Continued.

So, just in case anyone is under any doubt about where I would stand...and how I would vote... it is absolutely and without the slightest bit of compromise AGAINST "same sex couples" being recognized in any way shape or form in any level of our society.
(where homosexual behavior is at the core of the relationship)

If I decide to marry my DOG... and seek to change the laws so my Dog can benefit in the same way a spouse would from my superannuation etc etc etc.. firstly it seems ludicrous, secondly immoral, and finally socially destructive.

BLIND NELLIE can see that once we abandon a moral stand on this issue, as Dostoyevsky is 'reported' to have said "If God does not exist, everything is permitted"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html
yes, it was in fact the sentiment of one of his characters, but it still expresses a logical truth.

>>the whole irony of The Brothers Karamazov is that Ivan advances this logical statement, but later admits to Alyosha that, in fact, he believes in God. Hence Ivan has believed right from the start that the antecedent is false and, therefore, that the implication is null -- it was never more than an intellectual toy. Alas, other characters take the succedent B seriously and act on it, resulting in great evil, for which Ivan must feel indirectly responsible.<<

PROBLEM.. clearly, if people reject God, the implication (that all is permissable/lawful in the philosophical sense) is NOT 'null' but real.

and as concluded above it "resulted in great evil"

Interesting article.

phanto: "What exactly is a homophobic law?"

I don't think laws can be homophobic, but those who oppose the removal of laws that discriminate against homosexuals usually are.

"Many people do not think children should be brought up by same-sex couples and give very good reasons to support their argument"

Unfortunately, phanto doesn't actually provide any of these "very good reasons". Despite his/her weaselish protestations, I have little doubt that phanto is a classic homophobe.

Similarly, Boazy's efforts in this thread are true to his usual pattern of homophobic vilification. As soon as removing discrimination against homosexuals is mentioned, you can bet your life that we'll hear about NAMBLA, incest, paedophilia, bestiality etc.

In fact, whenever one of the groups that Boazy doesn't approve of - like homosexuals, Muslims, refugees or Greens - is mentioned in this forum, it's only a matter of time before Boazy pops up, raving about paedophilia or some other sexual perversion.

Of course, it is well established in psychology that those who are most virulently homophobic tend to be so precisely because they are afraid of their own repressed homosexual feelings.

BOAZ_David,

I read your double-instalment 612-word post in search of an argument in support of your opposition to gay rights.

I found: a camel’s nose in the door of the tent; a Dutch political party advocating child sex; incest, child molestation and sex with animals.

I found: Leviticus 18; cronies; and a quaint sex education lesson (“A human being is the result of the joining of a man and a women in reproduction.”)

I found magic words a-plenty: “reasonably, naturally and normally”.

I found a crescendo of shouted rejection – thrice repeated in case we failed to understand where you stand.

I found: a weird analogy proposing that you marry your dog and give it superannuation rights. But thankfully you came to your senses in the nick of time.

I found: Blind Nelly and Dostoyevsky.

I found an OLO poster beside himself with outrage.

But, David, I didn’t find a single argument to support your homophobia.

Outrage is enough is it?

Quite simply homosexuality is utterly and completly wrong, it is completly against the laws of God. It is sin. How can a homosexual expect to benefit from the proceeds of crime (read sin). The bible outlines God's thoughts on this issue very clearly.

Leviticus 18:22-23 (King James Version)

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

Romans 1:27 (Amplified Bible)

27And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own [a]bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

Note is this last verse where homosexuals will receive the reward for their sin the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing, which was (their)fitting retribution. The consequence for them is not participating and receiving the same benefits of people who are a proper marriage or relationship. Homosexuals have made the lifestyle decision to persue a different course, so therefore they have no right to any additional benefit include the blessing and right to have children within that abominable sinful relationship that a person would is in a right relationship can obtain.

Part Two follows

Marriage was designed to be a union between a man and a woman and children, should the Lord will, to result from the union. Marriage was never designed to be between a he and a he or a she and a she. and to have the absolute selfishness to even bring children into world from such a union in my opinion is tantamount to child abuse. How does a child explain to his or her friend "I have two Mum's" or "I have two Dad's" This opens the child to ridicule and bullying in a massive way in school. How is a child supposed to learn about how to be a good husband, father, wife, mother in a same sex relationship. The ideal is that the children learn from their mother and their father about how to be in a relationship, what is appropriate behavior in a relationship and what is not appropriate behavior.

People may also say what about God's forgiveness and us repenting for sin. Well that is simple to. REPENT means to stop from what you are doing, TURN AROUND and walk away from and keep walking away from that sin. It DOES not mean "Oh sorry God and in the next moment turn right back into sin" It doesn't work like that.

So the solution is simply, cease your sinful behaviour - seek forgiveness - Seek the Lords heart and He will show you what HE wants you to do.

Z

The problem is, zahira, that the bible says many things.

Like all your fellow-travellers, you just cherry-pick the bits that feed your prejudice, and pretend the rest is imagery or metaphor.

>>The bible outlines God's thoughts on this issue very clearly. Leviticus 18:22-23<<

Leviticus said a lot of things. Why pick this one, except to support your bigotry?

What's wrong with:

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself" Leviticus 19:34

Don't see much of that among christians these days, do you?

Be honest. Most of the first part of Leviticus consists of detailed instructions on how to make animal sacrifices - even down to the detail of how much the priest takes as his fee.

"And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar' Leviticus 1:15

I don't see a lot of that in churches these days. Although it is possible that I don't get out enough:

Do you also subscribe to Leviticus' "purity" requirements?

"Whosoever... that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken... he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God" Leviticus 21:17-21

This was the foundation, of course, of the "Race Hygiene" laws of 1933 in Germany.

Do you believe these are applicable too?

Given that, why do you choose a verse from the same "Sacrificing for Dummies" manual to excoriate homosexuals?