The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage > Comments

Why every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage : Comments

By Dave Smith, published 15/12/2010

Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
Father Dave:

I am not at all convinced of a need to change the marriage act to accommodate same sex marriage and your article adds nothing new to the debate: But I am curious why you as a priest would support the concept from a Christian perspective. How does a priest become a father of three is of more interest; why not an article from you that exposes a more involved analysis of your belief and why you have taken the side of the Homosexual lobby on this issue.
Have a lovely and peaceful Christmas.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:05:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOLA SCRIPTURA..... is the basis of Christianity.

If you deviate from that, you can simply make up whatever you like.

Using just such vain and man centred, ungodly methods of 'scripture PLUS' we end up with such things as

-Indulgences. (Paying for forgiveness)
-Celibacy for 'priests'
-Pergatory
-Maryolatry
-Prayer "to" 'Saints'. (ie....the DEAD)

"Former" Father Dave (his article suggests apostasy) asks:

If this is the case then the only questions Christians need to concern themselves with when it comes to the issue of gay marriage are these two:
1. Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability?
2. Would a married gay partnership be likely to provide a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children of a gay couple than an unmarried one?

To answer them at face value

1/ NO
2/ NO

Unfortunately for Dave...he has allowed himself to be shaped and moulded by this world and it's evil, than the other way around.

Christians are called to be

SALT (preserve)
LIGHT (show the way)

Jesus said "Wide is the way and easy the road that leads to destruction"

and it would seem Dave is on that road, as when one who CLAIMS the fatherhood of God, takes lightly the clear and unmistakable commands, admonitions and prohibitions OF that God...it raises serious questions about which 'road' one is on.

Jesus said "I and the Father are ONE"... in heart..mind and will.
If Dave wants to campaign for gay marriage.. by all means do so..but NOT in the name of The Creator and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Urging Christians to accept such an abomination (and it is that) is ludicrous and a betrayal of all things pure and the holiness of the God Dave claims to be his. That 'god' is certainly not the God of the Bible.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:23:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The slippery slope is a reality.

SEXUAL LIBERATIONS LAST FRONTIER....THE CHILDREN.

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-020_last_frontier.htm

SUMMARY
Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Baserman are among the few who have begun to question the supposed long-term effects of child-adult sexual activity on the children involved. It is appropriate to undertake such research if only to wrest the terms of the debate from conservatives who have used pedophilia as a way to silence all attempts at sexual tolerance.

If ANYone thinks Gay Marriage is the last final frontier ? they are in lalalulu land.

Gay marriage is just one of a number of 'sexual liberation' ideas which all stem from the Frankfurt school of social theorists and Marxism

György Lukács thought he could 'liberate' Hungary from it's unmarxist ideas about sex.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#
see 1.42

Marcuse popularized them to the American Counter culture.

(Repressive Tolerance Essay.)

The Evergreen Review and Grove publishing took filth through the courts, and trampled the American public underfoot..

and now..we have Father Dave, having absorbed it all... a puppet with invisible strings, all connected (whether he knows it or not) to those same Marxists and Social theorists.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:40:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
with all the problems the homosexual priests have caused in the catholic church it is astounding that you would have one supporting 'gay' marriage. Next thing we will have Bob Brown begging John Howard to come back as pm.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH and diver dan:
Way to go guys. Attack the messenger not the message and make any meaningful discussion impossible. That really helps...NOT.

Father Dave: appreciate that you are trying to make a Biblical argument, but I'm not convinced.

I don't think your analogy between creation of male and female with creation of humans without wings is valid. Creation of humans as male and female is hugely significant in the Biblical creation narratives and is clearly linked with them coming together in a united 'one-flesh' relationship that starts a new family unit.

Creation of humans with legs instead of wings is linked to no purpose whatsoever, although as you state it does unfortunately mean that we can't fly.
Posted by APR, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 11:01:37 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear APR

Remember Jesus words to the Pharisees ?

"WOE TO YOU...blind guides"

Remember our calling "Light" ....

There is a time to shine the torch of Biblical truth on the voice of Biblical compromise..and the compromisER.

I'm afraid Father Dave needs a couple of decent polemical 'spin kicks' in the head (he is a kickboxer among other things)

When someone claiming Christ as his Lord calls for UNChristlike changes to society, both his message and HIM...must be exposed for what they are.

WOE....blind guides...remember?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 3:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m a Christian who supports gay marriage, but I don’t think this article argues the case well. The author asserts that social utility is the basis on which Christians should evaluate marriage. That’s an interesting proposition, and I thing a defensible one, but he needs to support it.

His point about diversity of marriage in the bible is a good one – different societies have different ideas about acceptable marriage practices.

It’s also worth pointing out that the New Testament is decidedly lukewarm about marriage, with family obligations and loyalties often presented as potential barriers or rivals to religious commitment.

The reason I as a Christian support gay marriage is not for its social utility. Rather, it is based on two things.

First, the universal and inclusive nature of the gospel message – all people are called to participate fully in life in abundance, including the blessing of married life. Christians are supposed to reach out to an include the despised and the marginalised, not lead the charge in their demonization.

Second, modern understanding is that homosexuality is not a choice, is not a reversible condition, is not harmful, and most if all is as integral to the being and person of gays as heterosexual orientation is to straights. This means that past prejudices against homosexuality were ill-founded. It is no sin to be who God made you
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 4:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two basic human instincts. One is sexual, which attracts opposites, the other is the gregarious instinct that attracts the same type. People may confuse the two. Also, in some individuals the sexual instinct is stronger than the gregarious instinct, and vice versa.
Posted by Istvan, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 5:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave
Not even the government or the church claim that marriage is constituted by an act of the government or the church. Both have always acknowledged that it is constituted by the act of the parties in taking each other to be spouses. Gays have as much right - indeed more - to do that as everybody else.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 5:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Dave for a very fair-minded argument. If we saw more of this kind of thinking from the clergy, the atheist dragon may well be able to retire sleepily back to its cave.

Atheist activism arises, not out of a desire to take people's religion from them, but as a means of discouraging them (in league with the government) from forcing their doctrine onto those of us who do not share their views.

Like it or not, this is a secular nation and, as you say, if Christians and the clergy want to participate in national affairs they must come to the table with rational arguments, not armed with doctrine.

As Barack Obama said in his Call to Renewal Address - http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Gay marriage threatens no-one. Christian marriages will still be exactly the same as they were. Children will live with gay couples whether or not they are allowed to marry. No-one is forcing those who disagree with gay marriage to participate in it. The point of gay marriage is that it says clearly to our GLBTI community - you share full equality as Australian citizens.

