Ex-Politician charged with homosexual vilification, Uses Bible as defence

[Xisa]

Also the trend of poor people having lots of kids to reap more benefits. Not that this is necessarily a common thing but it does happen on occasion. Not trying to be nasty about this mind (or be all dur hur all poor people have kids so they don't have to work. I don't actully belive this)

Some of them do, yes, but that's due to ignorance, and the acceptance of a shitty standard of living that comes from the majority of your annual income being delivered via tax return.

[Time Sage]

Some of them do, yes, but that's due to ignorance, and the acceptance of a shitty standard of living that comes from the majority of your annual income being delivered via tax return.

I will admit I have seen people I suspect live like this. No one on food stamps should be buying frozen lobster in bulk. (I used to work as a cashier at a Sam's Club. They were buying amounts and types of food I could never hope to afford working there. I would have gone though an entire pay check or more to keep up, even factoring in my employee discounts (Which was on nothing but produce.. and meats and bakery good during the holidays)

There are New Testament rejections but none by Christ himself. He didn't have anything to say about homosexuality. It's just Paul who has a metaphorical stick up his arse.

Good to know!

[Mormolyce]

Almost feel sorry for Katter's party. Shouldn't this loon be campaigning for Family First or One Nation?

Good luck with that defense lol.

It's Australia. So different rules. The same country that seems so hellbent on censoring videogames and the like. So it doesn't surprise me that they do this as well.

In the U.S, i'm sure this would count as government reprisal and fall under first amendment protection.

In the most cases, religious text isn't cite-worthy material.

FYI, the video game censorship debacle was because of one governor general in South Australia abusing his office and vetoing any attempt to move game legislation out of the 1950s. He since moved on and we all got the fuck on with it.

We do not have a Bill of Rights (even New Zealand does!), instead freedom of speech is implemented and interpreted entirely on case law. So it's not as strict as yours, our governments have leeway to institute anti-vilification laws. Which are somewhat controversial.

Then again people like this aren't about to attract anyone's sympathy.

- - - Updated - - -

There are New Testament rejections but none by Christ himself. He didn't have anything to say about homosexuality. It's just Paul who has a metaphorical stick up his arse.

Jesus (nor to my knowledge anyone in the Bible) never once mentioned abortion either.

And yet he went on and on about how divorce is an abomination in the sight of god, so few Christians pay the slightest attention to that anymore.

[Zhangfei]

Jesus (nor to my knowledge anyone in the Bible) never once mentioned abortion either.

And yet he went on and on about how divorce is an abomination in the sight of god, so few Christians pay the slightest attention to that anymore.

Kierkegaard once said something along the lines of "in a town full of Christians you won't find one," and I tend to believe that.

[Mormolyce]

Well...no, he wouldn't. There is condemnation of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, not just in crazy-ass Leviticus. The religious argument against Homosexuality is that it doesn't produce children, so it's inherently an act of Hedonism.

So infertile couples should stay celibate? By that logic an infertile man and wife sleeping together is as big an abomination as homosexuality.

Would Jesus talk to homosexuals, associate with them, and try to help them as he could on his journey? I'm sure he would...that's literally what he did. That does not mean he would approve of it. The religious phrase is "Hate the sin, not the sinner".

None of that is mentioned in the Bible, the Gospels do not record anything about homosexuality, and there are no secondary sources to refer to because there is no contemporary corroboration of the life of Jesus or even that he existed at all. So you're just guessing and making all that up because it sounds nice to you.

But don't worry, that's precisely what churches have been doing for 2,000 years too.

[Time Sage]

So infertile couples should stay celibate? By that logic an infertile man and wife sleeping together is as big an abomination as homosexuality.



None of that is mentioned in the Bible, the Gospels do not record anything about homosexuality, and there are no secondary sources to refer to because there is no contemporary corroboration of the life of Jesus or even that he existed at all. So you're just guessing and making all that up because it sounds nice to you.

But don't worry, that's precisely what churches have been doing for 2,000 years too.

To be fair, it's a decent guess. I may not agree with it, but I see how he can come to that conclusion based on the information at hand.

[Zhangfei]

To be fair, it's a decent guess. I may not agree with it, but I see how he can come to that conclusion based on the information at hand.

He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors for a foreign invader. They were the two most singular hated groups of the time.

Pederasts (as they would have been seen) wouldn't come close. It's a reasonable suggestion to make.

[Time Sage]

He hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors for a foreign invader. They were the two most singular hated groups of the time.

Pederasts (as they would have been seen) wouldn't come close. It's a reasonable suggestion to make.

I resent being compared to a Pederast (I know you weren't tying to compare ME to one, but as I'm gay, I kinda can't help but be offended)

Though to be fair, that kind of thing was totally cool among the Romans and Greeks and stuff. Sexuality was all about who was on the giving end during sex with them, and that kind of relationship was seen as a fact of life, and being in one with a rich or influential man as seen as a boon. Though comparing it to two consenting adults is kinda pushing it. (Though yes, I do know that those relationships were pretty much consensual or arranged by the boy's family. It's still not right in today's society, straight or gay.)

Still I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me....

