It's interesting how we can look back on this in hindsight and see that it was never anything other than thinly veiled bigotry. Of course many of us knew so at the time too.
I find this debate fascinating..... I can walk down the street, go up to a random woman and go get married (if unmarried), no questions asked. I've never met this woman, she's never met me, but we can get married, or I could marry and murder a woman, the remarry and re-offend, as much as I'd like, but I cannot marry the man that I love, and have loved for many years. How is that ruining the 'sanctity of marriage'? This just seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I always love when politicians state that the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman..... I was always under the impression that religion and state were to be separate...
Hear, hear. I've got a hunch that the majority of (thinking) people are lying when they say it should be disallowed because it'll "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Atheists and criminals can, so what sanctity is this exactly?
David Bennett Probably because marriage by definition means uniting in monogamous matrimony with the opposite sex for the purpose of child rearing and procreation. No one says you can't live with your boyfriend/ lover, if you're upset about the procreation, take that up with nature.
David Bennett Well, walking up to the random woman would not be respecting the 'meaning' of marriage, of course. I don't get the idea of 'murder', don't know what you mean there. However, it comes down to a linguistic issue: proponents call it marriage "equality". Conservative opponents say that the definition of marriage is unchangeable! I wouldn't say that religion rules marriage, so I don't think you're right there: most weddings are by civil celebrants in backyards and gardens etc, with no clergy involved. You've answered your own question: you and your long-term partner would not affect the sanctity of marriage. The question is why do you feel you need marriage to fulfill something? What will that change?
Men like you refuse to accept (not understand... ACCEPT) the fact that the institution of marriage was founded upon spiritual precepts handed down over thousands of years from the people who preserved the words spoken by the creator, the righteous and creative force that initiated and maintains life itself. Get with it. It takes complementary forces to procreate continuation of life. Just as two wrongs don't make a right or as in biochemistry, like charges repel and opposites attract. This is the main reason the creator finds homosexuality such a wicked, disgusting concept (AKA Abomination). Because all the hard He put into creating the systems in place for life to go on for us all here on Earth is willfully ignored when men seek sexual pleasure from other men instead of from the men's complementary force (women). The pleasure we experience during sexual intimacy was designed that we couldn't resist doing it. This was placed within the design because it's so challenging to raise children that without this (especially for women), we would simply find something pleasant to do. There are other delights re: raising children but the pleasure of sexual intercourse is the icing on the cake. I've no doubt homosexuals will have there way but the force which created life, and maintains it for us, won't put up with that for very long. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away."
OP here, I just went through and manually approved 39 anti-gay comments that were flagged as spam. Please stop flagging comments you disagree with as spam. Just because you disagree does not mean you should censor it from other people. Consider that when censoring a bigot you could be doing them a favour.
So basically all he was saying that..."wait for people who opposed you get old and die off then you can get gay marriage/marriage equality"...The young lad is right to say they should take religio out of politics and policies making all together
At 7:10, she makes a great point. From an objective, secular perspective, there just aren't any half-decent arguments that could be used to argue against same-sex marriage legalization. Opposition just seems to fight back with words that might as well be "I personally don't like it, so it shouldn't be legal for anyone else", which in free societies like Australia shouldn't hold any water. Gotta say, she makes more sense than those on the panel. Smart and attractive, winning combination! :)
In Australia we have more than one religion and not all of them are against homosexuality. Also, there's debate as to whether the bible does actually condemn homosexuality. The bible is after all translated, potentially by people who weren't as divinely inspired as the original prophets. The spirit of the Word is love not hate. Doesn't it seem odd to you that God is supposed to be nothing but love, yet somehow there are exceptions? The truth is that God doesn't hate anyone -- people do.
The last girl says it as it should be! In Estonia civil unions was passed last year as sex neutral partnership which means all couples straight or gay! can get partnership them, and marriage can stay for the religious people.
Koolio J I thought it was a lovely solution too. I, as a hetero, would totally get civil unioned and leave the "marriage club" for the religious. The unfortunate point in Australia however is that many non-religious hetero's want marriage.
This whole argument against gay marriage is ludicrous. These politicians were simply gutless too concerned with not upsetting churches and their devotees. I’m a labor voter but they were so wrong not getting this done
Oh, I meant to reply to your comment about the randomness of the big bang theory. Refer to my domino analogy earlier. Saying that we can observe that one domino falling causes the fall of the next domino is all you need to observe in order to know that this isn't a random process. You don't need knowledge of what set the dominoes in motion in the first place to infer a cause-and-effect relationship.
I have solved the gay marriage issue. Here it is, since homosexuals change the meaning of every word that they attach to themselves to, it is certain that the term 'marriage' will and should connote something else once it is universally inclusive of gay unions. For the rest of us, let's take on the term 'husband & wife' for our unions and let the gays have 'marriage'. Example: ask a chromosal male and a chromosal female couple, "when did you become H & W", instead of, "when did you get married"?
The term “survival of the fittest” is not an argument about the way people should behave. They came up with it as an EXPLANATION of how animals (and people) DO behave. It doesn’t refer to individual specimens of a species; it refers to entire species. If you can’t use the concept to understand human behaviour it means you either don’t understand evolutionary theory or you don’t understand human behaviour.
Religion is not majority rule and government isn't supposed to be resolving religious disputes by having a vote. Conservative and liberal Christians BOTH have the right to practice their religion as they deem most proper.
in 1783 a male politician would say 'what? a woman having a job-what an outrage, she should be in the kitchen!' and here in 2011 sits a woman who works with a successful national newpaper. in 1953 another politician would have said 'what? multiculturalism! thats an outrage' and here in 2011 a female muslim woman sits on a panel broadcasting her views to millions. in 2011, two such female politicians say 'what? gay marriage-i won't support it'...THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE-BEYOND HYPOCRISY!
I won't take the insult personally. I should have explained myself better (you don't get much space to type!) The word "disorder" when used in a biological context does mean what you think it means (when function is deviated from "the normal"), however it also has an additional association implied: "a morbid state". There's nothing morbid (unhealthy) about being gay. That is why I think it's both (a) a matter of opinion which words you use, and (b) the wrong choice of word. An indecent choice.
I think it's a mistake to think that everyone has to have the same "definition". Let people who want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman do so and let people who define marriage as the union of two adults do that. Christians apparently disagree with each other about what the definition is. Government shouldn't get involved in a religious dispute; it should welcome both definitions.
@WhoCanResistClicking The point is that there was absolutely no ban on homosexual relations pretty much anywhere until judaism came along and gave life to christianity and islam too. This is evident in all societies studied by anthropologists and historians.
(cont'd): That is, 'chromosomal'. Include two additional boxes on applications such that apps read: 'single', 'divorced', 'married', 'husband', 'wife'. Gays get marriage certificates; non-gays get H&W certificates (H&W certificates are exclusively for chromosomal male and female matchups). Thus non-gays become H&W; gays get married. Since gays like to compare themselves to Blacks, consider that USA Blacks got equality, but we did not relabel ourselves as White. Equality was good enough.
