Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)

What do you think of homosexuality in Australia?

  • Yes, i strongly support it.

    Votes: 673 48.5%
  • I somewhat support it.

    Votes: 201 14.5%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 181 13.0%
  • I do not support it.

    Votes: 334 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,389

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
5233andy said:
Well that's a valid 'reason', if you could call it that - more than it is a reason, perhaps it's fact. My understanding of the Christian Church is that the Bible promotes love. There's nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong. The issue is where the Church condemns homosexuality - it's supposedly a plague, burdening the world. As I've mentioned in my previous post, it very much is indeed time to perhaps break free of this cycle of hatred. I can understanding those who are 'devout' Christians, [I've emphasised 'devout' as often, an individual claims to be a devout Christian, however, their actions appear to be the antithesis of the morals and values that are taught through the religion] however, certain individuals cannot see the love between individuals, that is, homosexuals. Does evil promote love? I don't think it does, so, in this sense, is the 'issue' really evil? Well, we've certainly made it become evil - it's this great social divide, which inevitably causes us to be socially and morally inept - perhaps it's time for us, as a whole, use our conscience and intelligence for the better of society. After all, 'we are the most intelligence of organisms on this planet'... [Or so we say]
You didn't really answer my question. You gave me a lot of ramblings about the Church.

I don't care about the Church, I want to know why you personally find homosexuality hard to comprehend.

It really isn't.
 

staticsiscool

Banned
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
607
Location
Boats and Hoes
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Katie it is hard to comprehend because if we were meant to take it in the arse, why are our sphincters so tight. Too tight for penises perhaps? Evolutionary trait to make it harder to get arse raped when captured by rival tribes etc?
 

5233andy

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
417
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
katie tully said:
You didn't really answer my question. You gave me a lot of ramblings about the Church.

I don't care about the Church, I want to know why you personally find homosexuality hard to comprehend.

It really isn't.
If you look at society in the past, there appears to be a growing trend in the number of cases. Perhaps there have been individuals who've come out about themselves or whatnot, I don't know. But why is it the case? Yes, there's the social contexts to consider, but also the notion of nature or nurture. If there is a God out there, why? If it's nurture, what's the situation? With the issue, alone, why does it occur? It's a cosmic question
 

Kwayera

Passive-aggressive Mod
Joined
May 10, 2004
Messages
5,959
Location
Antarctica
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
staticsiscool said:
Katie it is hard to comprehend because if we were meant to take it in the arse, why are our sphincters so tight. Too tight for penises perhaps? Evolutionary trait to make it harder to get arse raped when captured by rival tribes etc?
Uh, no?

One would guess that the sphincter is tight to prevent unexpected bowel movements.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
5233andy said:
If you look at society in the past, there appears to be a growing trend in the number of cases. Perhaps there have been individuals who've come out about themselves or whatnot, I don't know. But why is it the case? Yes, there's the social contexts to consider, but also the notion of nature or nurture. If there is a God out there, why? If it's nurture, what's the situation? With the issue, alone, why does it occur? It's a cosmic question
You've dogged the question.

Again.
 

5233andy

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
417
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
katie tully said:
You've dogged the question.

Again.
Well I reckon I've answered your question. With my previous post, all of that, is what I find puzzling. Is the issue meant to be, does it form part of human existence, or is it God's test for the merits of his creation? I can't answer that, nor can anyone without placing a religious aspect. In this sense, this is what provoked the grey area. Now, I don't know what answer you're trying to get from me, but my initial post centred around this notion. Hopefully, this has answered your question.
 

Tulipa

Loose lips sink ships
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
1,922
Location
to the left, a little below the right and right in
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
5233andy said:
Well I reckon I've answered your question. With my previous post, all of that, is what I find puzzling. Is the issue meant to be, does it form part of human existence, or is it God's test for the merits of his creation? I can't answer that, nor can anyone without placing a religious aspect. In this sense, this is what provoked the grey area. Now, I don't know what answer you're trying to get from me, but my initial post centred around this notion. Hopefully, this has answered your question.
Why do you PERSONALLY find homosexuality hard to comprehend.

What about it is so incomprehensible?

n00b.

You have not answered that question. You've just said a lot of shit about the church/history.
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
PwarYuex said:
Wrong. The Pauline Epistles also heavily condemn homosexuality.

By the way, I think that if you actually just read the Bible for yourself (rather than relying on what other people say, which is what most Christians do), that you'll understand it more.
I do read the bible for myself. I know the bible just as well as you do, actually. I have read the Pauline Epistles, and honestly:

1. does Romans refer to
all homosexual acts, or to certain homosexual behavior known to Paul's readers?

2. The book of Romans was written to Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, who would have been familiar with the infamous sexual excesses of their contemporaries, especially Roman emperors.

3. There were tensions in the early Church regarding Gentiles and observance of the Jewish laws, as noted in Acts 15 and Paul's letter to the Galatians. Jewish laws in Leviticus mentioned male same-sex acts in the context of idolatry.

