Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

One. No pseudoscience though, right?

Being heterosexual works scientifically. Life continues because you have heterosexual relationships. Putting all emotions aside, there's no scientific benefit/proof that homosexuality is a natural process.

Not bringing religion or political views into this, I'm simply saying there's no solid proof it's not a choice.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

First off all, the logic doesn't add up if you conclude homosexuality is a choice. If you assume everyone had a natural affinity to the opposite sex, why on earth would anyone go against this natural desire and choose same sex over opposite sex? The fact that there exists so many people who prefer same sex over opposite sex clearly contradicts this. Even if people supposedly 'choose' same sex irrationally then under this 'choice' theory they should have no problem being attracted to the opposite sex. However, this is simply not true for so many people. Many homosexual people have basically no attraction to the opposite sex. Adding to this, if homosexuality was a choice then why do homosexual people exist given the social ramifications?

Secondly, whilst no one has quite pinpointed the cause of homosexuality (e.g. whether it is genetic, environmental or a combination of both), scientists generally do not believe sexual orientation is a choice. There are many studies to support this. I could quote many, but I'll just pluck one from a quick google search: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...t-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

 

[dan964]

Ok, so putting aside physical and logical views, if I am a 'strongly religious' person and I believe homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals will go to hell, wouldn't it be cruel of me to condone their behaviour if I believe it's going to end badly (based on religious beliefs that I hold to be true), wether I want it to or not? It's as if I see someone throwing themselves in front of a car and I give them a little push to get it done quicker. Like whether they go to hell or not, if I believe they do, I'm not gonna stand by and let them...

boredofstudiesuser1, actually I will say as someone who thinks the Bible is very clear on marriage and am also voting 'no' on this matter.

I think there is a fine line. As a firm Christian, of course I believe that all apart from Christ (and those in him) stand condemned before God. As a kind of theological point (sorry if you aren't religious), Paul makes it clear in the same section/letter (1 Corinthians 5-6 for the avid bible reader) when he teaches clearly against all forms of homosexuality several key points:

- One, the church in question, had a case of incest that even outsiders didn't accept. He rightly condemns it, and commands the church to deal with it properly rather than just accept it.
- But Two, Paul makes it clear, it is not his business to judge those outside the church, saying that God will judge those outside.

- Three, he makes it clear, that for the Christian, his identity is not found in whether he/she has/had same sex attraction, but in being washed and cleansed by Jesus.
- Fourthly, he makes a strong case, that the body is not meant for sexual immorality but ultimately a holy temple to the Lord, purchased by Christ and therefore to be honoured.

I think Christians, myself included, while we have strong views on such topics; would do well to realise, that the society arounds us, doesn't have to accept our views. And sometimes it is our place to let the society live out the way it decides, even it is contrary to God's plans and designs.

====
Finally, and this is main thing I wish to stress, no person is saved from hell, by converting from being same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted; people are saved by the Gospel, and while it is good for Christians to stand on their convictions (on marriage); when groups like the ACL, say the same-sex marriage debate is "our biggest fight", they have completely missed the point. ("Traditional" or Christian marriage, while it is a good thing, won't save people from hell, sorry)

Christianity isn't about a superior morality/standards (or "Christian ideals"), but about a super saviour, this is the message that Christians should be known for; and while I would agree somewhat with the ethical standpoints of the ACL and the like, their approach to dialogue and advocacy in the public sphere is at times insensitive, misguided and side-stepping what is for Christians the real priority.

Christians can be firm about their views, but must equally be willing to show compassion and hospitality to those with whom they respectfully disagree.
(Unfortunately this hasn't been done all too well, I might say)

 

[Queenroot]

He went to a catholic school and ND.....

so did u

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

There is a lot of evidence to suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

First off all, the logic doesn't add up if you conclude homosexuality is a choice. If you assume everyone had a natural affinity to the opposite sex, why on earth would anyone go against this natural desire and choose same sex over opposite sex? The fact that there exists so many people who prefer same sex over opposite sex clearly contradicts this. Even if people supposedly 'choose' same sex irrationally then under this 'choice' theory they should have no problem being attracted to the opposite sex. However, this is simply not true for so many people. Many homosexual people have basically no attraction to the opposite sex. Adding to this, if homosexuality was a choice then why do homosexual people exist given the social ramifications?

