

Christians who believe the Scriptures know God as holy, righteous and our Creator. This gives Him the right to determine right and wrong. He is the author of the law of which the nation of Israel was required to obey. The ultimate purpose of the law was for it to become a tutor to lead people to Christ. Without acknowledging what our Creator calls right and wrong we will make up our own rules (like the vast majority do). We will also be full of self righteousness and fail to acknowledge our desperate need of a Saviour. We in actual fact mock the holy One who died a horrible death because we are lawbreakers.

When we acknowledge that we are lawbreakers we are able to receive the mercy and grace of Christ. The problem is that many if not most fail to acknowledge that they are lawbreakers because they have made up their own rules. The law albeit harsh in our eyes is the very thing that shows how every human is a lawbreaker. Christ was the only one who was not.

The reason that many who claim to believe sanction homosexuality or living together in sin or abortion is because they know nothing or very little about the nature of God's holiness. They claim forgiveness but won't even acknowledge their wrong (according to God's laws). Basically these people have failed to see God;s law because of their own self righteousness and have determined they will decide what is right and wrong.

Foxy,
Gosh, jee.

For a while there I thought you sounded like Jullia Gillard (I don’t want to talk about it and I’m not going to give out any details. I just want everyone to move on and vote for meeee).

Celivia
"The opinion of this author is not the general opinion of universities."

The opinion is, if universities accept lecturers who make statements with no supporting evidence.

A question is “How did the author get so far in the university system, without someone telling her that she needs to give supporting evidence for her statements?”

Dear Vanna,

Now you sound like Tony Abbott -
capable of only condemnation and
criticism.

I've responded to every one of your
posts giving you plenty of detail.
However when a discussion ceases
to be a dialogue and we're merely
talking across each other, I don't
see the point in continuing.

As I've stated in the past - you are
entitled to your opinion (but not your
facts).

@ runner

"But what I'm getting at is how Christians view same-sex marriage differently. It clearly says in the bible that homosexuals should be put to death. So where is the contradiction that tells Christians to accept and love homosexuals?"

OK perhapes I can explain. Look religion is bigger than the bible. The bible in my opinion is a rough guide that some people choose to live their life by. Those people who do choose to live their life by the bible cherry pick the verses they like and don't like, and the ones they don't like they tend to just ignore. The bible is full of contradictions. Its important to remember that homosexuality and sodomy is two different things, the term sodomy does not just belong to male on male sex. Also the term homosexual did not actually appear in the bible until 1946, so the term sodomy in the bible orginally may not have intended to mean homosexual sex. So there is no evidence that the sin of Sodom brought on the destruction of the city was linked to homosexuality.

@ Richie 10

There is no evidence that homosexuality was intended to be a "sin". You see the term homosexual was not actually in the bible until 1946, the people who added the term homosexual in the bible back in the 1940's did so because it seemed that they believed that sodomy only refered to male on male anal sex, because the criminal law back then refered to sodomy as male on male sex. And the name of the city in the bible is called Sodom which god destroyed. So people have wrongly concluded that only male on male sex happened in sodom when there is no evidence of this actually happening. Sodomy does not mean homosexual anal sex, many many years ago the government banned homosexual anal sex and they called the law sodomy which is why all the confusion has happened. Do you see what I mean ? People have linked the name of the town Sodom and the old criminal law called sodomy and with homosexuality added to the bible in the late 1940's and wrongly assumed that god destroyed Sodom because of homosexual sodomy happening. I hope this makes sense to you?

Hi Celevia,

<"Is God's word negotiable, or do Christians just pick their favourite bits from the Bible and ignore other bits?">

Yes, I think Christians often do pick favourite bits.

Same sex love or marriage mentioned throughout the Bible 12 times, while the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times. I don't think even rape gets much of a look in.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_homosexuality.htm

We can read the Bible literally and take it as lawful for all times (which means that a lot of people are in some big trouble; and a lot more trouble than anyone of same sex orientation - look at the list of sins up there); or one can read it spiritually, where the message that is repeated is that all people are valuable; we are to attend to our own shortcomings and not judge others and we only have to believe in Jesus to be forgiven for our sins.

Socio-cultural laws and customs have always been dynamic (like circumcision and marriage laws, for example) - hence we have distinct differences between the Old and New Testaments and what seem to be conflicts throughout the whole book (of books). I believe that we need to read it spiritually for the consistent messages, which are: love each other; believe in Jesus and salvation, work on our self improvement; care for the oppressed and protect children.

I am pretty sure that there are many Christians who disagree. Well, we are all doing the best that we can to conduct ourselves in ways that are acceptable to God, but we all make mistakes.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. (NIV, Matthew 7:1-2)

I think I am going to need all the mercy that can be mustered :)

runner,

I must again applaud you for the respectful and earnest way in which you attempt to explain your belief. I remember you answering my questions quite a while ago in the same way.

If only the non-believers who normally mock you and your religion (not here but on other threads) would show the same good will.

jason84

"But what I'm getting at is how Christians view same-sex marriage differently. It clearly says in the bible that homosexuals should be put to death. So where is the contradiction that tells Christians to accept and love homosexuals?"

As pointed out there are many things a person could be put to death under the old covenant (which was with the nation of Israel). Homosexuality was just one of them. What the law actually revealed was that we are all lawbreakers because of our corrupt natures. Jesus said not only the person who committed adultery was guilty but the man who lusted after a woman other than his wife. That included all.

When we agree with God that we are lawbreakers (which any person with an ounce of honesty would do) then we can ask God for His mercy and grace as Christ paid for our lawbreaking (sin). If we fail to call sin for what it is then there is absolutely no hope for us as we remain in denial and self righteousness showing we know little to nothing about God's nature of holiness.

The bible calls Christians to love all people despite the fact that all are sinners. That is why we can still love liars, adulteries, homosexuals, rebellious etc because all have sinned. The reason Christ came was to save us from this corrupted nature.

welbek, in a single bound you’ve gone from contrarian to confounded.

