Part 2

As for the abortion issue, whilst we don’t yet have the numbers, the issue will never go away and eventually I believe society at large will turn against a practice that leads to the termination of 25% of all pregnancies – if for no other reason than the grief to the women concerned, especially as they grow older, the abysmally low birth-rate and not to forget the power of the 4D ultrasounds.

DavidJS, I want you to know that despite your rather snide remarks in your post of April 21st, I have been happily married to my wife for 37 years. We married (very) young by today’s standards as virgins and both have remained faithful to one another. We have two adopted children.

I found Garra’s contribution immature, angry and well, foolish.

Garra likes to label those of us who are Christian as “homophobes and godbotherers”, with beliefs “little more than mindless prejudice” – he probably enjoyed writing that but insulting and belittling your opponents does nothing to hide to shallowness of thought and argument. To suggest his opinion demonstrates “compassion and reason” is sheer self delusion.

Reason would tell you that same sex marriage undermines marriage which has at its centre the union of loving parents, male and female in the procreation of children who in turn are loved and nurtured and carry on, in their turn, human existence. Homosexual “marriage” is a denial of all this. It is barren. Oh, I know they may love one another, but one generation and its all over. It is a selfish love. That homosexuality leads to poorer health outcomes, promiscuity, higher levels of violence only reinforces the point.

This is my last post on the subject of homosexuality – it is an angry unproductive, barren sort of topic. I suspect if we had vilification on the basis of sexual orientation, an attempt would be made to silence me. Aah, free speech what an alien concept in such a tolerant society we are now blessed with.

But maybe on another issue DavidJS and I will agree. I hope so.

Ambo,

Get your facts rights. Throckmorton was not "fired" - his letter of invitation to join the new advisory council was rescinded as a result of pressure from homosexual advocacy groups. When the company discovered that Throckmorton had huge support in the community the company REINSTATED HIS INVITATION and he will now join the council. See: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=135

BTW, Throckmorton doesn't just claim to, or attempt to, help gays change - he has successfully done so. And many gays are already in misery - that's why they seek treatment in the first place!

Deuc,

You know very well that Article 16 of UDHR is referring to heterosexual marriage. The mention of founding a family shows this even if the wording does not explicitly state that the two are to marry one another. This was clearly the intention of the 1948 framers, and you know very well this is the case so stop playing semantic games.

If you are asking me whether my actions sometimes don't match my beliefs then I am guilty as charged. But my mind is very much conformed to what the Bible teaches.

Orthodox Christianity holds that the Canon is closed and Bible is God's last word. Any personal revelation is of a personal nature and cannot conflict with Scripture.

I shouldn't be amazed (but still I am) of remarks aimed by some self-styled Christians towards other Christians. I guess it is inconvenient that some Christians firmly support gay relationships or feel they are neither here nor there. Indeed the very fact that the gay and lesbian movement in Australia has come so far is partly thanks to many heterosexuals, a percentage of whom are Christian, who happily and maturely accept relationships different to their own.

David whinges that gays get nasty when attacked on this forum. Apart from the mind-blowing hypocrisy, David should know most people, gay or straight, do get nasty when their relationships are attacked. What a surprise! And David, we do have anti-vilification laws in NSW. And no, your postings are not important enough to warrant their use.

Everybody on this board, gay and anti-gay, claim the have history on their side. But if history is veering towards greater democracy (as we see in Iraq, Ukraine or Lebanon), acceptance of BOTH homosexuality and same-sex relationships and religious difference will become the norm. What democracy cannot abide is religious authoritarianism or any sort of persecution of minority groups. In other words, Christians should be able to marry each other and gay people marry each other. That is their democratic right.

Finally, I'll say it again. If same-sex marriage undermines other marriages then people really have a problem with their marriages and should be a bit more responsible.

Yes it was referring to heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage wasn't an issue then, but the text of the provision does not say otherwise nor does it say that people have the right to a wide choice of partners or that they can't be discriminated against in a wide variety of other ways. You don't believe in human rights, you don't know DavidJS' basis for human rights, using international law as an exhaustive & definitive source of human rights is worthless, and so your reply to him was an empty statement put forth to make a rhetorical point.