Secondly, whilst no one has quite pinpointed the cause of homosexuality (e.g. whether it is genetic, environmental or a combination of both), scientists generally do not believe sexual orientation is a choice. There are many studies to support this. I could quote many, but I'll just pluck one from a quick google search: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...t-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

First, you appear to be proving homosexuality is a choice, in a very roundabout way. All through society we see people do things that go against the natural desire.

Now, the link to the article, first of all provides no information as to the tests conducted and so we can't see the validity, credibility of the source etc. I'd appreciate a link to something that has statistic, tests, sample sizes and clear correlation between homosexuals and their genes (not just coincidental confirmation bias). Until there's no proof that it's natural for them and they can't change it, I don't understand why we should compensate them with a redefinition of marriage.

The only argument I see from the SSM supporters is an appeal to emotion that just shouts equality and doesn't really give us something tangible to consider.

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

boredofstudiesuser1, actually I will say as someone who thinks the Bible is very clear on marriage and am also voting 'no' on this matter.

I think there is a fine line. As a firm Christian, of course I believe that all apart from Christ (and those in him) stand condemned before God. As a kind of theological point (sorry if you aren't religious), Paul makes it clear in the same section/letter (1 Corinthians 5-6 for the avid bible reader) when he teaches clearly against all forms of homosexuality several key points:

- One, the church in question, had a case of incest that even outsiders didn't accept. He rightly condemns it, and commands the church to deal with it properly rather than just accept it.
- But Two, Paul makes it clear, it is not his business to judge those outside the church, saying that God will judge those outside.

- Three, he makes it clear, that for the Christian, his identity is not found in whether he/she has/had same sex attraction, but in being washed and cleansed by Jesus.
- Fourthly, he makes a strong case, that the body is not meant for sexual immorality but ultimately a holy temple to the Lord, purchased by Christ and therefore to be honoured.

I think Christians, myself included, while we have strong views on such topics; would do well to realise, that the society arounds us, doesn't have to accept our views. And sometimes it is our place to let the society live out the way it decides, even it is contrary to God's plans and designs.

====
Finally, and this is main thing I wish to stress, no person is saved from hell, by converting from being same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted; people are saved by the Gospel, and while it is good for Christians to stand on their convictions (on marriage); when groups like the ACL, say the same-sex marriage debate is "our biggest fight", they have completely missed the point. ("Traditional" or Christian marriage, while it is a good thing, won't save people from hell, sorry)

Christianity isn't about a superior morality/standards (or "Christian ideals"), but about a super saviour, this is the message that Christians should be known for; and while I would agree somewhat with the ethical standpoints of the ACL and the like, their approach to dialogue and advocacy in the public sphere is at times insensitive, misguided and side-stepping what is for Christians the real priority.

Christians can be firm about their views, but must equally be willing to show compassion and hospitality to those with whom they respectfully disagree.
(Unfortunately this hasn't been done all too well, I might say)

Sure, the SSM debate is definitely not our biggest fight, but the sanctity of marriage as defined by God is being 'attacked'. Sure we're all condemned, and I condemn all sins as much as I'd condemn SSM, and I welcome criticism of my sins and for others to show me where I am at fault. My point here is that I don't oppose SSM because I'm a sadistic egomaniac. Heck, I'd be more popular and life would be easier if I just accept it, but I can't believe something is wrong and cheer heaps of people through it.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

I can't passively and "respectfully disagree" if I think they're going to hell. At the same time, I don't really understand what you mean by 'respectfully disagree'. What is my disrespect?

