ravebuddha said:
it comes down to a narrow minded view by a head of state to intent on making his country the america of the southern hemisphere. John howard openly states his position against homosexual marrige then in the same breath says "but you can collect their super if they die....WTF......
ravebuddha
i'm sorry RB but john howard put forward the legislation in order to stop the forard motion of legislation in the USA making it to australia. but i do agree with you that Mr Howard PM is a small minded conservative whose political positions lack an open minded and overall community based viewpoint.
Originally posted by doofqueen
I don't know why in this day and age anyone wants or needs to get married but if they want to they should have a right to.
doofqueen
i agree that any two people should have the right to marriatal status
i said it before, that most wish to state their love for each other in front of friends and loved ones and also to be considered equal to the heterosexual couples.
also there are many benefits that married couples enjoy that de facto couples do not. and as such gay couples do not enjoy the same benefits.
thank you to those who corrected the Jedi knight and the celebrant laws. had to go for a dive. mmmm, playing with seals at 30m below the surface where we truely are second class citizens. (sorry off topic)
if your (to noone in particular so please don't be offended) gripe is with the religious position on homosexuals more specifically the christian biblical view then i suggest you read or re-read the bible and please quote for me any passage which refers to a a loving, committed, monogamous homosexual relationship or which deals directly with same-sex marriages (aka domestic partnerships, civil unions, holy unions, etc.)
(and please try to find accurate translations and quote in context) Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV for example (see below)
It is possible to take the possitive assertions of heterosexual relationships and thereby decide against homosexuality, but i'm sure you can see the implausability of using that as the basis for an argument (Genesis 2 or Matthew 19:4-6 which is a repetition of Genesis 2 spoken by Jesus)
this goes about describing that a partner for adam Gen 2:23,24 however the hebrew word for woman is very similar to man, so may even be misstranslated
1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is often used but the direct translation is for "homosexual offenders" not for homosexual couples who do not partake in the following acts. (and even if you do feel the translation is for all homosexuals then they were "washed, were sanctified" so this could be taken that homosexuals may be sinners but can still be washed and enter into Heaven
there are passages which do refer to homosexual actions, most of which i think you will agree are amoral:
Homosexual rape (Genesis 19; Judges 19:14).
Homosexual ritual sex in Pagan temples -- a religious taboo (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13).
Homosexual prostitution (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7).
Heterosexual men and women going against their basic nature and engaging in homosexual Pagan orgies (Romans 1:26).
Men who sexually molest boys -- and the boys that they abuse (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9).
Bestiality: Men engaging in sex with males of another species -- angels in this case (Jude 7).
from this it is possible to come to the conclusion that some homosexual acts, though similar heterosexual acts, can be considered amoral; however, there is little to deny a loving relationship between homosexuals.
please feel free to respond but please no personal attacks.