4.
The homosexual practices cited in Romans 1:24-27 were believed to result from idolatry and are associated with some very serious offenses as noted in Romans 1. Taken in this larger context, it should be obvious that such acts are significantly different from loving, responsible lesbian and gay relationships seen today.
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
5233andy said:
Based on Christian teaching, parents are encouraged to raise their children with the values that the Church upholds. When it comes to homosexuality and the issue of whether it's nature or nurture; if it's nurture, whose fault is it, really?

I don't support the homosexuality, nor do I condemn it. However, by considering these people as burdens on society, are our actions Christian-like? Can't we all simply put aside our differences and treat all with the dignity of a human being? Because that's what we all are, we're human beings. Should we drive the wedge between social groups deeper, we're essentially destroying the whole of humanity.

Is it nature or nurture? Oh, I don't know... the more we attempt to answer this question and beget homosexuality, we're digging holes for ourselves. In many respects, it's a cosmic question, perhaps worthy of being ejected into the void.

ANyways, homosexuality is somewhat 'strange', something that I can't comprehend. But it often appears as though there's a growing trend of this 'lifestyle', if you will, or in lack of a better term. It just defies human conscience... I guess... :S

Nevertheless, why am I even caring about this?
By that do you mean that people who would have decided to lie to everyone and pretend to be straight a few generations ago are being more honest with themselves?

5233andy, my sexuality isn't my choice. Being honest with myself is.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Enteebee said:
What are we left with once we remove the possibility of divine inspiration? Doesn't that somewhat invalidate some of the claims of Jesus?
You can't persuade anyone that way, tbh.

But hoorah for atheistic fandom.

supercalamari said:
1. does Romans refer to all homosexual acts

Yes, the Bible specifically stipulates in two places that ἀρσενοκοίτης (lit: he who has male intercourse) shall not be let into the kingdom of God.

You could of course argue that you can have homosexual acts that don't involve sex, but you'd fail because the compound word here refers not to people who actually do the verbal action of homosexual intercourse, but rather the group of people to which this label applies most broadly (homosexuals). If you'd want to argue otherwise, you're sitting out on a linguistic island with noone from anywhere decent. :-/
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
PwarYuex said:
You can't persuade anyone that way, tbh.

But hoorah for atheistic fandom.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone atm. I'm just wondering how you would reconcile your flippant dismissal of catholics listening to the pope's "divinely inspired" theological musings with acceptance of those of anyone else (including Jesus)? Are the catholics particularly silly or am I just reading what you said wrong?
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
PwarYuex said:
You can't persuade anyone that way, tbh.

But hoorah for atheistic fandom.


Yes, the Bible specifically stipulates in two places that ἀρσενοκοίτης (lit: he who has male intercourse) shall not be let into the kingdom of God.

You could of course argue that you can have homosexual acts that don't involve sex, but you'd fail because the compound word here refers not to people who actually do the verbal action of homosexual intercourse, but rather the group of people to which this label applies most broadly (homosexuals). If you'd want to argue otherwise, you're sitting out on a linguistic island with noone from anywhere decent. :-/
[/FONT]
I still believe that homosexuality as we know it today (yes, some casual sex but a lot of loving, monogamous relationships too) is different to that which is referred to in the bible. The bible talks about sex between a married man and a temple prostitute, and also married men and younger unmarried boys, which is clearly a form of adultery and as such sinful in the bible. But does it apply to loving, exclusive relationships which are treated by those entering into them like a marriage? I know that in real life this is uncommon, as it among heterosexuals, but still.
 

ASNSWR127

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
478
Location
left of centre
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Hang on!

Christians believe that out savior came from a virgin mother...

the bible is to be trusted on matters of sexuality how?
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Enteebee said:
Are the catholics particularly silly or am I just reading what you said wrong?
Nope, you read what I said correctly.

Two issues: Firstly, I find Catholic altering of Christian theology makes it one of the most harmful religions around. I absolutely hate Catholicism.

Secondly, the issue of reinterpretation (from which point 1 partly comes from) makes religions even more dangerous to the world. Most of the Gospels, for example, form nice stories from which teachings can be done. (I think I disagree with a few people about this.)

supercalamari said:
I still believe that homosexuality as we know it today (yes, some casual sex but a lot of loving, monogamous relationships too) is different to that which is referred to in the bible.
That's fine - but why do you believe that? You have read the Bible, as have I; explain it to me.

The word referring to homosexuals is clear. The context (which places homosexuals among thieves, prostitutes, murderers, etc) is clear.

So how do you believe this?
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
ASNSWR127 said:
Hang on!

Christians believe that out savior came from a virgin mother...

the bible is to be trusted on matters of sexuality how?
That is also a valid thought, hehe :)
 

supercalamari

you've got the love
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,590
Location
Bathtub
Gender
Female
HSC
2010
PwarYuex said:
Nope, you read what I said correctly.

Two issues: Firstly, I find Catholic altering of Christian theology makes it one of the most harmful religions around. I absolutely hate Catholicism.

Secondly, the issue of reinterpretation (from which point 1 partly comes from) makes religions even more dangerous to the world. Most of the Gospels, for example, form nice stories from which teachings can be done. (I think I disagree with a few people about this.)