EDIT: Just realised you apologised in the case that I'm not religious. Like I mean, with all due respect, if God is real and his laws and prophesies occur, it doesn't matter whether I'm religious or not, they'll affect me. And obviously if I believe the laws, I believe they'll be affecting even those that don't believe. What I don't understand with Christianity is that if I thought heaps of people would be going to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ, I wouldn't care to 'respect their worldview' if I believe they're going to hell for it. I'd be making sure they know that they're worldview won't change reality, and if that reality is God, Jesus, Hell and Heaven, it's not looking good for them... Do you get what I mean?

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

boredofstudiesuser1, actually I will say as someone who thinks the Bible is very clear on marriage and am also voting 'no' on this matter.

I think there is a fine line. As a firm Christian, of course I believe that all apart from Christ (and those in him) stand condemned before God. As a kind of theological point (sorry if you aren't religious), Paul makes it clear in the same section/letter (1 Corinthians 5-6 for the avid bible reader) when he teaches clearly against all forms of homosexuality several key points:

- One, the church in question, had a case of incest that even outsiders didn't accept. He rightly condemns it, and commands the church to deal with it properly rather than just accept it.
- But Two, Paul makes it clear, it is not his business to judge those outside the church, saying that God will judge those outside.

- Three, he makes it clear, that for the Christian, his identity is not found in whether he/she has/had same sex attraction, but in being washed and cleansed by Jesus.
- Fourthly, he makes a strong case, that the body is not meant for sexual immorality but ultimately a holy temple to the Lord, purchased by Christ and therefore to be honoured.

I think Christians, myself included, while we have strong views on such topics; would do well to realise, that the society arounds us, doesn't have to accept our views. And sometimes it is our place to let the society live out the way it decides, even it is contrary to God's plans and designs.

====
Finally, and this is main thing I wish to stress, no person is saved from hell, by converting from being same-sex attracted to being opposite-sex attracted; people are saved by the Gospel, and while it is good for Christians to stand on their convictions (on marriage); when groups like the ACL, say the same-sex marriage debate is "our biggest fight", they have completely missed the point. ("Traditional" or Christian marriage, while it is a good thing, won't save people from hell, sorry)

Christianity isn't about a superior morality/standards (or "Christian ideals"), but about a super saviour, this is the message that Christians should be known for; and while I would agree somewhat with the ethical standpoints of the ACL and the like, their approach to dialogue and advocacy in the public sphere is at times insensitive, misguided and side-stepping what is for Christians the real priority.

Christians can be firm about their views, but must equally be willing to show compassion and hospitality to those with whom they respectfully disagree.
(Unfortunately this hasn't been done all too well, I might say)

Sure, the SSM debate is definitely not our biggest fight, but the sanctity of marriage as defined by God is being 'attacked'. Sure we're all condemned, and I condemn all sins as much as I'd condemn SSM, and I welcome criticism of my sins and for others to show me where I am at fault. My point here is that I don't oppose SSM because I'm a sadistic egomaniac. Heck, I'd be more popular and life would be easier if I just accept it, but I can't believe something is wrong and cheer heaps of people through it.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

I can't passively and "respectfully disagree" if I think they're going to hell. At the same time, I don't really understand what you mean by 'respectfully disagree'. What is my disrespect?

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

of course to some degree, heterosexuality is alike to homosexuality in the sense that it isn't implicitly a choice.
but it really depends on what you are implying.

but there is one big difference, and that is the sexual union between men and women can naturally without assisted reproduction, beget children.
that fundamental difference will always exist.

I personally am heterosexual, not that I really need to stress it or flaunt it; i am perfectly happy remaining as I am, if I find a nice Christian girl to be married to, I would be happy also. But I personally have found something more fulfilling than any sexual active or romantic relationship could provide.

understanding though there is a range of experience.

what's your basis for that?

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

Ok. Now apply your compassion to stop people from going to hell to other sinful behaviours.