The overwhelming global medical and psychological consensus is that sexual orientation is not 'chosen' and cannot be changed. Under these circumstances, for our government to treat a group of Australians differently under the law is intolerably inequitable.

Again, thank you for your contribution. I hope to hear more of your thoughts.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 5:59:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is nothing new in this article.

The author appears to be saying that homosexuals already are somehow producing kids or carrying them over from normal relationships so it is in the interests of those children to let their "co-parents" marry.

Presumably the author is unaware that children are also being produced from incestuous relationships, so obviously, when made aware of this fact, he would agree that it would be in the interests of those children to let their biological parents marry.

What could serve social stability better than incestuous relationships?
Everyone knows that blood ties are among the strongest.
The Pakistanis have engaged in first cousin marriage for years for this very reason.

The author's reasoning, such as it is, cannot possibly preclude incestuous relationships.

"To (reject incestuous marriage while championing "gay" marriage) is simply unchristian," not to mention illogical.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 6:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know whether Christians should oppose gay marriage, though from my perspective the more silly things they do the quicker we are likely to be rid of them and their influence. But from the lukewarm and grudging nature of the article, and the foaming-at-the-mouth responses so far, it's pretty clear that proponents of marriage ought to oppose Christianity.

Could any sexual orientation possibly be more disruptive to social harmony and responsible child-raising than adherence to bizarre and draconian Bronze Age codes of behaviour? No wonder there are many more stories of children who were psychologically damaged by being brought up by Christians than there are of those psychologically damaged by being brought up by gays. Or cousins, for that matter.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 6:41:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<No wonder there are many more stories of children who were psychologically damaged by being brought up by Christians than there are of those psychologically damaged by being brought up by gays>>

Well here is a topical story seeing as you asked:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
If only they'd been allowed to "marry" then this would never have happened.

But wait a minute, these two were "married":
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/married-homosexual-molested-dozens-at-dutch-day-care-centers-say-police
Hmmm. Not much social stability there either.
At least they were "provid(ing) a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children".
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 8:04:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Proxy One case of child abuse is one case too many. But, if we were to argue against marriage on the basis of one case of abuse, then we should start with banning heterosexual marriage.

In a major, long-running study, The Williams Institute, at the UCLA School of Law, found that not one of the 78 adolescents from lesbian households included in their study reported ever having been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse.
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html

Dr. Carole Jenny, an expert in pediatrics and child sexual abuse,
reviewed (with her colleagues) 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994). Study after study has failed to find any connection between homosexuals and higher than heterosexual levels of child abuse. For example:

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth who has a PhD in clinical psychology and specialises in male to male sexual abuse reviewed the literature and found that the research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

So, as your concern is so sincerely for the safety of children and the best peer reviewed literature from the most qualified sources suggests that children are statistically safer in homosexual households than heterosexual households, I assume you will now be campaigning in favour of gay marriage and against heterosexual marriage?
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 9:36:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<the adult male who (homo)sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual>>
A very convenient disassociation between homosexual acts and homosexuality!

I refer you once again to the seminal report on the sexual abuse of minors by catholic priests which demonstrated that 80.9% of the victims were boys:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Male priests - boy victims > homosexual child abuse

As for the non-existence of lesbian abuse or violence:

"Police arrest lesbians for 'torturing' boy, 5"
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=67147

"Lesbians More Prone to Partner Violence Than Gay Men"
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/30/lesbians-more-prone-to-partner-violence-than-gay-men/

"Specifically, 27.9 percent of all lesbian or gay adults reported experiencing IPV in their adult lives. The rate of reported IPV is even higher among bisexual adults, at 40.6 percent. In contrast, only 16.7 percent of heterosexual adults reported incidences of IPV."
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=51

As for the self-reported data on lesbians and their children:
"New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence"
http://www.narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html

We would all be better served by ignoring self-reported data collected by partisan "gay" studies activists.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:20:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And when someone quotes uncritically from NARTH as if it was a legitimate source of information it's time to cease the conversation as it's clear there's no reasonable discussion to be had.

The Executive Secretary of NARTH is a convicted felon - the judge who sentenced him provided this assessment of his character:

"a man who habitually took advantage of people who were economically dependent upon him; that he did not hesitate to lie or cheat or cover up to achieve his criminal aim. His greed has cause incalculable harm...”

Dr Lisa Diamond is not the only academic to complain that NARTH has grossly distorted their findings to suit it's own agenda.

Charles Socarides (President of NARTH)was threatened with court action by the American Psychoanalytical Association for misrepresentation. He made appear that his own views about pathology and treatment of homosexuality were consistent with those of the APsaA. He did this by quoting something written in 1968, which supported his views and which he called the "official position" of the APsaA, while ignoring a 1990 revised statement that drastically contradicted his views; he also failed to mention their only "official" policy, which was a 1991 statement of non-discrimination.)

The journal in which NARTH publishes its nonsense is not a real medical journal at all (although it's title suggests it is). The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[36] nor the Web of Science. In other words, it's reputation as a source of scholarly data is around nil.

I could go on and on and on about NARTH, but won't.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:40:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability?
2. Would a married gay partnership be likely to provide a more secure environment for the nurturing of the children of a gay couple than an unmarried one?

The author fails to present any convincing argument for a "yes" answer to either of the above questions.

The welfare of children should be paramount. Children adopted by a gay couple would have to cope with the stigma of being seen to be raised differently to other children. This would not be changed one bit by socalled "gay couple marriage".

It is difficult to see how a parish priest sharing the author's view on this question, would be considered as improving the stability of a parish
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:43:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The welfare of children should be paramount. Children adopted by a gay couple would have to cope with the stigma of being seen to be raised differently to other children. "

And where does the stigma that hurts these children come from? Oh yes, that's right, those who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality.

We've heard this argument about protecting children from the stigma of being different to other children before, of course - it was the main objection to inter-racial marriage.

Funny how concern for the children so often masks the ugly face of prejudice and discrimination.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 10:59:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage." Weeeell I think that says it all. don't you think?

1. Would gay marriage lead to greater social stability? I think it would and I"ll tell you why. Gay people have none of that heterosexual norms that when looking at its track record.....fighting, in-equality, gender high so-called moral grounds which by the way has more disturbing factors which all can see in every day-to-day life....and have I got some irony for you..........Ready!

Its funny that from these hetero households that are so balanced...lol...sorry Iam LMAO here........this is where the majority of gays comes from, and Ive lost count on how many religious homosexuals there are now-days........not to mention all the priests that are choking each others chickens........come on! The world is changing and its time to change with it.