That's fine - but why do you believe that? You have read the Bible, as have I; explain it to me.

The word referring to homosexuals is clear. The context (which places homosexuals among thieves, prostitutes, murderers, etc) is clear.

So how do you believe this?
"So do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-none of these will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

"The law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Timothy 1:9-11).

There are two major issues to consider when one approaches these passages: translation and sexual practices of Greek culture. A comparison of these verses in several translations of the Bible indicates that there is some confusion about how to translate two Greek words in these lists of vices Paul has enumerated. The two words are 'arsenokoitai' which is rendered in various translations as "homosexuals," "sodomites," "child molesters," or "perverts" and 'malakoi' which is rendered in various translations as "catamites," "the effeminate," or "boy prostitutes."

These Greek words are difficult to translate in the context of these passages. Malakoi is a common term and means "soft." It can refer to clothing (Matthew 11:8) or moral matters, meaning, "undisciplined." Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning "man," and koitai meaning "bed, lying, or having sex with." When put together the word may mean "male prostitutes."

When these words are placed in the context of Greek culture in which Paul was writing, the passages have very specific meanings. As we have seen earlier, the Mediterranean world had a definition of sexuality that was based on dominance/submission and unequal status. Greek culture fine-tuned that definition with regard to status. Proper sexual relations occurred between people whose status was unequal. In addition there was a practice in ancient Greek culture known as pederasty in which younger men were socialized and educated through a close relationship with an older man. These older men were the boys' (age 12 or 13) patrons and, often, their lovers. These relationships were seen as the key to raising up the next generation of city leaders and there were strict rules about how long the relationship should last and the roles of families within these relationships. Evidently there was some abuse happening in these relationships and young boys were being exploited and kept by the patron well after the boy had grown into adulthood (which would have made him an equal, hence violating the code of sex only among unequals).

These abusive relationships are what the apostle Paul is referencing, not mutually loving and caring relationships between people of the same sex.

How do I believe this?

I'm through with trying to make my beliefs sound like the right ones. They might not be, I don't know.

Quite simply, I believe this because it is what I have always truly felt inside me, and it is what keeps me sane. My belief in others and myself is what compels me to try and make a difference in my part of the world.

Thankyou for sharing your opinions with me also.
 

Enteebee

Keepers of the flames
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
3,091
Location
/
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Two issues: Firstly, I find Catholic altering of Christian theology makes it one of the most harmful religions around. I absolutely hate Catholicism.
My question is more what makes their altering (based on a dream or whatever) any sillier than how their theology was originally formed? The content may be crappier, but then again it might be better too.

Secondly, the issue of reinterpretation (from which point 1 partly comes from) makes religions even more dangerous to the world. Most of the Gospels, for example, form nice stories from which teachings can be done. (I think I disagree with a few people about this.)
How does reinterpretation make them any more dangerous than staying, as much as any text can, static? If for instance no 'reinterpretation' was provided by Jesus you'd still have the old testament. It seems to me the real problem lies within religion its self. That is to say, whether it's the pope waking up tomorrow and deciding homosexuals should be stoned to death or a guy 2000 years ago saying it, it's the fact that someone can get people to go along with ethical notions without considering them through humanist ethics, via evoking a supreme-being.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
supercalamari said:
These Greek words are difficult to translate in the context of these passages.
I'm referring exclusively to ἀρσενοκοίτης

Arsenokoitai is a rare word and is made up of arseno meaning "man," and koitai meaning "bed, lying, or having sex with." When put together the word may mean "male prostitutes."
No I don't think so. There're other words for prostitute. If the writer was specifically referring to the pederastic relationship as we know it in antiquity, I think they would have used those specific terms. If they were referring to something else specifically (as some people argue), then they surely would have said it. Simply using a word which really translates to 'homosexual' means what it implies, I think.

I'm glad you're thinking it. I'll look into it more (surprisingly, given that I'm queer, I haven't even looked at it past the English) when I have time.

Enteebee said:
My question is more what makes their altering (based on a dream or whatever) any sillier than how their theology was originally formed?
I assume you mean the difference between, say, Moses and the Ten Commandments and then one of the Catholic laws?

To begin with, you're never going to win an argument or persuade someone by trying to completely destroy their faith. It's much better to send little cracks in - much less time and effort and less of a waste of time if nothing happens.

Secondly, you're coming at the argument from an atheists perspective. Imagine that you believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments - noone can prove otherwise. However, when you look at much of the Catholic theology, many of the aspects are clearly driven by non-divine means. It can easily be proven that much of Catholic dogma is based on money, control, and opression simply by thinking about the historical context of these creations.

A comparison between the early New Testament and Catholic dogma is much the same, I think.

The Pauline Epistles are in a similar boat (although somewhere between the two, obviously).

The content may be crappier, but then again it might be better too.
Yeah but it's not; if we take the works of the Gospels as truth, then not only are the Catholic dogma crappier in the sense that they're further from the truth, but I think that most of us can agree that they're also crappier from a ethical point of view.

It seems to me the real problem lies within religion its self.
Obviously - that's why I've said (at least five times now, I believe) that real persuasion, and not pointless argument, is imperative.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top