If I'm the bigot then I must have a different/wrong understanding of marriage. Could you tell me what marriage is then, from your point of view? I suspect that your definition would mean that all non-religious hetero couples that get married are similarly doing it in contradiction to the act itself. How do you feel about atheists getting married? How do you feel about the possibility that the majority of people one day define marriage differently and have the laws surrounding it changed?
Oh I do agree that there are various definitions that people have used for "right and wrong", but we're talking in a moral sense. The most widely accepted definition for the term morality is; "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." It is true when you say that "other" people who aren't Christians also believe in right and wrong. I completely agree. But....
Normally I don't step into someone else's debate, but there's something you need to understand. If you're going to make a "moral" claim of some kind, like you have, then you need to have a basis for that claim. What is your standard, and how do you know it's correct?
I'm not the guy you responded to btw. You did straw-man his point by implying that he was arguing for the moral legitimacy of homosexuality on the basis of animal homosexuality. He wasn't. He was refuting a suggestion that naturalness is relevant to what is good/bad. It isn't, as is evident from natural disasters and pathogens & unnatural medical care. It isn't necessary to prove the moral legitimacy of anything. Those that claim that others are immoral have the burden of proof.
"I am completely against this" Well, that's fine. You're allowed your opinion and you don't need me to tell you that. Bear in mind that you'll be judged by others as a bigot. Still, that's not necessarily something to worry about (the judgment of others). But this is where you go wrong: "...and those people should not purposely seek to engage in homosexual relationships'" While it's completely personal to think like a bigot, it's not acceptable to limit others' rights based on your beliefs. That's what you don't seem to understand.
I see where you’re going. I agree with you in the sense that there’s no such thing as an objective morality. What we call “good” is essentially the self-preservation instinct generalized out to a larger group. At its best, I would argue you might include the entire human race in your self-preservation instinct, however the urge to preserve yourself has a higher priority than the urge to preserve the entire species for most people, simply because doing the latter is more difficult.
As for the people who say "The Bible is evil"... they're trying to use things that come from God, in order to argue against God. It's completely ridiculous and there's no way in the world can they possibly win. I'm glad that you were honest enough to admit that naturalism cannot account for morality. I do like that. Many people don't. The truth is, God sets the rules... he loves us, and he died on a cross so that he can take away our punishment for sin and we can be saved.
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. End quote. This is the definition of marriage in Canada.
so, am i still allowed to state my opinion that i disagree with gay marriage? or do i have to except it because im told i must? and if i dont then its hate speech? am i a homophobe? why? i dont personally hate gays but i still believe that marriage is between a man and a women, and children need both. im fine with gays disagreeing with that, but are gays trying to take away my freedom of speech? are gays heterophobes? i will always see gay marriage as wrong.
George Edwards enough already with this bigot crap you and everyone else has learned to say just because someone disagrees with something. Have you ever disagreed with something you felt strongly about but it didnt involve hate? so, now imagine you were told your a bigot. do your research mr political correctness who doesnt care about children being reared in a proper father and mother home, and youll find that for the last few thousand years, in every culture, nation, religion or non religion tribe and tongue, marriage has always been between a male and female. and now a minority wants to change it and then brand everyone who disagrees with their ideology a bigot? that smacks of nazism to me. actually, people like yourself and others who brand people like me for making a moral and what is conducive to a proper child rearing home bigots are nothing but heterophobes.
Just because traditional marriage has been the way it has for thousands of years doesn't mean we should hang onto it (for that reason). Rape and enslavement have been a staple of humanity too, and that's obviously fine to change. Saying that kids should be reared in a "proper mother and father home" is revealing of your (one day) outdated view.
***** so, your parents being divorced, is the fault maybe they didnt get along with each other and it has nothing to do with being heterosexual or anything to do with the institution of marriage? and so your saying gay marriage is the answer? here, have a read of something you can find with a simple search on google..... Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages - or even more so.1 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.2 Sexual relationships between members of the same sex, however, expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are: •Levels of Promiscuity read more Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs. •Physical Health read more 1.Male Homosexual Behavior 2.Female Homosexual Behavior Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV. •Mental Health read more It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems. •Life Span read more The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy. •Monogamy read more Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years. •Other Health Risks read more In Summary It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. Youth should be warned of the undeniable health risks associated with a homosexual lifestyle. *Adapted from Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.” Corporate Resource Council (2002). (accessed 1/30/13) See this article from Contemporary Pediatrics, “Sexual minority adolescents take more behavioral risks than heterosexual peers.” References [1] Becky Birtha, “Gay Parents and the Adoption Option,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, ; Grant Pick, “Make Room for Daddy - and Poppa,” The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002. [2] Ellen C. Perrin, et al., “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
***** here's some more facts that are from non christian sources click on these if you want truth www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/mens-health/in-depth/health-issues-for-gay-men/art-20047107 medschool.vanderbilt.edu/lgbti/health/gaymen
Wow, Australian politicians are even more out of touch than my lot! The Australian public have been in favour of gay marriage for a long time, and they've long been sick of the influence of religious conservatives in what should be a secular country. Why don't the politicians support the views of the people who voted for them?
Hold on a sec, when I say we don't act "good" anymore than anyone else, I'm talking in a Biblical sense. What that means is, we may actually sin less, and become more Christ-like, and by Society's definition of "Good" we do better, but according to God, all of our best works are like filthy rags compared to his righteousness. God is the author of goodness... and apart from him, "good" doesn't even exist.
I strongly agree that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Well between two women that's alright, but between two men it's a big no no. Bisexuality among women is alright, but for men is a big no no.
By that logic are you suggesting that we take the rights away from gay people? For why else would you mention that? And yes, without the marriage label ANY relationship (Gay or straight) is seen as inferior compared to one that has that label, because that is the point of a marriage
I dont hate gay or lesbians. For all i care, their private lives do not matter for me and they can do whatever they want in their spare time. HOWEVER, i think that Marriage is a sacred union between a male and a female. Sure, if Gays and Lesbians want to have a 'civil union' or call eachother boyfriend/girlfriend, sure, i dont mind. But what really bothers me is when gays and lesbians try to claim equality in marriage. I mean, marriage is exclusively meant to unite a male and a female. It is a beautiful union. I dont feel that gay/lesbian marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. I am not saying that one is better than the other, all i am trying to say is that by allowing gays to claim right to the word 'marriage', they will distort it's meaning, beauty, sanctity, history and spirituality. I think that Gays and Lesbians should maybe have the right to call eachother's partners / girlfiend/boyfriend, but i think that marriage should be exclusively used to define the union between a male and a female
This reasoning is exactly why spiritual people are always behind in the times. Believing something because you're told to from holy-orders is one of the stupidest things you can do, and it looks that way when you do it.