WOW! Anyone would think it was hard to live in the 21 century.

Time to come clean with truth. ( Human evolution......you cant stop it people.....its the driving force that got us here in the first place,) We are all in our chosen groups now..........so horses for courses.

And again...........if your not gay............why does it bother you so much?

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 11:08:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A simple argument which gives a reasoned Christian perspective on gay marriage. At least the author's argument aligns with common sense and equality of human rights.

The responses in the comments, however, are neither reasoned nor commonsensical, and demonstrate a lack of respect for human rights for gay people or people who wish to be free from religion and do not expect laws to be subject to interpretation of any particular religious text.

Your disputes over interpretation of your religious texts should be irrelevant to discussion of laws in this greats democratic secular nation, but at least have the guts to state the truth - you (commenters) are uncomfortable with homosexuality and expect that homosexual people should not have a right granted to heterosexual people. That's fine, you're welcome to your opinion, but I hope you'll consider this when it is your right being removed or denied, although it's a safe bet you won't considering the stink kicked up by christians when it was suggested they be required to show what public good they did before receiving charitable gift status.

Now, back to your "my bible quote contradicts your bible quote" contest. May one day you'll wake up to the fact that all those contradictions might give some insight into the truth of its claims, and maybe you'll consider your arguments on facts, common sense, and legal precedence rather than childish adherence to incoherent goat-herder philosophies.
Posted by Braydo, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:21:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where the argument of the G&L lobby fails dismally is the avoidance to acknowledge the “chasmic” difference in the practice of the sexual act itself. Compared to the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual humanity, whose view of the sexual act between male and female conforms to normal standards of nature necessary for the procreation of the species, the homosexual act fails to meet the same standard of nature, is outside the natural and social “norm” and is correctly applied to the term “Queer” .

Homosexuality is aberrational and undeserving of concessions which might invite the practice into the fold where privileges are reserved for normal and natural behaviour available to heterosexuals; marriage, being the example argued here.

To argue as they do that Christianity is a major impediment to achievement of the goals of the homosexual lobby is fallacious. The subjective nature of Christianity renders it vulnerable to attack on moral grounds by being a philosophy emanating from spiritual attachments and applications to the physical world of man through identifying the rules of nature and applying them through a belief system aimed at his personal and spiritual welfare and the welfare of the tribe by holding to traditions based on the necessity of which is paramount to his survival.

It is not paramount for survival to have homosexual acts acknowledged and relegated as normal when clearly such acts are not normal or desirable and fall outside the acceptable Christian net. What is acceptable to Christianity is the homosexual persona not the act. The best and most clear example is the story of the crucifixion, as Christ forgave the sin of the robbers who died one on each side of him on their own cross. Christianity accepts differences but will not conform to those differences, so it is wrong for homosexuals to ask of the Christian religion to accept their behaviour as well as themselves!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 December 2010 8:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a couple of questions to those that advocate gay marriage.

The argument seems to be that everyone has a right to marry whom they wish, providing they are consenting adults. That being so, should gay incest be allowed, like two brothers or two sisters marrying? What about and uncle and his nephew?

Why not normal incestous marriages, couples no longer have to produce children.

What about polygamy? Why should we deny consenting adults the right to marry more than one spouse.

Or should we deem marriage to be exclusivly a union between one male and one female, not related, and find new terms for other types of unions?
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:11:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, Diver Dan, denying people the legal and emotional support that come with marriage is not accepting. You agree with the author that you should accept homosexuality, but your religious hubris presumes the legal act of marriage should be restricted according to your interpretation of a book full of myth, fantasy, genocide and religious intollerance. My country doesn't observe Sharia law, nor Christian dogma, so feel free to "tolerate" homosexuals and I'll "tolerate" Christians, but keep your religious values out of my secular laws.
Posted by Braydo, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:00:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same sex couples who wish to be married are members of various religions and have a diverse belief system. As a global community same sex marriages do not hurt or harm anyone. This does not open up the door for polygamous relationships or anything that is untoward. People who identify as homosexuals contribute to our society just as much or even as little as anyone else. I do not see the distinction. It is a ridiculous argument and statement to say that children are worse of in a same sex marriage over a traditional marriage of husband and wife. As this would mean all women who have lost their husbands to war or cancer and have left them with a young family are going to be disadvantaged this is the furthest thing from the truth and pure propaganda. Same sex couples do not threaten a traditional marriage. I look forward to the day that a majority of people who disagree with same sex marriages are no longer part of our government system. The generations that are up and coming are more accepting and will allow same sex marriages to be part of society.
Posted by gothesca, Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
diver dan

Homosexuality has existed in every human society in every age, and is also common in many animal species. It is not the norm, but it is not an aberration or unnatural.

In my view one of the huge moral achievements of Western culture is its understanding that people should not be demonised or denied rights simply for being different to the majority. It’s a hard-won victory and we constantly need to fight the ugly temptation to prejudice based on race, religion, ideology or sexual orientation. This is both a social and a moral question, but in my view the moral one is more important.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:28:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Braydo:

You misunderstand. “I” as a Christian do not accept homosexuality. “I” as a Christian do accept homosexuals. “I” as a Christian do not accept public perversions such as the “Gay mardi-gras”, “I” as a Christian do accept homosexuals into nurturing fold of Christianity. Likewise, “I” as a Christian do not accept a lifestyle centred on alcohol abuse, “I” as a Christian do accept alcoholics. “I” as a Christian lament a secular society and would much prefer a society based on a few simple rules of Christianity such as truth and honesty and yes, forgiveness
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:31:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
diver dan

As a christian, you would have to accept homosexuality is god-given to humanity and to those individuals in which it is innate.

A tendency to alcholism is, likewise, god-given.

You use a lot of the first person pronoun.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel diver dan is protesting to much with his cherry picking examples and statements. I could ask diver dan what version of Christianity does he follow? what version of the bible does he choose to listen to and what he chooses to ignore in it.

Diver dan has just shown how much of a bigot he is so really I do think there is any thing left to say to protesting diver dan, who must be so insecure in his own sexuality that he does not like others to be confident in expressing theirs.
Posted by gothesca, Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:55:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian

you say:

"I’m a Christian who supports gay marriage"

Then further down you say:

"First, the universal and inclusive nature of the gospel message"

Ummm....can you actually back that claim up from the words or Jesus ?

His preaching as I read it was "THe kingdom of God is at hand, REPENT and believe in the 'Gospel'" (which was.....?)

I'm most curious about this.

Your second reason is:

Second, modern understanding is that Paedophilia is not a choice, is not a reversible condition, is not harmful, and most if all is as integral to the being and person of gays as heterosexual orientation is to straights.

