The world's gayest nation

[ozcrusader]

I apologise for entering this thread so late, but I only just noticed it, but I really thought I had to reply to this.

For a fellow Tigers fan, its no problem. ;-)

Goangod, if you believe that the concept of sex outside marriage and for pleasure was only deemed normal due to revolutions in the 60s then you are severely mistaken. People have been having sex for pleasure for as long as people have been having sex.

There is a reason why prostitutes are known as "the oldest profession". The demand for them has been around at least as long as marriage has.

No, this is not what I am saying. You are indeed correct in asserting that sex outside marriage has always taken place (and will always take place) - but it was the Judeo-Christian concept which placed it in marriage - and this was the common belief.

What we have done now is destroy that ideal - sex outside marriage is no longer seen as an exception - it is encouraged as the norm. It is no coincidence that today nearly half of marriages fail when faced with this encouragement.

As I said, sex will always take place outside marriage - but if the family is the bedrock social unit of society, then it is in society's interest to protect and preserve marriage. Promoting sex outside marriage with anyone you choose is hardly the way to go about this,

I'm not sure how you make this leap.
People sleep with people they like, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or whatever. Homosexuals didn't suddenly start sleeping with each other in the 60s, they've been doing it forever. Recent social changes have just let them admit they are doing it, that's all.

I'm not saying this either. I'm saying that previoulsy, homosexuality was not promoted or encouraged. Now it is. Homosexuality is actively promoted as a viable alternative to heterosexuality, when it clearly isnt.

I think what paved the way for abortion was medically safe techniques for performing them.

Again, you have missed my point.
You might be correct in your assertion that medically safe techniques were developed - but this does not account for the widespread social acceptance of killing infants. Those are two entirely different issues.

Previous to that people would just abandon unwanted babies, hardly a more acceptable solution.

Really? So you would say that terminating a child is better for that child then giving it up for adoption? Should we then terminate all children in orphanages too?

And again this is something that has been going on for thousands of years, it is not a recent belief that children are a sometimes unwanted side affect of sex.

I am not saying that this is a good thing, only that it is not a new concept.

Damn right it isnt. In ancient times, abortion was practiced regularly - but both Christianity and Islam forbade the practice.

do you have any evidence at all that sexual liberation is responsible for a high suicide rate.

LOL
Are you being deliberately obtuse here? You will notice the phrase I used included :"Amidst all our wealth, all our progress, all our riches - in our sexually liberated society people are finding not happiness - but despair. "

The point being that we are a wealthy, progressive nation. We have human rights and democracy, we have freedom of speech, of religion, of association. We live surrounded by material wealth in relative luxury. We have the choice of being what we want to be, of doing what we want to do - shouldnt we then be one of the happiest societies on earth?

Sexual liberation is not the only cause of a high suicide rate - the point is, all these things have contributed. All our progress was meant to make us happy - so why is our suicide rate so high?

This again has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Yes euthanasia will probably be legalised soon, but that has something to do with people having control over their own lives, not whether they want to sleep with their 6 year old daughter. This is really irrelevant to the whole debate.

Obviously, there is no direct link between homosexuality and euthanasia - nor did I imply there was. What I was listing was the next steps in the 'social engineering' of our culture.

I too see our culture disintegraing, but can attribute it to the greed orientated bugger-the-consequences attitude people have today with just as much evidence as you have just done by claiming it was all caused by the free love revolution of the 60s.

Yes - I agree. That is also one of the reasons. But you would foolish to ignore the radical social changes since the 60s and even more foolish to ignore their consequences - I'll another thread on this in a minute.I also note you ignored several large sections of my post - do you then agree with them?

Homosexual relationships are about giving people the choice to live their lives how they want to, without causing harm to anyone else. It is not connected to abortion, euthanisia or lack of respect for other humans lives at all.

Pedophile/Polygamnist/Incestuous relationships are about giving people the choice to live their lives how they want to, without causing harm to anyone else. It is not connected to abortion, euthanisia or lack of respect for other humans lives at all.

 

[ozcrusader]

But if you look at the length and breadth of the thread, you'll see that wisdom like yours has pretty much fallen on deaf ears. Goangod is convinced that homosexulaity is the root cause of society's woes and no amount of commonsense will change his view.

Willow, your ability to comprehend basic logic leaves me dumbfounded - although I really shouldnt be surprised.

Please show me where I have stated that 'homosexulaity is the root cause of society's woes'.