Lets outlaw adultery as well how about that

Here's the thing, once it's legal, it's harder to go back. Sure I think adultery is wrong, but it's too difficult to outlaw now. I mean, I don't understand why someone would prefer for it to be legal... Loyalty's not important anymore? Plus, it's not like the argument here is to outlaw homosexuality... I know that obviously I can't stop homosexual activity, it's preventing the redefining of a term that is very holy. Why can't we just extend property law and all other benefits homosexuals want to include them? Just as we did with de facto relationships?

Don't understand why we need to go about redefining stuff... especially when no-one can give me compelling evidence it's not a choice (wouldn't be able to exclude them if it's not a choice -> and I would no longer have issue if it's something they absolutely cannot change).

 

[cosmo 2]

im gay

 

[boredofstudiesuser1]

im gay

ok

 

[Trebla]

First, you appear to be proving homosexuality is a choice, in a very roundabout way. All through society we see people do things that go against the natural desire.

Please explain how my explanation proves homosexuality is a choice.

If your supposed counterexample is that people do things all the time against their natural desire, I would argue that this is accompanied by a conscious underlying reason (i.e. the reason for the choice). For example, you may go against your natural desire to physically hurt somebody because you are consciously aware that your actions will lead to undesirable consequences.

Under the 'choice' theory, what would be the conscious underlying reason people have to go against their natural desire and 'choose' same sex over opposite sex (especially given there is no real 'benefit' of doing so)? How do you explain the fact that many homosexual people feel no natural attraction to the opposite sex at all? Even if you come up something that may explain it, I would be interested to see your evidence to back it up.

I should also point out a logical flaw in your argument. You are suggesting there is no evidence to suggest homosexuality is a choice, therefore homosexuality must be a choice. However, that is a logically incorrect deduction because:
- you have not seen the evidence yourself
- you have not provided evidence yourself that supports the notion that homosexuality is a choice

As an analogy, if you are accused of say stealing then a lack of evidence of your stealing does not conclusively prove you are innocent. If you have strong evidence that can prove you are innocent (e.g. you weren't at the place at the time of the crime) together with the lack of evidence of your stealing (e.g. cannot find any stolen goods in your possession) then can it concluded that you are innocent.

I would be interested in the scientific evidence you have that proves that homosexuality is a choice.

Now, the link to the article, first of all provides no information as to the tests conducted and so we can't see the validity, credibility of the source etc. I'd appreciate a link to something that has statistic, tests, sample sizes and clear correlation between homosexuals and their genes (not just coincidental confirmation bias). Until there's no proof that it's natural for them and they can't change it, I don't understand why we should compensate them with a redefinition of marriage.

The only argument I see from the SSM supporters is an appeal to emotion that just shouts equality and doesn't really give us something tangible to consider.

Now if you must insist on scientific articles, then here are a few (most of these articles are difficult to access without login privileges but the abstract should be clear):

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...-orientation/864518601436C95563EA670C5F380343

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10743878

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf (a statement but contains references to a number of articles for you to look at)

Also, feel free to do some research yourself in finding even more credible scientific articles (and even scientific magazines) and you should see that it would be difficult to find any scientist that believes and has evidence to back up the theory that homosexuality is a choice.

I should also stress that no one has figured out what actually causes homosexuality, but there is evidence to suggest it is possibly influenced by genetics and/or the external environment (particularly during childhood).

 

[dan964]

Sure, the SSM debate is definitely not our biggest fight, but the sanctity of marriage as defined by God is being 'attacked'. Sure we're all condemned, and I condemn all sins as much as I'd condemn SSM, and I welcome criticism of my sins and for others to show me where I am at fault. My point here is that I don't oppose SSM because I'm a sadistic egomaniac. Heck, I'd be more popular and life would be easier if I just accept it, but I can't believe something is wrong and cheer heaps of people through it.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

I can't passively and "respectfully disagree" if I think they're going to hell. At the same time, I don't really understand what you mean by 'respectfully disagree'. What is my disrespect?