Take a look at this: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8656#137191

Do you really want to argue that mild and polite language makes the filthiest prejudice acceptable?

woulfe,

I take people as they come.

runner's always been nice to me, even though I know through his religion he thinks my de-facto arrangement is destructive to children and society. Conversely I think religion is silly and I often mock it, and runner doesn't get personally offended. People even taunt him about paedophile priests as if it has something to do with his beliefs.

runner and I are secure in our world views, hence not threatened by the views of others. I'm not in favour of thought crimes, and runners beliefs are his beliefs, as valid a world view as any other. Prejudiced actions are another matter.

I respect religions that don't bend the rules. If you're going to have a religion, be consistent. It's not for everyone. If the rules are that women aren't allowed, or gays, well, that's the rules of the club. That's how he interprets his texts. Don't like it? Start your own club and read into the Bible your own interpretation. Seems this isn't a new idea since there are many religions.

runner would love that my moral relativism extends to the religious. It's only fair.

@ runner

Nobody I know, even the most conservative, is saying homosexuals should be executed. I think people who think they take the Bible literally don't take it so literally as to want to execute people. Its Leviticus 20:13 which suggests homosexuals should be excuted in the bible, However many people believe that this passage does not refer to all homosexual behavior, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution - that performed in a Pagan temple. Your correct in your last paragaph in your post where you mention:

"The bible calls Christians to love all people despite the fact that all are sinners. That is why we can still love liars, adulteries, homosexuals, rebellious etc because all have sinned. The reason Christ came was to save us from this corrupted nature."

Its important to remember that there was more than one person who wrote the bible, thats why there's lots of contradictions. Its allmost as if a liberal wrote one part of the bible and a consertive wrote the other part of the bible. Also Im sure that you know that there is no mention about same-sex marriage in the bible yet.

jason 84

'Also Im sure that you know that there is no mention about same-sex marriage in the bible yet.'

You are right that same sex 'marriage is not mentioned in Scripture. That is because in God's eyes there is and will never be any such thing. Romans 1 makes it quite clear that homosexuality becomes common place in society where men have chosen to worship the creation rather than the Creator. It is only in men and women's eyes who are blinded to common decency that they would even dream up such a perversion of God's intention in marriage.

btw your explanation of Leviticus 20:13 is more what many want to think rather than what is actually says. Thankfully along with those who live in fornication and other immorality there are those who have practiced homosexuality and then turned to the Only One who can forgive their sin. Again if you are in denial that evil is evil then forgiveness in Christ is not possible. Man has a habit of making his own morality. That is why he can kill unborn babies and pretend their is nothing wrong with it or commit adultery and carry on as righteous.

Jason and runner: Your posts just pointed out to me that I put:

Same sex love *or marriage* mentioned throughout the Bible 12 times, while the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times. I don't think even rape gets much of a look in.

I shouldn't have included the word "marriage" (as in formal recognition). The reason I did was that I'd just read:

# Is a consensual homosexual relationship any more abominable to God than the worldliness and other sins that we are all guilty of? (Matthew 5:21-22, 5:27-28, 6:24-25, Mark 7:20-23, Luke 17:26-27, Colossians 3:2, 1 Timothy 6:10, 2 Timothy 3:2-7, Hebrews 13:5, etc.)

and

1 Corinthians 7:7-9, Jesus saying:

7 - I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 8 - To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. 9 - But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

runner: Is Jesus is talking about his own celibate, unmarried state in contrast to others? How do you interpret "each particular gift" and "one kind and another a different kind" ?

He recommends marriage for the unmarried (which I take to mean male and female, not just female) in preference to being "aflame with passion."

Anyway it would have been better to have said:

Same sex love or homosexuality is mentioned throughout the Bible 12 times, while the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times. I don't think even rape gets much of a look in.

cont'd

I also took into consideration:

# Is the New Testament prohibition against homosexual acts an important spiritual law for all times? Or was it more just a warning against creating a scandal by violating the cultural norms of that time in history, as in the case of slavery (1 Corinthians 7:21-22, Ephesians 6:5-6), the role of women (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), dress (1 Corinthians 11:4-7), etc.?

# Are homosexual acts especially serious sins, as suggested by Leviticus 20:13? Or are they relatively minor sins because they were not mentioned in the Ten Commandments or by Jesus, and there are only 12 other mentions in the Bible? (In comparison, the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times.)

and

The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage.

Attacking or cursing a parent.
Failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death.
Working on the Sabbath.
Adultery.
Blasphemy.
False prophecy.
Perjury.
False claim of being a virgin at marriage.

Those are all pretty much every day offences. I don't see any justice in singling homosexuals out for particular oppostion. If homosexuality is as much a sin as all the others, then surely religious organizations should at every turn, including in the courts, fight pornographers like Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner (esp re: bestiality and incest)and as loudly and actively condemn the actions of people who use pornography.

I'm glad that we're not still seeing people executed (in our countries) for these activities; our societies, including many Christian folk, consider them pretty irrelevant deviations from an ancient cultural norm. It's rather inconsistent then to single out homosexuality for vilification.

Foxy,

Now you do sound like Julia (trust me) Gillard.

"As I've stated in the past - you are
entitled to your opinion (but not your
facts)."

I would like to see the facts presented by a university academic regards de-facto relationships, so de-facto relationships can be adequately compared to marriages.

I haven't seen facts about de-facto relationships presented by any university academic yet, which means to me they are being purposely hidden.

@ Runner

The Bible was written over a period of 1400 to 1800 years by more than 40 different authors, so what Im saying is that sodomy back then did not actually exclusively mean homosexual sex, so its wrong to assume that god destroyed the city of Sodom because of homosexual sex. Because this seems very unlikely as Genesis 19:5 said that all of the men (perhaps all of the people) of Sodom formed the mob at Lot's house and demanded to "know" the angels. The percentage of homosexuals in a typical group of male adults is generally around 5%, not 100%. Also, Lot had lived in the city for some years and would have know if all of the men were homosexuals; he would hardly have offered to sacrifice his daughters to the mob if the men were entirely homosexual. Finally, as noted above, if the men of Sodom were all homosexuals, there would be few if any children and widows in the city as are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. So my point is that people who believe that homosexuals are the reason that God destroyed Sodom are totally wrong. Also I have to disagree with you where you mention in your previous post:

"btw your explanation of Leviticus 20:13 is more what many want to think rather than what is actually says"

>> I take people as they come.