OH wait...sorry...no, you used the word 'homosexuality'.

The studies usually cited by conservative show that most child sexual abuse is done by Adult males on little boys.

But wait..again..there's MORE.. the same researchers found that those who molest little boys... do NOT have adult homosexual relationships.

So..the argument goes, we cannot use the "Gays are more likely to molest children" when speaking about ADULT homosexuals.

Ok...*fine*..but NOW let's talk about the 'clinical condition' of 'Paedophilia' not being a choice...hmmmmm? Now let's extend that argument to "Wellll.... consenting children are not reallllly damaged by sex with adults" and then to "Ok.. no harm...they can't change.. let's embrac end "include" Intergenerational love as 'normal' for them.

You think it ain't happening Rhian?

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-020_last_frontier.htm

Read it..and I HOPE....you weep, I do..in my heart at least.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With recent advances in medicine and science, it will soon be possible to screen out the homosexual instinct. So it seems we've been debating an issue that will soon be extinct.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815

In the end, God wins everytime.
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALGOREisRICH that is strawman argument. It is irrelevant what you have stated and an entirely different topic. Pedophilia and child sexual abuse is about power and control it is not about sex of anyone consenting and it is irrelevant to this topic of same sex marriage.

Many people who do not understand about pedophilia try to use this one and make a connection.
Posted by gothesca, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:25:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Lordy, is that a recognition that homosexuality may have a biological basis by, of all people, TRUTHNOW78?

My word, the world is just full of miracles.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:27:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRUTHNOW78, I am sure GOD does not care if someone is homosexual or not. God is accepting of all people is he not? the god you talk of sounds more like a representation of satan than a all loving and forgiving god.
Posted by gothesca, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:28:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gothesca....that's the point...I'm NOT making the connection.

I'm saying that the same ARGUMENT applies....and if you are an 'inclusive tolerant' person..by reason alone you should exercise that tolerance and inclusiveness to Paedophiles who always ensure they have only 'consentual' relations with children.

The point is.. 'born this way or that' is not the issue. If it WAS the issue, you have to legalize Intergenerational Sex/love.

The ISSUE is *normality* and.. protection of children from ABUSE..and the abuse does not have to be physical or sexual, it can simply be 'to live' in an environment of un-natural, contra nature parenting.

Do you really think that a child can grow up KNOWing it has a real biological mum and dad, but that "huh" how come I have to mums or 2 dads is not going to gnaw away at the childs mind? You can probably offer some lame, biased 'study' which supports your view...I'm plain not interested, in the end it boils down to votes.. if your view gets up... away we go.. the fight will never end.. and don't expect that if you view DOES get up at some stage it will not be contested at another.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 16 December 2010 12:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Algore...
If you draw up a list of all the types of people who would be perceived by mainstream Jewish society of Jesus’ day as sinners, unclean, socially inferior and insignificant, you’ll see the gospels showing Him going out of his way his way to reach out to them all. This includes lepers, prostitutes, an adulteress, Samaritans, the disabled, gentiles, tax collectors, roman soldiers, the poor, children, the sick, the disabled and the mentally ill. The beatitudes, the Song of Mary, and the parable of the sheep and the goats make it perfectly clear that Jesus’ mission was to reach out to those his society despised, and that we as Christians are to be judged by how we follow this example and extend compassion to those on society’s margins. As to a wider universalist message, see Romans 8 or second Isaiah (40-55).

The list of socially marginalised and despised people of modern society is somewhat different – gays, Moslems, refugees - but the principle is the same.

The reason we now regard the self-righteous and exclusive attitude of many first century Jews as distasteful is that our values have developed to recognise the fundamental dignity and value of all people regardless of race, religion, health, class – or sexual orientation. I believe that our values have evolved in this direction in part because of the influence of Christianity on our ethical and cultural development over the centuries, though I’m sure many will disagree.

I have no idea whether the data you cite on paedophilia are accurate or not, but in any event they do not support your argument. You acknowledge that homosexuals are no more inclined to paedophilia than the rest of us.

And, as I certainly wouldn’t say that paedophilia is harmless, your extrapolation of my argument to paedophilia is invalid and irrelevant
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 December 2010 1:39:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave, you can't just set up two questions, and then, when you think those questions are answered adequately, assume you've proved your case.
I don't think you have adequately addressed the issues even on these two questions - same-sex relationships don't add to the stability of society and endorsing them doesn't help nurture children. You don't justify why you came to those conclusions.
Then there are all the aspects you didn't consider... not least what the Bible has to say!
As Christians, that should be the place to begin - not just left out altogether!
Posted by Jenny Stokes, Thursday, 16 December 2010 3:40:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian

you say:

"Jesus’ mission was to reach out to those his society despised,"

I have to disagree.

Jesus mission was to reach out to ALL humanity. Singling out the 'despised' for the sake of an argument about gay marriage flies in the face of Jesus clear pronouncements about "the immoral will NOT inherit the kingdom of God"

Let me ask you a question. (please)... When Jesus reached out to the corrupt tax collectors.. did he seek to impart a renewal of heart to them..through repentance or.... that they would remain in their sin?

Remember the woman caught in adultery ? After he scolded her accusers...he said "Go, and SIN NO MORE"

So, let's make no mistake..the Gospel and our Lords mission is redemptive....being born "again" is also born "anew" into Christ.
'
How does Paul describe it ?

Romans 6

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Homosexual behavior...no matter how much it is argued to the contrary, is sin. Just as adultery, fornication,theft, murder,jealousy are.

I see your argument, but I believe it fails the test of scripture, but passes the test of sentimental emotion for those who wish it to.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 16 December 2010 6:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always, the "gay" lobby and their apologists give no answer to the incest dilemma:
If anyone should be allowed to marry, then why not brothers, etc?

The reason they give no answer is not because they don't have one,
it's because giving their answer would waken up the sleeping dead and maybe even some homo-apologists.

Any moral relativist can see that there's no difference between two men getting married and two brothers getting married.
However, admitting so at this stage risks derailing the agenda.
For the reality on incest, look at the response of progressives when one of their own is found to be in a sexual relationship with their daughter:

"Why do we care who he has relations with? As long as he and his daughter don’t risk birth defect by procreating then consenting adults can do as they please. Many royals marry those very closely related, it’s only in our modern society that we find this practice odd."

"It’s ridiculous that there’s a law concerning this. If two (or more) parties are consenting adults, it’s none of the government’s business what kind of sex life they have."