[Zhangfei]

I resent being compared to a Pederast (I know you weren't tying to compare ME to one, but as I'm gay, I kinda can't help but be offended)

Though to be fair, that kind of thing was totally cool among the Romans and Greeks and stuff. Sexuality was all about who was on the giving end during sex with them, and that kind of relationship was seen as a fact of life, and being in one with a rich or influential man as seen as a boon. Though comparing it to two consenting adults is kinda pushing it. (Though yes, I do know that those relationships were pretty much consensual or arranged by the boy's family. It's still not right in today's society, straight or gay.)

Still I'm not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me....

Well first, as you said, pederasty is a totally different beast to contemporary homosexuality, but my point was you don't apply current cultural mores to then as much as their mores to us.

And second, I was agreeing with you. Nothing about how Jesus is written would imply he'd have "moral blind spots."

[Radio]

FYI, the video game censorship debacle was because of one governor general in South Australia abusing his office and vetoing any attempt to move game legislation out of the 1950s. He since moved on and we all got the fuck on with it.

Yep, we even have an R-18 rating for our videogames now!

- - - Updated - - -

Those are some tyrannical laws you got there Austrailia.

Not allowed to incite hatred of race, sexual orientation, disability or religion in a public speech or writing. Yep, tyranny on our doorstep!

[Jakexe]

Yep, we even have an R-18 rating for our videogames now!

Not that it matters, games still get banned! Yay for useless changes.

OT: I guess it bothers me when people use religion as the only reason they dislike homosexuals but ignore all the other things the bible condemns. It hypocrisy at it's finest and a great deal of politicians use it either because they believe it or because it's a vote winner, i'm not sure which is worse. I've yet to see a political party have a policy on wearing clothes made of two different fabrics, yet they're all over marriage equality.

[taliey]

Is it a surprise that those who want to criminalize homosexuality, get their information and their beliefs from the Bible?

Sure, she may be a single person, but when there is more and more people who are basically advocating the same position as this person, you really have to wonder, does the Bible condone such behavior? Is this wave of homophobia endemic to the Bible?

[Ossandran]

Regardless of if her bible argument is valid or not; why should she apologize for that? She didn't say homosexuals were on the same level of pedophiles, she said she didn't want any of them in her schools. It's like if I said I don't want to fuck a 7, 6, or 1 tonight.

[Time Sage]

Is it a surprise that those who want to criminalize homosexuality, get their information and their beliefs from the Bible?

Sure, she may be a single person, but when there is more and more people who are basically advocating the same position as this person, you really have to wonder, does the Bible condone such behavior? Is this wave of homophobia endemic to the Bible?

The bible doesn't condone their actions. They're having inteional moral blindspots

[taliey]

The bible doesn't condone their actions. They're having inteional moral blindspots

Do you think the Bible promotes homophobia? I mean, the case can be made that they're being expedient (after all they are using the Bible to justify their beliefs), but I feel that the Bible is so vague, to the point that rational persons must conclude that the Bible does not support, but the Bible doesn't condemn that issue.

Welp.

[theWocky]

You are free to believe whatever you wish. I want to point out (as this bound to be reported by some of you good religious folk as it offends you - even though it is not directed at you in particular) that this is not directed at any individual or religion in particular - there are about 40,000 different interpretations / religions regarding the judeo-christian texts.

It always amuses me how people try their darndest to make apology for religion - many in this thread.

According to the judeo-christian texts, homosexuality is immoral - stop trying to square the circle.
I also distinctly remember my Sunday school teacher telling me that homosexuals would burn in hell.

You are fighting a losing battle when you try to use an "unchanging" text written by a bunch of bronze age goat herders to act as a guide for a changing world, society, culture as well as moral code. The moral code has undergone several changes since 6000 years ago - forget about the significant changes in philosophy, science in general.

With every advance in science, gods become less and less relevant as we explain more and more of the natural world.

Thank goodness that I don't believe in any religion any longer and don't hate people without good reason.

"hate the sin, but not the sinner" is a ludicrous statement - it shifts responsibility from the perpetrator. I would go into detail, but then I would be reported for religion bashing.

Time to do a YouTube video on my jabbers.

EDIT: also... how the heck she groups homosexuality with pedophilia is beyond me. That statement is blatantly defamatory towards homosexuals. Adults are attracted to adults. A pedophile can be homosexual or heterosexual.

[Deleted]

How far should religion be involved in the law? Not at all.

[Soeroah]

How far should religion be involved in the law? Not at all.

Nonsense. If god comes by and writes new, modern laws to reflect modern society, I could totally see based laws on religion.

Until then, though, they shouldn't mix at all, considering two thousand years of noise and corruption.

[Deleted]

Nonsense. If god comes by and writes new, modern laws to reflect modern society, I could totally see based laws on religion.

Until then, though, they shouldn't mix at all, considering two thousand years of noise and corruption.

No they should never mix, laws should be made by people in the intent to be able to determine what is harmful to others (this includes property), not made by people who are basing this of a religious doctrine because they think its right because a book told them its right.

Religious doctrines are not that flexible, only the level of how people practice it are.

[JohnBrown1917]

Good ol' homophobia, just like racism and other bigoted beliefs, it'll never disappear from this planet.