Maybe, yes i will agree that spiritual people (including me) are behind in some aspects in this society. I cannot deny that my views on Gay Marriage have more or less been influenced by my beliefs in Islam, and also my beliefs in parts of Christianity and Judaism. 'Believing something because you're told to from holy-orders is one of the stupidest things you can do, and it looks that way when you do it.' I can see where you are coming from. I understand that the justification of spiritual beliefs may seem odd. And i wont deny it, my stance on Gay Marriage has been influenced, to some extent, by my spiritual beliefs. However, my views on Gay Marriage are not solely determined by my spiritual beliefs. Sure, a religion influences it's followers to adopt certain ideals and values (including the disapproval of homosexual marriage), and being a believer in religion, i can't deny that. My views on Gay Marriage have also been influenced (to some extent) by my religious beliefs, and i cannot deny the influence - the act of doing so would be deemed arrogant. My views on Gay Marriage have also been influenced by my life in Australia. I was born in Australia in 1992, and I am a proud Australian. It gives me a sense of National Pride and Nationalism. As i grew up in Australia, i observed this society as its values, which included Marriage and committed relationships. My experience of growing up as an Australian has allowed me to witness marriage, and also has allowed me to appreciate the beauty in Marriage and personal relationships. I have always seen Marriage as being a union between a male and a female, and have always understood it's importance in our society. Putting all religious views aside, i believe that it is my understanding of this Australian Society that ultimately advocates against Gay Marriage. I am straight, and kinda have a crush on one of my University classmates. See, i love her. Ive gone on a few 'dates' with her, and love her to bits and totally understand the rush of love, and all it's emotions despite the fact that my love is unrequited :(. But despite this fact, i think that this feeling between a male and a female is beautiful, and is not equal to the love replicated in a homosexual relationship. I understand that same-sex couples can love eachother, and i think it is great. But what offends me is when homosexual couples claim to have 'equality' in marriage. I just cant accept it. I believe that Marriage Equality between same-sex couples is an insult to the concept of marriage, that is why i cannot accept Gay Marriage. I know my last paragraph has probably offended many readers. I, like Tony Abbot, sincerely apologise and sympathise for those out there who disagree with me, but i cannot change my stance. I am not homophobic, i have had gay and lesbian friends in the past, and still do. I respect them, but am not willing to redefine marriage. Furthermore, as i already mentioned, i do love a classmate from my University. But, to her im just a good friend. I know that i will never gain her love, and i accept that. Why is this relevant ? :) Well, i have come to understand that marriage is not necessary to display one's love for another. I do love her, and will always love her, but i know that my love will forever be unrequited. But the fact that i cant get married to her will never silence the feelings i have for her. It is through this experience that makes me say that "marriage" is not required to love somebody. If a gay couple truly loves eachother, they do not need to be married. And if a gay couple feel as though the restrictions on gay-marriage will diminish the quality of their love for one another, then i think it is an issue with their own love for eachother. My love for my classmate will never be lost, despite not being able to marry her. And the gays love should not be lost either. Ryan
No debate whatsoever. The bible clearly states homosexual acts must not be carried out and unfortunately people try and make the bible suit their lifestyle rather than making their lifestyle suit the bible. There is no bending the word.
God as described in the Bible doesn't contradict himself. 2 Timothy 2:13 says that God cannot deny himself. The only contradiction that exists is in your mind. There are "supposed" contradictions which arise out of misunderstanding of the text. I've come accross them, and when I thought about it, there was no contradiction there to begin with. Proverbs 26:4 and 5 are a perfect example of this.
I'm a 12 year old girl in Year 7, and I strongly believe that gay marriage should be allowed. The way that some of the people commenting can be so hopelessly conservative saddens me. I don't understand why people can't accept this. Why is it something we spend years debating over? Sadly, the current government is completely against this but I have hope that Labor will gain power in the future and allow gay marriage. Seriously, how does it affect anyone if homosexual people get married?! I don't necessarily believe in marriage, but it's their decision and I think Australia is, instead of supporting homosexuality, bringing it down. This is setting a bad example for my generation, and degrading Australia. Our country will fall behind, because we don't except what should be becoming a normality.
It's a controversial issue and deserves to be put to the vote. Sorry for those who don't believe in marriage equality because of some rites in a Bible. The Cons of Gay Marriage
So you would only do the “right” thing because God has told you to? Even as a Christian I never had this perspective. Are you actually saying that you have no understanding of why God’s commands might make sense if they weren’t written in the bible? This conversation is making me question Christian ethics more than ever.
I mentioned this issue about Christian claims about scientific research earlier, just before you joined in the discussion. I had the same picture as you once, when I was mostly listening to Christians on the subject; the actual reality is that there’s very little disagreement concerning the age of the earth or among scientists. You must know about previous instances of religious opposition to scientific progress, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Finally, a few words on evolution and the big bang theory. Neither idea depends on random events. Like much of science they’re explanations of how we arrived at the current situation from a certain starting point. To this perspective, reality is like a long, long row of dominoes, every consequence also being an event which causes the next consequence to fall into place. Lots of people don’t understand these concepts, including those who believe in them, so I recommend doing your own research.
@WhoCanResistClicking You are misunderstanding me. You seem to be referring to christians as in the followers of the religion. I am referring to christianity as in the bible and the religious teachings. The bible and the religious teachings of christianity have not done anything to promote gay marriage or gay rights in general as the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. Whereas there is no religious text or teachings for atheism.
Even if all you’re saying about morality being arbitrary if no god exists is true, it has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for a god. Just because you think it would be bad if no god exists, doesn’t mean there is one. I would argue that morality is important anyway because I think it just makes the world a nicer place… for me, for you, for everyone. You're right, I can't prove to a selfish person that my philosophy is better than a purely selfish one, but neither can you.
For instance if we agree that a dog has fur and that a creature which has scales can’t have fur then a creature which has scales can’t be a dog. Which is why we’re disagreeing. Your definition of morality includes god in the definition; I’m using a different definition. My idea of morality (which I think is better because more people can agree with it) is that it’s an aspect of human nature which can make things better for everyone in the long term.
You're claiming that logic is merely a human convention. If logic is a merely a human convention, then out in the middle of space where there are no human conventions, contradictions can happen. Obviously no one is going to believe that. Laws of Logic do not equate to "human definitions" either. It deals with concepts, not just definitions.
Humans have different logic. So to say "human logic" is an inadequate answer since there is variation. Logic is language independent also. When we say "2 + 2 = 4", what this expression refers to is invariably true in any language, regardless of whether they use different words to represent it. So your language argument doesn't fit. Laws of Logic are universal. It's not like what we refer to as 2 + 2 can equal 5 in another country. They use different language, but what is represented is the same
@WhoCanResistClicking I have studied this topic a great deal and I have yet to find any religion, culture, etc. prior to jewish hebrews that banned homosexuality. Could you please state at least one culture or religion that criminalised homosexuality before the jews? And then site your source please.
I'm sorry but it is not bigotry. No more than a homosexual believing they should be allowed to marry and anyone against this is homophobic. I speak on behalf of Australians, as well as what has never been accepted in the past (and for good moral reasons). It's just now homosexuals are kicking up a stink and stamping their feet saying they want the right to marry, which is totally contradictory to the reason behind marriage to begin with. Perhaps you are the bigot?