The point, my logically challenged friend, is that the acceptance, promotion and encouragement of homosexuality is symptomatic of the larger issues in our society.

 

[Anonymous]

Christ, I'm not going to go through this again. You have consistently made references to paedophilia and other perversions throughout this thread and tried to link it back to homosexuality.
Unless you've changed your mind... but I think hell would freeze over first.

 

[salivor]

Who made this a sticky?

 

[Anonymous]

Not me... I thought it ran its course ages ago.

 

[salivor]

It might be blade, since hes been away for a while he probably doesn't know that most have grown tired of this thread.

 

[ozcrusader]

Christ, I'm not going to go through this again. You have consistently made references to paedophilia and other perversions throughout this thread and tried to link it back to homosexuality.
Unless you've changed your mind... but I think hell would freeze over first.

Yes....that's right......let me map it out for your rather simple mind

Judeo/Christian Values
------------------------l---------------------

Overturned by radical social change including:
l----------------------------------l---------------------------l

Sexual Liberation------- Individual Primacy------Materialism/Consumerism
-------l

Leading To
Acceptance of
Sexual Perversions
-------l

Resulting in
Promotion of
Homosexuality
-------l

Progressing to
Acceptance of
Polygamy/Incest
-------l

Leading to...
Normalisation Of
Pedophilia

 

[Anonymous]

Christ, I'm not going to go through this again. You have consistently made references to paedophilia and other perversions throughout this thread and tried to link it back to homosexuality.
Unless you've changed your mind... but I think hell would freeze over first.

Yes....that's right......let me map it out for your rather simple mind

Judeo/Christian Values
------------------------l---------------------

Overturned by radical social change including:
l----------------------------------l---------------------------l

Sexual Liberation------- Individual Primacy------Materialism/Consumerism
-------l

Leading To
Acceptance of
Sexual Perversions
-------l

Resulting in
Promotion of
Homosexuality
-------l

Progressing to
Acceptance of
Polygamy/Incest
-------l

Leading to...
Normalisation Of
Pedophilia

My what a touchy student we have here.
Yes yes... the world is full of sin... whatever you say. Is the sermon over yet?

 

[Blade]

Who made this a sticky?

Yes it was me Salivor.

It's a good discussion in general. It took me a while to read through it all but I did get much enjoyment from the many angles it's covered throughout it's 400-plus posts and 2000-plus hits. Its origin may have been during my absence but I've noticed it's popularity does come and go since it birth almost four or so weeks back. I see no reason why new and existing members may not want to contribute to such a controversial thread in the future...once again.

If it's popularity does venture South soon, then I'll remove the Sticky tag. We'll see.

I've expressed my views on what my interpretation of a Sticky is in the past.

Blade

 

[milchcow]

I don't have time to comment onthw whole post but I will make two comments.

Previous to that people would just abandon unwanted babies, hardly a more acceptable solution.

Really? So you would say that terminating a child is better for that child then giving it up for adoption? Should we then terminate all children in orphanages too?

Sorry, I was thinking of ancient greece times when babies were abandoned to die (perhaps forgiveable seeing as I'm in greece at the moment, the reason why my contributions are so limited)
that, I believe is a worse situation than abortion.

as for abortion, I mostly agree with you, although I believe abortion should be an option in cases of rape, or where the health of the baby or mother are threatened should the pregancy come to term.

Pedophile/Polygamnist/Incestuous relationships are about giving people the choice to live their lives how they want to, without causing harm to anyone else. It is not connected to abortion, euthanisia or lack of respect for other humans lives at all.

The difference with pedophilia is that in probably close to 100% of cases one of the participants is not making a willing choice to be in the relationship.

AS for polygamy and incest, I share the view espoused earlier in the thread. as long as all parties are aware of the consequences then its OK. I personally wouldn't have a bar of it, but I suffer no harm if other people do strange things.

 

[JoeD]

I'm saying that previoulsy, homosexuality was not promoted or encouraged. Now it is.

I've asked this question a few times before and have no received an answer. Who are these people promoting homosexuality and do you think heterosexual people are being 'converted' because of this promotion?

 

[Terminator]

Homosexuals placed in high positions in Government are pushing everything they have to get homosexuality promoted as a normal way of life that must be adherred to by the general population whether they like it or not, this is just the thin edge of the wedge that will split society asunder over the next few years.

