The Australian ran recently ran article about how many people tolerate and are easily persuaded by complete and utter "b*llsh*t" (author's word not mine!).

Indeed, this article by Jane and the supportive responses are perfect examples of what the author was talking about.

Josie, you clearly know nothing about the law. Being concerned about the morality and healthiness of a particular lifestyle is not prohibited under any anti-discrimination Act (at least not yet anyway).

You wrote: "As it is not illegal to be a homosexual in this country, your concerns about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ are prejudicial. ‘Homosexual lifestyles’ are by definition, no different to heterosexual lifestyles’ other than that the participants are homosexual."

Firstly, homosexual relationships are not even the slightest bit similar to heterosexual relationships. Homosexual activists themselves acknowledge this. Secondly, that something is illegal or not, says nothing at all about it's moral status. Otherwise, all homosexuals (or any other minority lobby group for that matter) who lobby to change the law for their benefit are by definition immoral and law-breakers.

You're right about one thing though, we are trying to remove the religion of secular humanism (yes, secular humanism is a religion - the humanist manifesto openly acknowledges it) from the classroom and replace it with Christianity.

You said: "That our law, traditions and philosophy have evolved from the Judeo-Christian and Greek-Roman philosophical traditions is something the ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains just can’t quite get. Like the separation of church and state. And carbon-dating. And geology and palaeontology."

Oh Josie, you are just showing your complete ignorance now. Those alleged "ignoramuses of the USA led right wing born-agains" know very well where our law and philosophy comes from - but that is NOT being taught in our classrooms! Separation of church and state? Josie, please indulge me - what exactly is your understanding of this principle? Where did it come from? (I cannot wait for your answer!)

Sorry, what does carbon dating, geology, and paleontology have to do with what we are discussing? Please enlighten me.

AK

Aslan there is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. It doesn’t exist. Having ‘problems with homosexuals’ as a group, is like having a ‘problem’ with women or blacks, it’s discrimination and that’s why you have been trained to talk about ‘homosexual lifestyles’ ie. to transfer meanings and mask agendas by using loaded, yet meaningless terms that ‘sound’ as though you are concerned about other issues, while denigrating people your religion doesn’t approve of.

As for your assertion that homosexual relationships are not even the ‘slightest bit similar’ to heterosexual relationships - utter balderdash. What exactly do you think gays and leso’s do when they get home from work? Polish their cloven hooves? Which well-known gay Australian activist has ever said that their relationships are not in the slightest bit similar to heterosexual relationships? Quote please.

As for moral status, if your chosen US religion has a problem with homosexuality, well that’s unfortunate for you and your fellow travellers. Most decent Australians don’t want to recriminalise their gay sons/daughters/nieces/nephews/mothers/fathers/uncles/aunts, the bloke from renovation rescue or Gazza and Wozza. And to suggest it was just gays who lobbied to change the law for ‘their benefit’ is just re-writing history. Civil society had been debating the decriminalsiation of homosexuality for decades and yes, they were law-breakers.

Born-agains like to think they can import US fear and loathing of homosexuals into Australia, but thankfully, our culture is more British and we just don’t have that ingrained fear of poofters mate! Ridicule, bashing and raping poofs was where homophobic Australia was, and where we left it, when as a society we faced the facts (yes, the facts) that homosexuality is, and has always been part of the human experience. And the vast majority of Aussies are happy that gays are out of the closet, as they make our society more interesting. Put Queer Eye up against Hillsong Ministry any night. Meanwhile good hearted, honest tax-paying gays and leso’s are getting on with their lives, being on the telly, winning gold medals and doing tours of duty in Iraq as we speak

Josie
you misunderstand Aslans position. The issue of homosexuals in society is not one of 'bash them or bless them' . The re-criminalization of such behavior does not in the slightest suggest that they must be ill treated by the general populace. We criminalize a lot of things where we want to send a message to the community about things being not acceptable.