As one should.

The question is not whether people should be handled with respect, but whether our good will should extend to pronouncements of prejudice and vilification. When does intolerance become intolerable?

For me, the bottom line is that because corrosive anti-gay attitudes are widespread in our society, sexual minorities suffer a wide range of negative health outcomes.

The worst is the higher risk of suicide among gay teenagers http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/88/1/57.pdf , though their marginalisation also places them at higher risk of homelessness, personal violence, drug-taking, family estrangement and mental illness http://www.lgbthealth.org.au/election2010

There is no niceness, let alone compassion, in telling young people that they are criminal, disordered, abnormal or just plain sinful. People who spread these notions make life unhealthy and dangerous for young same-sex-attracted people.

My same-sex relationship and your "de-facto arrangement [are] destructive to children and society" precisely because runner’s attitudes make them so. Should your de facto relationship ever produce a gay child, long before s/he has had the chance for a sexual encounter (and in spite of the best parenting you can provide) s/he will have been placed at greater risk of a range of negative outcomes by the filthy prejudices espoused by runner and many others around here.

woulfe: <"There is no niceness, let alone compassion, in telling young people that they are criminal, disordered, abnormal or just plain sinful. People who spread these notions make life unhealthy and dangerous for young same-sex-attracted people.">

I agree, and they are notions based on ancient social norms, which were superceded by Jesus and the New Testament, where priorities were stated very differently because people had the benefit of Christ's work and intervention.

I don't think it's even useful to pick through all the old laws and try to interpret them. Some of the greatest minds in academic theology have devoted their lives to it and yet there are few (if any) definitive answers on which they all agree.

These physical bodies are to me just transports for the soul; that's why I like the quote that in heaven there is no distinction made between male and female etc. I think higher order spirituality is expected of us - like caring for others esp. children; attending to our own spiritual self-improvement and (individual) relationship with God; not making judgments on others.

My personal belief is that a proportion of the population is born with attraction to others of the same sex, and that God meant it to be so. I suspect that the spiritual challenge isn't whether or not people decide to express their attraction openly and seek the same human intimacy that is a basic human need in order to thrive; but whether or not others can accept God's work just as it is, without being driven to impose, exclude, dominate and attempt to obliterate.

I think you put it well woulfe that the horrible notions that are maintained pronounce not only judgment but also punishment. I hope we soon see an end to this current (and historical) social cruelty.

Runner,Pynchme, jason,
Thank you for attempting to answer my question in depth.

Runner,
The thing is that homosexuals should not be regarded as ‘lawbreakers’ or sinners, mostly for the reasons that Pynchme gave. There is enough evidence to say that homosexuality has a biological cause. If one is a Christian, then you believe that God created everyone, including homosexuals, with the biology that causes them to be attracted to the same sex, right?
So why would a god create homosexuals, and expect them to either fight their natural (god-given) attraction to the same sex (meaning they’d have to live a lie) or to sin? I cannot see logic in that. It’s either illogical or cruel; as it would be awfully cruel to create homosexuals and then to forbid them to have homosexual relationships.
If you look at the links that Woulfe gave, in where he shows high suicide rates among gay teenagers, doesn’t that tell you that the judging and alienating of homosexuals should stop?

Jason84,
“people who do choose to live their life by the bible cherry pick the verses they like and don't like, and the ones they don't like they tend to just ignore. The bible is full of contradictions.”
Exactly; that is what I was trying to say to Richie after he said, “The good book says that we must take the whole book not just the pieces we agree with...”, because it is, in my opinion, inevitable that Christians cherry-pick from a book full of contradictions. It also shows that there are no moral absolutes, which is often claimed by fundamentalists.

“I think people who think they take the Bible literally don't take it so literally as to want to execute people.”
Agreed. What I would like to know is what kind of method fundamentalists like Runner use that helps them decide whether a part of the Bible is to be taken literally or metaphorically.

Pynchme,
Impressive crimes list!
Cursing a parent, homosexual acts….

Anyone know whether sex with a child not on the list of crimes, punishable by death?

Celivia

you write

'So why would a god create homosexuals, and expect them to either fight their natural (god-given) attraction to the same sex (meaning they’d have to live a lie) or to sin? I cannot see logic in that.'

Many people fight their natural urge to commit adultery or fornication. Some even claim a natural urge to have sex with kids or animals. The urges are only 'natural' because we are born with corrupt natures. Do you think cheating on your partner is okay because you have a 'natural urge to do it.

God neither created homosexuals or adulterers or liars. These are natural results of fallen man.

you write
If you look at the links that Woulfe gave, in where he shows high suicide rates among gay teenagers, doesn’t that tell you that the judging and alienating of homosexuals should stop?'

I actually think that all suicide is tragic. There is also a very high suicide rate among people who have multiple partners and those who take drugs. That is even more reason not to promote the behaviour. An honest look at deaths in custody will reveal many kill themselves as a result of unfaithful partners. Calling evil good and good evil does not prevent or decrease suicide. It actually increases it. The vast majority of people now condone homosexuality and the suicide rates still increases.

You also ignore the fact that I mentioned that the old testament law was given to the Israelites. The law for new testament believers serves as a tutor to lead people to Christ. We find out that we are all lawbreakers. A number of homosexual people I know are very nice people who are better mannered than many hetros. They are however along with fornicators and adulterers lawbreakers. They need to repent just like the rest of us.

Celivia: Thanks!

I just need to add something; I don't know how to discern whether someone is born with some sexual preference or not and if I did I wouldn't :) - I don't think it matters in a bio sense anyway.

There are bigger human issues - failings and the like; abuses against vulnerable people and children - to be concerned about. God knows what is in people's experience and hearts and I think he has provided us with enough range and variety (enough exceptions to any rule) to discourage us from making black and white rules and trying to press other people into some right/wrong categories. Judgment is not our job.