No, my point about millionaires and frauds was demonstrating a specific point - and indeed it did. What you fail to understand is that unless Christianity is true, then fraud isn't wrong. Some people may "claim" it to be wrong, but if naturalism is true, it's nothing more than their arbitrary relative opinion. If Fraud helps someone preserve their genetics and helps them survive, then it's a "good" thing from an evolutionary view.
Since you've just proven that you have absolutely no knowledge about how the bible works, and seemingly limited knowledge about science, I once again fail to see the purpose in continuing an argument with you... There is more proof that the bible is real than there is to say it's not, there are also reasons as to why evolution is an impossible theory, same with the big bang. Science is the study of god's workings and the universe. You cannot overcome that.
Well, that's very close to an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be to have "marriage" only granted to those who have undergone Christian scrutiny, and have civil unions for all others, i.e., LBGTs, atheists, agnostics, muslims, buddists, old earth christians?, etc. However that's nto what happens now, is it? Atheists are allowed to get married (so long as they're hetero) and christians don't complain about that. If it's good enough for atheists, but not for gays then they're hypocrites.
Right, it's presumptuous of me to think you agree with the guy I'm arguing with when you jump in and call me an idiot, but not presumptuous for you to call me an idiot? Or how about "You people always make the fatal presumption..." isn't that making a presumption about whatever you think my kind is? I'm sorry I got insulted when you insulted me. But hey... insulting people is a great way of making no point at all.
Another aspect of the problem I have with Christian logic is that I think I think the concept of trying to be a better person has little connection with the idea of accepting believing in god. I mean, I can be a good person whether I believe or not; doesn’t have to make sense, I can still do it. Now, am I actually not going to get into heaven just for not believing? That sounds like a typically stupid human idea, and from what I understand god isn’t supposed to be stupid or human.
I don't personally care whether somebody wants to consider homosexuality natural or not, just as I don't with medical care & I don't see it's relevance to SS marriage. How is it :s? The only point of support needed for SS marriage is that people should be treated equally until a good reason is provided to avoid doing so. Once this is established, all a SS marriage advocate has to do is watch their opponent fail to provide that "good reason". Ty for the reply. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
Disgust does not = hate. Just because smething is sooo obviousely disgusting does not mean one hates the person. And it is definately not normal behavior and sorry to say will never be.
What you’re doing all along is looking at things from the opposite direction that an atheist or scientist would look at it. Especially for a scientist, they don’t look at something and decide that it has no meaning; they ask what does it mean? So you might say that if people have this word “morality”, why do they use it? What’s its purpose? Instead of assuming things like that atheists have no reason to use the word “morality”, you would observe how they do use it.
By helping all people, you help yourself at the same time. Cool fun stuff like the internet can only exist through the cooperation of many after all. If there are more people who can be happy and be allowed the freedom to create and invent and so on and so on, then all of humanity can benefit. A similar argument can easily be made for helping the poor and so on. This is how I’ve arrived at my beliefs about ethics.
Asking if I would do something I consider bad for the sake of greed if I knew there would be no consequences is a fun game, but pointless since I could never know such a thing and I will always believe such actions will cause problems for everyone. You might as well ask if I knew that murdering someone would get me to heaven, would I do that? (I would never believe that either.) Both ideas can justify murder, but isn’t that a bigger problem for your worldview than it is for mine?
They are both humans though, born gay and straight, there is no difference there. We have human rights therefore gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Very simple.
One more point, kind of related to your misunderstanding of the evolution and big bang theories. If I can clearly see that you don't completely understand these scientific principles, I wonder what someone from another religion would say to what you understand about their beliefs. Earlier you said that all the contradictions in the bible aren't contradictions once you understand them properly... couldn't someone from every other religion you can and can't think of make this same argument?
I'm not, you're including yourself. Huh, I'd like to see you translate one of these posts into Ancient Hebrew. Though honestly I would simply argue that you're clearly biased and that the people who started my side of the translation debate know more about the language than either you or I. It's interesting you should say that, because Jesus preached love for all. Isn't your urge to hate against his will?
Any religion in question there obviously does not follow the bible, or if they do, it is one which is aligned to their own beliefs, not the actual scriptures themselves. There is no unclear terms. It is not acceptable.
If Christians are just like everyone else, atheism explains things just as well. Whether there’s a rational reason for it or not, people do act in a way which they call “good”. Therefore, what we call “good” must be simply a part of human nature. I suppose more importantly for a Christian, from this perspective the writings in the bible appear to be nothing more than writings which reflect human nature, and how can you prove that the things people do aren’t part of their nature?
@WhoCanResistClicking Thats irrelevant. The point I am making here is that the origin of homophobia lies in Judaism and ancient Hebrews. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, etc. all viewed sex as a wonderful thing. The Hebrews were the first to look upon sex, genitalia and nudity as shameful and private. A great deal of their laws discussed sex crimes, no other people before them held these beliefs. Whether christians today pick and choose what to believe is not the point.
If Christians don’t actually act “good” any more than anyone else, not even according to yourself, what’s the actual point of morality under your own philosophy? You’re saying that IF people follow god’s laws then they are being “good”, but that’s not an actual requirement for getting into heaven? Is there any practical reason to be “good” in your own philosophy? (I suppose you know that this is another way Christians justify not following their own morality.)
It's interesting how we can look back on this in hindsight and see that it was never anything other than thinly veiled bigotry. Of course many of us knew so at the time too.
"are you happy to see limits on the rights of individuals because they happen to be gay?"
What a hero!
and yet not one person could give a single practical reason for the current anti-gay marriage law, I wonder why.
I find this debate fascinating..... I can walk down the street, go up to a random woman and go get married (if unmarried), no questions asked. I've never met this woman, she's never met me, but we can get married, or I could marry and murder a woman, the remarry and re-offend, as much as I'd like, but I cannot marry the man that I love, and have loved for many years. How is that ruining the 'sanctity of marriage'? This just seems absolutely ridiculous to me.
I always love when politicians state that the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman..... I was always under the impression that religion and state were to be separate...
Hear, hear. I've got a hunch that the majority of (thinking) people are lying when they say it should be disallowed because it'll "ruin the sanctity of marriage". Atheists and criminals can, so what sanctity is this exactly?
Well said David
David Bennett Probably because marriage by definition means uniting in monogamous matrimony with the opposite sex for the purpose of child rearing and procreation.
No one says you can't live with your boyfriend/ lover, if you're upset about the procreation, take that up with nature.
David Bennett Well, walking up to the random woman would not be respecting the 'meaning' of marriage, of course. I don't get the idea of 'murder', don't know what you mean there. However, it comes down to a linguistic issue: proponents call it marriage "equality". Conservative opponents say that the definition of marriage is unchangeable! I wouldn't say that religion rules marriage, so I don't think you're right there: most weddings are by civil celebrants in backyards and gardens etc, with no clergy involved. You've answered your own question: you and your long-term partner would not affect the sanctity of marriage. The question is why do you feel you need marriage to fulfill something? What will that change?
