Hi all
Has anyone noticed that those opposed to same sex marriage NEVER give evidence to support their wild assertions?

Coach says there is a negative impact on children raised by homosexuals - no evidence provided.

Davo asserts that homosexiuals only want to get married for the financial perks - no evidence is provided.

Grey asserts that if we let homosexuals get married then others will push to marry their pets - needless to say no evidence is provided.

Does anyone begin to notice a pattern? :D

At least Boaz David & Hamlet quoted scripture to support thier view - even though their quotes ignored the historical & linguistic context. Hint: If both of you claim to follow scripture, then at least learn about the culture it comes from. There's NO hope of understanding it otherwise.

Peace all
Bosk

Bosk

Leviticus 18:22
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Genesis 2:24

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

I am not into stoning sinners, and I recognise that sexual sin is just one aspect of the breakdown in the relationship between God and humanity, I will not condemn adulterers and those who sin in their hearts by looking with lust on a woman in a marketplace. God alone has that prerogative, but I have a choice as to whom I will associate with in a ‘faith group’.

Christians are also called to not associate with the immoral, particularly those who boast in their own immorality. Immorality includes such things as abuse of alcohol, argument for augment’s sake, divisiveness and the like. This is particularly difficult for me, as my wife is an active alcoholic, who is deep in her illness. So I am torn between the call to non-association and the requirement for marital faithfulness in my own home, so don’t accuse me of not considering such things deeply.

So here lies my problem with gay marriage: as a liberal I cannot object to two consenting adults forming a union in what passes for love these days. Mind you, I see love as duty rather than feeling. As a Christian, if a gay couple joined the church that I am a member of, I would have to deeply consider whether I would remain in that group of believers. I would not take action, or speak against that couple, but I feel that I would have to find another faith group with which to worship. Anything else would be sin, as anything not done in faith is sin. I have similar difficulties with female clergy, except for the fact that I consider that as Christ is the one true priest the idea of a priesthood on earth should be abandoned completely. As you may have guessed, I am a Sydney Anglican!

That is why, Hamlet, any State, can only consider Civil Unions. They have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian Church. It's a legal issue not a religious issue that all civilized countries are resolving. Australia is refusing to be civilized. Most European countries have done this, Canada, NZ, many US States, and even Argentina.

One fool wrote above that there was no evidence of gay persecution or oppression in NSW or Australia. RUBBISH!

The statistics show that country NSW has the highest male youth suicide rates than any other country or region on earth sharing that with the bible belt of the USA. Most of the teenage boys who killed themselves were found to be gay. In the statistics, they came from Christian families, and just couldn't cope with Christianity being shoved down their necks and being bullying, any longer.

You incited the death of all those innocent kids with your oppression, and you have the gall to swan in here taking the high moral ground. You speak of nothing but hate to all for gay men. Didn't you ever think that your words and actions had consequences? Wicked, nasty, hurtful consequences.

More gay men are bashed in cities than any other minority group. Trangenders are 8 times more likely to be bashed than anyone else.

I've read every Christian speach here, and matched the same justifications that were made from the Spanish inquistion.

How else do you plan to oppress homosexuals and torture the muslims in an attempt to force them to repenting to Christianity?

Not one kind remark has been made my you hateful bigotted Christians to gay couples. Civil Unions only allow the commitment their love each other. These predatory Christians only spit poison, as vipers do.

As history proves, they wanna torture the Islams, mutilate the gays, or just drive them to suicide, as they are doing now. Thanks be to God. Praise Jesus. May the viper in your spirit boil your blood. Hello? Someone see something wrong here? Did I just see Satan? Sneeky thing, he swims with the christians now.

BOSKY

"Those who oppose....never give evidence"

Mate.. "evidence" will always be subjective. No one can deny that for the gay couple themselves it won't be a drama. BUT....

The social consequences for the community will be a different story.

-Its not so much an issue of 'evidence'..er what would you like, some kind of survey which shows what percentage of people would be happy for 2 men screwing each other to be living next door ?
-How many people would be happy for their sons to be friends with a man who gets his kicks from the anus of another man ?