I found an interesting article that presents an example of the way in which we make an interpretation of historical text without understanding the context in which it was created; instead using our own as a reference point, and how that can mislead us:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/?tag=content;col1

This is an interesting piece too:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/25/proposition_8_religion/index.html

The interviewee raises a thought provoking idea about who functions as carers in his location and no doubt elsewhere in society (towards the end of the article). It reminded me of my caveman ponderings.

Runner,
"Many people fight their natural urge to commit adultery or fornication. Some even claim a natural urge to have sex with kids or animals. The urges are only 'natural' because we are born with corrupt natures. Do you think cheating on your partner is okay because you have a 'natural urge to do it."

No, I don't think that, but what I'm trying to say is that same-sex marriage is, just like heterosexual marriage, a matter between two consenting adults. The adults in the case of homosexual marriage just happen to be of the same sex.
So how could it be a 'sin'? They create no victim.

Sex with animals, children, or cheating on spouses is a different matter. Cheating on a spouse when in a monogamous relationship will hurt the other partner, and will break the confidence and trust within that relationship.
In cases like these, there will be victims.

Children are not old enough to give consent. That's why they need to be protected by law.

So... when you say, "They are however along with fornicators and adulterers lawbreakers.", you are quite mistaken. There is no reason to call them 'lawbreakers'.
Please understand that I am an atheist and trying my best to think from your religious perspective.
I am trying to find out, how you justify that oppressing homosexuals is the right thing to do, for I don't understand your logic. As I said, how can a relationship between two loving, consenting adults, be seen as an evil thing?

Yes Pynchme, agreed;
I don't care for what reasons people are attracted to the same sex.
I just wanted to find out whether Runner would look at it differently if he knew that there can be biological reasons.

Thank you for the two interesting links. I have read some of each so far and will go through the rest tomorrow, as they look like a promising and worthwhile read, I can imagine these ending up in my saved files!

@ runner

Most GLBT teens kill themselves because of self hatred, they cant accept themselves for who they are. According to the American Psychological Association, suicide is the number one cause of death for gay teens. Before I can even think of what to do or any plan of action to remedy this tragedy, the public at large has got to recognize and accept the fact that from 10% to 12.5% of the general population is homosexual. This is a fact that can be found in every country on earth and during every time period in history. And even more than that, the public must recognize and accept the fact that this homosexuality starts at birth or before the formative years and especially that it exists in young adolescents and teens. Only when the general public comes to terms with this concept can we even think of offering the trouble youth of the world a program of Suicide Prevention. How could we ever save someone from the hatred and fear that is driving them toward suicide if we will not accept the fact that the fear is real and exists in a portion of our youth as well as adults. To the contrary, men do not, at a pre- selected age, make a conscious choice to be gay, straight, or bisexual. It is not a choice. One does not choose to live in fear, rejection and in harms way just for the fun of it. At least not to the tune of 10% to 12.5% of the entire population. It is time for all of us to wake up and smell the dirt

Celivia

'I am trying to find out, how you justify that oppressing homosexuals is the right thing to do, for I don't understand your logic. As I said, how can a relationship between two loving, consenting adults, be seen as an evil thing?'

I don't consider not accepting same sex marriage as oppressing people who practice that behaviour. In my eyes the eyes of God they are no difference from the man and woman living together in sin. God simply designed one man to be with one woman in marriage. Yes for a long time he allowed polygamy but Jesus made it clear that it was never God's best. You are asking me to disagree with our Maker on what is right and wrong. I am sorry but His wisdom far exceeds that of any human being. Jesus words and teachings are miles above any human philosophy. I don't see this view as oppressing those practicing homosexuality any more than oppressing those who live together in sin (claiming to love and be committed to one another).

It is the gay lobby that is pushing the issue. Why should it matter so much to them that Christians disapprove of their behaviour. It is the gay lobby that is showing total intolerance in not allowing another view to their own. I hold no hatred towards those practicing homosexuality or fornication or adultery. In actual fact I pray they have a spiritual awakening but I refuse to condone what is evil.

You fail to acknowledge that some paedophiles also claim that they were born with genes that made them that way.

jason84

You raise some interesting points however your claim that 10 % plus of population is homosexual is a wild wild exaggeration. I have no doubt that their has been a dramatic increase in all sorts of perverted behaviour as parents are foolish enough to allow the likes of Kylie, Lady Ga ga etc pollute the minds of their teenagers. I grew up with Elton John and co pushing his perverted lifestyle. As with many of these idols one minute they claim to be homosexual the next minute they claim to be straight. Really confused sums them up. Unfortunately that is exactly how many young people end up.

Suicide rates have increased dramatically as young girls and boys have been sexualized at a young age by the media, magazine and porn industry. The increase in immorality has dramatically increased suicide among all young people including those involved in homosexuality.

you say homosexuality starts at birth. I say the sexualisation of kids starts far to early. I know woman who have had families and then at 60 claim they are lesbian. Other men who once claimed they were homosexual now say they are heterosexual. I have no doubt that with the social engineering over the last 50 years many teens are simply confused. Many boys are fatherless and have no decent male role models. Men have been emasculated in many parts of the world.

cont

Jason84

cont

The fact that some boys have strong sexual urges towards other boys is no different from some men having strong sexual urges towards woman other than their wives. The urge is not wrong but feeding and acting on it is. Some teenage boys and girls stay awake all night because they have a crush on a teacher. Sexual urges is just that sexual urges. They were not born with a gene that gives them a sex urge for teachers. It is usually those who refuse to control them that reject God and decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
I think the singling out of homosexual behaviour as being sinful is unfortunate. The gay lobby with its militant hateful behaviour does those struggling with these issues no favours.

"The fact that some boys have strong sexual urges towards other boys is no different from some men having strong sexual urges towards woman other than their wives. The urge is not wrong but feeding and acting on it is."

runner it is quite different. By your god's rules the homosexual would never have a legitimate outlet for any sexual activity which appeals to them. A married hetrosexual even if going through a rough spot can still have some hope for the future. The homosexual who tries to live by your god's rules either has to look forward to a life of celibacy or put someone of the opposite gender through the pain of being married to someone who does not really find them attractive. Imagine what your life would have been if you had discovered that your god had banned you acting on a sexual interest in women, not just women you were not married to but all women.