One issue that the supporters of decriminilization of homsexual acts can never avoid is that it is based on a moral relativism which basically has 'nothing' as its foundation apart from a culturally relative perspective, or sentimentalist 'Disney' view of 'being nice'.

Homosexual acts are condemned in scripture with the same force as incest and bestiality. Its noteworthy that some posters in this forum have actually mentioned that 'some societies accept bestiality' in connection with this type of discussion. Then we have homosexual 'nambla' of which I'm sure your aware. The idea that there is some glaring great gulf between the Nambla view that love between men and boys is 'evil', and similar aged homosexuals is 'ok' is just further evidence of a moral pragmatism of convenience.

Jesus said "He who hears my words and DOES them is like a man who built his house on a rock, the wind came, the storm came, but it stood. However, whoever hears my word and does NOT do them, is like a man who built his house on the sand. The storm came and it was destroyed"

Our position on homosexual acts may not be pleasing to some, but it is where we stand, without compromise or reservation, and also, without any of the 'hate' which u so easily ascribe to us. The biblical picture is: "

Brothers, even if a man is caught in some fault, you who are spiritual must restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself so that you also aren't tempted" (Galatians 6:1)
We dont decriminalize something just because we have a relative who does it. this is faulty reasoning.

So in all this discussion, I still do not understand why some people object to homosexual families. Can you who object please tell me why homosexuality is so dangerous and objectionable? Is it really 'only' based on the putative probibition in the Bible? Is there really no rationality in the condemnation.

Molly
in my case, it is based on 2 things.

1/ A sense of sexual normality which is cultural and inherited.
2/ The biblical injuctions, on which that cultural heritage is based.

The dangers of homosexual families will not be recognized by those who would prefer to head in that direction, understandably. But for those of us who have a spiritual/biblical foundation for our lives, such an idea is to put it even mildly, repulsive. The idea of homosexual families is such a turning upside down of all that is culturally and morally acceptable to those with such a foundation.
You would never see the 'thick' end of the wedge when its just the thin edge which is attempting to penetrate the cultural bark, but that thick end is what worries me.
The old story 'you give an inch and they take a mile' did not arise for no reason. Hence we have a deputy mayor of melb making his now infamous comment about Gay capital.
Society rests on family which in turn rests on a spiritual moral foundation for its norms and values. We reject any other concept of family than Man/Woman and possibly kids, with the added possibility of single dads and mums who have been either left by their partners or have surcumbed to the temptations we all face and who have become unwed mothers or dads.

David, I can't understand how as a modern christian, alive in today's world, you can have such strong objections to gay culture's visibility in our society. Whilst I'm sure you can lead us all chapter and verse through biblical passages that you feel spell out how the Lord disapproves of same sex relationships, to me your reading in the context of my article about US censorship of ecuational cartoons(!), would really be more of an act of publicly demonstrating how your faith in narrowly interpreted traditions supports your measures of so called moral standards. Melbourne is always going to be as gay as it wants to be, or not, because of its population, not because of some sort of refutation of so called christian value systems. Australia's homosexual population will always be gay no matter what those of you who'd prefer them to actively curtail their presence in our contemporary society if not disappear altogether. Debating homosexuality as a "lifestyle" choice is dangerous if not intellectually negligent, because whichever way you perceive morality, homosexuality exists. Meanwhile, censorship and the repression of individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation is never going to achieve the results your views claim are more appropriate to modern life. No, repression of homosexuals has an historical habit of creating intense unhappiness, high levels of self harm and dangerous increases in youth and adult suicide rates. My article does not question the integrity of your faith but presents some of the dangers of turning christian beliefs into moral weapons.
Why not use your time and intellectual efforts towards increasing support for child abuse victims, and towards vigorously holding our respective churches as accountable as so many of them are, for turning their arrogantly blind god fearing institutionally protected eyes away from decades of abuses of children in their care or counsel? Wouldn't this more actively demonstrate the depth and sincerity of your christian commitment?