"“Some things are simply always going to be appalling and thoroughly disgusting…” To you, perhaps. Do you want to be the sole arbiter of morality for everyone else in the world? Whatever will we do when you pass on?"

"This isn’t far away from arresting gay people for congregating in bar ala 1969. As the recipient of much maligning as a gay person historically, I would take a long deep breath before condemning the actions of another. May be some of you should too."

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/13/lefties-unsurprisingly-ok-with-incest-after-huff-po-writer-arrested-for-having-sex-with-his-daughter/

Those of us who have been watching this all unfold know what the reality is.

Homosexual "marriage"
Incestuous "marriage"
There is no difference.

You cannot logically support homosexual "marriage" and reject incestuous "marriage".
There is no moral difference, relatively speaking.

The question is: How far gone are the homo-apologists?
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Algoreisrich

I agree Jesus reached out to all humanity, that’s why I say the scriptures are universalist. But I also contend the gospels show He has a particular focus on the marginalised. Also, his admonitions were more often directed at the complacent religious establishment than at the “sinners” they looked down on. This at the very least should make us pause and reflect on who are the modern-day equivalent of lepers and tax-collectors, and indeed scribes and Pharisees.

One key difference between us is that you assume homosexuality is a sin. If you start with that assumption, then you will conclude that homosexuality is to be discouraged. But I don’t accept it is a sin, and therefore conclude that homosexuals have nothing to repent – except the same stuff as the rest of us. If homosexuality is not immoral, then the real sin is to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.

I also believe that we should not draft laws on the basis we disapprove of someone’s actions, or to impose religious norms. Much human behaviour that IS sinful – selfishness, lust, greed, indifference to the suffering of others – can’t be legislated against and shouldn’t be if it could. I may disapprove of adultery, but it is no concern of the law.

Proxy

There are good practical reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriages – the risk of in-breeding being an obvious one.

The article also points out that marriage is to some degree a social and cultural construct that vaies between societies and over time. In some societies polygamy, arranged marriages, concubinage, and marriages of young girls are or have been the norm (and all are taken as “normal” in the parts of bible!). But almost all societies have strong taboos against incest, and I see no prospect of that changing soon. That said, the degree of separation required varies a lot between cultures. The bible has quite a lot of marriages between first cousins, which we would disapprove of today (Isaac and Rebekah, and sisters Rachel and Leah who both married Jacob).
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:38:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<There are good practical reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriages – the risk of in-breeding being an obvious one>>
Please point to data on the risk of in-breeding between homosexual brothers.

<<But almost all societies have strong taboos against incest>>
As most societies still have against homosexuality.

If the taboos against homosexuality can be lifted by a few vociferous agitators,
why not incest?

I repeat,
What is wrong, in your eyes, with two homosexual brothers getting married?
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 7:48:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRUTHNOW78 said: "With recent advances in medicine and science, it will soon be possible to screen out the homosexual instinct. So it seems we've been debating an issue that will soon be extinct.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815

In the end, God wins everytime."

Does God win when homosexual children commit suicide because of attitudes like yours?

Does God win when those who say they worship him choose bigotry and hatred over love and acceptance?

Your idea that homosexuals can be wiped out is one that has been embraced by good Christians before. The Nazis, of course, called for the extermination of Jews while wearing belt buckles emblazoned with the words "Gott Mitt Uns". In Australia, missionaries worked with the government to 'breed out' the Aborigines. Yes, your religion has a fine history of trying to exterminate those who don't accord with your narrow views of what is 'natural'.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 16 December 2010 8:53:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear! Proxy is really getting desperate now........on this issue.

Proxy, incest can fall under any category of human sexuality and I very much doubt whether the gay community would go that far as to draw that much unwanted attention to themselves...since they are constantly reminded by the small number of.....out of date 19th century......bigots....I mean who in there right mind commits these acts now-days. I think you should stop living in the dark-ages and wish all who want to find love......all the best, don't you think?

Maybe you should try to get to know some gay people before you judge.

Tell you what........Go to the taxi-club in Sidney and play some bingo with some really cool human-beings.......and don't worry....I used to be frighten of them as well.

Proxy! They just want to live and love just like you do........so if you have not got the guts to find out who and what their about......just stay in your little corner and as usual......and just point your finger.

You God people need help..........really.

BLU
Posted by Deep-Blue, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:18:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Does God win when homosexual children commit suicide because of attitudes like yours?>>

Risk factors for youth suicide:
-History of previous suicide attempts
-Family history of suicide
-History of depression or other mental illness
-Alcohol or drug abuse
-Stressful life event or loss
-Easy access to lethal methods
-Exposure to the suicidal behavior of others
-Incarceration
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/suicide/youthsuicide.htm

"Gay" youth suicide claims are just another propaganda strategem in the vein of:
- the 10% of the population lie (actually less than 3%)
- the homosexual gene lie (Surprise! That slippery gene still hasn't been found. But don't tell anyone.)

Here's a homosexual fact:
Men who have sex with men are 40-80 times more likely to contract HIV/AID's than the normal population.
What aspect of their behaviour causes this remains a complete mystery to homosexual activists and their apologists.
Because they know that homosex is just as normal and natural as heterosex.

<<Does God win when those who say they worship him choose bigotry and hatred over love and acceptance?>>
Why do you refuse to love and accept incestuous couples?
Why do you discriminate against them?
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:29:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Roxy

what's wrong with brothers marrying? Apart from the biological issues, it contravenes our strong taboos on sibling marriage and blurs social understanding of what constitutes a family. I can see good reasons for maintaining that prohibition, just as I can see good reasons to outlaw polygamy. But I don't think there are good reasons to outlaw gay marriage
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:37:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@GrahamYoung2 "Sure, Christians are just like Nazis. Only a lefty could be stupid enough to believe that!"

Did I say that? No. I made a factual statement. Nazis wore Gott Mitt Uns on their belts. Not one word in that statement suggests that Christians are just like Nazis - or that all Nazis were Christians. However, bigoted Christians who call for the extermination of a minority which does not meet with their approval certainly fit the bill.

@Proxy "Why do you refuse to love and accept incestuous couples?
Why do you discriminate against them?"

Who says I don't love and accept them? Who says I discriminate against them?

Incest is often a result of sexual or physical abuse. Why would I not have compassion under these circumstances? I would certainly be concerned that the choice of sexual partner was not made freely, but rather, because of an underlying psychological trauma. However, if it happened that two related, consenting adults decided to have sexual intercourse, that does not effect my life or your life in the slightest. How do you know the couple three or four doors down aren't brother and sister? If you found this out, would it really have any discernible impact on your life? What gives you the right to stick your nose into their bedroom?