I don't imagine that you would find men a suitable alternative.

R0bert

@ runner

Its unknown the actual number of gays and lesbians in society, and the truth is until more GLBT come "out of the closet" we probably wont get a close idea as to how much of the population is GLBT. For instance some men who have sex with only men refuse to admit that they are gay or bisexual. Apparently one person out of every ten is GLBT. Most people who are gay are born gay.

Continued..............

@ runner

To explain:

First, Simon LeVay, then Associate Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological studies and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the University of California, showed that the brains of a group of gay men who had died from AIDS differed from those of straight men. Specifically, the nucleus of the hypothalamus which triggers male-typical sex behaviour was much smaller in the gay men and looked more like that in women. This finding was published in 1991 in the prestigious journal ‘Science’. LeVay, who is himself gay, then went on to discover that the corpus callosum, in the brain also, was bigger in gays than straight men. Three years later a study led by molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Institute of Health in Washington D.C. found evidence that a specific gene carried on the maternal line had an influence on sexual orientation in men. A new study finds drugs or genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours. These studies suggest strongly that sexual orientation is rooted in biology and is not a matter of choice.

Continued..........

@ runner

Second, it is common knowledge that there are gays, straights and bi’s. This has led to the theory that sexual orientation lies on a continuum with exclusively gay guys at one end and exclusively straight men at the other end. Between the two ends there are bi guys who may fall for a guy or a girl. In terms of the biological evidence above, this suggests that the differences in the brains of bi guys from straights are less pronounced than the differences between the brains of gays and straights.

Summing up, the degree of choice in being gay for a guy at the ‘exclusively gay’ end of the continuum is effectively zero. The guy at the ‘exclusively straight’ end of the continuum will also be without any real choice in being straight. In between there will be gays who are progressively less exclusively gay, those who are bi with a tendency towards the gay life, those bi’s who are equally gay and straight in orientation and then guys who have an increasingly straight (and decreasing gay) orientation. Where a guy lies on that continuum will determine how much, if any, choice he has in choosing a same or opposite sex partner.

Continued..............

Dear Jason,
God destroyed Sodom because of sin for If there had been 10 righteous men the city would have been spared. The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was so great that the Lord came down to see for himself.
God is not interested in the degree of sin for sin can not be in the presence of God. Only the blood of the lamb appeases Gods righteous anger therefore wash your robe in the blood of the lamb. Not a physical happening but a spiritual happening. Jesus said" My word is spirit, and is life to them that find it". Read the book of John and it will answer your questions if you trust God enough to receive his word. God does not expect you to have complete knowledge at the first meeting for that comes with relationship over the passing of time. Trust must be built and that takes time, effort, and energy.

Vanna education is good, but unless the foundation of Godly character is laid in a persons life they will be swept along with every foolish opinion that comes along. When my youngest went to uni he was offered drugs and other distractions but as we had laid a foundation of Gods Word he knew right from wrong and did not deviate from his chosen path and passed with Honors receiving the job offer he was working towards as a design engineer in the power industry within 2 weeks.

Richie10,
My objection is the denigration of males and heterosexuality by the staff of many universities.

This is outside of the anti-discrimination policies of most universities.

I have also noticed denigration of Christianity, which is denigration of a religion, and this is also outside the anti-discrimination policies of most universities.

There is also the hiding of information such as hiding statistics regards de-facto relationships, single parenting etc, which means universities are not educating the public at all, but presenting a biased picture of society.

Overall, the bias and corruption of universities means that very little is reliable from universities, and most should be closed with technical courses being undertaken in technical colleges.

Or parents can be sending their children to universities in other countries that are not as corrupt and dishonest as Australian universities have become.

"God destroyed Sodom because of sin for If there had been 10 righteous men the city would have been spared. The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was so great that the Lord came down to see for himself."

Our religious friends on OLO continually remind us of man's sinful or 'fallen' nature. If that is the way God made us, why destroy an entire city because of sin. If the design is faulty why not seek explanation from the designer

Runner,

”I don't consider not accepting same sex marriage as oppressing people who practice that behaviour. “
By constantly vilifying homosexuals by maintaining that they are lawbreakers and sinners, religions like yours stigmatise homosexuals; and by advocating discrimination of homosexuals, your religion aims to oppress homosexual people.
Just like slave owners justified oppressing black people with quotes from the Bible, you justify oppressing and discriminating against homosexuals.

Vilification of homosexual people should be tossed on the same crap-heap as hate speech.

“In my eyes the eyes of God they are no difference from the man and woman living together in sin.”
At least a man and woman living in sin, can decide at any time to get married. Homosexual couples, thanks to religions and general homophobia, do not have that option, but are forced to ‘live in sin’ when they want to be with each other. Read what RObert said on this matter. Are homosexuals NEVER allowed to express their love for one another?

“God simply designed one man to be with one woman in marriage.”
From the POV of a Christian, Pynchme and Jason had a good point: God must’ve had his reasons for creating about 10% (yes that’s the rough estimate even in the animal world) of people same-sex orientated.
If his intention was to create heterosexual couples only, then why didn’t he?
Pelican has a point: Why don’t you blame the designer for faulty designs? Imagine that your God was a manufacturer and in your opinion, there was something wrong with 10% of his products. You would be able to hold him responsible, or sue him, right? To blame the products for being defect, and to demand them to change, or call them evil, would be foolish.

“Yes for a long time he allowed polygamy but Jesus made it clear that it was never God's best.”
Thank you for admitting that there are no moral absolutes and that your God is not as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient as you made him out to be ;)
Perhaps the manufacturor of God (which were only human) should be blamed.

“You are asking me to disagree with our Maker on what is right and wrong.”
But Runner, now that you have admitted that God doesn’t know *everything*, wouldn’t it be possible God was simply wrong on the issue of homosexuality just as he was on polygamy?

”Jesus words and teachings are miles above any human philosophy.”
So why is it that Jesus was on the side of the slave-owners instead of the slaves and slave owners justified slavery with quotes from the Bible? No modern philosopher would justify slavery.