My comment that I think you mention in your second post. For the non-religious in the forum, who don't believe in God, it is not going to matter to them
In that same section, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:12-13, that what business is for Christians to judge those outside.

people aren't going to be saved from hell by saving traditional marriage and having Christian marriages and that is my point. Of course we do not wish to those to head to judgement and hell, but the reality is this, if Christians, myself included, wish to try to change people by social change and hope that will save them, or won't.

Marriage is being attacked? Yes but the problem is this, the sanctity of marriage isn't something that exists due to human sinfulness as it is. I don't think it should change either. the debate is not on whether homosexuality is legal or not, it is not the governments place to comment or legislate for the bedroom.

With regards to whether same sex attraction is a choice or not. To say it is a choice, is really to undermine especially Christians who struggle with it but seek to honour Christ in remaining single.

 

[dan964]

EDIT: Just realised you apologised in the case that I'm not religious. Like I mean, with all due respect, if God is real and his laws and prophesies occur, it doesn't matter whether I'm religious or not, they'll affect me. And obviously if I believe the laws, I believe they'll be affecting even those that don't believe. What I don't understand with Christianity is that if I thought heaps of people would be going to hell for not believing in Jesus Christ, I wouldn't care to 'respect their worldview' if I believe they're going to hell for it. I'd be making sure they know that they're worldview won't change reality, and if that reality is God, Jesus, Hell and Heaven, it's not looking good for them... Do you get what I mean?

(Wasn't addressing you specifically with that)

Yep and how do you propose to save people, by arguing for a Christian society with Christian values and Christian ideals, and Christian laws. I get what you mean but I want to stress as I did just above, that traditional marriage isn't going to save people from ther sins, and we sometimes come across as we can. I think if the society wants to live a life apart from God, no amount of law is going to stop them.

It is the Gospel that is going to save people, Christians should be known for that. I am all for standing for traditional marriage, but in view that is loving others. If the yes vote passes, what should we do? We should continue be faithful in what Jesus commanded us, to go out and preach the Gospel.

My church recently held a public lecture on the no case, if you would like I can send a link over PM.

and with 1 Corinthians 6:9, helpful to read verse 11 as well. Understand that only in Christ, can we be washed away.


To elaborate also on something that maybe wasn't super clear, the sanctity of marriage has always been attacked, even by Christians who are being unfaithful. But here is something more excellent, when Christ came, in light of the Gospel, human's purpose to fill the earth with Gods blesssing is by the Gospel bearing fruit and growing, and children of God as opposed to natural offspring.

and also even despite however marriage may be attacked here, Christ still loved the church as his bride, and that marriage is the only one in reality that counts and will last into eternity.

 

[BLIT2014]

I think we can all/most of us can agree that spending $122 million could've been better spent.

 

[Squar3root]

so did u

im at unsw :/

I think we can all/most of us can agree that spending $122 million could've been better spent.

i would have rather seen that money on cleaning up the cbd/waterways.

Could have done an online vote or something

 

[InsoulvencyReaper]

I think we can all/most of us can agree that spending $122 million could've been better spent.

Thats a lot of money

One day i'll vote...

That day will be when I become a citizen, haha.

For now I stay quiet because I've been told I'm not allowed to have an opinion as a noncitizen.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[BLIT2014]

Thats a lot of money

One day i'll vote...

That day will be when I become a citizen, haha.

For now I stay quiet because I've been told I'm not allowed to have an opinion as a noncitizen.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

If we were in the UK as a commonwealth citizen you'd be allowed to "vote" in something like this.

Plus as a Kiwi you are practically from Australia so join in!

 

[cosmo 2]

im a gay man

 

[Orwell]

 

[Orwell]

why cant i marry another man?

why cant i marry several people?

why cant i marry my pillow of mei from overwatch?

the difference is just cultural acceptance

wheres the logic in allowing same sex marriage but not polygamous marriage or other forms of marriage which dont hurt anyone?

These are the sort of questions that will spring to people's minds and be put on political agendas should the law be changed to reflect the 2% of people born with the defect of homosexuality.

Poverty, domestic violence and other pressing matters will be put on the back burner so long as the left-wing continues making stupid requests.