That said, there are good biological/genetic reasons why our society has prohibitions against close relatives marrying and procreating.
There are also psychological questions that need to be worked through for someone 'choosing' an incestuous relationship. Often, it is not a clear case of free choice but a poor decision arising out of trauma or coercion by one member of the partnership.

But, hypothetically, if such a situation existed and the choice was made freely, without psychological damage to either party, what is the harm (as long as procreation is not involved)? You might find it offensive. I might find the idea of bonking my brother distasteful in the extreme. But the fact that it's not *our* choice doesn't mean it should be denied to others.
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here's a homosexual fact (sic):
Men who have sex with men are 40-80 times more likely to contract HIV/AID's than the normal population.
What aspect of their behaviour causes this remains a complete mystery to homosexual activists and their apologists.
Because they know that homosex is just as normal and natural as heterosex.
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 9:29:02 PM

Here's some real facts

*Most homosexuals in societies such as Australia know why homosexual men are more risk of HIV/AIDs.
* The risk of HIV/AIDs is low in the monogamous relationships that occur in the homosexual community.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:26:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<However, if it happened that two related, consenting adults decided to have sexual intercourse, that does not effect my life or your life in the slightest>>

By the above measure it would not matter if an adult and a consenting child decided to have sexual intercourse.
After all, it does not affect my life or your life in the slightest.

<< what is the harm (in incest...as long as procreation is not involved)?>>

In other words, incestuous marriage between two homosexual brothers is on the cards as far as you're concerned, because procreation is not involved therefore "what is the harm?"."

I'm glad we're actually getting somewhere on the moral relativist's views on the equivalence between homosexuality and incest, or paedophilia for that matter.
Posted by Proxy, Thursday, 16 December 2010 10:44:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chrys said: <<However, if it happened that two related, consenting adults decided to have sexual intercourse, that does not effect my life or your life in the slightest>>

Proxy said: By the above measure it would not matter if an adult and a consenting child decided to have sexual intercourse.
After all, it does not affect my life or your life in the slightest.

Proxy, if you're going to argue, argue based on what I actually said.

I said, "Consenting adults". Children, even if they say "Yes" cannot give informed consent. That's why we have laws regarding 'age of consent' and children under 18 aren't allowed to sign contracts. The psychological data is clear that children do not have the cognitive development to give informed consent. (Nor do animals - as this is where this sordid argument usually leads.)

You have also not answered the question. What impact does the activities of two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom have on your life, and what gives you, or anyone else, the right to proscribe those activities?
Posted by Chrys Stevenson, Friday, 17 December 2010 8:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Chrys Stevenson,

It's not that homosexuals will be 'bred out' or suffer any harm whatsover - in this study the treatment obviously takes place before there's any awareness at all. The 'homosexual' will still have a healthy and happy life, he just won't be 'homosexual' but the same person in every other way - according to this science;

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815

The only reason to be against this is that it would prevent people choosing to have homosexual children, i.e. the doctor would say 'your child's going to be gay' and the parent would have to refuse using the treatment.

But I'm no doctor or scientist, so I'm not sure how it all works in detail, but it does seem harmless
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Friday, 17 December 2010 9:07:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I called out my mum on this issue the other night.
She was cooing over some Homosexuals she's encountered who've adopted(more likely surrogate from what I understand) a little boy from overseas, saying how great it was.
I reminded her that when I was a kid she repeatedly warned me and my brother about homosexuals and that she would never in a million years have left us in a long term arrangement with such people.
Ok for other kids not good enough for her own.
This is the prevailing mindset among the "50% of Australians" who support homosexual marriage,as long as it's someone else's kids they don't care.
Just like the Lefty parents in Fitzroy and Carlton who don't let their kids go and play on the public housing estates or send them to the local primary schools...oh but they Luuuurve "Multiculturalism".
Furthermore these studies, both negative and positive all come from sources supportive of the "Gay Rights" lobby, so the "support" for this issue is only informed by one source, that's like asking the chairman of Coca Cola if Coke is a good product.
If you asked the academics who write these studies of Homosexual reltionships whether they support Gay Marriage or not, and bearing in mind that their livelihood and reputation depends upon a politically correct answer....I need go no further, we all know what would happen to them if they gave an incorrect response.
What's alarming is that in relation to this issue all other opinions are negated by the time honoured tactic of holding a gun to our heads, in this case "Gay youth suicide".
If young Homosexuals are committing suicide that says more about homosexuality and the people advocating it than people who disagree with them.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 17 December 2010 11:08:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<the adult male who (homo)sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual>>
A very convenient disassociation between homosexual acts and homosexuality!

I refer you once again to the seminal report on the sexual abuse of minors by catholic priests which demonstrated that 80.9% of the victims were boys:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

Male priests - boy victims > homosexual child abuse

@ Proxy

Proxy, Catholic Priests have been molesting children for centuries, with little happening after the mid 1990s.

Their distorted view of sexuality, obtained from the Church's distorted view of it and for them, in conjunction with their far greater access to boys than girls in recent decades, is likely to mean many of those acts could not be defined as homosexual or heterosexual.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 17 December 2010 11:48:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This child molestation angle isn't a particularly good way of articulating dissent if applied in a general way.
What we can be specific about is the motivations and opinions of Homosexual advocates and social engineers over the years.
Homosexuality was probably just as widespread before the sexual revolution of the 1960's but it wasn't promoted as normal and there were laws against it.
All that's changed is the law and the way homosexuality is promoted and dignified in the media, there's been no change to Homosexuals or Homosexuality nor to heterosexuals and their values.
Going back to the genesis of the "Gay Movement" pederasty was a very prominent part of their activism, to the extent that a bill on lowering the age of consent was introduced into parliament in the Netherlands with the full support of the Left Wing parties.
The left and "Respectable" Conservatives like this author have this blindspot when it comes to Homosexual activism and it's historical links to pederasty (among other things, drug use,crime, domestic violence, infidelity, promiscuity) but the same people will scream long and loud if anyone else appears on the political scene with historical links to politically incorrect thought.
As I said earlier, all the information published on homosexuality comes from one ideological source, dissenters don't have the resources to produce studies and propaganda such as films and TV series and what's more it's illegal to portray homosexuals in a negative or discriminatory light. So the "50% of Australians" who approve of Gay marriage as long as it doesn't impact on them personally are not "informed", they're not getting any other viewpoint save that from sympathetic sources.
Discrimination means making a choice.
They're being informed that they can legally discriminate in favour of homosexuals and that they risk a penalty if they discriminate against them....no choice in the matter at all.
In the absence of any evidence that "Gay Marriage" will improve the lives of all Australians all we can go on is a gut feeling, my gut feeling is that it'll end in tears and we shouldn't go down that road
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 17 December 2010 1:51:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay of Melbourne, by your postings you appear to have not experienced true love in your life. What issues you have to living your life, the love and commitment of two same sex couples towards each other, will have absolutly no affect on your life.
Only you can find love and contentment, live your life as you want to, and not carry negative baggage of your life experience.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 17 December 2010 5:42:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Kipp.
You're only saying that because I'm heterosexual.
To you heterosexuality is flawed by a syndrome of of hangups and we need to be "liberated" from our "Hate".
You composed that post in exactly the same way as a rabid homophobe might to "Spew Hate".