I'm surprised that one so enlightened as you even asks the question about evidence. Surely you know enough about social theory to understand the potential impact of young children being actively educated (deliberately brainwashed) about '2 mummies' or '2 daddies' ?

Then, you also seem to neglect the 'flow on' effect. Do you REALLY think that the sexual revolution will end with the total acceptance of homosexual behavior within the currently specified boundaries ?

How much does one have to hold up in your face in capital letters the existence of:

a) Continual pressure to LOWER the age of consent
b) Groups such as Nambla who are campaigning USING THE SAME REASONING as the gay lobby to promote their own cause

To quote Jesus "There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see"

and

"If a blind man leads a blind man, won't they both fall into a pit" ?

Its that simple Bosky, perhaps the blindness that you seem to exibit is from dark glasses you deliberately selected for the purpose ? :)

Jpw2040, your passive aggressive rubbish is transparent and kind of lame.

It seems quite clear that most people want to have a say in what their society encourages and deems as right and wrong. You are trying to the very same thing now. So you do the very thing you are ranting against. A common relativistic problem. Or perhaps this is projection? I’m not just putting forward my opinion, but making an argument. As opposed to your claiming that it is a ‘human right’ which is just trying to define your own position as true. Stupid and transparent. You have yet to justify why we should radically redefine marriage.

Accusing me of underhand tricks is more of the same…your double speak on the federal government ‘redefining’ marriage is pathetic. They merely codified the commonly accepted definition. If same sex marriages were legal before, how many did we have?

As for polygamy being a ‘consequence’ of same-sex marriage. Reread what I said, that “it logically leads” I.e. The same logic that justifies same sex marriage justifies polygamy. The fact that you are unaware of the trends towards polygamy in countries where same-sex marriage is allowed (such as Canada most recently) shows you have tunnel vision, or perhaps your accusation of me peddling lies is merely more of your projection? Perhaps you already knew about these things
(Eg: <a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/09/morality-those-wacky-slippery-slopes.html”>Netherlands first polygamous civil union</a> or
<a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/01/moral-relativism-and-multiculturalism.html”>Report for Canadian Government recommending polygamy</a>

Pedophilia? Eg: <a href=”http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2006/05/pedophilia-party-in-amsterdam.html”>Pedophilia party in amsterdam</a>)

The ‘slippery slope’ isn’t being used. What is being used is reductio ad absurdum. That is, the logic used to justify ‘P’ also justifies ‘Q’. Perhaps you need to retake that one intro to logic class you took in high school.

Oh, and if you’re not using relativism, on what foundation do you decide what’s right or wrong (Note that I’m not asking what you think is right and wrong, but on what basis you decide what’s right and wrong)

It’s clear that your definition of compassion is to encourage people to hurt themselves. That sort of ‘compassion’ I’d rather not try.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6553

Jpw2040,

A dozen lines published online by unknown people from an unknown university, and you’re convinced of the old pop psychology regarding people disgusted by homosexuality having latent tendencies in that direction themselves. Try thinking for yourself instead of taking as the truth unprovable claims from deep south hicks.

Why not say that people against child abuse (no connection to homos intended) are latent child abusers; people against murder are really would-be murderers themselves; people against drugs are closet druggies, and so on. You could have lots of fun fooling yourself.

“Because there aren’t any (anti-gay Muslims) here” is perplexing. The last census found that there were 300,000 of them here. We have Muslims who are contributors to OLO, and homosexuals and their camp followers on this site have said much against the Islamic stance against unnatural sexual practices.

Then we have Brendan.Lloyd who uses some amazing descriptions of people who find homosexuals and their practices disgusting. He claims that we do not have “an authentic best interest for all Australians”. Only he could know what he means by that. He also attempts to show the righteousness of his weird ideas by quoting a poll, and says that many (just how many he doesn’t say) “DO support a fairer a fairer go for same-sex partners”. Yes, but as the politicians say, the only poll that counts is the one at elections.

BL even claims that: “Clearly, sizeable support exists in the community for giving same-sex couples a fair and equal opportunity under the law.”

Clearly? Apart from the screeching on OLO, there is clearly no evidence at all for this claim