Men like you refuse to accept (not understand... ACCEPT) the fact that the institution of marriage was founded upon spiritual precepts handed down over thousands of years from the people who preserved the words spoken by the creator, the righteous and creative force that initiated and maintains life itself.
Get with it. It takes complementary forces to procreate continuation of life. Just as two wrongs don't make a right or as in biochemistry, like charges repel and opposites attract.
This is the main reason the creator finds homosexuality such a wicked, disgusting concept (AKA Abomination). Because all the hard He put into creating the systems in place for life to go on for us all here on Earth is willfully ignored when men seek sexual pleasure from other men instead of from the men's complementary force (women). The pleasure we experience during sexual intimacy was designed that we couldn't resist doing it. This was placed within the design because it's so challenging to raise children that without this (especially for women), we would simply find something pleasant to do. There are other delights re: raising children but the pleasure of sexual intercourse is the icing on the cake.
I've no doubt homosexuals will have there way but the force which created life, and maintains it for us, won't put up with that for very long. "The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away."
OP here, I just went through and manually approved 39 anti-gay comments that were flagged as spam. Please stop flagging comments you disagree with as spam.
Just because you disagree does not mean you should censor it from other people. Consider that when censoring a bigot you could be doing them a favour.
You're right, it's not always fear driving opposition to same sex marriage. Often it's just irrational hate... much worse.
"What is it about the word marriage that they need to have"....indeed what is it about the word marriage that you need to have for yourself only?
Why do the audience members sound so much more intelligent than the politicians?
Prepared talking vs 'live' talking; the audience members whose questions were approved likely spent many hours refining it prior to the event.
So basically all he was saying that..."wait for people who opposed you get old and die off then you can get gay marriage/marriage equality"...The young lad is right to say they should take religio out of politics and policies making all together
Big ups to the audience there! :)
At 7:10, she makes a great point. From an objective, secular perspective, there just aren't any half-decent arguments that could be used to argue against same-sex marriage legalization. Opposition just seems to fight back with words that might as well be "I personally don't like it, so it shouldn't be legal for anyone else", which in free societies like Australia shouldn't hold any water. Gotta say, she makes more sense than those on the panel. Smart and attractive, winning combination! :)
In Australia we have more than one religion and not all of them are against homosexuality.
Also, there's debate as to whether the bible does actually condemn homosexuality. The bible is after all translated, potentially by people who weren't as divinely inspired as the original prophets.
The spirit of the Word is love not hate. Doesn't it seem odd to you that God is supposed to be nothing but love, yet somehow there are exceptions? The truth is that God doesn't hate anyone -- people do.
The last girl says it as it should be!
In Estonia civil unions was passed last year as sex neutral partnership which means all couples straight or gay! can get partnership them, and marriage can stay for the religious people.
Koolio J I thought it was a lovely solution too. I, as a hetero, would totally get civil unioned and leave the "marriage club" for the religious. The unfortunate point in Australia however is that many non-religious hetero's want marriage.
This whole argument against gay marriage is ludicrous. These politicians were simply gutless too concerned with not upsetting churches and their devotees. I’m a labor voter but they were so wrong not getting this done
My my, Shorten has aged so much in the past few years.
Why are 2 random women from the audience now in the show? They didn't even ask the question.
Oh, I meant to reply to your comment about the randomness of the big bang theory. Refer to my domino analogy earlier. Saying that we can observe that one domino falling causes the fall of the next domino is all you need to observe in order to know that this isn't a random process. You don't need knowledge of what set the dominoes in motion in the first place to infer a cause-and-effect relationship.
I have solved the gay marriage issue. Here it is, since homosexuals change the meaning of every word that they attach to themselves to, it is certain that the term 'marriage' will and should connote something else once it is universally inclusive of gay unions. For the rest of us, let's take on the term 'husband & wife' for our unions and let the gays have 'marriage'. Example: ask a chromosal male and a chromosal female couple, "when did you become H & W", instead of, "when did you get married"?
Did it work out Good or bad. In the end???
The term “survival of the fittest” is not an argument about the way people should behave. They came up with it as an EXPLANATION of how animals (and people) DO behave. It doesn’t refer to individual specimens of a species; it refers to entire species. If you can’t use the concept to understand human behaviour it means you either don’t understand evolutionary theory or you don’t understand human behaviour.
Required? What exactly are you trying to do?
@all4uboom what about Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists who get married?
Why are we having heterosexual men decide who people they can or cannot marry
Religion is not majority rule and government isn't supposed to be resolving religious disputes by having a vote. Conservative and liberal Christians BOTH have the right to practice their religion as they deem most proper.
in 1783 a male politician would say 'what? a woman having a job-what an outrage, she should be in the kitchen!' and here in 2011 sits a woman who works with a successful national newpaper. in 1953 another politician would have said 'what? multiculturalism! thats an outrage' and here in 2011 a female muslim woman sits on a panel broadcasting her views to millions. in 2011, two such female politicians say 'what? gay marriage-i won't support it'...THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE-BEYOND HYPOCRISY!
I won't take the insult personally. I should have explained myself better (you don't get much space to type!) The word "disorder" when used in a biological context does mean what you think it means (when function is deviated from "the normal"), however it also has an additional association implied: "a morbid state". There's nothing morbid (unhealthy) about being gay. That is why I think it's both (a) a matter of opinion which words you use, and (b) the wrong choice of word. An indecent choice.
I think it's a mistake to think that everyone has to have the same "definition".
Let people who want to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman do so and let people who define marriage as the union of two adults do that. Christians apparently disagree with each other about what the definition is.
Government shouldn't get involved in a religious dispute; it should welcome both definitions.
It is not a religious matter, it is an expression of hate and fear.
@WhoCanResistClicking The point is that there was absolutely no ban on homosexual relations pretty much anywhere until judaism came along and gave life to christianity and islam too. This is evident in all societies studied by anthropologists and historians.
(cont'd): That is, 'chromosomal'. Include two additional boxes on applications such that apps read: 'single', 'divorced', 'married', 'husband', 'wife'. Gays get marriage certificates; non-gays get H&W certificates (H&W certificates are exclusively for chromosomal male and female matchups). Thus non-gays become H&W; gays get married. Since gays like to compare themselves to Blacks, consider that USA Blacks got equality, but we did not relabel ourselves as White. Equality was good enough.
If I'm the bigot then I must have a different/wrong understanding of marriage. Could you tell me what marriage is then, from your point of view? I suspect that your definition would mean that all non-religious hetero couples that get married are similarly doing it in contradiction to the act itself. How do you feel about atheists getting married? How do you feel about the possibility that the majority of people one day define marriage differently and have the laws surrounding it changed?
Oh I do agree that there are various definitions that people have used for "right and wrong", but we're talking in a moral sense. The most widely accepted definition for the term morality is; "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
It is true when you say that "other" people who aren't Christians also believe in right and wrong. I completely agree. But....
