Kippy

I hear you.

RESPONSE.

The deepest love, is that of the heart, not the penis/anal orifice or Lesbian equivalent.

While men can experience something resembling male female sex, females cannot unless they invest in 'strap on' accessories. (which a Lesbian woman at my wifes work raves about) which suggests that females prefer/need 'male' equipment.

You can love and adore someone of the same sex, I DO ALSO.... but I don't have any desire for SEX with them. Take out the sex, and you are free to love at the deepest level anyone on this planet.

I won't try to go into the psyhology of initiation/re-inforcement/ orientation,etc, but lets just say there are many things in life which we might agree that people have an 'orientation' to, but we outlaw many of them and for good reason.

No matter how much they try to persuade us that their orientation is 'valid, legitimate,ok, not harmful, enjoyable, fulfilling and natural (to them) we still do not accept certain 'orientations' as acceptable in public life.

Man and woman can actually live without sex, its not the end of the world. sure we go through periods of high desire, but they pass, and we can discover many wonderful aspects of life apart from sex.

The issue at the heart of all this for us is this.

Romans 1
"Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Now.. this relates to only ONE thing... Homosexual SEX.

'Un-natural'
'Inflamed with lust'
'Indecent'

Would you expect me to justify Paedophilia, Incest or Bestiality on the basis that X % of the community felt it was their 'natural orientation' ?

Religion has nothing to do with the campaign for same-sex unions. We are seeking access to the same rights as everyone else, nothing more. If a religious group wants to have nothing to do with it, fine. However they don’t have a mandate to meddle in the civil rights of those who subscribe to different beliefs.

It’s a very simple pact – I won’t meddle with your rights if you don’t meddle with mine.

Further, sex has nothing to do with the campaign for same-sex unions. Recognition of loving relationships, years of nurturing and caring for a partner, honest commitments to shared joys and tribulations. That’s what it’s about. Yes we have them too, and they deserve to be recognised and valued.

Civilised people can sit down with another couple without wondering when they last had sex and who was on top. Conversely, those who can’t lift their minds out of their pants think only of sexual practices when they think of same-sex couples.

If I bothered to think about particular correspondents’ sexual practices, the images that came to mind wouldn’t be at all edifying. But like most well-adjusted people, my mind just doesn’t go in those dunny-brained directions.

It scares the crap out of me that there are people like BOAZ walking around in this country. I might pass one of them in the street without realising how close I had come to a cesspit of prejudice and spite.

JPW2040. Thanks for your response to the holier than thou Boaz. I would add for the benefit of understanding, for Boaz and his mates.

To marry or have a civil union, you must sign the register, binding that contract between two people. Animals are unable to write, they can't even make a cross. However if Boaz and his mates are into that sort of thinking, we are definately keeping our cat in doors and safe!

What a surprise, reasoned arguments on one side and unbalanced rants and god-bothering on the other. It seems that those who would deny gay people the rights that everyone else has rely on the following (pissweak) arguments;

1. The Pauline Hanson argument - "I just don't like it. It's not normal. It's not natural". Except it is normal, and it is natural. What this argument really boils down to is "I am a bigot and the fact that some people are different from me upsets me"

2. The Dusty Old Book of Antiquated Morals argument, ie god says its wrong, so it is. This is great for those who are unable to work out what is right and wrong for themselves (small children, religious fundamentalists) but irrelevant for everybody else.

3. The Social Collapse argument, ie if gay people can have civil unions, all remaining heterosexual marriages will break down and society will degenerate into an orgiastic free for all with people marrying dogs and what not. This is just plain stupid - why should what gay people do affect what other married people do? How many people would be less committed to their relationship just because gay people can recognise theirs?. This argument can also be referred to as "The Desperate Raising of Irrelevant and Illogical arguments argument".

4. The Marriage is Only for Producing Children argument. Oh please, should we forbid anyone who is unwilling/unable to produce children from getting married? What a joke.

Pathetic nonsense all.. conservative zealots have had a lot of success in imposing your particular views on everyone else in recent years, but you have misread the public mood on this one. Civil unions will happen, no matter how much bible bashing and fear mongering you do. So tough luck

I wouldn't bother arguing with Christians on this.

You can make as much sense as you like but at the end of the day, the way they view the world is that their beliefs are THE TRUTH, you just haven't seen that yet. Having been brought-up in a Christian household I can vouch for this.

Their argument about social collapse is nullified by their corporative CEO view of Jesus (going back to one of my points above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4598#45354)). Pat Robertson is a good example of this.

When the topic of corporate corruption is raised on this forum, not one of them is there to preach how wrong it is or quote The Bible to demonstrate the evil of it.

They should put the passion of their beliefs to better use for much more larger and legitimate problems. Maybe then, the idea of a God will have more relevance to us all and they can be true “fishers of men”.

”No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and money.” - Matthew 6:24

Grey
Yes I admit it. I did misrepresent your views but not intentionally. You see I assumed that you were arguing logically. Silly me.

Your argument seems to be that if we allow homosexual marriages then some people MIGHT want to use the same arguments to marry their pets. Well that’s the myth that the fundies are peddling now is it? Here’s the reality.

1st logical point. When you say that something can happen you’ve said NOTHING! Lots of things could happen but who says they will? Who says their even likely to happen? Our government might decide to pave our streets with gold. It can happen but the odds are so against it I won’t hold my breath. Your argument is merely the same. Just alarmist garbage I’m afraid.

2nd logical point. Several countries have allowed same sex marriage [NOT civil unions but MARRIAGE] - The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S. state of Massachusetts & you know NOT ONE of them has experience anyone wanting to marry any animal! So why would it happen here if it didn’t in all those countries? Your argument is just illogical fundy garbage.

3rd Logical Point. Same sex marriage has occured in the past. To quote the wikipedia: “Evidence of same-sex MARRIAGE in antiquity is plentiful. The practice was outlawed in 342 AD, though it is believed to have continued until the late Middle Ages.” & “Same-sex MARRIAGE has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence.”
Check it out for yourself : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
So your statement that marriage was ALWAYS between a man & a woman is so much baseless rubbish. Next time do some research Grey.

Now as to the basis of my ethics. You accuse me of being a relativist. Why? Because I disagree with you? Actually the basis of my ethics are reason & philosophy. I’ll address the fundy misquotes of scripture in my next post.