What's love got to do with legislative change?
A state is nothing but a monopoly on the use of force, our contract with it is co-operation in exchange for protection.
A law is an exercise in the use of that force over the entire population, no one is exempt from laws.
Any change to the marriage act will impact all Australians because it applies to all Australians.
It'll impact me and many others posting on this thread because our personal views on the matter will be criminalised over night.
If our views are no longer protected and our liberty is no longer guaranteed if we show dissent then that means the contract between state and individual is broken.
This is one issue to you and to the author because you both have a monotheistic, universalist outlook, but to people such as myself whose principles are informed by a diverse set of value systems and world views, some unpopular and some technically illegal more legislation is just more justification for the use of force delivered into the hands of the state.

Barbarian, Heretic, Vandal,Philistine we Polytheists have had lots of names over the years, lately it's Hater, Racist, Bigot, Redneck but we'll endure in the natural world while your artificial empires of words and foolish whims will continue to rise and fall into dust.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 17 December 2010 7:26:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<if you're going to argue, argue based on what I actually said.
I said, "Consenting adults". Children, even if they say "Yes" cannot give informed consent. That's why we have laws regarding 'age of consent' and children under 18 aren't allowed to sign contracts. The psychological data is clear that children do not have the cognitive development to give informed consent. (Nor do animals - as this is where this sordid argument usually leads.)>>

You are in a muddle.
Your justification for incest is "if it happened that two related, consenting adults decided to have sexual intercourse, that does not effect my life or your life in the slightest."
Likewise consenting paedophilia does not affect your life in the slightest therefore, according to your own justification, why should it bother anyone else?

The fact that it is illegal has no meaning because homosexual "marriage" is also illegal and that has no meaning to you.

<<You have also not answered the question. What impact does the activities of two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom have on your life, and what gives you, or anyone else, the right to proscribe those activities?>>
Who is proscribing those activities?
Opponents of same sex "marriage" merely believe that "those activities" don't constitute marriage.
Furthermore, the impact of homosexual "marriage" is that activists will be spreading their distorted doctrine into the schools where innocent, impressionable children will be indoctrinated into the homosexualists distorted way of thinking.

Your question is a subterfuge because homosexuals don't want to keep it in the bedroom, they want to infect the minds of children.
Posted by Proxy, Friday, 17 December 2010 7:57:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy,

Your muddled blathering indicates that you have no concept of law whatsoever.

Much of this is based around consent. Consent has to be given freely, without undue influence, by someone who is capable of doing so.

A child is not considered competent to make an informed decision, neither is a mentally handicapped. So paedophilia and 99.9% of incest is legally without consent and thus rape.

Comparing this with gay couples is pathetic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 18 December 2010 2:20:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opposition Minister for Muddled Thinking with "no concept of law whatsoever",
The commenter said "if it happened that two related, consenting adults decided to have sexual intercourse, that does not effect my life or your life in the slightest."
Likewise, I said "if it happened that (a paedophile and a consenting child) decided to have sexual intercourse, that (would not affect her) life in the slightest."
The basis of the commenter's argument is that it would not affect her life, it would not affect my life, so it's nobody else's business.
But, you claim, the difference is that the law states that a child cannot give consent!
But, the law states that incest is illegal!
Both activities are illegal.
Incest is illegal and underage sex is illegal because a child cannot lawfully consent.
You're both cherry-picking the law in stating that incest is okay because it doesn't affect you or me but then claiming that a child giving consent is not okay because children can't consent, according to law.
Aaaah, but incest is just a social construct and as moral relativists how does it affect us if two adults engage in it?
But the age of sexual consent is also just a social construct, which is evident simply by looking at other countries where children can be married off at nine years of age as per Mohammed's perfect example.

ie your argument hinges entirely on you choosing to support consent laws when it suits your argument but choosing to ignore incest and heterosexual marriage laws when it suits your argument.

Bottom line:
Moral relativists who pick and choose as it suits them are also
legal relativists who pick and choose as it suits them.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 18 December 2010 9:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy, no.

Are children capable of fully understanding the consequences of their choices?

Most people and the legal system says no. This is why they are tried under different rules when they commit crimes.

Equating adult homosexuality with paedophilia would require homosexuals to also not fully understand the consequences of their actions and therefore should have the legal status of children. Clearly this is absurd.

The idea that a child can give proper 'consent' to a paedophile is a strawman and is not equatable to consent between homosexual adults. You accuse others of muddled thinking, weed your own garden friend.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 18 December 2010 10:47:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<The idea that a child can give proper 'consent' to a paedophile is a strawman and is not equatable to consent between homosexual adults.>>

As I said:
"your argument hinges entirely on you choosing to support consent laws when it suits your argument but choosing to ignore incest and heterosexual marriage laws when it suits your argument."

Everyday in the Middle East children are deemed to be consenting to marry adults and homosexuals are being corporally, if not capitally, punished.

You cannot consider consent laws from an absolutist perspective while simultaneously applying relativism to other laws, all as it suits your agenda.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 18 December 2010 11:11:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diver Dan, you are correct, I made a mistake in typing homosexuality instead of homosexuals, but my point stands: you cannot "accept" a person while placing limits on the expression of their sexuality and/or right to marry.

You do not accept a lifestyle centred on alcohol abuse yet do not lobby for the Marriage Act to exlude alcoholics from wedlock. how many alcoholics have caused harm to theuir own children within marriage?

If you *truly* accepted homosexuals, you would not place conditions upon that acceptance. And if you weren't so hung up on the activites they may select in the bedroom you might be able to see them as just human beings with the same rights as anyone else - all rights, not just the ones you condescend to grant them.