"If you are asking me whether my actions sometimes don't match my beliefs then I am guilty as charged. But my mind is very much conformed to what the Bible teaches."
At this point, I can only conclude that you are either not giving enough time to read and comprehend what I am saying, or that you are avoiding the issue.

"Any personal revelation is of a personal nature and cannot conflict with Scripture. "
You mean any personal revelation cannot prevail over scripture, rather than personal revelation does not conflict with scripture?

I find it quite funny, sad that David followed this lovely statement:
"They cannot take any opposition and when their position comes under attack rationality goes out the window and hatred takes over."

with this:
"Reason would tell you that same sex marriage undermines marriage which has at its centre the union of loving parents, male and female in the procreation of children who in turn are loved and nurtured and carry on, in their turn, human existence. Homosexual "marriage" is a denial of all this. It is barren. Oh, I know they may love one another, but one generation and its all over. It is a selfish love. That homosexuality leads to poorer health outcomes, promiscuity, higher levels of violence only reinforces the point."

Still no real arguments for a ban on marriage for homosexuals.

Deuc,

The reason why homosexual marriage wasn't an issue then and why the text of the provision does not explicitly rule it out, is because homosexuality was universally frowned upon and was in fact a criminal offence in nearly every country! Not surprisingly, it is not considered a human right by the UDHR.

Furthermore, to argue that the text is ambiguous regarding gay marriage because it wasn't an issue at the time highlights a logical contradiction. Human rights are, by definition, 'universal' in that all people everywhere recognise that they exist and have always existed. Gay marriage, however, cannot be a universal human right since it was, up until recent times, considered a psychological illness, and a perversion, not a 'right'.

You're obviously not following my argument so I'll spell it out for you:
1. Gay marriage advocates claim that prohibition of gay marriage is a violation of human rights.
2. I respond: What human rights? One cannot claim UDHR because that says nothing about gay marriage while explicitly endorsing heterosexual marriage and the family as the fundamental unit of society. So, if not the UDHR, then what rights?

You said: "Still no real arguments for a ban on marriage for homosexuals"

Actually, you're the one who apparently wants gay marriage, so the burden lies with you to come up with an argument why society should abandon the tried and tested heterosexual nuclear family in favour of 'almost anything goes' relationships. In fact, why stop with homosexuality, why not bigamy? Why can't you marry your dog?

Given that every other society that has abandoned the nuclear family has self-destructed, I see no reason why we should follow the same foolishness.

It reminds me of a line from a Kipling poem:

"There are only four things certain since Social Progress began --
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire"

"Human rights are, by definition, 'universal' in that all people everywhere recognise that they exist and have always existed. Gay marriage, however, cannot be a universal human right since it was, up until recent times, considered a psychological illness, and a perversion, not a 'right'."
By that logic, there is no human right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or sex either.

"You're obviously not following my argument so I'll spell it out for you:"
Is it actually an argument?

You said:
"Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married."
You raised no issue of the UDHR or any other source in your original statement and I have already stated that I was not going to get into a debate about human rights. You made the claim that it wasn't a violation, a statement that is necessarily without substance if you have no definitive source for human rights, which the UDHR isn't.

"Actually, you're the one who apparently wants gay marriage, so the burden lies with you to come up with an argument why society should abandon the tried and tested heterosexual nuclear family in favour of 'almost anything goes' relationships."
Why should I come up with an argument for something that I and no one else here has claimed to support? I think it is only reasonable that the burden should lie on those who support legal discrimination, if they cannot come up with some rational basis for their position then the discrimination should be removed.

"In fact, why stop with homosexuality, why not bigamy? Why can't you marry your dog?"
We already have homosexuality and bigamy. You want to recriminalise homosexuality? If you can't work out a valid reason not to let people marry dogs, then I shouldn't expect you to be able to come up with a reason to ban people marrying other people.