“I don't see this view as oppressing those practicing homosexuality any more than oppressing those who live together in sin (claiming to love and be committed to one another).”
One can be committed to one another without getting married. Getting married does not guarantee commitment. High divorce rates will tell you that this is a fact.

”It is the gay lobby that is pushing the issue. Why should it matter so much to them that Christians disapprove of their behaviour.”
It matters because the fundies lobby interferes with their freedom and rights.
And why should it matter to you that the gay lobby is pushing the issue? If you think that same-sex marriage is wrong, simply do not get married to someone of the same sex. What other people do is their own business as long as they don’t interfere with other people’s rights and freedom.

”It is the gay lobby that is showing total intolerance in not allowing another view to their own.”
Why would gays, as a minority group, need to be tolerant of intolerance?

"You fail to acknowledge that some paedophiles also claim that they were born with genes that made them that way. "
I feel for paedophiles if they really are born with a sexual orientation towards children. They would need help to deal with this.

You fail to acknowledge that there is a difference between consensual relationships between same-sex people and sexual relationships between minors (who cannot consent) and adults, which creates child victims.

No Pelican God did not make us faulty. He made us with fee will to chose who we listened to and it is still our choice.

@ runner

And finally, A number of people believe that sexualisation in society
is going to turn their child gay, My view is that why would a child who is heterosexual turn gay when so most gays and lesbians live in a society with discrimination and random gay bashings, I mean common sense suggests that a kid who is not gay wont want to be gay unless he or she is in fact gay. Being gay is not a sexual urge, people who are gay are generally emotionally and psychically attracted to the same sex. being gay is not a behavior, its a sexual orientation.

There's lots of confusion and general miss-understanding regarding homosexuality, for instance some people think that the childrens tv programme Teletubbies or Spongebob Square Pants is going to turn
their child gay which is rubbish. They also believe that soy milk is going to turn a kid gay, these are just a few examples of the flawed logic and miss-understanding people have.

@ runner

One of the most striking discoveries is that gay people have differently-shaped brains. Straight women have symmetrical brains, with two halves roughly the same size, while straight men have a slightly larger right hemisphere. So where do we fit in? Last year, researchers in Sweden found that men’s brains match the neat symmetry of straight women, while lesbians’ brains have the same swollen right hemisphere as straight men. We know for sure that being gay runs in families: around 12 percent of brothers of gay men are themselves gay. But how could there be an evolutionary advantage to a sexuality that makes you far less likely to have kids? Wouldn’t it just die out? Italian scientists cracked this question last year when they stumbled across proof the female relatives of gay men are more fertile than other women. So it seems although these genes are evolutionarily useless if passed on to a man, they are a real evolutionary advantage if passed on to a woman – hence their survival generation after generation.

@ runner

Anyway at the end of the day your going to have people claiming that being gay is a choice and people like myself saying being gay is not a choice. Even if a gay gene was found people would still come up with reasons and excuses as to why people are not born gay, despite the evidence. People who believe that being gay is a choice ultimately end up trying to figure out how to stop it-- like it's a disease or something--instead of trying to help people ACCEPT themselves for who they are and help nurture them into healthy relationships.

jason84

the evolution 'theory' comes from very dubious crappy 'science'. It is no surprise that the homosexual lobby use this 'theory' to justify their behaviour. Have they found a gene for paedeophille yet or adultery? I doubt it. You may well accept who you are an adulterer or fornicator or liar or spagetti monster. I prefer to look at myself as a child of my Creator who was born with an adamic nature. Observing reality (true science) backs this up. Through forgiveness and restoration I can be the person God created me to be rather than 'accepting who I am'. Some people accept that they are losers or abusers or heroes or whatever. God says we a all created in His image and that we are all lost because of our sin. Christ came to restore us to God.

This is interesting reading:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Jesus also spoke about eunuchs - some being born; some made ; some choosing to be celibate.

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

By eunuch - wouldn't the understanding of the day be anyone who doesn't father children with a woman? I suggest that people attracted to the same sex would meet that classification.

Dear Pynchme,
Once upon at when I was a boy a theory became fact when it was proven. Oh how times have changed, today a theory becomes fact when enough people believe in it. My how the benchmarks have been shifted.

Dear Celevia,
Sorry I missed your post.
In the old testament we have the Abrahamic covenant and the Law given to Moses. A covenant requires the shedding of blood and was sealed with the sign of circumsion. Forgiveness of sin also requires the shedding of blood. Under the Law the blood of an animal was shed to cover sin. The law states in Ex 20-12 Honor your father and mother, (the promise) so that you may live long in the land, the Lord your God is giving you. The Law deals with the consequence of our actions. In the new testament The covenant changes. The blood of one, Jesus takes away the sin of all. A much better covenant based on love, which is a decision based upon our thoughts which lead to our actions. My eldest is a homosexual because he was raped as a child by an adult male. My son now also believes in Jesus. Jesus came to save the lost and he died a horrendous death on the cross to take away the sin of mankind. It is Finished the Price is paid in FULL. You only get your ticket when you stop running from God and go to him (repent) Jesus does not reject the sinner so why should I. A side issue, God hates divorce, children get hurt. Read Mat 19 and it explains Gods view on marriage.
Isaiah 55 is another interesting read.Most people are experts on all manner of subjects but fail to put in the hard yards.
Judge not lest you be judged. If you chose the law you are subject to the penalty of the law. If you chose Jesus you receive grace. (undeserved favor) and that is why I chose to love my son and hate the sin.James 1:22 says "Do not merely listen to the word and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says". Ps I am no expert just a slow learner who tries to put God first and love others as God loves me.

Richie 10: <"Once upon at when I was a boy a theory became fact when it was proven. Oh how times have changed, today a theory becomes fact when enough people believe in it. My how the benchmarks have been shifted.">

Dear Richie,

The benchmarks haven't shifted Richie, but I get your point.

I'm so sad to hear about what your son went through (and you); child abusers do so much damage. However, I can't say whether or not that would cause homosexuality. I know a lot of boys, girls, men and women who have been raped and not become homosexual; and a lot of homosexuals who haven't had that horrible experience. I just can't say and although there is some research about there is, to my knowledge, nothing conclusive about 'causes'.