I love the thumbnail for this lol. "fuck that shit".
Unless you vote informally, that can't be true. You're meant to vote for all candidates on the House of Representatives ballot paper.
Normally I don't step into someone else's debate, but there's something you need to understand. If you're going to make a "moral" claim of some kind, like you have, then you need to have a basis for that claim. What is your standard, and how do you know it's correct?
I'm not the guy you responded to btw. You did straw-man his point by implying that he was arguing for the moral legitimacy of homosexuality on the basis of animal homosexuality. He wasn't. He was refuting a suggestion that naturalness is relevant to what is good/bad. It isn't, as is evident from natural disasters and pathogens & unnatural medical care.
It isn't necessary to prove the moral legitimacy of anything. Those that claim that others are immoral have the burden of proof.
"I am completely against this" Well, that's fine. You're allowed your opinion and you don't need me to tell you that. Bear in mind that you'll be judged by others as a bigot. Still, that's not necessarily something to worry about (the judgment of others). But this is where you go wrong: "...and those people should not purposely seek to engage in homosexual relationships'" While it's completely personal to think like a bigot, it's not acceptable to limit others' rights based on your beliefs. That's what you don't seem to understand.
I see where you’re going. I agree with you in the sense that there’s no such thing as an objective morality. What we call “good” is essentially the self-preservation instinct generalized out to a larger group. At its best, I would argue you might include the entire human race in your self-preservation instinct, however the urge to preserve yourself has a higher priority than the urge to preserve the entire species for most people, simply because doing the latter is more difficult.
As for the people who say "The Bible is evil"... they're trying to use things that come from God, in order to argue against God. It's completely ridiculous and there's no way in the world can they possibly win.
I'm glad that you were honest enough to admit that naturalism cannot account for morality. I do like that. Many people don't. The truth is, God sets the rules... he loves us, and he died on a cross so that he can take away our punishment for sin and we can be saved.
If you are gay then you should marry the man or woman you choose to marry. END OF ARGUMENT!
God Will Judge.
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. End quote. This is the definition of marriage in Canada.
so, am i still allowed to state my opinion that i disagree with gay marriage? or do i have to except it because im told i must? and if i dont then its hate speech? am i a homophobe? why?
i dont personally hate gays but i still believe that marriage is between a man and a women, and children need both. im fine with gays disagreeing with that, but are gays trying to take away my freedom of speech? are gays heterophobes?
i will always see gay marriage as wrong.
Of course you can! You should know that you're a bigot though. Honestly.
George Edwards enough already with this bigot crap you and everyone else has learned to say just because someone disagrees with something.
Have you ever disagreed with something you felt strongly about but it didnt involve hate? so, now imagine you were told your a bigot.
do your research mr political correctness who doesnt care about children being reared in a proper father and mother home, and youll find that for the last few thousand years, in every culture, nation, religion or non religion tribe and tongue, marriage has always been between a male and female. and now a minority wants to change it and then brand everyone who disagrees with their ideology a bigot? that smacks of nazism to me.
actually, people like yourself and others who brand people like me for making a moral and what is conducive to a proper child rearing home bigots are nothing but heterophobes.
Just because traditional marriage has been the way it has for thousands of years doesn't mean we should hang onto it (for that reason). Rape and enslavement have been a staple of humanity too, and that's obviously fine to change.
Saying that kids should be reared in a "proper mother and father home" is revealing of your (one day) outdated view.
***** so, your parents being divorced, is the fault maybe they didnt get along with each other and it has nothing to do with being heterosexual or anything to do with the institution of marriage? and so your saying gay marriage is the answer? here, have a read of something you can find with a simple search on google.....
Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle
The current media portrayal of gay and lesbian relationships is that they are as healthy, stable and loving as heterosexual marriages - or even more so.1 Medical associations are promoting somewhat similar messages.2 Sexual relationships between members of the same sex, however, expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. There are five major distinctions between gay and heterosexual relationships, with specific medical consequences. They are:
•Levels of Promiscuity read more
Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs.
•Physical Health read more
1.Male Homosexual Behavior
2.Female Homosexual Behavior
Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.
•Mental Health read more
It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.
•Life Span read more
The only epidemiological study to date on the life span of gay men concluded that gay and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.
•Monogamy read more
Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
•Other Health Risks read more
In Summary
It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. Youth should be warned of the undeniable health risks associated with a homosexual lifestyle.
*Adapted from Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., “The Health Risks of Gay Sex.” Corporate Resource Council (2002). (accessed 1/30/13)
See this article from Contemporary Pediatrics, “Sexual minority adolescents take more behavioral risks than heterosexual peers.”
References
[1] Becky Birtha, “Gay Parents and the Adoption Option,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 04, 2002, ; Grant Pick, “Make Room for Daddy - and Poppa,” The Chicago Tribune Internet Edition, March 24, 2002.
[2] Ellen C. Perrin, et al., “Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics, 109(2): 341-344 (2002).
***** here's some more facts that are from non christian sources
click on these if you want truth
www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/mens-health/in-depth/health-issues-for-gay-men/art-20047107
medschool.vanderbilt.edu/lgbti/health/gaymen
Wow, Australian politicians are even more out of touch than my lot! The Australian public have been in favour of gay marriage for a long time, and they've long been sick of the influence of religious conservatives in what should be a secular country. Why don't the politicians support the views of the people who voted for them?
Hold on a sec, when I say we don't act "good" anymore than anyone else, I'm talking in a Biblical sense. What that means is, we may actually sin less, and become more Christ-like, and by Society's definition of "Good" we do better, but according to God, all of our best works are like filthy rags compared to his righteousness. God is the author of goodness... and apart from him, "good" doesn't even exist.
I strongly agree that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Well between two women that's alright, but between two men it's a big no no. Bisexuality among women is alright, but for men is a big no no.
0:30 Randa supports having a conscious vote.
By that logic are you suggesting that we take the rights away from gay people? For why else would you mention that? And yes, without the marriage label ANY relationship (Gay or straight) is seen as inferior compared to one that has that label, because that is the point of a marriage
I dont hate gay or lesbians. For all i care, their private lives do not matter for me and they can do whatever they want in their spare time. HOWEVER, i think that Marriage is a sacred union between a male and a female. Sure, if Gays and Lesbians want to have a 'civil union' or call eachother boyfriend/girlfriend, sure, i dont mind.
But what really bothers me is when gays and lesbians try to claim equality in marriage. I mean, marriage is exclusively meant to unite a male and a female. It is a beautiful union. I dont feel that gay/lesbian marriages are equal to heterosexual marriages. I am not saying that one is better than the other, all i am trying to say is that by allowing gays to claim right to the word 'marriage', they will distort it's meaning, beauty, sanctity, history and spirituality.
I think that Gays and Lesbians should maybe have the right to call eachother's partners / girlfiend/boyfriend, but i think that marriage should be exclusively used to define the union between a male and a female
Yeh thats true, i never relly thought of the 24-hr hollywood marriages
This reasoning is exactly why spiritual people are always behind in the times.