 

[ozcrusader]

Sorry, I was thinking of ancient greece times when babies were abandoned to die (perhaps forgiveable seeing as I'm in greece at the moment, the reason why my contributions are so limited)
that, I believe is a worse situation than abortion.

Right.
In ancient times babies were left out and exposed - many societies in the middle east apparently practiced infanticide. However - both Christianity and Islam prohibited this practice.

as for abortion, I mostly agree with you, although I believe abortion should be an option in cases of rape, or where the health of the baby or mother are threatened should the pregancy come to term.

Fine.

Let's say then, that someone is stuck on a boat in the middle of the ocean with no food. The only thing in the boat is the corpes of two other people. Now, in this case, in order to survive, it would be permissible for that person to engage in cannibalism. But this is an extreme case. We cannot look at this extreme case and therefore say cannibalism is acceptable.

This is exactly what you are doing with your example of rape. Cases of abortion in regards to rape, incest or the mothers health make up less than 0.1% of all abortion cases. This is not what concerns pro-lifers at all - its abortion as a form of birth control - ie the other 99.9%

The difference with pedophilia is that in probably close to 100% of cases one of the participants is not making a willing choice to be in the relationship.

I'm not talking about child abuse.
I'm talking about relationships with children where they do consent - there is a world of difference between the two.

AS for polygamy and incest, I share the view espoused earlier in the thread. as long as all parties are aware of the consequences then its OK. I personally wouldn't have a bar of it, but I suffer no harm if other people do strange things.

And this is where you lose credibility.
You are ok with incest???
You say that 'you would suffer no harm if other people did strange things' - by this logic then, you would suffer no harm if 60 year old men/women engaged in consensual sex with 3-4 yr old children?

 

[The Engineers Room]

Right.
In ancient times babies were left out and exposed - many societies in the middle east apparently practiced infanticide. However - both Christianity and Islam prohibited this practice.

This was only in Sparta as a method of toughening the people.

 

[JoeD]

I'll post it again :

I'm saying that previoulsy, homosexuality was not promoted or encouraged. Now it is.

I've asked this question a few times before and have no received an answer. Who are these people promoting homosexuality and do you think heterosexual people are being 'converted' because of this promotion?

Termy, you tried to answer this question (which is a good start) but the vagueness of your answer was disappointing. Also you ignored the second part of the question. I'd like to point out that in Australia people are voted into government, not placed.

As for infanticide, it was also practiced by Inuit people. This was due largely to the extreme environment in which they were trying to live.

 

[bazza]

Homosexuals placed in high positions in Government are pushing everything they have to get homosexuality promoted as a normal way of life

Who is in this legion of homosexuals?

The most powerful people in Australian politics are probably:

John Howard
Peter Costello
Tony Abbott
Phillip Ruddock

Is there something about these people that you know and the general public do not?

The only gay person I know in parliment is Bob Brown - who with control of all of 2 votes in the senate doesn't wield much power

 

[salivor]

Homosexuals placed in high positions in Government are pushing everything they have to get homosexuality promoted as a normal way of life that must be adherred to by the general population whether they like it or not, this is just the thin edge of the wedge that will split society asunder over the next few years.

I hate to break it to you termy but in NZ theres also only one politician which I can think of that is homosexual. We also have a party with strong christian beliefs involved in our coalition government who hold a lot more power than that one gay politician does. So where are these high ranking homosexuals pushing to promote homosexuality as a healthy way of life?

JoeD - I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply from goangod, hes proven to be quite good at dodging questions throughout this thread.

 

[Terminator]

The high Court of Australia is riddled with homosexuality, Gay
men are intelligent people usually, I 'm not against that, but their morality and prioritys on what they think is good for Australia are completely warped for their covert agenda to push their sexual preferrance ahead of everything else.

 

[salivor]

The high Court of Australia is riddled with homosexuality, Gay
men are intelligent people usually, I 'm not against that, but their morality and prioritys on what they think is good for Australia are completely warped for their covert agenda to push their sexual preferrance ahead of everything else.

Termy, you have about as much credibility as Anna Nicole Smith. If anyone wants to push the theory that America only goes to war for oil, you'd rubbish them yet your quite happy to push conspiracy theories of your own that the high court of Australia has a secret homosexual agenda.

 

[JoeD]

Termy first you said that there were a lot of gay people in the government and now you are saying there are lots in the High Court. Which one is it, or is it both? Lets just for a second say that your gay conspiracy theory is true. Does the promotion of homosexuality by these powerful people actually convince heterosexuals to 'turn' gay?