Even if there was a definitive 'cause', I would be unlikely to recognize it. I just accept people as they are. They might choose to impart personal information about their sexuality and any childhood or other trauma.

I have often wondered how I would react if I found out that one of my children was attracted to the same sex. After much reflection, I believe that I would embrace them AND their partner and do what I could to support fidelity in that relationship, just as with any other type of pairing.

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/mumsword/default.htm

I like the way that writer (the link I posted) put it; something like: God's word may be unchangeable and infallible, but OUR interpretations of his word are not.

I have to let Jesus' words and life example guide me; as in prayer. I just don't feel any revulsion. It's not for me personally; but then I don't spend a lot of time imagining what anybody else does in expressing affection between themselves.

I hope you are able to keep supporting your son. Bless you.

Celivia

Loved the points you made. I notice that all Runner and Richie do is quote bits of ancient text, and regale you with what they think is god's plan - all very judgemental, as usual.

Then there are other Christians like Pynchme and Foxy who speak out more like the Jesus I studied when a child; of acceptance and love and understanding that we are all different and unique and not created on a production line of identikit humans.

Pynchme

I checked your link and was heartened to read it, especially where the father was able to put aside his prejudices in order to help others. I always thought that was the Christian message.

Jason84

You are trying to reason with a person who believes in a literal interpretation of the bible. In other words, no amount of solid evidence of the realities of evolution, plate tectonics, fossil records, geology or biological understanding such as DNA, will change his self-serving interpretation of his religion. Fact is Runner is happy to use the discoveries of science such as proselytising on his computer, but rejects the scientific foundation that has made our modern world possible.

Dear Pynchme,
Thank you for your post. God is love, and he loves his children, us, and he has no favorites. Some people think that fathers play favorites with their children and I happen to believe that is not so as we are the sum total of learned behavior and our personality. We can change learned behavior but only God can change the nature of the beast. The bible teaches 1 race the human race. Where there is unity there is blessing. Division brings captivity. If we unite as one in Christ all the walls crumble. The world preaches races plural which fosters fear and division not unity. God is love, light and all things positive and if we are against sinners we are not following our fathers example. Just some more thoughts to ponder upon. Ps All thoughts are mine from personal experience not from what someone elses testamony.
Regards Richie 10

Severin writes

'Fact is Runner is happy to use the discoveries of science such as proselytising on his computer'

I would say Severin that you are happy enough to breathe the air our Maker gives, to eat the food He has supplied but don't mind ignoring the obvious and embracing a completely flawed theory to back up your dogma.

@ runner

People who are gay, are physically and emotionally attracted to the same sex. It's not a behavior. The same romantic feelings you have with the opposite sex is pretty much the same romantic feelings a gay person has with a person of the same sex. The American Psychological Association releasted a statement stressing that “gay conversion” is not benign and that it often has deleterious effects. According to the statement, “The potential risks of ‘gay conversion’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients... were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed... the APA opposes any treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

Runner

>> I would say Severin that you are happy enough to breathe the air our Maker gives, to eat the food He has supplied.. <<

Wrong. I breathe oxygen because like all mammals and the majority of life on earth, I evolved to breathe oxygen. As for the food I eat, I earn money to pay the producers, the truck drivers, the cashiers and I also grow a few of my own veggies.

There is no big daddy in the sky.

However, there are people who have researched and understood the world around us in order for you to berate me or other people, over the internet, for not sharing your narrow-minded beliefs.

Consider that the farmer who grows your food might just be gay, or Hindu or even a Scientologist. The people who make your clothes are most likely Chinese peasants in sweatshops. Your car may have been assembled by Buddhists.

Fact is, all over the world are millions of people who do not interpret Christianity the same way you or are even, shock horror, Christian at all.

Grow up. And return to secondary school - your understanding of the world around you is appalling.

Oh I see Severin you came from slime

'Wrong. I breathe oxygen because like all mammals and the majority of life on earth, I evolved to breathe oxygen.'

With a belief like that it is no wonder you are often so nasty.

I would like to thank all on OLO for helping me to dig deep the wellsprings of my life. I started on OLO with little formal education and a brain starved of oxygen from a complete blockage of the carotid artery inside the brain. I believe if you do not use your intelligence or any body part you lose the use of it. I said all that to say this, if you truly want the truth you must organize your mind so through trial and error and the paradyne that the bible is truth I set my self the task of unraveling the mystery of the word of God.
1. I have found word usage and meanings change and to understand you have to get the original meaning, context,and culture of the time of writing not what we think it means today.
2. Gods word shall not return to him void but it does what he sent it to do. Read Isaiah chapter 55.
3. Jesus said love one another. Paul said in Tim 1:6 stick to the truth and sound instruction of Jesus, read the whole chapter and don't fight foolishly over words.
Get knowledge and seek wisdom for you gain personally and can make better life choices. Some people here use big words that I have never heard off, let alone use so instead of passing over them I now take the time to look them up. When someone tells you something please don,t always see it from the negative point of view for you miss the roses along life's journey.
God Bless Richie 10

I am an older heterosexual woman and I believe gay couples should be allowed to marry. Marriage these days is a legal union between two adults which confers legal rights and responsibilities on the two persons involved, ie inheritance, medical decisions, financial. Whether you have a marriage ceremony in a church, in front of a celebrant or in the Registry Office, you fill out the same government marriage registration forms. It has nothing to do with procreation, otherwise heterosexual couples past procreating age would not be able to be legally married. This sanctity of marriage hocus-pocus that some people espouse is past history. That argument might have held water back in the days when you couldn't divorce easily and defacto cohabiting was 'living in sin''. Times have moved on and so should our marriage laws to recognise ALL members of our society.

Country Chris

'Times have moved on and so should our marriage laws to recognise ALL members of our society.'

I take it you have no problem with a man having 5 wives so as to encompass ALL.

runner,

"With a belief like that it is no wonder you are so nasty."

The majority of your own replies fall far short of the sentiments and ethics you work so hard to promote.

Just an observation.

Agreed, Country Chris.

Runner,
"I take it you have no problem with a man having 5 wives so as to encompass ALL."