Believing something because you're told to from holy-orders is one of the stupidest things you can do, and it looks that way when you do it.
Maybe, yes i will agree that spiritual people (including me) are behind in some aspects in this society.
I cannot deny that my views on Gay Marriage have more or less been influenced by my beliefs in Islam, and also my beliefs in parts of Christianity and Judaism.
'Believing something because you're told to from holy-orders is one of the stupidest things you can do, and it looks that way when you do it.'
I can see where you are coming from. I understand that the justification of spiritual beliefs may seem odd. And i wont deny it, my stance on Gay Marriage has been influenced, to some extent, by my spiritual beliefs.
However, my views on Gay Marriage are not solely determined by my spiritual beliefs.
Sure, a religion influences it's followers to adopt certain ideals and values (including the disapproval of homosexual marriage), and being a believer in religion, i can't deny that. My views on Gay Marriage have also been influenced (to some extent) by my religious beliefs, and i cannot deny the influence - the act of doing so would be deemed arrogant.
My views on Gay Marriage have also been influenced by my life in Australia. I was born in Australia in 1992, and I am a proud Australian. It gives me a sense of National Pride and Nationalism. As i grew up in Australia, i observed this society as its values, which included Marriage and committed relationships. My experience of growing up as an Australian has allowed me to witness marriage, and also has allowed me to appreciate the beauty in Marriage and personal relationships. I have always seen Marriage as being a union between a male and a female, and have always understood it's importance in our society.
Putting all religious views aside, i believe that it is my understanding of this Australian Society that ultimately advocates against Gay Marriage. I am straight, and kinda have a crush on one of my University classmates. See, i love her. Ive gone on a few 'dates' with her, and love her to bits and totally understand the rush of love, and all it's emotions despite the fact that my love is unrequited :(. But despite this fact, i think that this feeling between a male and a female is beautiful, and is not equal to the love replicated in a homosexual relationship. I understand that same-sex couples can love eachother, and i think it is great. But what offends me is when homosexual couples claim to have 'equality' in marriage. I just cant accept it. I believe that Marriage Equality between same-sex couples is an insult to the concept of marriage, that is why i cannot accept Gay Marriage.
I know my last paragraph has probably offended many readers. I, like Tony Abbot, sincerely apologise and sympathise for those out there who disagree with me, but i cannot change my stance. I am not homophobic, i have had gay and lesbian friends in the past, and still do. I respect them, but am not willing to redefine marriage.
Furthermore, as i already mentioned, i do love a classmate from my University. But, to her im just a good friend. I know that i will never gain her love, and i accept that. Why is this relevant ? :) Well, i have come to understand that marriage is not necessary to display one's love for another. I do love her, and will always love her, but i know that my love will forever be unrequited. But the fact that i cant get married to her will never silence the feelings i have for her. It is through this experience that makes me say that "marriage" is not required to love somebody. If a gay couple truly loves eachother, they do not need to be married.
And if a gay couple feel as though the restrictions on gay-marriage will diminish the quality of their love for one another, then i think it is an issue with their own love for eachother. My love for my classmate will never be lost, despite not being able to marry her. And the gays love should not be lost either.
Ryan
no surprise, you've copt attacks from left wing liberals who couldnt care whats good for society....
yep thats right
that thumbnail though
No debate whatsoever.
The bible clearly states homosexual acts must not be carried out and unfortunately people try and make the bible suit their lifestyle rather than making their lifestyle suit the bible.
There is no bending the word.
God as described in the Bible doesn't contradict himself. 2 Timothy 2:13 says that God cannot deny himself. The only contradiction that exists is in your mind. There are "supposed" contradictions which arise out of misunderstanding of the text. I've come accross them, and when I thought about it, there was no contradiction there to begin with. Proverbs 26:4 and 5 are a perfect example of this.
I'm a 12 year old girl in Year 7, and I strongly believe that gay marriage should be allowed. The way that some of the people commenting can be so hopelessly conservative saddens me. I don't understand why people can't accept this. Why is it something we spend years debating over? Sadly, the current government is completely against this but I have hope that Labor will gain power in the future and allow gay marriage. Seriously, how does it affect anyone if homosexual people get married?! I don't necessarily believe in marriage, but it's their decision and I think Australia is, instead of supporting homosexuality, bringing it down. This is setting a bad example for my generation, and degrading Australia. Our country will fall behind, because we don't except what should be becoming a normality.
It's a controversial issue and deserves to be put to the vote. Sorry for those who don't believe in marriage equality because of some rites in a Bible. The Cons of Gay Marriage
So you would only do the “right” thing because God has told you to? Even as a Christian I never had this perspective. Are you actually saying that you have no understanding of why God’s commands might make sense if they weren’t written in the bible? This conversation is making me question Christian ethics more than ever.
I mentioned this issue about Christian claims about scientific research earlier, just before you joined in the discussion. I had the same picture as you once, when I was mostly listening to Christians on the subject; the actual reality is that there’s very little disagreement concerning the age of the earth or among scientists. You must know about previous instances of religious opposition to scientific progress, so this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
You're right. I agree with you.
Finally, a few words on evolution and the big bang theory. Neither idea depends on random events. Like much of science they’re explanations of how we arrived at the current situation from a certain starting point. To this perspective, reality is like a long, long row of dominoes, every consequence also being an event which causes the next consequence to fall into place. Lots of people don’t understand these concepts, including those who believe in them, so I recommend doing your own research.
@all4uboom Is that why straight atheists get married?
@WhoCanResistClicking You are misunderstanding me. You seem to be referring to christians as in the followers of the religion. I am referring to christianity as in the bible and the religious teachings. The bible and the religious teachings of christianity have not done anything to promote gay marriage or gay rights in general as the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination. Whereas there is no religious text or teachings for atheism.
Even if all you’re saying about morality being arbitrary if no god exists is true, it has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for a god. Just because you think it would be bad if no god exists, doesn’t mean there is one. I would argue that morality is important anyway because I think it just makes the world a nicer place… for me, for you, for everyone. You're right, I can't prove to a selfish person that my philosophy is better than a purely selfish one, but neither can you.
if gay marriage and marijuana is legalised in australia ill throw a party.
For instance if we agree that a dog has fur and that a creature which has scales can’t have fur then a creature which has scales can’t be a dog. Which is why we’re disagreeing. Your definition of morality includes god in the definition; I’m using a different definition. My idea of morality (which I think is better because more people can agree with it) is that it’s an aspect of human nature which can make things better for everyone in the long term.
Janet tells it like it is.
You're claiming that logic is merely a human convention. If logic is a merely a human convention, then out in the middle of space where there are no human conventions, contradictions can happen.
Obviously no one is going to believe that. Laws of Logic do not equate to "human definitions" either. It deals with concepts, not just definitions.
Humans have different logic. So to say "human logic" is an inadequate answer since there is variation. Logic is language independent also. When we say "2 + 2 = 4", what this expression refers to is invariably true in any language, regardless of whether they use different words to represent it.