When it comes down to it, the reaosn why your opinion is invalidated in a legal discussion is that you would much prefer a society based on a few simple rules of Christianity. I do not accept your right to use a religious text to legislate my values and morals, or those of any citizen in this country. I do not subscribe to your faith and your faith, while perfectly good for you, is not an appropriate mechanism to control me. As a legal framework it is worse than useless as it is full of rediculous and contradictory rules, and was written centuries before the development of science and technology that now surrounds us. It has no more authority than any other creation myth.

Cling to it if it makes your life easier, but please don't try to make my country's laws conform to your interpretation of cherry-picked sections of a collection of parables and fantasies.
Posted by Braydo, Sunday, 19 December 2010 12:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy,

There are also laws to protect the public. For example if you don't wear a seat belt, it is not going to affect anyone else. Incest produces damaged children. So once again is a pathetic comparison to gay couples.

The only incest that does not affect anyone else is gay incest between adults, and I certainly have never heard of any instances, so once again a pathetic comparison.

PS we are not in the middle east.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:18:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<The only incest that does not affect anyone else is gay incest between adults>>

Clearly then, the Opposition Minister for Gay Incest would support the right of a father to have sex with his eighteen year old son because it doesn't affect anyone else.

It's interesting to see where "progressive" thought inexorably leads.
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Everyday in the Middle East children are deemed to be consenting to marry adults and homosexuals are being corporally, if not capitally, punished."-Proxy

And yet they do this from an 'absolutist perspective'. Curious.

The mistake is thinking that we argue that we should apply laws that we think are wrong from an 'absolutist perspective'. This is not the case. We argue that laws should be applied as to what we perceive to be the consequences and the risks to society and people. Is there a great risk of damage to the child? Yes, and the child does not understand what these consequences are, thus consent cannot be given. The absolutist perspectives found in 'the middle east' (or more specifically almost nowhere) do not take this into account because they are, well absolutist. And wrong by our reasoning.
Is there a great risk of damage to two consenting adults? We think that is far less, because adults can understand the consequences. Laws against homosexuality are then just be a case of 'saving them from themselves', which they clearly do not want or need, not saving 'us' from from 'them'. Adults can make decisions for children, but there is a limit and there must come a time when adults can make decisions for themselves. That is not an 'absolutist perspective'.

Your absolutism sucks just as much as those perspectives found in 'the Middle East' and is just as illusory.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 8:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Is there a great risk of damage to two consenting adults? We think that is far less, because adults can understand the consequences. Laws against (incest) are then just be a case of 'saving them from themselves', which they clearly do not want or need, not saving 'us' from from 'them'.>>

Your relativism sanctions adult incest, as is now clearly evident.

We have at least progressed to the point of dismantling the false wall that supporters and proponents of SSM have built between incest and homosexuality.

A wall of pretence, to separate the "moral" homosexuality from the "immoral" incest.

Ultimately they are okay with adult incest because when it comes to the crunch they cannot logically exclude incest from their concept of diverse sexuality, as demonstrated by their "no harm" argument.

Moral relativism will do that.

Adult homosexuality, adult incest, adult bestiality - where's the harm?
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 10:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see you have stopped talking about paedophilia and started on other tracks, I'll take that as an acknowledgement that children cannot give consent.

Similarly, animals cannot give consent. And yes, as abhorrent as you seem to think it is, while I would certainly not wish to encourage the practice, consenting adults that happen to be relatives that wish to have relations are not my concern and I would not wish to lock them up or have them criminally charged. To what purpose? If that counts as 'sanction' in your mind, then so be it.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 19 December 2010 1:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Christians have no basis for objecting to gay people having access to the institution of marriage.>>

I suggest the author reads the following article:
"Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples"
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

If he still believes that "every Christian should be in favour of gay marriage" after reading that "gay marriage" shares very little resemblance with normal marriage, then maybe he could share with the rest of us what he perceives marriage should be.
Posted by Proxy, Monday, 20 December 2010 9:35:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW! Now Proxy is in full desperation. I take it your from the US.....and if so, have a listen to your President "Obama" on what real leaders of the world act like.........You come across as A shallow, tiny minded, 16th century naive twit. You put up one link and that's your case solved!..LOL...You need to get a life.

http://tinyurl.com/2a4pdtk

And read it all.

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 1:44:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<You come across as A shallow, tiny minded, 16th century naive twit.>>
<<You need to get a life.>>
<<And read it all.>>

I think I'll pass until you brush up on your bedside manner.
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 5:56:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Proxy.........I know you've read it, or you wouldn't of been so nice in your reply. I will with-draw the clam of your ignorance and consider my bad side manner corrected with honorers. Proxy....the world is changing, and those who live by times gone past, will just hold back a great species that we have become .Obama is a man of great compassion and of deep understanding with all the In-tel to know,humans are growing.

I wish time could stop for you.....since your having a hard time of it all......however time stops for no-one. Know this....not all are happy with the changes that happens in time its self. ( I see the world everyday )

The Armish are a people that don't like change too, but they do however understand the out-side world, and know they can never control it. They live with-in communities that do understand them....and do so with-out interferences, not only to their beliefs, but the beliefs of others.
Time for xmas now, and I think you have a birthday to celebrate:)

All's good in a world....when a world works for all good.

Now......can you read if you like.

Lets see your refined christian thinking's.

Like Rhain....It is in you and all of us:)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<The Armish are a people that don't like change too, but they do however understand the out-side world, and know they can never control it. They live with-in communities that do understand them....and do so with-out interferences, not only to their beliefs, but the beliefs of others.>>

You may find this video on the Amish interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6YyWi4eQCI
Posted by Proxy, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 9:37:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well proxy.......there's nothing wrong with your wit:)

BLUE
Posted by Deep-Blue, Wednesday, 22 December 2010 10:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question is -

Does gay marriage or changing the laws of marriage affect you directly?

No

Of cause not, why would it..

If you are straight this has no bearing on your faith (because you reject gay people into your fellowship even if they love god as much as you do), it has no bearing on your day to day or even family.

This does not affect your income or choices currently available to you.

The only people this benefits is those of same sex aka lesbians (gay females) and male gay people.

This gives them a change to being of equal worth rather then ridiculed for freedom of choice.

That’s the freedom of spiritual following, freedom of living, freedom to live a full healthy life in happiness with another that connects the same way couples of opposite sex do.

Why would we oppose happiness and serenity of others…maybe just for our own self pretty and loafing?

Get with it Natures way is for one to find happiness, to live life to the fullest, and to coexist with all in a harmonist way.

Be torrent, not narrow in vision (books are guides not laws to live by)

Imperial Rome accepted all with difference, western social order of current day is designed around this concept adopted from Imperial Rome, stop fighting what was and will be again as it is written
Posted by BrettH, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 12:52:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy