Why gay people are less healthy and how to fix it

jay-ded says:

06:32am | 17/11/11

Hear Hear acotrel.

malohi says:

06:47am | 17/11/11

Because under the rule of law, we are bound by publically promulgated legislation, including the Marriage Act 1961.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s5.html

where it is currently defined as between a man and woman.
People are excluded from entering into all sorts of contracts in this liberal democracy.

malohi says:

06:54am | 17/11/11

I fully support gay marriage by the way. But it will be a cold day in hell when I support poor legal interpretations!!!
Park B would spin in his grave.

Beer Swill says:

07:24am | 17/11/11

If you need to get married to express commitment then you are deluded and stupid. “Love” is a fantasy - it isn’t real and marriage is a long obsolete farce that only idiots and bogans enter into.

Al says:

07:58am | 17/11/11

Acotrel, the thing is, a gay couple can enter into a common law contract that would provide the same provisions as a marrige contract.
It just would not be enforceable as a marrige contract via the family courts in the case of seperation etc, but may be enforceable as a common law contract (via the common law courts). Basicly it is similar to a pre-nup.
Of course, the recent decisions do provide for the family courts to rule a homosexual couple to be deemed as a defacto couple, and assets can be divided up accordingly in the case of a breakdown of the relationship.
It is only required to show some ‘financial dependance’ of one person to the other.
It is realy just things such as accesing ‘partner’ social security payments and for their treatment under the taxation system that their is a discrepancy. (May be deemed a defacto couple by the Family Courts, but not recognise as such by Centrelink etc. I believe the tax laws were changed recently to try and address the issue as well.)
The anti-marrige people simply tend to have the view that marrige is ALL about making children and are concerned that gay couples may seek to adopt children or have them via IVF and raise them in an enviroment different to what they are used to and that conflicts with their personal or religous views. (In other words, no real valid reason).

Andee says:

08:00am | 17/11/11

So acotrel is a bloke . I thought she was Julia’s staffer , and marriage is the first step to divorce .

Tedd says:

08:19am | 17/11/11

malohi,

“for life” isn’t binding, of course, which adds a degree of mockery

Andee says:

08:53am | 17/11/11

““their sexual preference, in a liberal democracy”” , look at the Gay Mardi Gras , what a bunch of deviates .
The only animals to do this sort of thing are dogs and bulls . yuk
Tripe J did a program on suicides of fifteen year old males, bad stuff, they suicide only because they think they are gay.

neo says:

08:58am | 17/11/11

Stop devaluing marriage by calling it a legal contract. If it was a mere contract, homosexuals would be happy with civil unions. Clearly, marriage is an important social institution which carries deep meaning to humans, both heterosexuals and homosexuals seem to at least agree on that point.

The Bear says:

09:17am | 17/11/11

@acotrel.  I hope you had a good reason to be “remarried”, given you profound commitment to the sanctity of marriage.

mick says:

09:18am | 17/11/11

We have all been bashed over the head and forced to comply with the needs of the homosexual community.  If this community thinks that it is living with “negative attitudes” then maybe take a journey back 50 years and you’ll see real oppression.  But then in those time normal people,whoever they are these days,  did not have this community in its face and like the Aboriginal community continually making demands.

What we all forget in this whole debate is that Australia used to be a Christian country.  Today God has been forsaken by most for a self centred lifestyle and the traditional “marriage” has been hijacked by the homosexual community using the thin edge of the wedge to get its way.  Now we are seeing the bleeding heart push to get yet more sympathy and to get its way.

I believe in the live and let live philosophy but I am opposed to “gay marriage” as it may have a basis in law, but it has no basis before God.

Markus says:

10:01am | 17/11/11

Stop devaluing contracts by comparing them with marriage.

One is a legally binding document, where both parties agree to specific terms and obligations, and to adhere to said obligations for the duration of the contract, with one party compensated should the other party fail to adhere to the conditions agreed upon.

The other is marriage.

Perkin Warbeck says:

10:01am | 17/11/11

@Mick - just when have you been “forced to comply” with my needs? How have you been bashed over the head? That is some glass jaw you’ve got there, comrade.

A little point - Australia is not a “Christian” country - never has been. There is nothing in our constitution that says anything of the sort. We have no national religion, we have no religious test to allow people to become citizens, to work and to represent us in Parliament.
It is the fallacy that you and those who think like you continually perpetrate.

If you ever truly believed in the religious belief system you say you have, then you would see that Jesus of Nazareth was the ultimate “bleeding heart” and you have absolutely no grounds for claiming you know what’s in “God’s” mind.

Please, open your mind along with your heart or stand condemned the way religious fanatics and bigots have been condemned for centuries.

Al says:

10:08am | 17/11/11

Mick, your comment is right to a certain extent.
Australia USED TO BE a Christian country.
It certainly is NOT a Christian country now. (Even in the Census the number of people who identify as ‘Christian’ is a minority of the population).
As such, why should we let the religous beliefs of a minority of the population dictate what is legaly allowed under law?
The fact it ‘used to be’ doesn’t mean we have to keep it that way. (Christians also ‘used to’ put people to death for opposing their views, should we make that legal now as well? And no, it was not just the Catholic church, the Church of England (protestant) did it as well.)

Tchom says:

10:13am | 17/11/11

@Andee
“look at the Gay Mardi Gras , what a bunch of deviates .
The only animals to do this sort of thing are dogs and bulls . yuk”

I would pay sooo much money to see a flamboyant parade with floats and dancing that was organised and participated in by dogs and bulls.

@mick
Your argument sucks. You say Australia is less oppressed than it was 50 years ago so homosexuals shouldn’t complain, and then you say that Australia used to be a Christian country and god has forsaken us. Did God forsake us around the same time that things got better?

I’m also pretty sure that the same parts of the Bible that are anti-gay are also the same parts that are pro-slavery and pro-animal sacrifice. Why is it Ok to overlook those parts?

“I believe in the live and let live philosophy but I am opposed to “gay marriage” as it may have a basis in law, but it has no basis before God.”

Which god? A Christian god? Should non-christians not be allowed to marry? If so, which denominations?

shinydonkey says:

10:33am | 17/11/11

@mick - god has no basis in reality.  See if you can come up with a RATIONAL justification of your racism and homophobia . . . . that’s right . . . . you can’t.

pC says:

02:04pm | 17/11/11

@ Perkin Walbeck re: God is not in the Constitution, have a read of the first line and get back to me

sick says:

03:03pm | 17/11/11

Ha! @mick. Christians complaining that they shouldn’t have to bend to the will of a vocal minority? Oh the irony.

andye says:

04:06pm | 17/11/11

@mick - I dont have any problem with religious people and believe they can practice their religion as they see fit, as long as it doesn’t affect those who choose not to follow religion.

If you are going to use your religion to tell the rest of us how we should live, or what the laws of the land should be? You are entering the fray. To my mind your religion is NOT protected after this. If you use your religion to try to control others, then don’t cry persecution like a lot of Christians seem to do these days. We will fight back. Deal with it or keep your damn religion out of my face.

mel says:

04:53pm | 17/11/11

pC says that the word ‘god’ is in the first line of the constitution. I’m not sure that’s correct. It’s in the Preamble to the “Act to Constitute the Constitution of Australia” that went before the British Parliament, so I’m not sure if that counts. As the Preamble ends with the line “The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:”, it doesn’t necessarily seem that it is a part of it.

For an interesting discussion of the Preamble, see:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2001/28.html

Are there any good constitutional lawyers out there who can tell us non- laywers the legal status of the Preamble?

mel says:

05:04pm | 17/11/11

pC, further to my thoughts on whether the Preamble to the Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia that went before the British Parliament is actually part of the Constitution of Australia, please note the essay by Anne Twomey, Associate Professor, Constitutional Reform Unit, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney:

http://sydney.edu.au/law/cru/documents/2011/Report_2_2011.pdf

From page 7 and I quote: “The Commonwealth Constitution does not itself contain a preamble.”

So, pC, it seems you were wrong, on at least Anne Twomey’s reckoning: no god in the Constitution of Australia.

yobogod says:

05:29pm | 17/11/11

@Andee, actually many recent studies, as well as older studies(that were blocked from publication), show that homosexual behavior is present in almost all mammals, and some avians.
Notably our closest cousins the chimps, are split into two groups,  the common chimp (vulgaris) and the pygmy chimp(bonobo). Within bonobo groupings, sex is used as a greeting, a pacifier, play, and general social activity. The bonobo also draw no lines between the sexes, as all this sexual activity is not limited to hetero pairings(indeed group sex is more common then hetero pairings).
Dolphin’s are also well documented as having rather playful sex lives, with young males in particular practicing both anal and blow(hole) sex.
So when you state that “The only animals to do this sort of thing are dogs and bulls . yuk”, it is limited to merely being your personal opinion, I am afraid kind sir.

yobogod says:

05:35pm | 17/11/11

@Mick,  actually Australia used to be an “Aboriginal” Nation, with trade routes, customs, politics and international trade partners, until invaded by England, and taken over for the purpose of housing criminals.
Your allusion that the gay community and the aboriginal community both, should just stfu, simply because for a(tiny insignificant) portion of the history of this land, that the church and English state held sway, is well… hinging perhaps a little too much “on Faith”.

Brian says:

06:30pm | 17/11/11

yobogod says…Aboriginals should realise that the Invasion by England (as you call it) was the best thing to ever happen to them….because if it wasn’t for the English arriving here it would have been taken by Indonesia…......How many benefits do you think they would get under Indonesian rule???

yobogod says:

06:53pm | 17/11/11

@brian:
Brian says that using imaginative fiction as an argument is funsies!!
“it shouldn’t matter that i get drunk and beat you every night, you’re still better off then if you’d never met me!”

Brian says:

07:13pm | 17/11/11

yobogod says….its not meant to be funny its the truth, Aboriginals were NEVER going to hold on to this land someone was always going to take it from them, that is Human history….Migration and conquest…..Sort of how the Aboriginals got here in the first place…Migration followed by conquest because lets face it evidence is mounting that there were a peoples here before the Aboriginals, like Mungo Man who is not related to Australian Aborigines, so before calling white man invaders Aborigines should look in the mirror.

yobogod says:

07:41pm | 17/11/11

Brian, Captain Cook did not discover Australia.  The Indonesians were already active trading partners with the Yolgnu. A relationship that benefited both parties. Indonesia’s expansionist period was only last century, and was very very short lived.
The french perhaps, or the Dutch would perhaps have taken Australia, if the British Navy was not so predominant at that time.
Your Opinion, that aborigines should consider themselves better off, is only good from one perspective, that of the conquerer.
To state that a possible is inevitable is erroneous.
To justify the continuing abuse of and against, and the governmental neglect towards the aboriginal peoples of Australia, continues to tarnish Australia’s international reputation.
The Invasion of Australia was illegal At The Time it was committed.  This is the importance of the over turning of “Terra Nullius”, Australia was Not Empty.  The englishmen who perpetrated this lie went against the Queen’s orders, and did not “negotiate land rights or use”.
History is written by the victor.

acotrel says:

08:43pm | 17/11/11

@ The Bear
I had ‘good reason’ to be remarried.  It was the same reason that I hate the poisonous rhetoric from the conservatives.  They can take it somewhere else ! !

Perkin Warbeck says:

10:37pm | 17/11/11

@pC - what was it you wanted me to get back to you on? Your lack of knowledge? Sorry - can’t help you if you are ignorant (like all those other people who seem to think that we are some sort of religious territory.) Thanks to @mel for doing the shovel work and finding the correct answers and interpretation. I think you will find if you do any study of the period leading up to Federation, you will see that those drafting the Constitution and the forms of government were vehemently opposed to any form of religious overtones or preference.

As for @Brian and his mad One Nation-esque theories… 44,000 years of Koori/Murri etc. settlement and never once did the massed hordes “above” attempt a takeover… think that scuppers your “theory”

But back to the point. Marriage equality is not a moral issue, it has no bearing on anyone’s moral compass, except for those who see inequality and do nothing to alleviate it and make a better society. Something along those lines that fellow Jesus of Nazareth said about clothing the naked, visiting the sick, feeding the hungry, offering a cup of water to the thirsty, helping those imprisoned, etc etc….

So there should be no “conscience vote” (if there is, I’d like to vote on everyone’s heterosexual union please) on a matter of civil rights. No-one’s civil right should ever be put up for a vote. We should be evolved enough to see that what another person does that does not have any intrinsic impact on my life and the life of those around me to a detrimental effect should be a welcome part of our multilingual, multifaith, multicultural, multi-human society.

Dan the Man says:

11:13pm | 17/11/11

@Mick am I right in assuming you are white, of Anglo-Saxon descent and over the age of say, 45, though probably more?  Your entire comment is hypocritical, bigoted and stone-age. Shame on you and people with your perspective, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

“like the Aboriginal community continually making demands…” i dont even know where to begin with that comment. it is so disheartening that there are people like you out there. could you maybe move to the moon and seek Lebensraum there? lots of space there…and no needy gay people…or demanding aboriginal people either for that matter. could be the Christian Utopia you are seeking.

mel says:

07:45am | 18/11/11

Cheers Perkin!

Tahera says:

10:28am | 22/11/11

Gay or homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of sexholic and selfish people. Life is not all about sex and your sexual preference. Everything we see around us is created in pairs, male and female and everything is created for some purpose and they have different sets of responsibilities as per their physical nature. Even tiny worms working for soil, tiny honey bee making honey more then they need. Bees and birds do pollination and helps forest grow. If they stop mating, male and female, our planet will be dead within years. Many insects, birds keep our planet clean and beautiful. From beautiful birds, to colourful fishes in the sea. All have some purpose they are working for us and for our environment they are there to provide for our needs, keep balance and doing everything with responsibility. And we human are not happy with what we are born as. Men and women has some purpose too, purpose to keep human civilization running with quality and not just quantity wise. When a woman becomes mother she turns her child into human being with values and responsibility towards other human beings and towards our Nation, our planet. Mother does this best with the support of her husband who works hard for his family. But some sexholics they are just struggling with their sexual desires and forgetting their contribution to human civilisation and creating chaos and imbalance in human society. This is making our kids more confused and hard to understand what is going on? They will not able to enjoy and understand the balance and perfectness in our environment and social life. Homosexuality is nothing but opposite of human civilisation and its nature.

We did not create this perfect working planet and whoever did he knows what is best for it and how to keep it running and working for human beings and he definitely don’t want extreme sexholic people. Because there is much more in this world we can enjoy beside sex and that is called peaceful and beneficial life for oneself and others.

Please do not promote homosexuality or gayism, otherwise our planet will finish sooner than it should be. With no children and if there are children all with STD or several other diseases and mental health problems.

Use your knowledge wisely and interpret deeply with causes and effects. Go alone somewhere quiet in a desert or on top of the mountain reflect and, serve your creator by caring for your planet and fellow humans.

Life is not all about rights, In Islam rights comes later after responsibility and that too with limitations. So you don’t misuse them and hurt other people.

For example as we have female population more than male if maximum male they become gay. Then what will happen to these females if they want to get married and have children and have perfect family life with their husbands? How they going to achieve it???? This is nothing but destroying and exploitation of human rights.

Tahera

mel says:

12:12pm | 22/11/11

Oh Tahera, stop being crazy! You may not have realised it in your life, but sex between consenting adults is fun, however you do it. ANd you do know there are females who are gay? Do you think they might even out the numbers for heterosexuals? If you are worried about a gender balance, what you should be doing in stopping polygamous marriages. If one man has four wives, what about the three males who missed out on a wife? What are they meant to do?

And you think this world is in balance and perfect. Really? You do need to get your head clear of whatever and have a proper look around you.

Andrew says:

06:23am | 17/11/11

Doesn’t matter. They want to get married, let them. Really, nothing significantly bad is going to come of it. Stopping them because our pretty picture of what marriage means will change colour a little is a pathetic excuse—it is a fantasy picture in any case.

malohi says:

06:49am | 17/11/11

the whole article could have been reduced to;
“Poor health outcomes are the result of the high levels of psychological distress experienced growing up surrounded by negative attitudes and behaviours to same-sex attraction. “
Acceptance of marriage ->acceptance in general-> better health.

It turned into a hackneyed rant about 1/4 way in.

baal says:

06:56am | 17/11/11

@Timmy
you comment was a waste of space as you seem to have missed the point. We are not talking about magic bullets. We are talking about making life a better for queers.
I tried to kill myself when i was 17. Thinking you will never be able to have an honest life becaus people hate you because of what you feel. Actual hate bu some, ignorance from others and pity from family.
I am bisexual and still not open as I would like to be. Hell i get hate from straigh and gay. I want anything that might make life better for young queers. What is the point of your comment if not to undermine. Feckless.

Nathan says:

06:59am | 17/11/11

I seriously doubt you care

wearestardust says:

07:05am | 17/11/11

Chris points to extensive research supporting a causative effect.  Are you saying that you are deeply familiar with the literature and are disagreeing with the APA review, or are you saying that you didn’t read the article before firing off a cheap and predetermined shot?

Sheldon says:

07:16am | 17/11/11

I’m prety sure that there was a recent study done in Denmark. It said that dispite civil unions being legal there for the past 20 years the rate of suicide and homophobic attacks had not decreased

Andrew says:

07:23am | 17/11/11

Lesson for today for Timmy:

Ignorance is bliss.

The subject of the article is not a science experiment and you cant look at it through your own narrow little prism.

Nathan Explosion says:

07:26am | 17/11/11

Not a magic bullet, no. But it definatley go a long way to helping GLBT community feel less excluded from society.

How can this be a bad thing?

Jason Todd says:

07:32am | 17/11/11

Noone is saying that marriage is a magic bullet that is going to cure the world of all its ills.  However, reforming marriage is another step in increasing social acceptance. While we still enforce the exclusion of gay people from society by denying them the ability to marry, society as a whole is effectively saying that treating people differently based on their sexual orientation is acceptable.  This separation from the rest of society is what then causes bigotry, prejudice and hatred or fear of the outgroup, which then leads to a whole host of issues of its own.
I for one look forward to the day when people aren’t segregated based on what they look like or who they choose to worship or love. The sooner we realise that we are all human and start to act like it, the better.

Parenthetically, I also look forward to the day that photos of the Westboro Baptist Church cohort are not used for every article related to gay rights.

Andrew says:

07:36am | 17/11/11

“It turned into a hackneyed rant about 1/4 way in. ” Is there really any need to be so hostile in your speech? Would you talk that way if you were face to face with the writer?

Andrew says:

07:38am | 17/11/11

@baal—I hope you can get married one day to the person of your choice, be they straight, gay, or bi, if that is what you want.

Richard H. says:

08:06am | 17/11/11

Mental Issues?  You’ve tried to manipulate, unsuccessfully,  the content of the message this Article provides.  It is talking about Health and Wellness.  The True Origin of you Lesson is suspect and, I dare say, transparent.

malohi says:

08:07am | 17/11/11

@andrew
If i was face to face with the author and they handed me a piece of paper with the article written on it and asked me to critically evaluate it i would say what a wrote, yes. It was a page and a half of rant to explain a self evident corollation. It employed over-used idioms and sterotypical generalisations, ubiquitous with the gay marriage discussion; hackneyed writing.
I agree with the authors point. I disagree with superfluos paragraphs.

MarkS says:

08:13am | 17/11/11

Lies, Bullshit & any the results of any PC study. I will believe this sort of rubbish around about the same time I am abducted by aliens.

Matt says:

08:15am | 17/11/11

I want to be married to 3 women at once. Should that also be allowed?

gobsmack says:

08:33am | 17/11/11

@baal
I hear what you’re saying when you state that gays feel they will never be able to lead an “honest life”.
However, the problem as I see it is that in our society “honest life” is equated with being married with 2.5 kids and living in the suburbs.
The problem is not solved by allowing gay couples to conform with some heterosexual paradigm.  The real solution is revising what is considered to be an “honest life”.
There is a general perception in society that unless one is married with children, one is abnormal or not really part of society.  The politicians continually pander to “working families”.  Gay men and women, and indeed single straight people, are considered to be outside mainstream society.  That’s what has to change.

SpagBol says:

10:24am | 17/11/11

@matt, Your statement has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of discussion, Also, with that kind of logic, I doubt you’d be able to find three women daft enough to marry you.

As an aside, though, I personally wouldn’t care how many women you were married to. Do you care if gay people are allowed to be married? If so, why?

Steve M says:

10:26am | 17/11/11

Gobsmack, the government spends so much time “pandering” to working families, o gee, i dont know, maybe because that general term covers most of the population?

Matt says:

12:14pm | 17/11/11

@SpagBol, I think it has everything to do with the topic of discussion. Where do you draw the line? Maybe you would prefer I said I wished to marry a woman and a man at the same time?

I have nothing against a civil union between homosexual couples. But I generally am ambivilent towards marriage as an institution, so I cannot help but wonder what the point is, so long as you can live with your chosen partner without fear of persecution. I also think that if you start broadening the definition of marriage, then polygamy is the next step. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that homosexuality was deemed illegal and immoral, and still is in some parts of the world. It is the thin edge of the wedge that could lead to possibly undesirable consequences, and so I think the issue needs to be explored, taking into account any future consequenses of amending the definition of a marriage under Australian law.

Feel free to judge me though, if it makes you feel any better about your world-view.

Lloyd says:

04:45pm | 17/11/11

It would help, Timmy, but no, you’re right, it is not the magic bullet. I would say better representation of gays in the media is a bigger and more visible step towards equality. I am used to it,but geez I get sick of EVERY single ad on tv featuring hetero couples, every romantic comedy featuring straight couples, and a near invisble presence on tv of gay and lesbian characters. There are a few exceptions, and those are appreciated, but it’s not enough. It is not easy being gay, even in this day and age.

TheRaptured says:

06:54am | 17/11/11

The last time in recorded history that gays were allowed to marry was in the time of Noah. A book of history and the future.  Yes people who were gay were being married in his time. So Ally, stop trying to create a Straw Man out of the church. But as you may know and will not mention, god destroyed mankind for performing marriage against his word along with fallen hybridizing of the human race with animals etc. etc. What do you think is happening to the world now, that these same things are being performed today? The world is a better place? We have fallen again and society is imploding everywhere you look? People like you do not learn from history, you are deliberately ignorant of it, you are in rebellion with god!

RyaN says:

07:05am | 17/11/11

@Ally: Wow, you call your great grandparents names. That’s respectful.

Clearly they were right considering how you turned out.

Andrew says:

07:43am | 17/11/11

@TheRaptured—you are scarcely one to talk about straw men when you base your whole argument on a figment of someone’s imagination.

@Ally—you have a cogent point with the Greek Orthodox thing—is people *wanting* to find something to fight about the real reason for much of human conflict?

Andrew says:

07:45am | 17/11/11

@RyaN—Ally’s description of her grandparents is not insulting, because it is factual—they did what they did out of ignorance, and their behaviour was bigoted.

the apologist says:

07:48am | 17/11/11

Well, perhaps they considered the young man to be a non-Christian - orthodox Greek Christianity is often (arguably) well off the mark when it comes to Biblical Christianity and certainly most protestant traditions. In which case your great grandparents were right in saying that the Bible was against it - believers should not marry unbelievers. His ethnicity may not have been the issue at all.

Andrew says:

08:02am | 17/11/11

@the apologist—The Bible has some worthy stuff in it, to be sure, but finding it is liking fossicking at the tip—surrounded by mountains of rubbish. And even if Ally’s grandparents were interpreting the Bible correctly, their behaviour was still ignorant and bigoted.

Tedd says:

08:13am | 17/11/11

TheRaptured,
Ally is not creating a strawman - she is outlining an analogy using past religious bigotry (and possibly concurrent racial bigotry).

RyaN,
Ally’s great-grandparents’ past views on mixed marriage are not related to Ally’s current comment about those views - your proposition is a non-sequitur.

mattb says:

08:46am | 17/11/11

Ally,

Don’t worry about RyaN’s little cheap shot, he likes doing that, I’m actually suprised he didn’t refer to you as ‘comrade Ally’ and call you a communist!..

the apologist says:

08:47am | 17/11/11

@ Andrew: So would you call me bigotted because i’d refuse to marry a non-believer? God also gave the reason why we shouldn’t marry outside of the faith - because our spouse would turn our hearts away from Him and corrupt our affections for Him. We would have different perspectives on everything and practically speaking this would work itself out in most decisions we made. Not to mention how heartbreaking it would be to see the one whom I love in rebellion against God.
Interesting theory on the Bible, but it falls to pieces pretty quickly. You either take it as it claims (to be the entire Word of God - 2 Tim 3:16-17), or you pick and choose. Problem with picking and choosing is you’ve got no criteria beyond your own whims on which to base such a process. The Bible itself, and Jesus Himself, don’t allow for a halfway position - to take such a position is a denial of the faith alltogether. He was either a complete madman or He was the Son of God, and He had a remarkable way of sorting out fence sitters.

neo says:

09:04am | 17/11/11

Only people who support gay marriage are entitled to opinions. Everyone else is a bigot, and they should be mocked. It’s called fairness and equality.

the apologist says:

09:40am | 17/11/11

@neo: if you’re serious, it’s scary how blind to the issues you are. if you’re not, that would be one of the more intelligent pieces of humourous criticism i’ve seen in some time.

Ally says:

10:27am | 17/11/11

@ The Raptured I have no problem with your belief in an imaginary friend aka God, I wasn’t even really making a comment about religion it was more about the fact that the same arguments that stopped people of different ethnicities and religious backgrounds getting married are now the same ones that are being trotted out for same sex couples.

@ Ryan Both my great grandparents died when I was very young. Long before I understood what ignorant and bigoted meant so no I never called them names. If my nana had of listened to them I would not be here so in that case I’m glad love won out over bigotry.

@ Andrew In answer to your question yes I think sometimes people are raised in conflict and are taught to hate and be fearful of things they don’t understand. Some people even seem to get a kick of their own hate and prejudice. They love feeling part of the majority and feeling superior to the minority. Well that’s my take on it any way. What gets me with gay marriage is how little of an effect it will have on the people who oppose it. They are clearly not gay and probably don’t know many people who are. It will have no effect on their relationship status, so for me what is all the fuss about? And yet people like The Raptured jump up and down and claim the sky will fall in if it gets passed as law because god allegedly hates gay people. If god hated gay people why would he create humans with a same sex impulse?

@ The apologist My great grandfather had as much of problem with his race as his religion. I understand from a religious point of view why marrying someone of another religion is problematic for many reasons. My dad and his siblings were raised protestant in the end though…I understand what you mean about picking and choosing parts of the bible. Whenever people say same sex couples can’t get married because it says so in the bible I ask ‘Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?’. If the answer is yes I can pretty much guarantee them that god is just as angry at them as he is at gay people.  That is a classic example of ‘religious’ people picking and choosing.

gary says:

11:05am | 17/11/11

@the apologise
“god also gave the reason why we shouldn’t marry outside of the faith - because our spouse would turn our hearts away from him and corrupt our affections for him”
not really much of a faith or conviction if you or your god is concerned that someone can ‘turn your heart away from him and corrupt your affections for him”

HappyCynic says:

11:22am | 17/11/11

@the apologist

While you may be allowed to refuse to marry 2 people of a different faith or sexuality or whatever, should there be a man-made law preventing this?  Ignoring G-d’s laws for second, (that’s between you and G-d no one else), private institutions (such as religions) should be free to choose who they want to marry and when and how, if that private instution chooses to follow the voice of its congregation or its alleged holy texts or whatever it’s not important to anyone else outside that private institution because it’s bloody private.

But public institutions should not be allowed to choose, they should just shut up and do as they’re told by the voting public, who they work for.  By design this country has many different people with many different gods and faiths and even people with no faith.  A public service needs to allow all people to be free to practice their religious ideals while allowing freedom to those who want to be free from religion as well so long as those practices are not physically harmful to anyone.

Andrew says:

11:41am | 17/11/11

Dear Apologist, since the underpinning of your arguments is that there is a God, please provide some convincing evidence that God exists ... then we will talk. But remember, “that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.

Greg says:

01:01pm | 17/11/11

Ally, at the current rate of societal decline, in 50 years time you will be considered a bigot for disapproving of pedophiles & beastiality.

Or are you ahead of your time already?

If not, then maybe you should start writing a letter to your future great-granddaughter to explain yourself.

the apologist says:

01:36pm | 17/11/11

@gary: the fact of the matter is that we are affected by people around us. If you marry someone who hates God and is constantly nagging you, and wants to make decisions against Him – coupled with the fact that this is the love of your life – you’re going to end up compromising. I’ve seen it happen again and again. Doesn’t mean you’ll loose your faith, but you’ll be definitely be stagnated in your faith and won’t be growing in it and living for God the way you could if you didn’t marry a non-believer.

@ Happy Cynic: the scenario you’ve painted suggests that we ignore God and presume that ‘man-made’ laws are all that is relevant. If man made laws are all there is, then you haven’t gone far enough – we could make man-made laws legalising whatever we want. Yes, let anyone marry. And don’t forbid a man and his cat, 5 people getting married, homosexuals, an old man and a 14 year old girl – the skys the limit. If we make it, we can make anything.

Dear Andrew, since the underpinning of your arguments is that there is no God and that the universe is solely made up of matter, please provide some convincing evidence that this is the case… then we will talk. But remember, “that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence”.
Ps. I’m not trying to be difficult or cheeky, this is a genuine line of inquiry.

@Greg: classic - great argument.

Budz says:

02:07pm | 17/11/11

@Apologist: It is you and other Christians that are making the positive claim, and therefore it is your burden to provide evidence for this claim.

If I claim anything from the mundane (I met a person with their hair shaved) to the ridiculous (I turned water to wine), this would have to be proved with evidence. You shouldn’t have to prove that I didn’t turn water into wine, I have to prove that I did. Now get back in your box.

the apologist says:

02:49pm | 17/11/11

@Budz: you just made a positive claim when you said every claim has to provide evidence to be justified. Please provide evidence for your positive claim. Until you do, I don’t have to accept your demand for evidence as legit.

Andrew says:

02:54pm | 17/11/11

@apologist—budz is right. I am not basing my arguments on the non-existence of God. God is not germain to my side of the discussion.

Budz says:

03:31pm | 17/11/11

@Apologist: Oh my goodness, is that all you have? To ask me to prove why I need evidence?
I guess that just goes to show that you have none, and the reason you believe is because you were told as a kid to believe. And everything after that you have to try and justify to yourself why you believe.
Let go of the shackles of religion and think for yourself mate. Give yourself some credit. It is YOU that does the good things in your life, not god.

andye says:

04:20pm | 17/11/11

@Greg - “Ally, at the current rate of societal decline, in 50 years time you will be considered a bigot for disapproving of pedophiles & beastiality.”

That isn’t an issue of acceptance, it is an issue of consent. Can a child or an animal consent to sex? No, they can’t. Is this going to change? No it isn’t.

Most homophobes (who generally aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed) have already figured out those are stupid spurious arguments. Try to at least keep up with your moronic brethren.

Ally says:

05:03pm | 17/11/11

@ Andye That’s exactly what I was going to say…

mel says:

05:23pm | 17/11/11

If anyone knows their christian apologetics, the apologist is just a wacky presuppositionalist, basing his beliefs on very poor circular arguments. He (?) will never offer anything in the way of proof but always asks others to prove their position first. He presupposes that logic, etc, can only come from god (and the triune calvanist one at that). There’s no evidence to confirm his beliefs, of course, and he never seems to seek it but that’s what he believes.

Anyway, the apologist, we as a society could and do “make man-made laws legalising whatever we want”. Haven’t you been keeping up with secular democracies in the last few hundred years? Indeed, haven’t you noticed how much better secular governments are compared to theocracies?

yobogod says:

06:32pm | 17/11/11

@The Raptured:
“But as you may know and will not mention, god destroyed mankind for performing marriage against his word along with fallen hybridizing of the human race with animals etc. etc. “
Whoa there son, I did What?.. i thought that was the meteor that SATAN sent?
I also blame him….SATAN!!... for the “hybridizing of the human race with animals”... after all, do you not remember my great purge of the man-pig-bears?... surely one of Your Peoples “Prophets” wrote that in that big unauthorised biography You Lot published?
Gah this’ll teach me to invent celebrity…
Oi..Jesus… put that joint out yah Hippy!!... pssh kids these days :(

the apologist says:

11:36am | 21/11/11

@budz: so if it’s so ridiculous, you should be able to give me an answer… i’m waiting.
@mel: ditto question directly above directed at budz.

mel says:

12:00pm | 21/11/11

Oh there’s no need for any of us to answer anyone’s questions. You have a world view based on a bit of circular logic, with untested (and untestable) premises that excludes our world view. We are trying to undertsand your viewpoint, but you have given us nothing to go on.  Poor unthinking apologist, when will you understand that your presuppositionalist apologetics is pretty shoddy , not even accepted by other christians, and most philosophers just laugh at it. If you are here, trying to convince others to believe in your version of sky fairy, why haven’t you told us why you believe the things you do. Tell us all why have you presupposed that there is a god and the bible is true?

Oh, and please do keep on telling us of your christian love and charity and inform us who deserve special deaths for doing the things they do. I’m sure you’ll get many people listening to you. You’ve already marked gays for death, what about those who pick up sticks on the sabbath (whichever day that may be)? I had prawns recently, should I be killed too for eating an abomination? And I wore a cotton/linen recently: am I derserving of your god’s wrath and deserve to be killed?

paul says:

07:26am | 22/11/11

@ the apologist: your argument about picking & choosing which parts of the bible to stand by would be so much more convincing if christians didn’t routinely pick & choose which verses THEY had to abide by. christians seem happy to ignore the verses promoting slavery, to ignore the verses suggesting we can put people to death for not abiding by biblical law. leviticus actually morally obligates us to put homosexuals to death. are you doing this? do you condone it? if you aren’t then you’re a bit of a hypocrite.

the apologist says:

08:37am | 22/11/11

@mel: we all have world views based on circular logic, you just don’t admit it and I do. That’s what my line of inquiry is seeking to establish and what you’re not responding to. Empirical process cannot prove or disprove the assumptions that we all have; but nonetheless it is possible to look at these assumptions and see if they are consistent with existence. If they aren’t, we should reject them. Yours is a faith in a naturalistic universe and the supremacy of your own ability to think, but when put to the test, you cannot empirically establish a case for your reasoning ability and logic – indeed you have to use that very logic to try and make a case – thereby engaging in circular reasoning. In asking you to make a case for your faith in logic/reasoning, I am asking exactly the same question that you are asking me. You ask me to prove God (my presupposition), I ask you to prove reasoning (basically – your presupposition). Neither of us can do that, and it highlights the fact that we must recognise that we all base our lives, knowledge and thinking on faith-based presuppositions. Empirical process is not sufficient to test these, and in itself rests upon these presuppositions. Therefore, to hold the demand for evidence supreme is a false position as it does not recognise the nature of knowledge. You might ask for a reason (as opposed to empirical evidence), but presuppositions are beyond evidence of an empirical nature.

My reason for believing in God is the impossibility of the contrary. There is no other world view with presuppositions that adequately account for existence and don’t conflict with existing observable data and experience. The presumption that there is no God (which your worldview starts with), that there is nothing but matter and motion leaves you in the position where you can’t even meaningfully defend the use of logic (as you demonstrate by refusing to answer my question of you). Indeed the existence of logic, the uniformity of nature, complexity in creation and the reality of ethical conviction are all realities that clash with your presupposition and effectively render it foolishness. If you reject God as your presupposition, you must accept the consequences/logical implications, and this is something you and most atheists are unwilling to do.

All men are deserving of God’s wrath, death and judgment – and I don’t exclude myself from that. The point is that although we are all guilty before Him, through repentance and faith in Christ we can receive forgiveness and life. This is the message of orthodox Christianity, and your focus on the particularities of Old Testament law are far and away out of proportion in this context.

ps. dear punch people, please stop rejecting my comments and post this one!!!

the apologist says:

08:38am | 22/11/11

@Paul: yes, unfortunately a number of Christians do pick and choose, although I hope you can also appreciate the difficulties associated with accurate Biblical interpretation. While the foundational doctrines of the faith are more or less widely agreed upon, as particular topics become more detailed (and probably less important), there is space for dialogue over textual meanings – indeed that’s the reason there are different denominations in the Church – although the universal and most important aspects of the faith are generally held in common (e.g. the ancient Church creeds are an example). It does make sense, does it not, that a revelation from God Himself would be full of wisdom enough to fill many life times with study and still have more depth beyond our understanding?

I do condone the death penalty, as I’ve said to mel already, but the real point here is guiltiness before God. Ultimately, the death penalty executed by the state is a limited and earthly extension of God’s judgment. As I said to mel, the crux of the matter is that we are all guilty before God, deserving of death and judgment – and in desperate need of repentance. God grants forgiveness for all those who repent of their sins and put their faith in Jesus Christ. Relating to homosexuality specifically, the crime is homosexual intercourse (not simply homosexuality more broadly) which would need to be established in a court of law before conviction etc. – and so no I don’t go about killing homosexuals. Biblically, capital punishment is the responsibility of the state, it is not my place to take the law into my own hands. For my part I will tell homosexuals that they are in a lifestyle which God has declared sinful, and call them to repentance from it. God will forgive them and He has said as much in His word. He is merciful.

Incidentally, the Biblical laws on slavery are not referring to the sort of slavery which we are familiar with more recently – if you study the issue, it is much closer to employment (although not the same to be sure) providing rights, provision, protection for slaves, and forbidding masters absolute rights over the person. I believe that slavery (as it is Biblically defined) is not sinful, but is less than ideal – which I think the Bible makes clear. It could have its uses in the right cultural context. But that is another discussion.

mel says:

12:28pm | 22/11/11

Again, apologist, all you have are tired old philosophical arguments that have been trashed by christain thinkers and philosophers alike. Apart from the weaknesses of the transcendental argument for god (how have you shown that the premise that logic and knowledge only come from god), how can you prove it’s your god anyway? How do you know a deity isn’t lying to you? That’s the problem in not having any evidence.

In the end, aren’t you just saying that we all use presuppositions, but you can’t use yours and I should be allowed to use mine. I think it’s called “special pleading”, isn’t it?

That’s the trouble when you don’t use evidence to back things up, you just drift about uselessly?

the apologist says:

03:06pm | 22/11/11

@mel:

Yes! That is precisely what I am saying! We ALL use presuppositions!!

Yes, I do say that I can use mine but you can’t use yours – but with good reason – not just ‘special pleading’.

Now, how do I make the case to back up my criticism of your presuppositions? Well, let’s establish exactly what they are – that matter and motion are all there is to reality and that empirical inquiry is the only legitimate means of truly gaining knowledge. All your thinking and reasoning is based on the assumption that these things are true. If you disagree with that assessment, then by all means say so.

I would assert that your presuppositions cannot be true. There are a number of arguments that I might make, but I might make just one for the moment. Let’s see if you can refute it.

You posit: ‘theories must be empirically verified to be accepted’. This is the supposed infallible test of true knowledge and its establishment; it is on this basis that you demand proof for God – for example. Follow? The problem is that in the universe that you presuppose to be true you cannot empirically verify this claim itself – which is necessary if the claim itself is true – you must use logic to try and verify it. The moment you do so, you engage in circular reasoning. Because you can’t validate the claim to the absolute authority of reason and empirical process, you must – if you want to be logical – reject it; and in thus rejecting it meaning, argument and dialogue becomes a nonsense (for example, in following this theory, a good response to ‘how has your day been?’ might be ‘I like elephants, especially when they are pink’). The implication is that reason is reduced to absurdity.

If you’ve done any reading of secular philosophy you’ll see that this is a widely recognised problem with no answer (at least none that secular philosophers can come up with) – it’s called the problem of knowledge. Now, secular philosophers, you, me and pretty much everyone – use logic. It’s an acknowledged reality, unthinkingly accepted by all. But when you put it under scrutiny, you see that if the universe is what atheists claim it to be, the inevitable and logical conclusion is that logic itself MUST be rejected. That atheists do not do this proves inconsistency with their worldview in their daily lives. That logic actually exists is not compatible with an atheistic conception of the universe – and therefore the atheistic theory of reality is not consistent with the existence of knowledge. Atheism on these grounds alone could logically be rejected.

Based on this deconstruction of your presuppositions, it is completely logical to say that you have no real grounds on which to demand evidence of God if you are going to foolishly hold to your theory of the universe. You can’t even establish a case for the existence of logic and reason based on your presuppositions, and so the logical implication is that you should not use them.

The presupposition of the Christian God, on the other hand, provides a satisfactory explanation of the existence of knowledge and logic if it is presumed to be true. We use logic, it is an innate aspect of our beings; it is how interpret the world around us. As made in the image of God, and as witnessing cause and effect/uniformity/logic in nature itself; we see a reality that aligns with the Biblical description of who God is and the world that He has created. Such a presupposition is entirely consistent with the reality that we see around us. As an all-knowing God, He established knowledge itself in the universe. This is what the Proverb was getting at when it said ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’. Only when He is recognised can knowledge itself be a possibility – He must not only be presupposed, but must be known and loved.

In this argument, we see a demonstration of the impossibility of the contrary. If there are two systems only contending (forgetting for a moment that there are other theories of reality), yours is demonstrably false and mine is demonstrably consistent with reality. It is therefore logical to reject yours and accept mine. If you have other theories on reality that you might insert, well, be my guest. They will be shot down one by one as yours has been and God Himself will be seen to be the only option.

You call them tired philosophical arguments, but your inability to answer them demonstrates that you are the one who is left wanting in this exchange. If they have been trashed, then prove it. Do it. Refute my accusation, establish a credible case for your reliance on logic, and THEN you can use it to demand the evidence of God that you initially requested of me.

mel says:

02:06pm | 23/11/11

Apologist, I certainly won’t be able with my dull wits to sort out the “problem of knowledge”, as far better brains have tried and supposedly failed.

But I think that you haven’t done any better. To escape from the problem, all you’ve done is drawn a line in the sand, called it ‘god’ and felt overly triumphant about it. Why do you believe your god is the start of knowledge? Supposedly, it’s because of your bible. As proof, you offer “we see a reality that aligns with the Biblical description of who God is and the world that He has created”. Do you really find that reality aligns with the biblical description of god and the world? Really? So you know that humanity started with Adam and Eve living in a garden, not through the development we see in the fossil record through thousands of years? You are sure there was a worldwide flood that left absolutely no trace behind? (Not to mention how Noah got those marsupials to the ark, and how they got back to Australia, unless you think the ark washed up on Mt Ararat in Victoria?) Which giant fish, with such a weak digestive system that he lasted three days inside it, swallowed Jonah? And why should there be the death penalty just because you’re gay? How can a ‘loving’ god go around killing so many people, or allow evil to exist? And how can an all-powerful god be stymied by iron chariots?

Your presupposition collapses because it is based on the bible, which doesn’t align much at all with reality. You like to think it does, and try mightily to make it so, but it just doesn’t fit. So, without biblical back up, can you still hold that knowledge comes from your god? Not really, as there’s nothing to support it. You might as well say that logic and knowledge just exist as human constructions, or that they come from Marduk, the Rainbow Serpent or invisible pink unicorns (pbut). Maybe the tree outside my window created the world last Thursday, and has made everyone believe that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. It’s as good a theory as yours, with as much evidence to support it.

Your argument boils down roughly to “Knowledge can only come from god. Since we have knowledge, there is a god”. None of these statements have been shown to be true by you. You relied on your god’s supposedly infallible words in the bible, but they are hardly that.

So all we are left with are our suppositions. Yours are based on a strange reading of reality (ie, filtered an inconsistent, false book called the bible), mine are based on my senses. Neither of us can prove we are correct, but at least I don’t believe is proper and just to kill millions of people just because of what they believe or who they love. You do.

paul says:

09:10pm | 23/11/11

@ the apologist:
you dodge the question. you resort to commenting on proof in a court of law. if you had undeniable proof of homosexual intercourse, would you not put those people to death? if you follow the bible strictly, your beliefs require you to do so.
well, you know…except that commandment that says thou shalt not kill. does this cause a conflict? how can one possibly put a gay person to death AND not kill?

in any case, as you so rightly point out: “the real point here is guiltiness before God.” what i don’t understand is that if our duty is to god alone (& not to christians alive on earth…which, let’s be honest, it’s most definitely NOT to christians alive on earth), then why is it christians are so hell-bent on dictating public policy & law on their beliefs? i owe you nothing. i owe no other christian in this world anything either. by your own argument, my duty is to god. why should i not be allowed to live my own life & face god when the time comes? as you also say, “it is not my place to take the law into my own hands” - it is not your place to enforce law. it is not your place to condemn. it is not your place to presume guilt. your place, with all due respect, is to concern yourself with your own salvation. if god has a problem with someone being gay, im sure he’ll let them know come judgement day. in the meantime, i don’t think any christian on earth has the right to try to force their own religious choices on people who don’t share their beliefs.

furthermore, the bible may set down a highly onerous number of laws (which are frankly impossible to follow), but it also makes it incredibly clear that we have free choice. god is not a facist. he’s not a dictator. the bible is quite clear that we have the right to reject him. so again…why should our laws be dictated by biblical laws? if god gives us the right to choose, why on earth do christians presume the right to force us to follow? are they presuming to have more power than god?

the apologist says:

10:29am | 25/11/11

@ mel:

Thanks mel. I actually believe we’ve made some progress in our discussion here. You raise a lot of points in your last post, I’ll do my best to address them.

You’ve acknowledged the problem of your position. That is something.

You’ve also correctly identified the presupposition of my worldview – the Bible. Just as I’ve attempted to shred your presuppositions (and I think successfully), you’ve every right to attempt to do the same with mine. After all, if mine are fundamentally flawed as you suggest, I find myself in much the same predicament as you are in. I’ll try to address the challenges you’ve addressed to me in order.

Your basic challenge is “Do I really find that reality aligns with the Biblical description of who God is and the world He’s created?”. In short – absolutely. I’m happy to admit my faith has been put under the pump on a number of occasions for different reasons, but every time I have found the reliability of the Bible to prove itself. As for your more specific accusations…

1. “So you know that humanity started with Adam and Eve living in a garden, not through the development we see in the fossil record through thousands of years?” Well, actually, I think the evidence is with me on this one. It’s a well known fact that the fossil record calls the link between humans and monkeys ‘missing’. There have been no fossilised records showing the link. If evolutionary theory were true, there would be a proliferation of records.

2. “You are sure there was a worldwide flood that left absolutely no trace behind? (Not to mention how Noah got those marsupials to the ark, and how they got back to Australia, unless you think the ark washed up on Mt Ararat in Victoria?)”. Well, how do you know it left no trace behind? You would have to know what earth was like before the flood to compare. If it was a worldwide flood, it’s reasonable to conclude that nature as we see it is on the whole the ‘trace’ of what the flood did. There are credible theories here – I’ve linked a basic intro - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/geologic-evidences-part-one. As for how the animals travelled… I’ve got no problem with geological changes that may have made this possible (i.e. shifting landscapes/islands); not to mention humanity itself carrying life across ocean or the animals themselves making journeys (obviously not across the pacific for many of them, but most continents are close enough for the possibility – the ones where they aren’t e.g. Antarctica, present what you’d expect – water and air based life living there – these life forms are capable of getting there). In short, it’s believable that animals can have travelled over time.

In all of the questions of the historicity/scientific reliability of the Bible, the key issue here is again one of presuppositions. It’s not that the evidence speaks for itself (the evidence is difficult enough to read anyway – particularly the further back in history you’re trying to investigate. The issue is that a priori, evolutionary theory brings the assumption of a naturalistic universe to the table. It interprets the evidence in light of this (as i’ve shown to you, this view of the universe has real problems - not the least of which being that it can’t meaningfully justify rational exchange and thinking), just as Creationists bring their a priori commitment to God and interpret in light of it. The age of the earth present a good example – it is generally accepted that the earth is millennia old – but the carbon dating underlying this is itself based upon a number of assumptions about reality which are philosophical commitments NOT scientific commitments. It is not beyond question or refutation as it is presented.

In all, just as in the question of knowledge those naturalistic assumptions fall to pieces, so to they do in other areas like science (e.g. the problem of biogenesis; irreducible complexity) and ethics (moral relativism and the impossibility of true justice). At every point of life, I believe it falls apart similarly. Indeed, modern science was developed on Christian assumptions, and it requires them to function.

the second half of this comment to follow shortly…

mel says:

05:39pm | 25/11/11

Oh. My. God (said facetiously, of course)! You get your science from Answers in Genesis? Really? Ken Ham!  Hand on heart, you swear that you believe their version of science? OMG again, I think I’ve just wee’ed in my pants from laughter!

I’m sorry, as soon as you mentioned “missing link”, you lost any credibility! That is a pillar of your argument for the veracity of the bible? (I’m sorry, I’m having trouble writing this as I cannot stop laughing at you.) 

Please go on. I’m sure you have convinced yourself with AiG science but really, this is too too hilarious!

You por poor bible literalists, with no idea of science, trying to make stuff fit the outcomes, rather than following the evidence.

mel says:

01:29pm | 26/11/11

Hey apologist, we’re still waiting on those scientific delusions which you believe show your bible offers a consistent world view!

More of your deluded perspective which I missed as I was laughing so hard yesterday: you mention “it is generally accepted that the earth is millennia years old”. Umm, nowhere other than in wackadoodle creationist circles. Most scientists reagrd the age at about 3.5 billion years. And you have a monumental slip up when you mentioned that we poor non-christians use carbon dating to determine the age of the earth. Umm, no again. As it can only be used to date organic material, and good C14 dates
only go back about 50,000 years, carbon dating certainly isn’t used to date the earth. Science isn’t your forte, is it?

So, now that your bible can been shown not to match reality, and as you admit that destroys the absoluteness of your presuppositions and they just
seem to be your wishful thinking, what’s your next move?

mel says:

04:13pm | 26/11/11

Apologies everyone, even crazy creationists, real scientists regard the age of the earth as about 4.5 billion years old, not 3.5 billion as I typed earlier.

Mike says:

07:32am | 17/11/11

You mean the way they did things in South Africa and the American south? Everyone went to “schools” and rode on “buses” but they weren’t the same schools and buses.

“you would think the majority of people in the world are gay given the amount of press it gets” I know and the majority of the people in the world are millionaire socialites who sleep around, and they’re at war in Afghanistan and sitting in the middle of Wall Street.

Markus says:

07:51am | 17/11/11

Deliberately misleading analogy, Mike. You know full well that the parties in the examples you mentioned did not experience identical rights under law.
I’m surprised you didn’t go all out and try to relate it to the holocaust as well while you were at it.

Jason Todd says:

08:09am | 17/11/11

Bananabender - Not really equality then is it? If the crux of the article is separation and exclusion leads to psychological stress, then how is enforcing the separation by segregating the gay community and labelling their unions differently going to help things?

AdamC says:

09:37am | 17/11/11

Bananabender56, what you propose sounds like civil unions. The gay marriage brigade don’t like that idea because they want to be able to use the word ‘marriage’. Some straight people misunderstand the real driver behind the push for same sex marriage rights. It isn’t really about getting access to the same rights and protections afforded by marriage. It is about getting the implicit stamp of approval that being able to ‘marry’ represents, not simply enjoying a form of equivalent recognition.

That, and Christians don’t like the idea. Many gay people viscerally loathe Christianity. That is why any move to incorporate the concerns of many Christians about the sanctity of marriage into a solution, such as by having civil unions instead of marriage, is dismissed out of hand.

I believe the ‘marriage equality’ movement comes from a place of great insecurity, anger and self-loathing. It is a place that, as a fairly well-adjusted gay man, I don’t really understand. I am sure you won’t see any psychological studies about that, though.

Ben C says:

09:39am | 17/11/11

@ Jason Todd

The homosexual community make a point of being different. Why should they then complain if their union, whilst retaining all rights and entitlements of marriage, isn’t called a marriage?

Jason Todd says:

10:06am | 17/11/11

Ben C - So your argument is anyone who is different has no right to complain if they are then denied rights granted to others on the basis of being different?
You could extend that same line of reasoning to any social sub-group, based on culture, creed, ethnicity or bubblegum flavour.

Markus says:

10:20am | 17/11/11

“It is about getting the implicit stamp of approval that being able to ‘marry’ represents, not simply enjoying a form of equivalent recognition.”
Exactly. This issue has never been about fighting discrimination (already covered under anti-discrimination law) or achieving equal legal rights (already covered by laws surrounding de facto couples), it has been about social manipulation by legally re-defining the term marriage, with the aim of forcing everyone to start thinking that marrying someone of the same sex is exactly the same thing as marrying someone of the opposite sex.
It is thought police action of the highest order.

This is why I have been critical of the entire push to redefine marriage in the Marriage Act - not because I actually have any issue with same-sex couples, but because the entire movement has been based on emotional manipulation and deceit.

Ben C says:

11:15am | 17/11/11

@ Jason Todd

OK, I admit I was trolling there.

I can’t see a problem with a homosexual union being called a marriage if it exhibits the same qualities as a heterosexual marriage. I just find it interesting that the homosexual community strives to differentiate themselves whilst at the same time trying to conform.

Hamish says:

11:17am | 17/11/11

I’m pretty agnostic about the idea of gay marriage, to be honest I think the arguments on both sides are generally piss-poor. However, this article, which is essentially saying ‘let me marry my boyfriend or I’m going to top myself’ is a new low.

Chris says:

12:48pm | 17/11/11

I don’t get your comment BenC

“I just find it interesting that the homosexual community strives to differentiate themselves whilst at the same time trying to conform.”

I have never sought to be different or the same compared to anyone else. I am just myself. My desire to marry IS about equality and freedom - perhaps that is not the case for everyone else, but I doubt it.

Someone else mentioned something about just doing it to piss Christians off. And just to get any bias out of the way, I DO hate fundamentalist christian’s who try to force their religion on others, no one else. But if I wanted to piss Christians off surely there are easier ways, like taking a dump in a confessional box etc…

Another Chris says:

01:09pm | 17/11/11

@Markus, bang on the money. That’s the root cause indeed. It’s the PC movement on the deep end. Suffice to say- I don’t think we will hear the end of it til it’s passed. Something I will continue to voice my democratic opinion of as wrong.
I had someone say to me the other day “I think I’ll support it and go with the flow”... wow, just wow. That’s what it’s coming down to. The LGBT marriage equality movement may think it’s a victory if it’s passed but I believe it will be more akin to Mummy and Daddy letting the squealing kid finally get it’s way. Equality does not equal acceptance.

David says:

01:44pm | 17/11/11

@Hamish,

The fact is that gay kids ARE killing themselves. Gay kids are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. This statistic is a direct consequence of the negative attitudes that emanate primarily from the churches and religious institutions. Please do not trivialise this problem. If gay marriage is one step that can be taken to combat this religious homophobia, it is worthwhile.

Ben C says:

02:03pm | 17/11/11

@ Chris

As an individual, you may not have sought to differentiate yourself - as you’ve said, you just want equality and to conform with society. As a group, however, the homosexual community celebrates their difference. The Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is one, the Gay Olympics (now known as the Gay Games) is another.

Why does the homosexual community need their own sporting competition? Can’t they just compete against heterosexuals? Ian Roberts did it in the NSWRL, Gareth Thomas represented Wales and the British Lions in rugby.

Hamish says:

02:06pm | 17/11/11

No it’s not David. There is no evidence in this article to suggest that gay marriage would reduce suicides. The author knows full well that mental illness is far more complicated than that which makes this article pretty unethical as well as ineffectual.

Luke says:

08:25am | 17/11/11

Congratulations on being able to sit at the back of the bus. I wonder if you and your boyfriend look at those silly gays who want to sit at the front and think, “they let us on the bus, who cares where they make us sit”.
This isn’t about a religious ceremony, it is about allowing gay men and women the full legal recognition of their relationships in law. A right that heterosexual adults in this country have. It is about telling young gay men and women that when they get on that bus they can sit anywhere just like every one else. It is about saying to a young gay person your relationships are valued, and they are valued equally with everyone elses.
And yes every relationship survives or fails based on who is in it, and many straight people have great defacto relationships, but they never have to fight the stigma of being gay in the first place, it was never abnormal for them to be man and women.  But to make it normal or legal for gays to marry, imainge what that would do for gay people.

gobsmack says:

09:02am | 17/11/11

@Luke
It’s about straight people saying “you can be just like us”.
No thanks.  I’ll ride a different bus.

Luke says:

09:26am | 17/11/11

@gobsmack You missed the point once again! It isn’t about straight people saying you can be just like us. It is straight people saying you CAN NOT be like us.
Even if gay marriage was made legal it isn’t compulsory.  Just like hetro marriage. I am super happy that you and your partner don’t want to be married and have a great relationship. Just like many unmarried hetro people in a defacto relationship. But why oh why should young gay people be told that their future relationships are not valued equally, are not respected in law? They can’t all fit on your bus and frankly they shouldn’t have to. Why don’t you support giving them the option to marry, giving them the option to get on any dam bus they want.

marley says:

09:34am | 17/11/11

@gobsmack - not, it’s not about straight people saying “you can be just like us.”  It’s about people, straight and gay, having the right to choose the path they wish to follow.  I don’t care whether you’re gay or straight, or whether you want to get married, live in a de facto relationship, live in an open relationship or shag everything in sight.  You should have the right to make your own choices, unimpeded by the State.

Chris says:

12:54pm | 17/11/11

The fact that you wouldn’t support another gay couples right to have the freedom to marry disgusts me.

The way you automatically call bullshit before even reading the study mentioned speaks for itself, perhaps you don’t want to know.

The longevity of relationships is decided by MANY factors, whether or not a couple is married may only be a small component, but it doesn’t make it irrelevant.

Gay marriage will not end all homophobia as we know it, no one is pretending it will. There are still plenty of racists and sexists around and those civil rights were fought 50 + years ago. What’s important is that we don’t reinforce their bigoted views by allowing our legislation to discriminate.

Hamish says:

01:05pm | 17/11/11

Luke, the fact is the gay marriage movement is about wanting to be celebrated by the state, and by extension, the hetero community. There’s nothing stopping two gay dudes having a ceremony, exchanging vows and rings, calling each other husband, having joint bank accounts, whatever the hell they want to do. It’s just that the state doesn’t say we recognise your relationship as being exactly the same as a man and a woman who have gotten married, except when it comes to divvying up the spoils after everything goes pear-shaped. I fully understand why a lot of gay men don’t want or need to have the state to validate their relationship.

Marley, this issue is clearly about homosexuals wanting recognition from the state not about being impeded.

marley says:

02:08pm | 17/11/11

@Hamish - so far as I’m aware, the state and only the state determines the conditions under which people marry, and recognizes such marriages as official and legal.  If the state doesn’t recognize gay marriages, then it is indeed impeding gays.  How else would you describe it?

gobsmack says:

02:50pm | 17/11/11

@Chris
“The fact that you wouldn’t support another gay couples right to have the freedom to marry disgusts me.”
I don’t like anyone purporting to speak on my behalf.
If you had lived as an adult gay during the 1970s you might appreciate the freedom that exists now.
Personally, I couldn’t give a shit if someone, straight or gay, wants to walk down the aisle, exchange vows and get all gushy.
Victoria, like most states has civil unions which bestow most, if not all, of the legal rights of a married couple.
Articles that argue that gays are going to die early unless they’re able to tie the knot at some sham ceremony are really doing no-one a service.

Matt says:

03:30pm | 17/11/11

So, 6 years gobsmak?  What would happen if (god forbid) something happened to you tomorrow?  Where do you think your superannuation would go?  To your spouse? Ha!  To your ‘next of kin’ - which should be your partner but isn’t? Ha! What about your house? Is your partner listed on it legally? Or would he be kicked out after you’re gone, and the house sold by your family? What if it took a while for you to pass on in the hospital, would your partner be allowed in or just family and spouse?

Why should we have to prove through criteria our relationships when other people don’t? Equality goes further than a piece of paper.

Hamish says:

03:55pm | 17/11/11

Marley, marriage is primarily a social construct and existed long before states got involved. The state may allow gay people to marry, but the state can’t mandate how society views such relationships. Society will still view gay marriage as different to hetero marriage no matter what the state says, which is partly why it’s such a silly issue.

gobsmack says:

04:29pm | 17/11/11

@Matt
The super goes to my partner.  He’s legally listed on the house.  People at hospitals are going to ask questions regardless of whether we’re married.  If I’m awake I can sort out any questions of visitors.  If I’m in a coma I don’t really care.

JonHenri says:

06:27pm | 17/11/11

@Luke and everyone else taking offense at my boyfriends attitude.
How dare you sit back and disallow someone an opinion
I myself am all for Gay Marriage, that my “hubby” can and WILL!!! marry me some day *sighs* ... but he is right… this article takes gay marriage as something that will fix the bigotry and hate.  It won’t.  It Will help, but gay marriage alone will not stop the bigots and haters from doing what they like best. 

Only time can heal some wounds, we as a community(a whole community, not just the GLBT parts ), need to address these issues, and find ways to help salve the hurts that cause bigotry and hate, especially amongst still developing children.

Sure i’d like to have this legislation passed, and I believe that it will be passed… someday : / but we cannot lower ourselves to the hurtful tactics of the haters.
Leave your trollisms at home… talk real

gobsmack says:

07:12pm | 17/11/11

Lol
Must have forgotten to lock the kitchen door again.

Narc says:

03:41pm | 23/11/11

There are many purposes of laws.  They are often just thought of as a policy instrument to stop a form of mischief or regulate a particular activity.  However, laws can be far more powerful than that.  Laws change what is considered socially acceptable, just as what is socially acceptable needs to be reflected in laws and thus laws are updated.  For example, we would not dream of a jury being made up of only white, male, land holders - however, that was the only jury allowable at the time of the Constitution being passed.  Just look at the social response to racist or sexist remarks - it is not what it was 50 years ago.  Again, look at the level of seat belt usage now that it is law.

Legalising homosexual marriage by making a minor amendment to this definition is consisitent with anti-discrimination laws and will have a similar impact.  Over time, we will see more acceptance of love defining marriage rather than gender, just as we no longer see marriage as an issue regarding race or property.

LouLemon says:

11:52am | 17/11/11

Man, come on. With a statement like that you’re making yourself sound just as hateful as the haters!

You’ve got to be prepared for people to spout their fear-mongering opinions at you when you voluntarily engage in an online forum such as this.

You’d be better off forming an articulated rebuttal that doesn’t involve quite so many expletives so that readers may actually take you seriously.

And please, don’t be too tired with the arguing amigo, because us homos have still got a long way to go in cementing ourselves as a ‘normal’ part of society.

Nothing was ever achieved by staying silent and I know that 20 years from now we’ll be looking back and realising how ridiculous it was that we ever had to argue this at all.

yobogod says:

07:01pm | 17/11/11

@LouLemon,
Having read the article, and its statement on mental stress, whilst under duress or the effects of being hated.
You don’t think that baal’s comment is relevant?

regardless of whether Gay marriage ever sees the light of day, people will go on living, and will still have to deal witht he haters.

Haterz gonna Hate.

JonHenri says:

07:44pm | 17/11/11

Marriage is a social function, not a personal one.

Mike says:

07:35am | 17/11/11

“their culture”? What land of stereotypes do you live in?

The assumptions your comment is based upon are ridiculously flawed.

Fiddler says:

08:02am | 17/11/11

go to inner Sydney sometime. I am aware this is not all gays by a long shot but is enough to skew the stats

Markus says:

08:07am | 17/11/11

@Mike, so because ‘not all gay people are like that’, there is absolutely no gay culture based around shit music, drug use and promiscuity?
Stereotypes exist for a reason.

AdamC says:

08:52am | 17/11/11

@Fiddler, I agree, this article was a catalogue of dodgy assumptions and assertions, cloaked in (uncited) appeals to professional authority. And, even you believe the author’s conclusions, the overall argument is at best an exercise in emotional blackmail. “Oppoistion to same-sex marriage is killing gays!” Please.

@Mike, lighten up.

fml says:

09:15am | 17/11/11

Markus,

Stereotypes exist to stop people from thinking. They also generally are made to represent a group especially when it is not representative of the majority.

Its easier to believe in a stereotype than actually spend time getting to know the subject.

mj says:

09:52am | 17/11/11

Woah….this comment needs a massive GENERALISATION warning…preferably flashing and neon.
I’m inner suburbs Sydney, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, live in a happy, healthy, stable, loving, supportive, safe relationship. Now strip away the generalisations and haters, tell me why I don’t have the right. Stop generalising it to them, they, over there. But me. Why don’t I have the right?

AdamC says:

09:59am | 17/11/11

@Fml, most people’s ‘stereotype’ of the gay scene is fairly accurate. Drug use, vanity, bitchiness, sexual promiscuity, it’s all there.

Of course, there are many of us gays who find that whole thing a little off-putting. I don’t know if it is a majority or not, but it is a substantial proportion.

fml says:

11:03am | 17/11/11

AdamC,

But the stereotype is no longer a stereotype if it can be easily applied to everyone.

“Drug use, vanity, bitchiness, sexual promiscuity” Sounds like alot of straight people i know, i would say the majority of people like sex, it invalidates the stereotype.

gobsmack says:

11:31am | 17/11/11

@AdamC
I had a friend who worked professionally counselling gay men.
He told me that in his estimate, the gay men who frequent the gay nightclubs etc. represent about 1/3 of the total gay population (the visible tip of the iceberg if you like).  The majority of gay men lead fairly unremarkable and often lonely lives.

Hamish says:

11:37am | 17/11/11

fml, and you have ‘spent time getting to know the subject’, have you? I know lots of gay people, some who really enjoy the scene, some who really hate it. There are plenty of bitchy promiscuous queens out there and there are plenty of gay dudes in boringly stable relationships.

MJ, since when has getting married ever been a ‘right’? Frankly I don’t care if gay people can get married or not, but it’s not a ‘right’. You should quit begging for recognition. What do you want? Applause? If I was a gay dude, I wouldn’t be desperate to co-opt a straight institution, I’d rather have my own thing. Why do gay people feel the need to be celebrated by heteros?

fml says:

12:23pm | 17/11/11

Hamish,

My point is there are plenty of the examples of the behaviors described in many groups, hence its an invalid stereotype, stereotypes are meant by nature to distinguish. The stereotypes provided attribute regular behaviors to a specific group when they are just as wide spread in other communities. Hence the stereotype points to no distinction and is invalid. I could even go onto say that this is true for most stereotypes.

fml says:

12:47pm | 17/11/11

Hamish,

I am not sure if getting married is a right, but its definitely not anybody elses right to not allow them to get married.

AdamC says:

01:13pm | 17/11/11

Fml, but it is wrong to imagine that those characteristics and behaviours are no more common among gay men than the general public. Indeed, the author’s argument is based on an assertion that self-destructive behaviours such as risky sex and drug use are more prevalent in the gay community.

He unconvincingly blames this on our inability to marry each other. Another explanation, of course, is that the hedonism of gay culture is not great for one’s wellbeing. It would be interesting to see studies of whether gays who don’t live the classical gay lifestyle are any more likely to suffer the problems identified by the author than straight people. I suspect they are not.

And, before you arc up again, yes, there is a ‘gay lifestyle’ and a ‘gay culture’. And, of course not every gay person identifies with them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are offensive. After all, you don’t hear do-gooders like you saying people shouldn’t talk about Chinese culture because not every Chinese person reads Confucious, treats their parents with respect or likes ginger. Gay culture is no different.

fml says:

01:30pm | 17/11/11

AdamC,

Obviously i would never say people shouldnt talk about chinese culture, but i would say that people whose idea of chinese culture is limited to looking funny, chop suey and they all fight like bruce lee, i would say are limiting their capacity in understanding chinese culture.

I know there is a gay culture, and i know in gay culture there is booze , sex and night clubs. But those activities also is prevalent in other communities.

“but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or are offensive” Never said that, i said the gay stereotypes being mentioned are not specific to gay culture hence the stereotype is invalid.

Mike says:

08:02pm | 17/11/11

@Markus: There is a “culture” of shit music, drug use and promiscuity that attracts people regardless of sexuality. Don’t know if you’ve ever been to a straight night-club, or a rural B&S, or a university informal. They’re waaay more into that stuff than the gays. If you want to talk about it as an argument against marriage you might want to discuss all those factors as they relate to teen pregnancy in the straight world.

Mike says:

07:34am | 17/11/11

More business than unelected church leaders.

TrueOz says:

07:43am | 17/11/11

@Mike
I’d say that priests, ministers, muftis and other sky fairy worshiping nit-wits have zero business in doing - well - anything really. But that isn’t the point, as they do not currently regulate marriage - the government does. Why?

the apologist says:

07:52am | 17/11/11

Societies rise and fall on the health of families. Law therefore that relates to the stability and safety of families is of supreme interest to governments. Governments are designed to protect societies and maintain order - part of that means that there are aspects of family life - particularly marriage - that need to be regulated and protected; in the interests of individuals and society at large.

Markus says:

08:00am | 17/11/11

“What business does government have in regulating the intimate relationships of anyone - straight or gay?”
They own the business. Should check out the Constitution sometime:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

‘The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(xxi)  marriage;
(xxii)  divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants; ’

Andrew says:

08:18am | 17/11/11

@the apologist—this argument fails because there are plenty of gay people around who would make awesome parents and plenty of straight people who abuse their children horribly.

the apologist says:

08:53am | 17/11/11

@Andrew: how can they make awesome parents when they aren’t capable of producing children?
Point taken on abusive parents - but you’re criticism assumes that my proposal is to make the state the solution. This is not my position at all. The state is designed to maintain order in society, but to solve the problem of society is beyond it’s capaciy (abusive parents are a manifestation of the problem).
The problem itself is sin - the innate propensity to veer towards wrong doing in human nature. It’s not a popular message, but if people would just open their eyes it’s bleedingly obvious. The world is messed up, our lives are messed up, there are problems everywhere.
The real answer to the problem is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel calls on men to repent of their wrong and return to the Creator - receiving forgiveness for their wrongs through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Following repentance, restoration to relationship with Him and a vital transformation allowing us to pursue good follows. This is the only hope for humanities problem.

Budz says:

10:00am | 17/11/11

@apologist: I didn’t realise you had to be biologically related to your kids for you to be parents to them?
So people that adopt kids aren’t parents? Hmmm…....

Budz says:

10:05am | 17/11/11

@Apologist:
How can you claim that Christians make good parents when it says in your ‘sacred’ texts that it is fine to stone your kids if they are being unruly?
Deuteronomy 21:18-21.
Or do you prefer to only live by the parts that you like?
And don’t give me this crap that you only live by the New Testament. You don’t get to pick and choose what you believe if you believe it is all true.

Melrusk says:

10:23am | 17/11/11

@ the apologist;
please do not assume that giving birth is the only way to become a parent. This is both ignorant and dismissive of those who have adopted, fostered , endured IVF and a range of other experiences people have willingly subjected themselves too, to parent a child.
By this standard people who are incapable of natural conception are excluded from the right to marriage. Just another form defining people as less worthy based on your parameters.
Your interpretation of God’s word is just that, Interpretation.
Just like those who wrote the Bible you choose to shape your ideologies based on what someone else has interpreted as the word of God and just as valid, crowd control.
This may bring you some comfort, & good luck to you.
Faith can be a beautiful thing.

TrueOz says:

10:28am | 17/11/11

@the apologist
No need to apologize. It’s clear that your views are flavored by looking at the world through sky fairy glasses. Just take off the blinkers and think it through for yourself, without reference to your sky fairy book. You might find that people are perfectly able to cope with making their own arrangements - just like they did for thousands of years before churches and governments saw another opportunity to exert control through the institution of marriage.

TrueOz says:

10:30am | 17/11/11

@Markus
I understand that they do own the business currently. My questions is a simple one - why? What business do they really have in regulating intimate relationship of any colour?

Andrew says:

11:46am | 17/11/11

“how can they make awesome parents when they aren’t capable of producing children?”

Dear apologist—my brother adopted his wife’s daughter and raised her as his own. He was her parent. Gays can do that do.

Greg says:

01:16pm | 17/11/11

Budz, no, adopting a kid does not make somebody a parent.

Maybe they are guardians or caregivers or some other valid description, but they are not the adopted kids parents.

And the fact that some guardians treat their adopted kids better than some biological parents doesn’t change that fact.

the apologist says:

01:48pm | 17/11/11

@Budz: biologically speaking, a parent is an organism that produces another. So no, strictly speaking, people who adopt kids are not parents. They are surrogate-parents who raised the child.
On your other comment – I didn’t claim Christians make good parents. I claimed that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the vital factor ultimately required to transform the destructive and sinful lifestyle of people – which ultimately is the answer to the problem (sin) of which corrupt parenthood is a symptom.
In reference to your quote from Dueteronomy – yes I believe this to be a part of the revelation of God and divinely inspired. What the law is referring to is an utterly rebellious delinquent who has had multiple chances and continues to dishonour his parents, waste their substance, is a drunk and a public menace. We’re talking about an extreme case of hopelessness. Imagine what it would take to drive a loving parent to the brink of this point, and that’s the situation we’re talking about. No good parent should want to have to bring their child to the state for capital punishment, but if they did, it’s a pretty bad situation. The other thing is that the law highlights just how much we should honour our parents – when we start rebelling against them, we’re rebelling against all authority and ultimately God Himself (Rom 13:1). Parents and families are worthy of honour and need to be protected in the interests of society – therefore extreme measures of punishment are in place for those who would attack the institution of the family (including e.g. delinquent criminal children and adulterers). Note that the ‘child’ is a drunkard – so we’re likely talking about youths rather than infants and young children (I believe that the Hebrew word can be used to refer to either). A child under the age of 13 would not have the ability to live as a drunkard in their parents house – the parents could stop it easily by force. As they get older, it gets harder.

@Melrusk: my comments were not a slur on surrogate parents or an indication that parenthood is necessary to legitimise marriage – I didn’t say either of those things. When God created marriage, He started with a man and a woman – not with children. Children are a blessing but not a necessary component of marriage.
I don’t deny that I have wrong understandings of the Word in areas – but your argument reduces it to pure subjectivism. The Word is clear enough to understand the Christian faith – it means what it says and should not be twisted to say the opposite. If it says homosexuality is wrong, it is reasonable to conclude that that is Biblical – and it is clear to see that that is not just some interpretation I’ve dreamed up.

@Andrew: As argued above, I wasn’t slurring surrogate parenthood as you’ve described it. It’s not ideal, but it’s a reality. Homosexualilty on the other hand – as I’ve argued, if it’s morally wrong in and of itself, to extend it and say that it can be a basis of parenthood is perverted. Homosexuality itself is wrong – much less homosexual parenthood.

David says:

01:59pm | 17/11/11

“how can they make awesome parents when they aren’t capable of producing children?”

I’m pretty sure that gay men have sperm and lesbians have ova just like straight people.

Although gay people are not naturally attracted to members of the opposite sex that is not to say that they will never have sex with the opposite gender. Negative attitudes in the community surrounding homosexuality all too often pressure gay people to attempt heterosexual relationships and even heterosexual marriage. All such relationships are doomed to failure but the point is that many gay people have biological children.

Budz says:

02:17pm | 17/11/11

@Apologist: Wow, just wow! Your view that it is ok to use capital punishment on your kids for misbehaving badly goes to show why people that believe every word written in religious texts can be so dangerous.

How can you seriously think this is ok? And also interestingly if you did that, you would also according to your beliefs, be putting your child into hell where they will spend eternity paying for their finite actions.
And also what kind of god (father), think that torturing anyone for an infinite period of time is ok for what people do earth?

the apologist says:

03:11pm | 17/11/11

@ Budz: How can I seriously think it’s ok? How can you seriously think it’s not ok based on your atheistic view of reality? You’ve got no right to call my opinion wrong from where you’re standing. You call it dangerous and wrong but you’ve got no grounds whatsoever on which to make that judgment. If you were consistent with your atheism you would be forced to concede that my view is ok too – even if you don’t prefer it and don’t go in for it.

Even though you have no right to criticise my opinion of why it’s ok based on your view point – I’ll give an answer.

1. God is a holy God (to put that into non-Christianese – He is everything good, altogether good, every good on earth is a shadow of Him, there is NO evil in Him). 2. People are sinful (Sin = the corruption of good). 3. Sin is a terrible, abominable, detestable thing – it’s existence demands judgment and its own destruction. It must be destroyed, the universe must be expunged of evil. 4. When we understand how terrible sin is, we start to understand how good justice is. Eternal destruction is the place where all sin must end up. 5. As sinful creatures – i.e. we rebel against God and are basically stuck in sinfulness, we deserve judgment. It’s either judgment, or forgiveness through Christ – and that forgiveness is available to all.

When it comes to the capital punishment of a delinquent, we have this played out on a smaller scale, here’s how I think of it: 1. The Bible says it’s the parents who must bring the child before the judges for execution. As a parent, this is one of the last things I would ever want to do as I love my children – I would die for them. 2. Family and society are good – a child who was utterly rebellious and destructive might sadly need punishment. Lord willing all the punishment that he received before I was forced to bring him to the magistrate would turn him from his wickedness and set him on a better path. 3. According to the law - I still don’t have to bring him in – it’s my call as to whether I do it or not. I would explore every possible option before considering this one. 4. I have a very high view of authority, parents and family – this makes the child’s sin all the more terrible. The goodness of what he is destroying, and the wickedness of what he’s doing help us understand the context of how it is conceivable that he might need such a harsh punishment. 5. I’m not sending my son to hell, God isn’t responsible for the son’s sin – he has rebelled, is responsible for his actions, and sadly must reap the punishment for his wickedness.

Incidentally, there is no recorded instance of this law being implemented in Old Testament history (although David might have considered it with his son Absalom – but he loved him too much despite his wickedness). Also - I don’t know of any kids/teenagers that I’d put in this category of delinquency – excepting maybe serial offenders who have done multiple jail terms. Even then, I wouldn’t hesitate to preach the love Christ and the hope of the gospel to them without judging them for their actions.

The issue ultimately isn’t this specific example – it is how is right and wrong determined? Without God, there is nothing but shifting sand. With God, there is an objective moral standard from a loving, holy God. To reject His standard is to claim my superiority over Him. I submit to His judgment instead.

mel says:

10:43am | 18/11/11

The apologist is actually choosing his own moral options! He believes that that a verse in Deuteronomy allows him the option of whether he brings his unruly children to punishment. He doesn’t do this as he is supposedly a loving father.

But he is flouting his own god’s word. Leviticus 20:9:  “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him”.

“Surely be put to death”. Surely. Why aren’t you, the apologist,  following the word of your god and punishing your children properly? There is no option here for parental “kindness”. Your unruly children must “surely be put to death”.

Or have you decided that you will follow your own moral code rather than your god’s?

the apologist says:

01:05pm | 18/11/11

@mel: thanks for your comment Mel. I’m obeying the Bible as best I can. Yes, the particular verse in Dueteronomy does allow the option (read it you’ll see). It’s a separate law to the one that you refer to in Lev 20:9. The offence in Leviticus is outright cursing of parents; the Deuteronomy law refers to disobedient, unruly behaviour. Separate circumstances. I hope you can see that.
As for Lev 20:9 – I believe that the act of cursing your parents to their face is worthy of death. The crime is an attack on the foundations of societal order and authority and shows the greatest disrespect to your parents primarily – but secondarily and more importantly to your God. Such a sin betrays a heart full of hatred and wickedness. Cursing the ones who brought you into the world and poured out their life to raise you, it’s a horrid thing. The fact that no one thinks it’s horrid shows how far away they’ve come from understanding the nature of family and society.
As for putting them to death for their crimes, although it’s fitting, it is not my role as a parent to execute that punishment – that duty belongs only to the state (Biblically speaking); and it is not my job to take the law into my own hands in such a way. The fact that these punishments are not a component of societal law today is the fault of the state for not implementing righteous law and forsaking God’s righteous judgments. Ask yourself another question – how often do you hear people cursing their parents? It’s not exactly run of the mill, most people respect them.
Ps. In your accusations, you presume that a. I have kids; b. that they have cursed me and behave in the way that the Deuteronomy passage stipulates. You’re getting carried away as I’m not in either of those situations and daresay it won’t be likely.

mel says:

03:43pm | 18/11/11

So, apologist, I didn’t realise one had to split hairs so. Your god is very particular about what he finds and doesn’t find acceptable: disobedient kids can be killed if their parents agree, while cursing children must be put to death. You have a very nice line in washing of hands to say it’s the state’s responsibility (although Leviticus doesn’t say it has to be done by the state.) But why leave it to the state anyway? If the state has slipped so far from your god’s grace that it allows cursing children to live, how can you stand seeing your god’s law flouted so blatantly, by the state not just allowing these children to live, but actually protecting them? Your god says explicitly these children shall “surely be put to death”. The state’s not doing it, surely it is the role of all good followers of your god to make sure that god’s law is fulfilled. If you don’t, one can only assume that you agree with the state’s laws. Silence denoting consent, of course.

But if you are too scared to follow god’s laws, why aren’t you at least canvassing that sort of christian punishment more frequently? It would be interesting to see what sort of reaction you’d get. Do you think you’d get any support?

And can you tell me why god hates cloth of mixed fibres? Really, why?

the apologist says:

09:21am | 21/11/11

@mel:

splitting hairs? It’s as simple as different crimes deserve different punishments. Surely you would agree with that principle. I think you’ll find that God (in a mere 66 books) is far less nitpicky than the modern state in what He finds acceptable. See http://www.austlii.com and tell me how long it takes you to read through the reams of legislation for what can and can’t be done.

Why leave it to the state? Because God says it is the duty of the state as I said before – and given I seek to obey God that should be sufficient. The Bible is God’s revelation taken together – divorcing Leviticus from the context of the entire Bible does violence to Christianity.

Yes, I am at times vexed by the decisions of our government and it is my desire to see them honour God. But they don’t, and the vestiges of what was once a Christian nation drop away daily. Fact is, we don’t live in a Christian nation. The government will have to answer for it’s disobedience ultimately to God, but I can’t take responsibility for that – same as I can’t take responsibility for your actions. But you will have to. I take what opportunity I have to warn the government of this, but there’s really little I can do. I’m not silent as accused, and no, I can assure you that my views are not popular in general, but then I give much more focus to the preaching of the gospel and the need for salvation than I do to the particularities of civil punishment in God’s law – it’s all part of the same picture, but it’s easy to see that Scripturally there are certain things that are considerably more important than others. At the least, telling homosexuals that their behaviour is wrong in God’s sight is part of it and gives opportunity to show their need of repentance and salvation. But just because the government isn’t doing their job, doesn’t mean I should do their job. I am not a government, I do not have God-ordained authority to execute the role of the state and have no intention of doing so. It would be wrong of me to take the law into my own hands and such a position is easily justified Scripturally. As Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery, I would exhort to repentance and sin no more, but civil sanctions have their own place and agency. Ultimately, civil sanctions are but a limited earthly extension of God’s judgment, so He will finally bring everyone to account.

I thought I established that what we would term in todays society ‘children’ (maybe 0-12 years old) is not what is being inferred in the text. We’re talking about rebellious youths here who are a blight to society. And yes, I do get annoyed by the way that the state not only protects criminals, but thieves from honest taxpayers to do it. It’s perverse.

As for the laws referring to the cloth of mixed fibres? From what I understand, it was one of the practical points of difference that God used to differentiate His people from the surrounding culture. Scripture throughout proclaims that God requires His people to be holy in their conduct and to morally separate themselves from ungodly culture around them. The cloth laws are similar to the food laws in that God was demonstrating both the importance of separation and also the importance of obedience to Him (obedience should come before understanding – and so a seemingly obscure point of obedience is a test of God’s people to see whether they trust Him and will obey by virtue of simply doing what He says). At that point in salvation history God demonstrated these principles by way of those laws, but having come in the fullness of revelation of Christ as I understand they are less significant now – and that some of these laws are even abrogated. Acts 10:15 for example and Matthew 15:11 show what these laws were pointing towards (moral cleanness) – and that the way of the old testament laws was God’s way of introducing these principles to His people in preparation for the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the law (Matt 5:16-17) and brought the ‘shadows’ (Hebrews 10:1) of the law to the fullness of their moral teaching. Having said that, it’s not something I’ve looked closely at. If after a closer reading I was convinced that there was reason to stop mixing fibres in my clothes, I would not hesitate to adjust my clothes-buying habits accordingly. Obeying God is what’s important.

Andrew says:

08:06am | 17/11/11

The question is, does it hurt anyone. We already know that discriminating against gays hurts someone—the gays. They are not hurting anyone and letting them marry is not going to hurt anyone either ... just upset a few fond fantasies about marriage. And hiding prejudice behind ethics is cowardly and dishonest.

Tedd says:

08:07am | 17/11/11

The major moral and ethical issue around homosexuality is the claim “same-sex-attractedness is a choice” when the truth is homosexuality is innate in almost all homosexuals.

Denial of that truth is unethical and immoral.

bella starkey says:

08:10am | 17/11/11

You are so right, how could anyone feel like they are being hated and persecuted when it’s just that people go around implying that they are intrinsically immoral beings?

Al says:

08:17am | 17/11/11

Exactly how do you relate this to an issue of ethics WITHOUT Christians (or other religions opposed) bringing in their own religous point of view?
Ethical and correct based on relgious principles is NOT the same thing all the time.

the apologist says:

09:00am | 17/11/11

@ Andrew: why is the question of does it hurt anyone a correct ethical analysis?

@ Tedd: 2 things. 1. Why is denial of the truth unethical? 2. If it’s not a choice, why are there many examples of identical twins (genetic replicas of one another) having different sexualities?

@ bella starkey: to be fair I don’t limit my criticism to homosexuals. Everyone is an intrinsically immoral being. I don’t exempt myself either – my immorality just isn’t manifested in homosexuality.

@Al: Ethics are intrinsically religious, it’s just a matter of your faith framework. It then becomes a question of critiquing the various faith frameworks to see which ones fall and which one stands. Christianity stands, the rest fall. If you think you can make a case for ethics without ‘religion’, I’d like to see you try.

Tedd says:

09:25am | 17/11/11

the apologist,
2. There is no evidence homosexuality is genetic. there are several non-genetic biologic theories, and these can apply to twins -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies
(see the criticisms sub-section)

1. interesting you ask ...  “Denial of Truth” is Lying. It is False Witness.

fml says:

09:51am | 17/11/11

the apologist,

” If you think you can make a case for ethics without ‘religion’, I’d like to see you try.”

Easy, Ethics existed before monotheistic religions, it was borrowed by religion, then misappropriated by religion for the purpose of control.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, If you renounced your religion, would you still consider yourself an ethical person?

Al says:

10:12am | 17/11/11

the apologist -
A non-religous ethical point.
It is against my pesonal ethics to knowingly lie.
This is not based on ANY religion as I don’t accept that ANY religion is correct.
As such there is ethics without religion. What a surprise (not).
Your statements also have the implication that only people who believe in the Christian religion can be ethical. What a load of discriminatory CRAP.

TrueOz says:

10:35am | 17/11/11

@the apologist
“If you think you can make a case for ethics without ‘religion’, I’d like to see you try.”

How about enlightened self interest - you Muppet!

amy says:

11:07am | 17/11/11

WHY? is it a moral issue? its only a moral issue when you bring mr sky fairy into it

sex isnt and should be a moral issue….its somthing fun to do and fine if you do it safe

the apologist says:

11:27am | 17/11/11

@Al: Ok. You have a personal ethic that you’ve invented. Good for you. Next question: why is it wrong for anyone else to lie? Or is it ok for them to do so?

On the contrary, there are plenty of non-Christians who behave ethically, but when it boils down to it they don’t have any real reasons to.
ment:

LouLemon says:

12:11pm | 17/11/11

I didn’t choose to be homosexual. You chose (and/or your parents chose for you,) to become a Christian.

Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not.

TrueOz says:

12:13pm | 17/11/11

@the apologist
“@Al: Ok. You have a personal ethic that you’ve invented.”

Not like the “uninvented” ethics in the sky fairy books - huh?!

fml says:

12:31pm | 17/11/11

The apologist,

They/We have every reason do so, i would also think that our motives are more altruistic as well, we are not doing it because we are commanded to by our god, but rather because its the right thing to do for humanity.

Andrew says:

12:47pm | 17/11/11

“there are plenty of non-Christians who behave ethically, but when it boils down to it they don’t have any real reasons to”

False. Social animals behave in the interest of the social group, without recourse to religion. Humans are social animals. Apart from that, it is very often human nature to not want to make others suffer. I think we have evolved that way. In my own case, I don’t have to have religion to want to make my daughter happy and avoid hurting her, for example. A look of pain in her eyes would be plenty enough reason for me.

the apologist says:

01:05pm | 17/11/11

@True Oz: what about if I thought killing someone was in my self-interest? by your standard that makes me ethically fine.

@Amy: ethics touches on human decisions and actions - sex is a significant aspect of that. So your criteria is if it’s safe and fun - do it. 2 questions: 1. What if a 10 year old and a 35 year old both think it’s safe and fun - is it ok for them to do it together? 2. you’ve made an ethical judgment yourself right after you said it’s not an ethical issue - why does it need to be safe? am i doing something wrong if it’s not safe? why is it wrong?

amy says:

01:40pm | 17/11/11

@the apologist *sigh*.........ok then

sex isnt a moral issue WITHIN REASON (which for crying out loud should go without saying)

as in whatever the hell two consenting adults of sound mind and body get up to is their own bloody buisnes, not the churches or anyone else

“safe” sex porects you from unwanted pregnancy and disease..which is why it is better

and are you seriously comparing pedophelia with homosexuality?......and DONT go down the slippery slope argument because thats almost as stupid as the sky fairy argument

David says:

02:14pm | 17/11/11

@the apologist

Please stop equating ethics with religion. There can be ethical behavior without religion and all religions have beliefs, practices and prejudices that are distinctly unethical.

I believe that discrimination on the basis of sexuality is unethical. I am sure that you would believe the opposite based on the words of the bible. But there is no evidence to validate the authenticity of the bible and empirical evidence shows us that the misconceptions that Christians believe about homosexuality are all wrong. When you look at the evidence we have before us, a reasonable rational person could only come to the conclusion that discrimination based on sexuality is unethical.

TrueOz says:

04:51pm | 17/11/11

@the apologist
What of killing someone was in your own self ENLIGHTENED interest - say for example of they were trying to kill you - would you still burn in Hell for killing them? Would Jesus need to forgive you for acting reasonably and rationally?

gobsmack says:

05:31pm | 17/11/11

@apologist
Your posts demonstrate that you haven’t a clue what ethics is.  Try reading a few books other than your Bible.
The bible teaches that Abraham was prepared to kill his son because god commanded him to do so.  An ethical person would never have contemplated such a heinous action.

Al says:

06:48am | 18/11/11

the apologist:
1) You asked for an example of ethics without religion, I gave it to you.
2) Just because I choose to follow certain ethics does not mean I expect (or even want) everyone to follow those same values.
3) The main point being that ethics and ethical behaviour do NOT require religion or a religous basis.

the apologist says:

09:14am | 18/11/11

@amy: you think consent should be a rule. What if someone disagrees with you?? Why should they have to take on your rule? It’s your belief verses theirs.

@David: my point isn’t to equate ethics with religion – it’s to argue that ethics are a nonsense if you approach the world from an atheist perspective (Nietzsche had this worked out, wish other atheists would to). There are plenty of atheists who behave in ways that I would consider ethical, but in doing so they are denying the validity of what they claim the universe is.
You believe discrimination on the basis of sexuality is unethical – but why is your belief better than the one who holds a different opinion illegitimate? Just to clarify – just because I believe people who commit certain sexual acts (e.g. adultery, fornication, homosexuality) are behaving unethically, does not mean I hate them. Quite the contrary, I genuinely love them and want the best for them. But I still disagree with what they are doing.

@TrueOz: Exodus 22:2-3 lays down the principle that if one person is breaking the law (e.g. thieving or trying to kill), it is ok for the victim to protect themselves. I wouldn’t try to kill a person who was trying to kill me, but I would certainly be doing everything in my power to stop them. If they died in the process, they’ve brought it on themselves. So no, self-defence is not a sin (which is what God judges). Psalm 82:4 extends this to say that we must protect those who are threatened as well.

@gobsmack: Your judgment only demonstrates that you will do what you think is ethical. The point of Abraham’s test was to test his heart to see whether he loved his son more than God – which is sinful. God is the greatest good, and must be held above all other things (this is the teaching that Jesus was getting at in Matt 10:37). As we found out in retrospect, God had no intention of allowing Abraham to slay Isaac. The other thing was that God had promised Abraham a heritage through Isaac (Hebrews 11:19) and he trusted that God would keep his promise and raise Isaac from the dead if that’s what it took.
In rejecting God, you demonstrate belief in a worldview which doesn’t allow ethics, and when you act ethically (which I’m sure you do a lot of the time) you deny your belief system.

@Al: all you’ve done is demonstrate that your system falls apart. You have your values, but don’t expect others to follow them. What happens when someone disagrees with you? Who is right? You both have your ethical opinion, they just happen to be polar opposites. They can’t both be ethical – one has to be ethical and one unethical otherwise ethics are a nonsense. If it’s just you and the other person, all you’ve got is conflicting opinions, therefore it’s all subjective and truly ethical behaviour cannot be determined – therefore there can be no such thing as ethical behaviour based on your explanation.

mel says:

10:09am | 18/11/11

But, the apologist, there are plenty of instances where your god has said that it’s perfectly fine to kill. Let’s look at 1 Samuel 15:3 where your particular version od a deity says to Samuel: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass”.

So my question to you is: if a message, coming from your god, tells you to kill man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, etc, would you do it? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Or shall we mention abominations in the eyes of your god, something more relevant to this topic? Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”, and to give it context, Lev.20:22 “Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them”. So are you all for putting homosexuals to death, as your bible says? Again, a simple yes or no.

I’m just wondering whether you are willing to follow what your murderous “god” says, or do you have a different moral code?

gobsmack says:

12:51pm | 18/11/11

@apologist
” The point of Abraham’s test was to test his heart to see whether he loved his son more than God – which is sinful. “
If god was all-knowing he would have known the answer already without having to play a cruel game on Abraham.
That story is morally indefensible and the fact that you defend it shows that you are morally underdeveloped.  Which isn’t surprising for someome who learns his ethics from a book rather than developing them personally.

the apologist says:

01:27pm | 18/11/11

@mel: you’re really doing the rounds of my conversations! Anyway, happy to talk with you.
Let’s get something straight here – killing is the deliberate decision by an individual to take the life of another for their own purpose or desire. Every time God instructs anyone to take a life, it is in the interests of vengeance – which is righteous coming from God as Romans 12:9 says for vengeance and judgment are His. Thus God is not murderous, He is just. As we know, He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23).
Thus while killing is outlawed, taking a life in accordance with God’s command is lawful and not killing so to speak. You asked me if I would kill if I got a message from God – let’s get this clear – short answer no – would I take a life if commanded to - yes. But how do I get a message from God? my position is that the Bible is the word of God. I would not take a life unless I was convinced that it was Biblically mandated. E.g. if I was in the army and took part in a righteous war, I would deem it Biblically lawful to take life. The instance of Samuel you mention was a situational command before Biblical revelation had been completed, and occurred in a different historical and theological context.
As for Lev 20:13, according to this scripture (and verse 22), I believe the death penalty for committing homosexual sex is a righteous judgment yes.
I know what you’re trying to do by highlighting these points, and I suppose you’ll let out a proclamation of victory based on my comments to this point, but I would ask that you would listen carefully to what I’m about to say next – because this is what is truly at the heart of the issue.
All these death penalties are merely direct examples of a broader principle. Anyone who commits any sin full stop is worthy of death (not just homosexuals). Romans 6:23. The fact is that all have sinned (Rom 3:23). By that measure, I am worthy death and judgment, you are, homosexuals are, we all are. But the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23). Salvation from sin and new life is open to everyone who will repent of their sin and turn to Christ. He wants us to turn from our sinful destructive behaviours and find life; and I can tell you now I want that for everyone. You just don’t know how good life is until you find true life – and Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

@gobsmack: the test wasn’t for God’s benefit, it was for Abraham’s. you talk about ‘developing my own ethics’, but as I argued with Al this system falls apart. What if I develop my own, and they conflict with someone else who did the same? We can’t both be ethical if we’re doing the opposite thing. But who’s to say who’s right? There can be no right and wrong if opinion is the determinant of it. One might think right is killing, one might think it’s wrong. They’re both just opinions. We need an objective (outside of ourselves) moral standard for true ethical conduct to be possible.

gobsmack says:

05:00pm | 18/11/11

@the apologist
Trouble with your argument is that when ethical systems are developed independently (as they have been for thousands of years before your bible was penned) they usually end up with the same result - eg killing, stealing bad.
This points to the fact that basic ethics are hard wired into humans.  Also, they make sense in any communal living.  Arguing, as you try to do, that they are purely subjective, ignores these facts.
A god that puts the imperative to be worshipped ahead of a father’s love for his son is at best egotistical and at worst, plain evil.  You worship the devil.

mel says:

09:08am | 21/11/11

Apologist, you have a nice bit of sophistry trying to make a distinction between killing and taking a life. Is that something you (or some other desperate apologist) made up so you can keep believing that your version of a deity is “just” and “loving”, contrary to all the evidence. I’m sure the nicieties of your argument would be lost, however, on those on the receiving end. So if “every time God instructs anyone to take a life, it is in the interests of vengeance”, can you tell me what the Amalekite infants and babies did, what even those poor bloody oxen did to deserve vengeance?

You said “I believe the death penalty for committing homosexual sex is a righteous judgment yes”. My questions about punishment and death were put as I was interested to see how far, in following your miserable book,  you had moved beyond human compassion. I wasn’t sure you would admit it as most people are ashamed of such beliefs, but you are not. And that you are not is truly frightening.

There will be hardly be any celebration of victory from me. How can there be when you are so willing to accept that the death of your fellow humans is deserved because the voices in your head said so. You are one of the vilest people I have ever come across.

the apologist says:

12:02pm | 21/11/11

@gobsmack:
A couple of problems with your counter argument.

1. Let’s get this straight – as an atheist, you believe existence comprises of two things – matter & motion. It logically follows then that ethical opinions are the mere result of chemical combustion in the minds of people – it just so happens (given your premise) that a normative historical development of this reality has led to certain patterns/norms in the development of ethical thought among people. However, this doesn’t make it ethical or right, it just means it’s apparently fairly normal behaviour. If someone thinks stealing is fine (and there has been plenty of theft through history, so it’s not all that normative – in fact, you could argue that stealing is much more normative…), then why is one persons view better than another? They are just opinions. There is no right or wrong because there cannot be. There is nothing compelling in anyone’s opinion that logically dismisses the opinion of others in this matter. All that exist are ethical opinions and no meaningful way of offering a compelling, logical argument to someone that their opinion is ethically wrong. From an objective standpoint it doesn’t matter either – there is matter and motion; ethical behaviour of any position is ultimately no different than a meteor colliding with a moon, or a river running it’s course. It’s all just matter in motion, ‘blind, pitiless indifference’ (as I think I already quoted from Dawkins). It is really senseless from an atheist’s theory of reality to believe anything other than ethical subjectivity and meaninglessness from their perspective. I’ve encouraged plenty of atheists to read Nietzsche, he was one of the few who has approached the reality of the atheistic theory of reality; you should read him and start trying to live up to the harsh reality and logical implications of atheism. 

2. You say ‘they make sense in communal living’ – only if you presume that peaceful communal living is desirable. Again, you might have that ethical opinion, but you’ve got no meaningful case for forcing others to take that opinion. There are plenty of historical cases of conquest that suggest that war, raping and pillaging are much more normative indicators for ethical development in humanity anyway – perhaps you should be advocating those practices as normative instead. Even today in our ‘enlightened age’ the world is full of war and conflict. Atheism offers no answer to this conundrum – it doesn’t even make sense why we should think it is all wrong. Biblical Christianity on the other hand offers a very sensical anthropology suggesting that we are all created in the image of God (thus knowing what is right and being able to identify it), but fallen in our rebellion of Him (thus unable to do what is right, fighting and war corporately; theft, murder, betrayal and all manner of evil personal).

3. Actually, God was testing Abrahams love of Him, not His worship. There are greater and lesser love relationships in our lives (e.g. I love my wife more than I love my sister in law, and is right that I should do so). All these relationships are extensions and expressions of the ultimate relationship where love itself is found – in God. He is the great Father, and loving anyone more than Him is wrong – in fact it is one of the greatest wrongs there can be. This was what God was testing in Abraham, to make sure that his heart was right. It’s only in our love of God that our other love relationships find meaning and ultimately hold together. Love is defined in God, and we need to know Him to truly love at all.

the apologist says:

12:02pm | 21/11/11

@gobsmack:
A couple of problems with your counter argument.

1. Let’s get this straight – as an atheist, you believe existence comprises of two things – matter & motion. It logically follows then that ethical opinions are the mere result of chemical combustion in the minds of people – it just so happens (given your premise) that a normative historical development of this reality has led to certain patterns/norms in the development of ethical thought among people. However, this doesn’t make it ethical or right, it just means it’s apparently fairly normal behaviour. If someone thinks stealing is fine (and there has been plenty of theft through history, so it’s not all that normative – in fact, you could argue that stealing is much more normative…), then why is one persons view better than another? They are just opinions. There is no right or wrong because there cannot be. There is nothing compelling in anyone’s opinion that logically dismisses the opinion of others in this matter. All that exist are ethical opinions and no meaningful way of offering a compelling, logical argument to someone that their opinion is ethically wrong. From an objective standpoint it doesn’t matter either – there is matter and motion; ethical behaviour of any position is ultimately no different than a meteor colliding with a moon, or a river running it’s course. It’s all just matter in motion, ‘blind, pitiless indifference’ (as I think I already quoted from Dawkins). It is really senseless from an atheist’s theory of reality to believe anything other than ethical subjectivity and meaninglessness from their perspective. I’ve encouraged plenty of atheists to read Nietzsche, he was one of the few who has approached the reality of the atheistic theory of reality; you should read him and start trying to live up to the harsh reality and logical implications of atheism. 

2. You say ‘they make sense in communal living’ – only if you presume that peaceful communal living is desirable. Again, you might have that ethical opinion, but you’ve got no meaningful case for forcing others to take that opinion. There are plenty of historical cases of conquest that suggest that war, raping and pillaging are much more normative indicators for ethical development in humanity anyway – perhaps you should be advocating those practices as normative instead. Even today in our ‘enlightened age’ the world is full of war and conflict. Atheism offers no answer to this conundrum – it doesn’t even make sense why we should think it is all wrong. Biblical Christianity on the other hand offers a very sensical anthropology suggesting that we are all created in the image of God (thus knowing what is right and being able to identify it), but fallen in our rebellion of Him (thus unable to do what is right, fighting and war corporately; theft, murder, betrayal and all manner of evil personal).

3. Actually, God was testing Abrahams love of Him, not His worship. There are greater and lesser love relationships in our lives (e.g. I love my wife more than I love my sister in law, and is right that I should do so). All these relationships are extensions and expressions of the ultimate relationship where love itself is found – in God. He is the great Father, and loving anyone more than Him is wrong – in fact it is one of the greatest wrongs there can be. This was what God was testing in Abraham, to make sure that his heart was right. It’s only in our love of God that our other love relationships find meaning and ultimately hold together. Love is defined in God, and we need to know Him to truly love at all.

the apologist says:

12:36pm | 21/11/11

@mel: well, let me put the distinction between killing and taking a life like this. If a thief steals something from me, am I then committing a theft if I take it back? Presuming the state takes it back, is it theft? No. It is justice. So too with taking a life. A killer has no right to take a life; but in doing such a hideous crime he forfeits his own life. Only that punishment can execute justice on such a crime. The state, as the God-given civil authority has responsibility to execute justice (thus me taking a life in vengeance on a personal level is not lawful and is sinful – except in self-defence as we’ve already discussed).

Re. oxen – there is obviously a distinction between animals and humans. Murder relates to killing people, not animals. There is no capital punishment for slaying an animal, although there is instruction to care for them and – to use them. But you are right in a sense, those poor oxen didn’t deserve it when it came to sacrifices. The point of them being sacrificed was that God will not overlook sin, he won’t let people off the hook. If someone sinned, justice demanded punishment. The animal sacrifices were temporarily instituted (in expectation of the Messiah) to demonstrate to God’s people that sacrifice was required for their sins. It was because of the sins of the people that the poor animals were slain. The oxen did nothing, they took vengeance on behalf of the people. Ultimately, this foreshadowed what Christ has done. We deserve death and judgment (read Romans 3 through 6), but Christ came – innocent (just as the oxen) – and bore our punishment for us. The oxen foreshadowed this reality (see Heb10-11 and the rest of the book as well).

As for the Amalekites infants and babies – terrible as it was that such justice had to be meted out, the justifier was that the Amalekite people had descended into such wickedness that the race had to be wiped out. Biblically, progeny were tied to the future of a given culture, and so the slaying of the progeny in a given culture was the strongest possible means by which judgment could be poured out on a wicked culture. The full understanding lies in the significance of their sins. On a personal level (e.g. each individual baby), so wicked was the culture that their wickedness almost inevitably followed on a personal level. Depending on your theological position on the salvation of infants, it may have been an individual mercy as well as a just corporate judgment.

Moved beyond human compassion?? I would be moved beyond human compassion if I did not warn sinners of the eternal damnation that they are headed towards if they do not repent of their sinful ways. The realities of sin and judgment are hard truths, but it is compassionate to recognise that truth, not gloss over it – and seek restoration and true life based on the realisation of the reality of the situation. I’m not ashamed of my position on this, but I certainly recognise the terrible weight of it. I certainly take no pleasure in it.

I accept that the judgment of all humans is deserved because the Bible says it, and the Bible is the revelation of God to mankind. It doesn’t particularly surprise me that you focus on this aspect of my views (and don’t bother commenting on the crux of what I said), but in the overall scheme the wickedness of our sin needs to be told. The reality of God’s judgment needs to be told. Every living being on earth knows that justice is reality, our souls scream for it and we don’t know why (one of the first sentences we learn is ‘it’s not fair’). Whatever it looks like, we have all done evil things in our lives – we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Judgment and death are a reality.
What you don’t seem to care about is that it is only in light of an admission of this terrible reality that the cure for sin can be found. There is hope for all, and the gospel of Christ offers that hope. Civil sanctions are not a focus of the Christian faith, they are an aspect of it. Far more important is the realisation of God’s judgment. I can tell you now that every single homosexual on this earth has worth beyond measure in my eyes – and in God’s. Hard as it may seem for you to grasp, I care about them and hate the thought of their hurt. It’s why He sent Jesus, and it’s why I’ll tell anyone who will listen about Him.
You call it a miserable book, but you don’t even seem to understand it. Anyone can take out a bit of Scripture and twist their views accordingly based on it, but the glorious beauty of t hope, beauty and redemption shown in Scripture is anything but miserable. It is a living hope. It seems to me that the only ones who are miserable are the people stuck in their sins with no idea about the cause or cure of their condition. The gospel enunciates the cause by convicting of guiltiness, and presents the cure in Jesus Christ.

mel says:

08:20am | 22/11/11

Saved from sin? As enumerated in your holy book? Eating prawns, pork, fat and blood pudding? Wearing cotton/linen? Having sex before marriage? Having sex with someone of the same gender? Picking up sticks on a sabbath? Cursing your parents (I know you are particularly deferent to authority, but some parents, given what they do to their spouses or their children, deserve to be cursed)? Being a witch or sorcerer?

But slavery is ok, not to mention beating your slaves just enough so that they don’t die straight away. That’s fine too. These are not sins, according to your holy book.

Well, you’ve convinced me, your stories make perfect sense! We need to be saved from eating prawns and picking up sticks, but not from owning and beating slaves. Just one niggling point though, could you show us some proof as to why we should believe your curious stories? Where’s the evidence for your god’s existence and that what your god says is true?

mel says:

03:01pm | 22/11/11

Apologist, what have we non-believers not understood about your miserable book? God goes around either killing people willy nilly (everyone in the whole world other than eight people) or ordering other people to do it in its name, babies and infants too. What have I not understood about that? God makes up crazy rules about prawns and sticks, but doesn’t mind slavery. What have I not understood about that? God is vain, full of vengeance, and a nasty piece of work. What have I not understood about that?

You talk about redemption of my sin (for eating prawns?) but really, why would anyone in their right mind want to seek forgiveness from and spend eternity with a thing that acts like your sky fairy?

It’s very interesting that you say it’s easy for anyone to “take out a bit of Scripture and twist their views accordingly based on it” as many commentators here believe that’s exactly what you do.You try to proclaim “god is love”, trying to get everyone to look at the bits you like while frantically attempting to explain away the bits that do not fit your preferred version of god. It just looks rather sad, as if you can’t see the bigger picture.

The truth came out though. You are happy to contemplate the death and destruction of millions, if not billions, of your fellow humans because your version of a deity said it was ‘just’ and they deserved death. Anyone would be appalled by such deeds, but not you. Wow. “God is love”, even when it has killed or plans to kill almost everyone in the world. What sort of cognitive dissonance must it take to believe that?

I think we atheists understand your bible very well: most of us think it’s full of make believe. Maybe it’s you that doesn’t understand?

really? says:

08:19am | 17/11/11

Yep - I hate people who shove their sexual orientation down other people’s throats - let’s ban all straight people from holding hands in public!!

Utopia Boy says:

12:30pm | 17/11/11

I don’t consider holding anyone’s hand in public “shoving it down my thoat.”
It’s probably (no research conducted) only illegal in Queensland!

Melrusk says:

01:09pm | 17/11/11

@Utopia Boy,
Yes I see your point.
It must be rather inconvenient to have ones surface dwelling rippled by such inconveniences, such as Government sanctioned discrimination.
Good thing those pesky little bothersome things such as human rights are so well buried under such distasteful readings you might find out side of SMH (O yes I am Assuming) or one might never escape such drab and tiresome distractions.
Who’d have thought that voicing you’re concerns could be so devilishly inconvenient.
Cheers

Andrew says:

08:21am | 17/11/11

Good post, Timinane. I was reminded of how the Brits murdered Alan Turing—a miserable business.

Andrew says:

08:33am | 17/11/11

It is a testament to the huge tolerance of the people of the USA, Laura, and their implicit belief in free speech, no matter how abhorrent. Chalk one up to American democracy.

Hank says:

11:23am | 17/11/11

They’re from the WestBoro Church. They argue that Christians make up the majority of US citizens, and thus, Christians are responsible for the social breakdown in America because, for them, ignorance is no excuse. Westboro’s main problem is with people who say that they’re Christian, but, whether they know it or not, vote for a Godless society. Westboro would be more at ease if Christians made up 5% of America but that 5% followed Christ, because in a majority secular society the social problems would be expected.

Matt says:

08:17am | 17/11/11

And straight people never do any of those things you’ve listed above?

Nathan Explosion says:

08:20am | 17/11/11

Yeah, straight people *never* do that stuff.

Where did this ‘Institute’ get their stats from? Sounds about as credible as the Ponds Institute.

Nathan Explosion says:

08:25am | 17/11/11

Ohho! The plot thickens.

The ISIS is now known as the Family Research Institute and any studies they have done have disregarded by the scientific commununity as misleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute

Andrew says:

08:25am | 17/11/11

@The Raptured—even if what you say is true, and I don’t admit it (what is your source?), unless you can point to how this hurts society, it has no bearing, because abhorrent behaviour is not limited to gays ... far from it. If you are going to say that it poisons us morally, then you need to pay attention to everything else humans do that may poison us morally, not just single out gays.

really? says:

08:29am | 17/11/11

Ah yes, the “Scientific Investigation of Sexuality” - which is actually a far right wing fundamentalist christian front in the US dedicated to “rejecting homosexuality at every level” (the “Family Research Institute”). It’s considered a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (but then they would say that, wouldn’t they….)

That’d be a balanced piece of research you’ve uncovered there, for sure….

Tedd says:

08:37am | 17/11/11

Nice “Poisoning the Well”, TheRaptured.

by an organisation with “one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse”. FRI is part of a movement of small, often faith-based organizations (sometimes called the Christian right) which seek to influence the political debate in the United States. They seek “...to restore a world where marriage is upheld and honored, where children are nurtured and protected, and where homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level.” “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Institute

Al says:

08:38am | 17/11/11

But what about the hetrosexuals who:
- lick and/or insert their tongue into the anus of their partners
- participate in “fisting”
- participate in “golden showers”
- participating in some form of sado-masochism
- have some form of illegal drug use.
- either eaten or rubbed themselves with the feces of a partner
Or homosexuals who don’t participate in ANY of the above.
Should they all be prevented from marrige?
Just because you don’t like what they do and don’t do it yourself (i assume) doesn’t give you the right to condemn it. Only when it is unwanted, illegal (such as pedophilia or rape) or causes actual harm to another should their be concern on what sexual practices people participate in.
(BTW: Don’t you know urine is sterile (“you can drink it”) so your reference to “golden showers” is irrelevant!)

Kammy says:

08:39am | 17/11/11

Hilarious. As others have pointed out, heterosexual (and married!) couples are also doing all of these things. In fact, since we’re bringing up incredibly dubious studies, I’ve heard of a study that indicated heterosexual couples were more likely to engage in anal sex than homosexual couples.

Aside from all of that, what business of anyone else is it what a couple chooses to do in the privacy of their bedroom if both are consenting to it?

trav says:

08:53am | 17/11/11

Gawd, I never realised how mainstream my relationship was! I’ve been in a monogamous gay relationship for 10 years and have not yet been exposed to the supposedly inevitable fishing, faeces-consumption, golden showers, anus-licking, S&M or illegal drug use you mention.  I must contact this so-called Institute and ask them for some tips.

TheRaptured says:

10:37am | 17/11/11

Marriage between man and women is god given, marriage between woman and women or man and man is not god given. That is the real reason the gays want marriage, because it is against gods world and an abomination to the fabric of society. You can’t be a rule breaker and every be expected to be treated the same. Gay are fallen and in rebellion with god. God haters, that love the gay sin.

TrueOz says:

10:43am | 17/11/11

@The Raptured
Yeah, it’s a good thing priests don’t molest small children, ministers don’t have affairs with the wives of their parishioners, and televangelists don’t rip off complete strangers. As long as we have examples of virtue like them to look up to the homosexual community will always look really bad.

Andrew says:

08:36am | 17/11/11

No, it is completely wrong, Andee—my acquaintance with a great number of gay people who are mentally robust and in fact put most people to shame with their commitment to being model citizens is more than enough to disprove your assertion.

Tedd says:

08:52am | 17/11/11

Andee,
Those views are dying, particularly as those who hold them die.

LouLemon says:

12:29pm | 17/11/11

Until recently? What, you mean as recently as 1973 when it was declassified as a mental illness?

Go back under that rock from where you came.

Greg says:

12:54pm | 17/11/11

@Andrew, people have said the same thing about serial killers appearing to be model citizens too. Many mentally ill people are adept at hiding their sickness. It doesn’t mean that they are not sick.

@Tedd & LouLemon, the truth will always remain the truth, despite political pressure. I was born after 1973, and that has not prevented me from recognising the truth when I see it, despite the political pressure to ignore it.

Tedd says:

01:10pm | 17/11/11

Gregg,
Your post is obtuse, but it sounds like you hold to the view homosexuality is a mental illness ..

Against the Man says:

02:03pm | 17/11/11

I don’t agree with Andee’s views. I find it offensive and full of prejudice and an intolerant point of view. But if Andee is allowed to post such views and the Punch chooses to censor other less offensive views than that level of inconsistency is also offensive.

Wow what a day of views….............

amy says:

11:02am | 17/11/11

you belive in god? by any chance Hank?

because im pretty sure many gays have been happyer beign gay rather than supressing it…..supressing it hardly works anyhow..we are all human after all

aside form reproduction what makes gayness wrong…ASIDE from your sky fairy saying it is

Hank says:

12:26pm | 17/11/11

@Aims,
Not sure why gay people say ‘no one would ever choose to be gay’, but then go about living the gay experience. It’s as though gays are ceding control of their lives to some mystical power that they can’t control.

Maybe gays would be *happier if they proudly say that ‘they’re gay and they choose to be gay - so what of it, facists!’

*Provided that calling themselves married doesn’t result in the expected happiness boomlet.

P.S. I don’t view my God as a skyfairy at all, He’s more like The Dude from The Big Lebowski.

amy says:

01:22pm | 17/11/11

dotn know how many say that..mabye its to do with the abuse they somtimes get?

yould you stop having sex because somone said it was wrong? sex is a strong force, its niot easy to ignore and not good for you to do so

and ok if you DO belive in god..and are basing your argument agaisnt sexuality on that belife…then from my perspective all logic has gone out the window

Slothy says:

01:04pm | 17/11/11

No, it supports the argument that being shunned, oppressed, discriminated against, treated like a second class citizen, and told you are evil, unnatural, dirty and wrong, is not conducive to mental health.

Reading comprehension. Give it a try.

Hank says:

10:48am | 17/11/11

Yeah but once gay marriage is legalised, activists will bring discrimination cases against churches that refuse to allow gay couples to get married in a specific church. The activists will win, the church will be fined and forced to close whereupon the government will turn the old church into a tolerance centre full of the new mentally helathy that celebrates everyone except the religious. Down twinkles :(

Al says:

11:27am | 17/11/11

Hank - you are missing specific exeptions to the anti-discrimination act.

It is not illegal under the act to discriminate on the basis of the institution being run along the tennents of a particular religion.

Hank says:

12:08pm | 17/11/11

Al, we both know that exemption won’t be allowed to last. Gays know that they will never achieve full ‘equality’ while those exemptions are in place, thus, the activists believe the law must be changed. Religion is too powerful to be left to escape anti-discrimination legislation.

marley says:

03:28pm | 17/11/11

@Hank - no, I don’t think there’s any reason to think activists will bring discrimination suits against Churches.  They haven’t in other countries where gay marriage is legal, so why should they here?

Mike says:

08:08pm | 17/11/11

So @Hank do you see Jews suing Christian churches for not being allowed to marry there? Baptists for not being able to marry in Catholic churches? Muslims for not being able to marry in synagogues?

Fiddler says:

10:41am | 17/11/11

gold, love it

TheRaptured says:

10:45am | 17/11/11

Clever child David, Circular reasoning is the same misleading talk that comes straight out of the lying mouths of evolutionists. Attacking the bible is an attack on god, you are in rebellion with god not man!

P. Darvio says:

11:00am | 17/11/11

Your Bible also says all gays must be killed (I assume you have actually read your Bible).......So you are also advocating the Genocidal murder of hundreds of millions of humans -  Christian Hitler,  would be so proud of you.

bella starkey says:

11:09am | 17/11/11

@TheRapture:

It’s ok, chill. God’s not real.

P. Darvio says:

11:13am | 17/11/11

Did Fictional Jesus Person (FJP) ever have a girlfriend….?
Did FJP ever get married…….?
Did FJP spend more time with lots of men than he did with women…?
Do lots of Christian Men go to bed at night thinking of FJP…….?

One has to ask the obvious question………

TrueOz says:

11:18am | 17/11/11

@David
I think The Raptured is trying to tell you that you make Jesus cry.

Gomez12 says:

11:29am | 17/11/11

“The lying mouths of evolutionists”?

That pretty much sums up all we need to know about TheRaptured. Ignorant christian fundamentalist. Of course he’s against gay marriage, and cross-religious marriage. Willing to bet he’s against cross-race marriages too.

Rebellion against God mate? Can’t rebel against things that don’t exist. I am rebelling against your bigotry, ignorance, homophobia and general idiocy though.

You want to run your life according to the writ of 2000 year old middle eastern peasantry - go ahead. We won’t interfere in your right to do so - just stop interfereing in the lives of others.

Anonymous says:

12:08pm | 17/11/11

@TheRaptured

To be honest I’m not entirely sure if you’re taking the piss or actually being serious. What’s sad is that many people are really like that. So for the hell of it, I’ll assume you’re actually serious. *ahem*

The Bible was not written by God. It was written by human beings and then rewritten again and again over the course of thousands of years. By basing your life and point of view on a mere book that’s been through countless revisions, you are willfully limiting yourself and closing your mind, while subscribing to a pre-medieval mindset. What’s making it worse in this case is that you’re using this as a basis to justify your hatred and ignorance.

It’s a shame that otherwise intelligent individuals such as yourself have wasted their existence, blindly believing that anything you don’t adhere to is therefore evil and frowned upon by your deity of choice who (as much as I hate to tell you), hasn’t been proven to exist. It’s also a shame that people like you only believe that humans can be “good” if they believe in god, ignoring the fact that many non-theists are genuinely morally upstanding, gentle and kind without appeasing and sucking up to a supernatural being in the sky. The saddest part is, by believing that homosexuals are evil, adhere to their sexuality by choice and shouldn’t be able to have proper unions, not only are you proudly showing that you don’t believe in equal rights, but on a more subtle level, you’re also showing that you simply can’t understand the concept of love.

I’ll leave my sexual preference a mystery, because it doesn’t matter. I don’t need a deity to approve of my relationships. I don’t need a deity to tell me how to think and I certainly don’t need to believe in a deity to be a good person or believe in fairness and love.

mj says:

10:56am | 17/11/11

Richard….narrow interpretation of text star you.
Abomination you say…

As is wearing denim and cotton and mixing your threads, as is eating meat, as is eating shell fish, being arrogant, having 2 houses, as is being righteous (HINT!!!)

Guess i’ll be seeing you in hell. 

Proverbs 29:27 - (2) but he whose way is STRAIGHT is an abomination

Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the LORD hates, seven which are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers.

Stop using the Bible as the tool to trying and affirm and legitimize your pre-existing prejudice.

“For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of the favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, fundamentalists DO choose to apply literally

“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.” (Leviticus 25:44-45)

So, i can haz kiwis now? Gah.

Al says:

11:22am | 17/11/11

But there are also many other parts of the bible that Christians like to ignore including;
- Stoning a woman who has sex before marrige.
- Murdering Witches.
- Punishing theft by death or mutilation.
and many others.

The ‘Holy Bible’ was also put together by commitee (This is in, that isn’t etc.) CENTURIES after Jesus died. Hardly the word of god now is it. (Not to mention all the different ‘versions’ that are available.)

gary says:

11:24am | 17/11/11

an abomination? similar to eating prawns?

TRBNGR says:

01:17pm | 17/11/11

@Al.

I like that 1st one. Though I think we should extend it to both sexes, so whoever has to play the ‘away game’ in a one nighter, on the way out the door it should always be ’ And here’s you bag of weed’.

AdamC says:

12:07pm | 17/11/11

Amy, your comment is like one of those gross-out jokes you see in some modern American comedies. You don’t know whether it is funny or disgusting. You just know that it isn’t particularly clever.

Greg says:

12:42pm | 17/11/11

I’m not a religious person myself, but I don’t find those people that are religious half as irritating as the far-left moral supremacists.

Leftists are much more sanctimonious and self-righteous, and less likely to consider another viewpoint. They are the type of people who would have put skirts on table legs 100 years ago, just to advertise their claim to moral superiority.

They are also hypocrites who demand ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ but refuse to tolerate any diversity of opinion.

The fact is that homosexuality is a mental illness, no more and no less. It’s not evil. The victims should not be persecuted, but their behaviour should not be accepted as normal either, any more than a schizophrenic’s behaviour should be considered normal.

Society should not distort itself and devalue the family unit to accomodate bizzare sexual perversions. Not because of the Bible or God, but because it would be self-destructive to do so.

amy says:

01:14pm | 17/11/11

@AdamC I dotn have a problem if you belive in god, I do have a problem if you apply that belife to others against their wills, thats all Im saying,
@greg, sexual perversions? if the internet has tought me anything its that peoples sexual “perversions” get much more bizare than “man on man” or “girl on girl”...perhaps only now are thease things given any kind of light..rather than kept in the dark, theres nothign wrong with sexuality provided is safe and consentual

I dont see how gay marrage will affect you in any way shape or form, other than it does now, also if you cant “stop” somone from growing up to be gay then why freak out about it?

also what makes you think Im a leftist (if thats what your implying)

fml says:

01:15pm | 17/11/11

Greg, question.

Is not tolerating an intolerant point of view intolerant?

Matt says:

02:32pm | 17/11/11

Greg, you’re joking right? You ask for tolerance, then go on to state homosexuality is a mental illness? That was disproven in the 70’s Greg.  I won’t call you intolerant,  but I will call you ignorant because you’ve proven that in your comment..

Greg says:

03:24pm | 17/11/11

Amy, we are not discussing what is safe and consentual. The issue is the basic societal building block, a man and a woman, forming a union which will enable the creation of the family unit.

The family unit enables a society to naturally replicate itself into the future, and thereby maintain its customs, values and culture. If the family unit dies, then the society will follow.

The traditional family unit is equally dependent upon men and women, and it provides a clear role model for both sons and daughters. Both parents have an equal stake and interest in their children’s welfare and future. Each parent has different and complimentary characteristics that provides synergystic benefits to the family.

It’s obviously true that some families breakdown. Divorce happens. One parent could die. Some traditional families have bad parents who don’t care for their children. There are plenty on non-ideal situations, but none of them are encouraged and endorsed by healthy societies. A healthy society is better placed to help support disadvantaged families, but it does no good at all to encourage the disadvantage in the first place.

Gay marriage is an attack on the family unit, and an attack on my society. It does affect me.

There is a precedent with government support of single mothers. Children from single parent families have a much higher risk of criminal behaviour. All taxpayers have higher taxes. Single mothers are encouraged to repeat mistakes in order to qualify for more benefits. Welfare dependency becomes entrenched and multi-generational. Society at large suffers.

I’m not “freaking out” about gays. I just don’t want my society to suffer as a result of their sexual perversions. Their sexual behaviour is unnatural and destructive to society, even if it’s not their fault.

And if you are not a leftist, you argue just like one, so maybe you have just suppressed it.

Greg says:

03:36pm | 17/11/11

fml, yes, not tolerating an allegedly intolerant point of view is intolerant. Tolerating is not the same thing as agreeing.

Matt, of course I’m not joking. I never asked for tolerance anyway, I just pointed out the hypocrisy of asking for it and not responding in kind.

Anyway, these days, when people ask for tolerance, they are in reality asking for apathy. They are asking for people to do and say nothing while their culture is attacked and destroyed.

I will “tolerate” any argument from anybody, but that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily agree with it or censor myself if I don’t.

Homosexuality as a mental illness has never been “disproven”. It was re-classified after political pressure, not by any medical or psychological breakthrough. If you didn’t know that, then you have only proven your own ignorance.

amy says:

05:02pm | 17/11/11

@greg

so you dont think that a two men and two woman could raise a healthy child together?...thats another argument all together

because if you take children out of the equasion..there is STILL no reason two opase two gay people having a relationship..what the hell else are they going to do? do the whole “family unit” thing…then eventually cheat on their parters after the midlife crisis? yeah great Idea

also…the only way the family unit could “die” is if everyone turned gay..which isnt going to happen

and let me ask you a question…if right now two gays can live together in a defacto relationship..like any hetero couple..then what difference would marrage make?...

Kate says:

09:25pm | 17/11/11

Greg, I find it funny that you keep mentioning ‘homosexuality is a mental illness’ as a so-called fact over and over again in this article. I could comment fifty times saying I’m actually a giant panda, but that doesn’t make it a fact.
Much greater minds than you have disproven the homosexuality/mental illness thing. Time to move on.

Jason Todd says:

02:56pm | 18/11/11

I have to ask - Greg ; If gay marriage is an ‘attack’ on the family unit, what are you suspecting the outcome to be? Do you suppose if gay marriage is made legal, then all the heterosexual men and women that were going to get married and have kids are just going to go “Well, sod that, let’s not. Instead, let’s marry same gendered people!”

One part I have never understood of this debate. If gay marriage is legalised, it doesn’t mean the family unit is destroyed. You will still have conventional families. You will just also have single sex parent families. It is not a zero sum game, and the inclusion of one does not exclude the other, as the gay people who are looking to get hitched aren’t really likely to go “I can’t get gay married? Oh well, wife\husband and kids for me then”

If you are talking about “The devaulation of the institution”, then why are you not out on the streets ending every marriage you can? Obviously if other peoples marriages effect the value of your marriage, the more marriages you ruin, the more valuable your marriage is.

Markus says:

12:08pm | 17/11/11

They are married, to God.

That said, if every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope is married to God, does that mean that the Catholic church condones polygamy?
Plus we all know that only men are allowed to be priests, and is not the popular conception in the church that God is a man?

Food for thought.

P. Darvio says:

01:15pm | 17/11/11

Quote: They are married, to God.

That said, if every priest, bishop, cardinal and pope is married to God, does that mean that the Catholic church condones polygamy?

It means Christian priests are gay…as the Christian GOD is male ...so that means Christian Priests are married to a male…so Christian Priests are gay…...and those Christian Priests who are allowed to marry “normally” but are also married to GOD are living in a bi-sexual threesome relationship….

Christianity is so sexually perverted – full of gays and bi-sexuals…....

marley says:

03:51pm | 17/11/11

Actually, Christian leaders think rather a lot of marriage.  Many of them are married.  The fact that one sect has chosen not to allow its priests to marry doesn’t mean that that is an inviolable rule.  Many Christian churches have married priests, ministers and/or pastors.

Really, if you’re going to criticise the practices of Christian churches, it would be better to learn something about them first.

Corey says:

03:06pm | 17/11/11

States have always had an interest in regulating marriage. Have a look at the Lex Iulia, which goes back to 18 BCE in Roman Law. Regulations have been made for all sorts of policy reasons: to produce children, to reinforce class distinctions, to discourage celibacy, to control the transfer of property amongst classes, as a means of transferring property, and so on, and so on. In this respect it’s very much a social policy position.
I get that marriage is also a sacrament, and I too believe in some form of the ‘sacred union’ between two people (yes, in ancient times there were same-sex unions - either actual ‘marriage’ or of two men becoming ‘brothers’, or a man ‘abducting’ his male lover: see The Marriage of Likeness, by John Boswell).
Given the Government’s position on the definition of marriage, I suppose it must be asked ‘what is the social policy reason for defining marriage as between a man and a woman ? what is the social policy reason for exclusion of other consensual unions ?’.
In order to have a proper debate on marriage equality, marriage as ‘sacred union’ must be separated from marriage as ‘social policy’.

Gomez12 says:

12:13pm | 17/11/11

Marriage predates both your religion and bible.
Stating that marriage is “Yours” in no way makes it fact or truth. Much like you claims that god even exists.

Your argument, like your belief, is invalid.

Al says:

12:48pm | 17/11/11

Funny, marriage occurs in many religions and societies throughout history who were NOT Christian.
So how does this make marriage ‘your god gift of marriage’?

P. Darvio says:

12:48pm | 17/11/11

Quote: Next, the gays will want to marry young boys and girls and rally for, “Their Rights,” to do so, which I think will be the next perverse move of this decrepid movement!

Unfortunately, in reality, the pre-cursor to this is occurring in Christian Countries where Christianity dominates the society. In most Christian Countries the Age of Consent laws allow Christian based Child Sex. One only has to analyse these Christian Countries to discover this. Lets look at the actual facts and the Age of Consent laws in most Christian Countries where 90%+ of the Population is Christian.

Mexico – 12 years
Philippines – as low as 12
Italy – as low as 13
Brazil – as low as 12
Croatia – 14
Ukraine – 14
Vatican – as low as 13 (I thought they were all virgins…?)

Recently the Christian Church has approved children as young as 10 years old are fair game for its priests to go after – setting a new standard - and if their priests get caught they can use the “Woodstock defence”

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church_sex_abuse_cases/index.html

Seems the sexual perversion and exploitation of children is a Christian tradition in Christian Countries around the World.

Thankfully in Australia (a secular country where less than 27% actually claim to believe in GOD and actually claim to believe the Christian Bible is true) we have sensible age of consent laws that don’t allow Christian based child sex like in those Christian countries above. One also has to remember there is no Age of Consent in the Christian Bible so anything is possible in relation to Christian based child sex.

amy says:

12:52pm | 17/11/11

why do you shout “god” at us….like it actually means somthing?

anyway Bugs bunny doesnt agree with what your saying..you you should really stop, and take his advice

Andrew says:

12:58pm | 17/11/11

Please provide evidence for the existence of God and Satan, apart from the fact that you want to believe in them. Without that, your assertions have no substance.

marley says:

12:59pm | 17/11/11

Marriage is not a gift of god.  It is a gift of the law and the courts. 

As an institution, marriage existed long before Christianity - in animist, pantheist, pagan and Hindu societies - and it still exists in all these societies.  Marriage is no more a uniquely Christian concept than assisting the poor is.

fml says:

01:12pm | 17/11/11

You confuse our difference of opinion with hate.

Nathan Explosion says:

01:22pm | 17/11/11

Kim Kardashian was married to a guy for 72 days.

Britney Spears was married to a guy for 72 HOURS.

Yup, those gays. Totally ruining the sanctity of marriage.

Ben C says:

02:13pm | 17/11/11

@ Nathan Explosion

Don’t forget Dame Elizabeth Taylor, who married 9 times.

marley says:

02:45pm | 17/11/11

@P. Darvio - above, you identify a number of countries as being 90% Christian and having very low ages for marriage.  You include Ukraine in your little collection.  Having spent time there, I know your information is wrong.

Depending on which survey you use, between 40 and 65% of Ukrainians are atheists or do not follow any religion.  And the age for marriage is 18 for men and 17 for women.

How many other of those “facts” you cited did you invent?

Ben C says:

03:19pm | 17/11/11

@ P Darvio and marley

The ages of consent listed - are they the minimum legal age for people engaging in sexual activities, or are they the ages at which people may get married legally and without requiring the express permission of the parents?

P. Darvio says:

03:47pm | 17/11/11

Quote: Depending on which survey you use, between 40 and 65% of Ukrainians are atheists or do not follow any religion.  And the age for marriage is 18 for men and 17 for women.

Wrong – Wikipedia states Ukraine is up to 96% Christian (although it does give a range) and the number of atheists is “unknown”

Also from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html#People

Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate 50.4%,
Ukrainian Orthodox - Moscow Patriarchate 26.1%,
Ukrainian Greek Catholic 8%,
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox 7.2%,
Roman Catholic 2.2%,
Protestant 2.2%,
(all Christian)

And
Jewish 0.6%,
other 3.2% (2006 est.)

So well over 90% “Christian” as I stated.

As for the Ukraine age for marriage who cares – I wasn’t discussing that – I was discussing the age of consent - maybe as a Christian you don’t understand the difference between the two? -  and you had your eyes and ears closed when you visited Ukraine?

marley says:

06:49pm | 17/11/11

@P. Darvio -according to Wikipedia, 62.5% of Ukrainians are either not religious or don’t identify with a particular religion.  Did you miss that bit?

According to the Encyclopedia of Nations, based on a SOCIS survey, 40% of the population specifically identified themselves as atheists.  According to Nationmaster, the figure is over 30%.  So your 90% is a furphy.  And, having lived there, I knew your claim that 90% of Ukrainians are Christians, was nonsense.  After all, they had atheism imposed on them for the better part of 75 years. 

I have no doubt that the figures you provide represent the proportions of believers who adhere to a particular church or sect.  But those figures ignore the Ukrainians who don’t belong to any sect.  The CIA figures are strictly for followers of religions, not for non-followers. 

So, given that we have a country which is about half atheist, and allows an age of consent of 14, and given that the PRC, Japan and South Korea, none of which are Christian at all, have similar ages of consent. do you care to rethink your argument?

mj says:

12:27pm | 17/11/11

what does that have to do with….anything?

Al says:

12:41pm | 17/11/11

Yes, the main one I can think of is the following:
“Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live.”
There are also bans on gambling, card playing etc.
Not what I would call an ‘ethical’ way to act.

fml says:

01:10pm | 17/11/11

Lucky i dont believe in the scriptures then!
Maybe i should write my own.

marley says:

01:01pm | 17/11/11

Based on your statement, I’d say you’re sicker than a lot of gays.

Elphaba says:

12:39pm | 17/11/11

If you think people are discriminating against you because you’re a Christian, you have a ot to learn.

There is a huge gulf between being Christian, and being Christ-like.  You could stand to try being the latter a bit more, instead of just spewing hate speech and hiding behind your religion as an excuse.

Al says:

12:45pm | 17/11/11

I have no worries with a Christian putting their point of view across.
However if you seek to block or prevent something from being alowed in law and can’t provide any unbiased suppoting evidence that is not directly from your religous beliefs, then you are simply seeking to have others forced to follow your belief system.
Give me a valid reason not based on your religion and I will consider it.

Anonymous says:

12:54pm | 17/11/11

Pointing out flaws in your logic doesn’t mean we’re discriminating against you. You might be a bigot and a hypocrite who can’t take what they dish out by your own admission, but that’s nothing to be proud of.

amy says:

12:55pm | 17/11/11

oh please, dont play the “victims card”,

I dont care what you belive in..but YOU people at your worst would have us ban gay marrage because YOUR belive doesnt like it…do you see the problem here?

and backbone? HAHAHAHAHA….tell me, what requires more backbone? to belive what you are told…to jam your fingers in your ears and sing loud to block out anyone that disagrees with you

OR to think for youself and come to your own conclusions, weather that means you belive or not

Kiddo says:

01:10pm | 17/11/11

@Al
I don’t see why a christian cannot put forward his or her point of view based on thier christian belief.  To call a christian’s opinion based on thier religious beliefs a biased opinion, and thereby imply that your opinion is an un-biased one is self-defeating.
We all have our opinions based on a certain mind set or belief system - religious, agnostic, humanist, leftist, whatever. Anyone who seeks to influence law based on thier personal convictions\beliefs etc is seeking to, in a way, impose thier belief system on others.
I don’t see a convincing reason based on the argument you just offered as to why christians shouldnt be allowed to express their view points and try to influence law, just in the same way you seek to based on your beliefs.

@Elphaba - I agree, there is a huge gulf between being christian and being christ-like. However having an opinion that is different to someone else is not “hate”. Having an anti-gay marriage stance is not hate.

Gomez12 says:

01:23pm | 17/11/11

Wait, You’re using your religion to try and determine what others are allowed to do or not and you’re the one being discriminated against?

Interesting interpretation there - and we’re expected to take you seriously?

Elphaba says:

01:25pm | 17/11/11

@Kiddo, I respectfully disagree. Given the fact that firstly, marriage existed long before religion got involved, and secondly, that heterosexual couples have pretty much debased marriage altogether (see the Kim Kar-crashian mess for a latest example), to call gay marriage ‘a mockery of all that is good’, is hate speech.

But don’t take my word for it.  Richard called himself a bigot.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Phil says:

01:45pm | 17/11/11

Its not just Christians, its anyone who doesn’t want to drink the cool-aid and go along with the massive pro-gay agenda that is doing the rounds is copping the same abuse.
Being pro-gay is the new trendy thing to do, it allows you to pass judgment on those who dont agree with it for whatever reason and be seen as caring for a cause.

This has wasted so much of peoples time given the size of the gay community and what little point the outcome will have.
Really if you are a grown up you dont need a bit of paper to validate your relationship with anyone else, saying you do makes it obvious you have bigger problems.

I cant buy in to it, and wont.
At one stage I was happy for a equivalent piece of law to be passed which would basically give the gay community the same thing without calling it marriage (to me it all always be between a man and a woman) but now after all the trouble caused, the guilt trips, the name calling and general venom from those who want it.
I want you to have nothing so I wont support it.
You’ve dug your own hole as far as im concerned, you are the child who cried and complained, stomped his (or her) feet while holding your breath until you got what you wanted.
That isn’t a good enough reason to give in to your demands.

Al says:

01:51pm | 17/11/11

Kiddo:
I have no problem with them being motivated by their beliefs.
Just want them to have some reason other than their beliefs solely so that those who don’t share their beliefs can be convinced.
Trying to convice others by saying “It’s against God” is weak.
Perhaps if their was a study that showed they had valid concerns not funded directly by organisations with a pro-christian bias would be a start.

I believe that the majority of humans are stupid and a good cull would be good for the species and the planet, but I don’t seek to have this made into law as I can’t provide any unbiased and peer reviewed evidence to support that view. I seek the same from those who have a religous based belief, support it with OTHER than your own belief system and I will consider it.

Gomez12 says:

02:14pm | 17/11/11

@Phil,

So you’re against equality because “They” keep asking for it? And it annoys you?

So you don’t support the right of women to vote? Or Aboriginals? Against the removal of Apartheid? See nothing wrong with slavery?

After all, those groups all just kept going on and on and on about it like it was some trendy thing to do right?

And I think you’ll find the notion of “Drinking the Cool-Aid” is a distinctly religious mindset.

Has it occurred to you that the reason it’s “wasting” so much time is because of another vocal minority group that also keeps banging on about it? i.e the religious.

And what’s “Pro-Gay” out of curiosity?

Another Chris says:

03:27pm | 17/11/11

Gomez,  Men & Women being treated individually as equals and Race related issues sits at a higher level than Marriage Equality in my opinion.
I find it rather extreme that people go and draw parallels to Racism, Women’s rights and then Gay rights.
Having the right to drink from the same bubbler (i.e race) or being taken away from your parents (aboriginals) are not the same as the emotional want to be married. As far as I know, Homosexuals have the individual freedom we all have except the choice not to marry the opposite sex.

As for the Cool-aid analogy, let’s call it acceptance. I believe that’s a universal desire by most people. The moment your views fall out of the percieved norm with society (which to me seems media driven), the perception is that acceptance is conditional upon you conforming to said trends, at the very least- not arguing back, so you drink the same cool-aid.
As for the “vocal” religious minority, Religious people founded Australian & American society and law we see today whether you like it or not. Not exactly a Minority in the strictest sense of the word given we all benefits we reap.

LouLemon says:

01:52pm | 17/11/11

We’d need to wrangle some sort of tax-free exemption first.

Gomez12 says:

01:36pm | 17/11/11

Ignorance defiles the mind as bigotry defiles the soul.

Truth says:

03:15pm | 17/11/11

God made homosexuality.  If you have a problem with it, speak to him. Your hatred of homosexuals will land you in hell Richard.

amy says:

03:21pm | 17/11/11

hey richard…

some peoples veiws are different than yours

SHOCK HORROR

Budz says:

03:48pm | 17/11/11

If there was a christian god like you suggest, not only did he create it in humans, but also in many other species. Here is a bit of a read for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

marley says:

06:58am | 18/11/11

Actually, Richard, God created Adam and Eve AND Steve.  Are you suggesting he erred?

Jason Todd says:

10:08am | 18/11/11

Richard, if you want to get technical, god created Eve FROM Adam, using his biological material. As she was built from bits of Adam, it can be assumed that God used Adam’s genetic information. As such, the two are genetically related, so god either created Adam and Adam’s genetically identical clone, or Adam and Adam’s first degree relative. Either way, it’s not what I’d call decent.

As for what god says about homosexuality; it’s not a lot. There is plenty about beating disobedient children, not touching menstrating women, wearing clothes of different fabrics and the like, but only a few select mentions of homosexuality. Why ignore pass off the rest of these as antiquated but hold onto the few scant mentions of homosexuality as gospel truth?
Doesn’t make sense to me.

Richard says:

02:08pm | 17/11/11

The only reason that a large percentage of the younger support same sex marriage, it because like you, they belong to a wicked and adulterous generation, as opposed to those who declare the truth

TheRaptured says:

02:12pm | 17/11/11

No Australia is not a secular society. It’s the indoctrination of these unspeakable things that our majority hetro population and our children are being deliberately being sold this marketed evil in schools, socialist government propoganda, media, churches ministered by gays(satan), members and followers of the occult, because both groups hate god and cannot stand jesus, even to the point of making up stories christ agrees with this filthy behaviour, when christ love the sinner, hates the sin. That somehow abominable homo behaviour is somehow nutritious for children. The hetro family is under attack!  No, you do satans business and stop trying to put your filthy business on the hetrosexual public, it has enough problems trying to survive in this satan owned world.

JC says:

02:15pm | 17/11/11

@ Richard - Just shut up and mind your own business. You talk like gay/lesbianism didn’t exist in your generation. HA!

gobsmack says:

04:14pm | 17/11/11

@Richard & @TheRaptured
You are a right pair of lunatics.  I bet you wear hair shirts and get into a bit of self-flagellation too.

LouLemon says:

04:50pm | 17/11/11

Best start stocking up on marshmallows for my eternity in hell! Yum.

JC says:

06:09pm | 17/11/11

@TheRaptured I really hope you’re a troll, because if people like you actually exist then I don’t want to part of humanity any more.

Ron Vincent says:

03:16pm | 17/11/11

We heterosexuals are to responsible for those men and women who want to be labeled homosexual. We are their mothers and fathers and are proud of them. By a twist of fate their preferences differ to nearly 100% of the population. I have no problem with their relationship being called a union, BUT a marriage Uh,Uh. That should be reserved for a union of a man to a woman.

Al says:

03:57pm | 17/11/11

catamites?
Don’t you mean Canninites?
People from Cannine. (Which recent Archaelogical evidence has shown included those who later refered to themselves as Hebrew).
Soddomites - people from Sodom.
Lesbians - people from Lesbos.

Al says:

04:03pm | 17/11/11

Actualy Richard, NONE of those are originaly terms/words relating to sexuality, they are terms relating to People originating from geographical locations (except for gay which originaly meant happy).
I meant to include this with my last reply, but accidentaly submitted it before then.
If you are going to be picky about meanings and origins of words, at least get them right.

Richard says:

05:24pm | 17/11/11

1.Catamites, in ancient Greece, were boys kept by pederasts. The word malakos “soft” contains the connotation of effeminacy

2.Sodomy (pronounced /?s?d?mi/) is an anal or other copulation-like act, especially between male persons or between a man and animal, and one who practices sodomy is a “sodomite”.[1] The word is derived from chapters 18 and 19 of the Bible’s Book of Genesis.

3. One meaning of the word lesbian derives from the poems of Sappho, who was born in Lesbos and who wrote with powerful emotional content directed toward other females. It is due to this association that Lesbos and especially the town of Eresos, her birthplace, are visited frequently by lesbian tourists,

THUS ENDETH THE LESSON

mel says:

06:51pm | 17/11/11

Richard, it seems that you lesson ended somewhat, umm, prematurely (I shall make no reference to your sexual abilities here). Every dictionary that I have looked at makes a point of saying that sodomy can occur between a man and a woman. The definition you put out wasn’t explicit, so it needed a bit of licking into shape.

gobsmack says:

07:23pm | 17/11/11

@Richard
Yes and lunatic (someone who bays at the moon) is the proper term for someone like you.
Spread your message of hate elsewhere.

Phil says:

03:26pm | 17/11/11

You don’t have anything worth offering?

Al says:

04:05pm | 17/11/11

No soul then?
Guess Christianity is not right in every respect, which was exactly my point.

Anonymous says:

03:53pm | 17/11/11

No Alf. It’s not perverted, you just don’t like the idea. Want a tissue to wipe away those tears?

Sounds to me like you think that homosexuality is something dangerous you catch simply by letting your guard down. Secure straight men don’t think that way. Just sayin’.

Kailen says:

04:07pm | 17/11/11

Well no one is asking to have sex with a man, I think having sex with a woman is the most discussing thing in the eorld, some people like apples, and some oranges…. I don’t care if you don’t want banana, but don’t take mine away!

Alf says:

04:07pm | 17/11/11

@Anonomoys. “Secure straight men don’t think that way”

So since when did you be come the voice for al straight men. Jus sayin.

gobsmack says:

07:26pm | 17/11/11

How comes it slips in so easily?

Matt says:

11:06am | 18/11/11

You’ve got to wonder about the ‘straight’ guys that obsess only about what the gay guys are doing in the bedroom… The man doth protest too much, methinks..

Matt says:

04:33pm | 17/11/11

lol nice try but a fail argument.. When have gay people been picking on heterosexuals? We’re trying to get equality, the marriage act has been changed before without anyone kicking up a stink, but for equality it won’t be changed?

The argument doesn’t work both ways at all.  Since when are heterosexuals a minority group that aren’t afforded the same rights as the majority?  Your attempt is laughable.

If you don’t think gays are exclusively picked on you’re duller than your comment makes you out to be.  Ever heard of gay-bashing?  Homosexuals are discriminated against all the time, the marriage act is just one example. And obviously mental problems can affect everyone, not just one sexuality - not sure what your point is there..

Dan is a dull Christian says:

06:12pm | 17/11/11

@ Matt -

Q- When have gay people been picking on heterosexuals?
A- read the comments from them !

Q- We’re trying to get equality, the marriage act has been changed before without anyone kicking up a stink, but for equality it won’t be changed?
A- But as a heterosexual I feel we are not equal and I am trying to protect marriage, it’s an endless circle.

Q- Since when are heterosexuals a minority group that aren’t afforded the same rights as the majority?
A- I am a heterosexual who is against gay marriage and I am told that I am now in the minority. Being in the minority has now made me more determined that my right to be listened to by the majority, is listened to.

Statement - you’re duller than your comment makes you out to be.
Response - I agree with you on that one. So does my cat (my dog loves me though).

Statement - And obviously mental problems can affect everyone, not just one sexuality - not sure what your point is there..
Response - Exactly what I was thinking about the entire article…...

gobsmack says:

07:40pm | 17/11/11

@Dan
“do you see how it works both ways”
No.  It doesn’t.  Find a male mate and walk into a pub holding hands and see how much the “argument is voided”.

Matt says:

09:19am | 18/11/11

Dan, defending ourselves is different from attacking someone.

‘But as a heterosexual I feel we are not equal and I am trying to protect marriage, it’s an endless circle’ - That say it all doesn’t it… You think you are better than people you don’t even know.  You think you are better because of your sexuality.  You think because you are better you can deny equality and rights to other people without argument or fact, just based on sexuality. 

I won’t comment on the rest of your reply, seeing as though you’re so much better than me you probably won’t read it. The stupidity of your original argument should have warned me off wasting my time replying.

I like your cat though, seems to know what it’s on about…

Elizabeth1 says:

01:01pm | 18/11/11

Nicely said Richard.

Richard says:

05:03pm | 17/11/11

Because there is a Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, is no guarantee that they are..  ‘Christian’... nor any denomination. It is a great error to think that just because the word “Christian’ is used that these be so. It is also great error to assume that ‘Christian’ means to accept everyone because of some wishy, washy love….such a love has nothing to do with the Christian at all, nor indeed to do with God.

amy says:

05:06pm | 17/11/11

because any mack…the only right sex is missionary “lie back and think of england sex”

becuase thats all that straight people do

and by the way…your morality is broken

Richard says:

05:16pm | 17/11/11

QUITE SO.

amy says:

05:29pm | 17/11/11

@Richard

you agree with him?.......*sigh*

now Im going to smash my head against my desk for a bit while screaming “YOU FUCKING PEOPLE!”...it will take away the pain of having to read all this

mel says:

06:11pm | 17/11/11

Umm, Andy Mack, what deviant sexual behaviour are we talking about here exactly? It’s just that a lot of straight people do the same kind of things, and I’m just wondering whether they suffer the same mental problems these deviant practices cause gay people. Can you tell the difference between those heterosexuals who engage in these deviant practices and those who don’t? Or is sodomy, etc, only bad if it’s gays doing it?

Let’s be honest here, do you have any proof of the things you’re saying, or are you just making stuff up?

LouLemon says:

07:01pm | 17/11/11

Anyone else catch the irony in Andy Mack’s post? Brain washing indeed! Something about a pot and a kettle?

rachel says:

12:06pm | 18/11/11

Well said Andy. Totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!

marley says:

08:13pm | 17/11/11

Marriage in the modern world is a secular, civil contract.  Why worry about “bund” or “eros”?  What you need to worry about is signing on the dotted line (and so far as I know, gay handwriting is just as good as hetero handwriting).

Shake it off says:

08:57pm | 17/11/11

I am an atheist and you, Jjjjnr are the Christian I’ve always wanted to encounter. I may not neccassarily hold the same beliefs as you but I respect your beliefs and think you could teach every other so-called “Christian” posting here a lot about the religion they are supposedly practicing.  You post made me smile and I’m am very happy to know there are Christian’s out there like you, I just hope there are more as the world would be a lot more tolerant place.

Tahera says:

10:31am | 22/11/11

Gay or homosexuals are nothing but a bunch of sexholic and selfish people. Life is not all about sex and your sexual preference. Everything we see around us is created in pairs, male and female and everything is created for some purpose and they have different sets of responsibilities as per their physical nature. Even tiny worms working for soil, tiny honey bee making honey more then they need. Bees and birds do pollination and helps forest grow. If they stop mating, male and female, our planet will be dead with years. Many insects, birds keep our planet clean and beautiful. From beautiful birds, to colourful fishes in the sea. All have some purpose they are working for us and for our environment they are there to provide for our needs, keep balance and doing everything with responsibility. And we human are not happy with what we are born as. Men and women has some purpose too, purpose to keep human civilization running with quality and not just quantity wise. When a woman becomes mother she turns her child into human being with values and responsibility towards other human beings and towards our Nation, our planet. Mother does this best with the support of her husband who works hard for his family. But some sexholics they are just struggling with their sexual desires and forgetting their contribution to human civilisation and creating chaos and imbalance in human society. This is making our kids more confused and hard to understand what is going on? They will not able to enjoy and understand the balance and perfectness in our environment and social life. Homosexuality is nothing but opposite of human civilisation and its nature.

We did not create this perfect working planet and whoever did he knows what is best for it and how to keep it running and working for human beings and he definitely don’t want extreme sexholic people. Because there is much more in this world we can enjoy beside sex and that is called peaceful and beneficial life for oneself and others.

Please do not promote homosexuality or gayism, otherwise our planet will finish sooner than it should be. With no children and if there are children all with STD or several other diseases and mental health problems.

Use your knowledge wisely and interpret deeply with causes and effects. Go alone somewhere quiet in a desert or on top of the mountain reflect and, serve well your planet.

Life is not all about rights, In Islam rights comes later after responsibility and that too with limitations. So you don’t misuse them and hurt other people.

For example as we have female population more than male if maximum male they become gay. Then what will happen to these females if they want to get married and have children and have perfect family life with their husbands? How they going to achieve it???? This is nothing but destroying and exploitation of human rights.

Tahera

Leah says:

09:34am | 21/11/11

“He was between a rock and a hard place though when they said to him, “Are you the son of god?” Well he couldn’t say yes, because that would had them crucify him anyway for calling his Dad, god, a dirty old git. “

So why didn’t he just say no?

mel says:

12:09pm | 21/11/11

Leah, some mentally ill individuals really believe that they are god, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, and so on. Such an individual couldn’t deny their belief, because that’s who they think they are.  Just because you believe it, however, doesn’t make it so.

sigh! says:

01:32pm | 18/11/11

Right - so let’s just let people marry whoever they want, let kids be bombarded with pictures of homosexual, heterosexual, bi sexual and transgendered families and thinking ti’s all normal…........ is that what you want?

Leah says:

09:25am | 21/11/11

Jay, I suggest you head on over to http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/ and check out his article ‘Gay Marriage: Responses to responses”. I draw your attention to point #3 in particular.

Written by a gay dude, if that helps.

mel says:

02:11pm | 18/11/11

So if, for example, you were a sleazy wife beater, mentally torturing your spouse, so that she went crazy, you wouldn’t feel responsible because “everyone’s mental health is their own responsibility”. Is that so?

If you and a gang of your bully boy mates went about intimidating minority groups, the disabled, anyone different from you, causing them to be afraid for their own lives, you wouldn’t feel responsible either because “everyone’s mental health is their own responsibility”. Is that right?

If you were part of a society that abused, bashed, caused all sorts of anguish in people because many disagreed (for whatever reason) with the way they lived their lives, you still wouldn’t feel responsible because “everyone’s mental health is their own responsibility”. Correct?

What a fine caring individual you are, Luke. While not full of the milk of human kindness, you are certainly full of something!

Luke says:

09:20am | 20/11/11

My earlier reply wasnt published Mel
In short, there is a difference between sympathy and human rights.
I am not sympathetic to gays who are upset at not being able to marry because they dont have a human right to it.
I am sympathetic to a women who is getting beaten at home because they have a human right to saftey.

mel says:

12:05pm | 22/11/11

Tahera, you sound confused, is sex important or not?
You say that life isn’t all about sex and then go on for a hundred words on how important it is. And then you say that men and women have a purpose, to procreate, or is that purpose not important?. Which one is it?
And are you actually worried that the human race is dying out, that there aren’t enough people in the world? Seven billion and counting suggests that the human race is replicating itself quite nicely. I don’t think we need every single one of us to get out there and have children.

Sex isn’t just for procreation: it’s about bonding (be it short or long term) and having fun. A lot of sexual acts will never lead to babies: does that mean we are doing it wrong?

mel says:

12:17pm | 23/11/11

Yes we do. Isn’t it great! You should try it sometime! I must say while I do like the sex and the alcohol bit, drugs are for me. There’s no accounting for taste, I suppose.

Other countries, however, do have it tough. But as far as I can see, if we keep up with the sex, drugs and alcohol, all those people in poor countries can come here and work, earn a lot more money, and become less poor. We keep on enjoying ourselves, they become rich: a win-win situation!