I will tell you something else to ignore. Your God is the one who allowed polygamy, NOT the 10 or so countries that have legalised same-sex marriage so far, between 1991 and 2010.

Polygamy never 'caused' homosexual marriage, or vice versa.
That is because same-sex marriage remains to be defined as marriage between two people- not ALL.

Jason, great posts, but as severin said, don't expect the OLO fundies to pay attention to reason.

Richie, I feel for your son that he was the victim of a paedophile. I don't know how I would cope if one of my children was raped.
I hope that this child molester was locked behind bars to keep him from repeating the crime.

Celivia

'Your God is the one who allowed polygamy, NOT the 10 or so countries that have legalised same-sex marriage so far, between 1991 and 2010.'

Well isn't it amazing that you have suddenly become a believer in my God. Keep reading past the old testament and see what Jesus says about marriage and you might be able to accurately portrays your Creators position.

Dear Celivia,
Your lack o knowledge is showing. God created man with freedom of choice with this warning "Do it my way and you live the good life, do it your way and you pay the price and it may not be as good as it looks for it may be a pig in a poke" paraphrases mine. If you read Mat 19-6 you will have the mind of God on marriage, not mans choices.

Runner,
"Well isn't it amazing that you have suddenly become a believer in my God."
It would be amazing if that were true. You would have earned a cosy place in heaven for converting me, lol.
But I need to disappoint you. In Da beginning of this discussion I said that I am trying hard to look at this issue from a Christian's POV and that is a hard thing to do because Christians like Pynchme and Foxy interpret the Bible differently than you do, as a fundy.

"Keep reading past the old testament and see what Jesus says about marriage and you might be able to accurately portrays your Creators position."
Actually, I don't believe that some magical being created us. There is overwhelming evidence that we evolved. If you don't accept that, then your attic needs a major dusting-off and cleaning-out of centuries old cobwebs.

I merely point out that the God YOU believe in, according to YOU, changed his mind about polygamy because Jesus thought it was a bad idea.
You, yourself, admitted that your god's idea was crap, about polygamy. And if you, unlike Pynchme and Foxy, believe that your god is against same-sex marriage, then that's another crap idea of your god as well.

Richie,
Thanks, I read Mat 19-6,
but, IMHO, I completely disagree with Jesus because this quote is so anti-divorce.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Ok divorce is not a great thing to happen, but needs to be an option.
Why did Jesus think it is a great idea for people to stay in a bad, loveless marriage?
I'd suggest to him to try it some day, if he (still) existed.

You are right that divorce effects children, and I agree that it is sad for them. But there are screaming mad couples and families out there. Sometimes children are much better off when the parents divorce. Divorce is not great, but needs to be an option.

Anyway, divorce is a side issue. Let's give same-sex couples the right to get married first :)

And that is your God given right and I respect that but Please do not say God condones polygamy for that is not right. Maybe you need to read who asked the question about divorce, then you would have seen it was the same self righteous, who called for him to be crucified. The only question to enter heaven is what did you with my son Jesus. Your answer appears to be I reject him which is your God given right. We can't blame God for our choices. As the old saying goes you can take a horse to water but you can't make him drink. It is a little like the debate on birth control. God is Love and he makes a way where there is no way.
(grace) again I repeat if you chose to live under the law you are subject to the whole law. I chose to live under grace trusting Jesus atonement of the cross. While we live on planet earth we are subject to Gods Law.

In an ideal world....

Runner would not resort to insults to people who do not share his world view.

Richie 10 would accept that just maybe his religion is not the single truth as in:

>> While we live on planet earth we are subject to Gods Law. <<

No we are not subject to any god's law. Your dogma is your choice. You have no right to inflict your dogma on others - as in same sex marriage - two people who love each other and wish to formalise their commitment - that's all. And it is none of your business.

Celivia

10 out 10 for actually reading one of Richie's bible references. He should take note that atheists don't demand reading of Hitchens or Dawkins, we'd like it if they did so of their own free will, but we don't expect others to become atheists; just to live and let live.

Poirot

Thank you.

Right oh Severen if we are not subject to Gods Law what stops you from flying if you jump of a 10 story building without any aids. Why don't you just float out into space like a balloon filled with helium. Is it just a theory or is it proven.

Richie when Severin stay's firmly affixed to the earth it's because of my law's not your god's laws and obviously nothing to do with fictitious irrelevancies such as gravity.

R0bert

Oh holy R0bert

I give thee thanks for keeping me earthed and bat-free from my belfry. I beseech ye to forgive poor Richie10, he knows not what he says.

Ahhh! So R0bert's the intelligence behind the new theory of Intelligent Falling!

Dear Robert,
Could you please explain to me your second law of thermodynamics so I can understand.
Regards Richie 10

Richie roughly put "Number 2's happen"

R0bert

Dear Richie

Have you been yanking our collective chains? You naughty boy.

When all is said and all is done, most threads devolve into a form of anarchy. I guess this is where we are now.

I think we have thoroughly thrashed why gay marriage is good for straight women, for the same reasons that it is good indigenous Australians were granted the vote in 1967, slavery is illegal, children are no longer sent to work in coal mines and many other infringements of the well-being and respect of all members of the human race have (and continue to be) eradicated as we move to a more equitable and just society.

No Severin, I am trying to get you to use your brain for more than keeping your ears apart. Hot can give to cold but cold has to plug into power to get hot. The greater always blesses the lesser. In the old testament we had the law and the paradyme of good and evil. In the new testament Jesus introduced a new paradyme (grace and truth) but to get it, you have to change your mind. The old paradyme always fails because it is man made. The new works because the greater blesses the lesser for God "IS" the power source.
Regards Richie10

Dear Richie

Bearing in mind what R0bert had to say about "number 2's, you wanna be sure your god is "on the job" 24/7 as far as keeping things from floating into space is concerned.

As for using my brain, I do it very well, very consistently and all the time - which cannot be said of religious fundys whose thinking starts with the OT and ends with the NT.

The new paradigm is man-made, too. A compilation of the most favoured stories at the time; stories favoured because the were written to fulfil the OT prophecies.