So your language argument doesn't fit. Laws of Logic are universal. It's not like what we refer to as 2 + 2 can equal 5 in another country. They use different language, but what is represented is the same
Why wouldn't you allow that? They are people who love each other, they just happen to be of the same sex.
He has a point, you don't...
@WhoCanResistClicking Thailand may have been influenced by the US but then again I did mention globalisation as a factor. Same goes for Japan...
@WhoCanResistClicking I have studied this topic a great deal and I have yet to find any religion, culture, etc. prior to jewish hebrews that banned homosexuality. Could you please state at least one culture or religion that criminalised homosexuality before the jews? And then site your source please.
I'm sorry but it is not bigotry. No more than a homosexual believing they should be allowed to marry and anyone against this is homophobic. I speak on behalf of Australians, as well as what has never been accepted in the past (and for good moral reasons).
It's just now homosexuals are kicking up a stink and stamping their feet saying they want the right to marry, which is totally contradictory to the reason behind marriage to begin with.
Perhaps you are the bigot?
God.
No, my point about millionaires and frauds was demonstrating a specific point - and indeed it did. What you fail to understand is that unless Christianity is true, then fraud isn't wrong. Some people may "claim" it to be wrong, but if naturalism is true, it's nothing more than their arbitrary relative opinion.
If Fraud helps someone preserve their genetics and helps them survive, then it's a "good" thing from an evolutionary view.
you can't prove that.
Since you've just proven that you have absolutely no knowledge about how the bible works, and seemingly limited knowledge about science, I once again fail to see the purpose in continuing an argument with you...
There is more proof that the bible is real than there is to say it's not, there are also reasons as to why evolution is an impossible theory, same with the big bang.
Science is the study of god's workings and the universe. You cannot overcome that.
Then surely you're wasting your time?
it's the same principal with a similar argument... the point being is where do you draw the line?! in some countries humans marry animals!
Well, that's very close to an ideal solution. The ideal solution would be to have "marriage" only granted to those who have undergone Christian scrutiny, and have civil unions for all others, i.e., LBGTs, atheists, agnostics, muslims, buddists, old earth christians?, etc. However that's nto what happens now, is it? Atheists are allowed to get married (so long as they're hetero) and christians don't complain about that. If it's good enough for atheists, but not for gays then they're hypocrites.
The world disgusts me. Humanity disgusts me.
who?
My how our memories are so short. Labour has gone from no to yes in a matter of a couple of years. Not 10 or 20.
Right, it's presumptuous of me to think you agree with the guy I'm arguing with when you jump in and call me an idiot, but not presumptuous for you to call me an idiot? Or how about "You people always make the fatal presumption..." isn't that making a presumption about whatever you think my kind is? I'm sorry I got insulted when you insulted me.
But hey... insulting people is a great way of making no point at all.
Another aspect of the problem I have with Christian logic is that I think I think the concept of trying to be a better person has little connection with the idea of accepting believing in god. I mean, I can be a good person whether I believe or not; doesn’t have to make sense, I can still do it. Now, am I actually not going to get into heaven just for not believing? That sounds like a typically stupid human idea, and from what I understand god isn’t supposed to be stupid or human.
I don't personally care whether somebody wants to consider homosexuality natural or not, just as I don't with medical care & I don't see it's relevance to SS marriage. How is it :s?
The only point of support needed for SS marriage is that people should be treated equally until a good reason is provided to avoid doing so. Once this is established, all a SS marriage advocate has to do is watch their opponent fail to provide that "good reason". Ty for the reply. Sorry if I misunderstood your point.
Disgust does not = hate. Just because smething is sooo obviousely disgusting does not mean one hates the person. And it is definately not normal behavior and sorry to say will never be.
What you’re doing all along is looking at things from the opposite direction that an atheist or scientist would look at it. Especially for a scientist, they don’t look at something and decide that it has no meaning; they ask what does it mean? So you might say that if people have this word “morality”, why do they use it? What’s its purpose? Instead of assuming things like that atheists have no reason to use the word “morality”, you would observe how they do use it.
By helping all people, you help yourself at the same time. Cool fun stuff like the internet can only exist through the cooperation of many after all. If there are more people who can be happy and be allowed the freedom to create and invent and so on and so on, then all of humanity can benefit. A similar argument can easily be made for helping the poor and so on. This is how I’ve arrived at my beliefs about ethics.
Asking if I would do something I consider bad for the sake of greed if I knew there would be no consequences is a fun game, but pointless since I could never know such a thing and I will always believe such actions will cause problems for everyone. You might as well ask if I knew that murdering someone would get me to heaven, would I do that? (I would never believe that either.) Both ideas can justify murder, but isn’t that a bigger problem for your worldview than it is for mine?
2:13... best bit of the whole clip
They are both humans though, born gay and straight, there is no difference there. We have human rights therefore gay people should have the same rights as straight people. Very simple.
@phoney98 why? it'a a pretty good paper!
i'll NEVER read the australian again...
And Bill Shorten didn't vote for gay marriage after all that. What a dud!
One more point, kind of related to your misunderstanding of the evolution and big bang theories. If I can clearly see that you don't completely understand these scientific principles, I wonder what someone from another religion would say to what you understand about their beliefs. Earlier you said that all the contradictions in the bible aren't contradictions once you understand them properly... couldn't someone from every other religion you can and can't think of make this same argument?
Why?
I'm not, you're including yourself.
Huh, I'd like to see you translate one of these posts into Ancient Hebrew. Though honestly I would simply argue that you're clearly biased and that the people who started my side of the translation debate know more about the language than either you or I.
It's interesting you should say that, because Jesus preached love for all. Isn't your urge to hate against his will?
Any religion in question there obviously does not follow the bible, or if they do, it is one which is aligned to their own beliefs, not the actual scriptures themselves.
There is no unclear terms. It is not acceptable.
If Christians are just like everyone else, atheism explains things just as well. Whether there’s a rational reason for it or not, people do act in a way which they call “good”. Therefore, what we call “good” must be simply a part of human nature. I suppose more importantly for a Christian, from this perspective the writings in the bible appear to be nothing more than writings which reflect human nature, and how can you prove that the things people do aren’t part of their nature?
@WhoCanResistClicking Thats irrelevant. The point I am making here is that the origin of homophobia lies in Judaism and ancient Hebrews. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Persians, etc. all viewed sex as a wonderful thing. The Hebrews were the first to look upon sex, genitalia and nudity as shameful and private. A great deal of their laws discussed sex crimes, no other people before them held these beliefs. Whether christians today pick and choose what to believe is not the point.
If Christians don’t actually act “good” any more than anyone else, not even according to yourself, what’s the actual point of morality under your own philosophy? You’re saying that IF people follow god’s laws then they are being “good”, but that’s not an actual requirement for getting into heaven? Is there any practical reason to be “good” in your own philosophy? (I suppose you know that this is another way Christians justify not following their own morality.)