Marriage equality (2 Viewers)

[nerdasdasd]

Dan, do you think penguins are born either heterosexual or homosexual, or do they choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual?

Edit: or do they change their mind as they go, in yours words, is their sexuality "fluid"?

Sexuality is fluid according to the "all of us" book .

 

[Rouz]

Sexuality is fluid according to the "all of us" book .

Thank you for your input. Please do not respond to user-specific entries.

 

[Queenroot]

Well from psychology I know that our personalities and behaviours are both caused through an interaction of genetic and environmental factors.

 

[dan964]

Dan, do you think penguins are born either heterosexual or homosexual, or do they choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual?

Edit: or do they change their mind as they go, in yours words, is their sexuality "fluid"?

Concerning attraction:
You'd think that penguins only develop a sexual expression when they mature (same goes for humans when they go through puberty). #discovery
I don't think it is they are born this way or they choose this way. Yes, sexuality is fluid in some respects, but for others, no amount of will-power would change their attraction; but equally doesn't mean that genetics caused it.

and even it if did, one can take an existentialist approach and say the way you were born/made in some aspects does not define you (which some people kind of do anyway)...

As afore mentioned, bisexuality adds another layer because it is no longer homo or hetero.

concerning the homosexual lifestyle
And there is also some lifestyle/behaviour choices involved too, is one going to act on the inclinations/desires/attractions one has or not? Yes, there is a correlation that one who feels a certain way will act a certain way, but doesn't necessitate it.

===
Of the two, amongst those who are probably the most similar* to my position, misunderstood/miss entirely the first and emphasis the second (notably because only the second is mentioned in the Bible for instance).

*or better phrased, more associated with, stereotypical of... etc.

But hopefully that clears up.

 

[Rouz]

I don't think it is they are born this way or they choose this way. Yes, sexuality is fluid in some respects, but for others, no amount of will-power would change their attraction; but equally doesn't mean that genetics caused it.

I read this awkwardly-worded paragraph a number of times. I am still uncertain as to what you actually believe. On the one hand, you have expressed that neither choice nor genotypic makeup are shown to thoroughly explain sexuality. On the other hand, you maintain that bisexuality could be a choice in the same way as discovering your sexual orientation at a later stage in life is a choice. You also expressed that humans develop a sexual expression when they go through puberty, which to some extent has to do with genetics. In addition, you bring on the argument of sexual fluidity but you fail, at least at this stage, to distinguish it from choice.

Could you kindly and concisely, without fluff, state your belief, so that we can continue.

... only the second is mentioned in the Bible...

Saying that religion condemns the homosexual lifestyle, if such a thing exists, but not homosexuality as a whole is at worst wrong and at best condescending. It is the Biblical contravention of homosexuality that makes lying with a male as one would lie with a female an abomination. Of course, as Anglican youth leaders put it, the punishment for having homosexual thoughts is not comparable with the punishment for engaging in homosexual activity, but that doesn't make it, Biblically, any more forgivable. The two cannot be set apart, unless of course, God wouldn't mind if a gay person went to heaven, provided that he kept his thoughts to himself at the cost of his sanity and social welfare.

 

[dan964]

Saying that religion condemns the homosexual lifestyle, if such a thing exists, but not homosexuality as a whole is at worst wrong and at best condescending. It is the Biblical contravention of homosexuality that makes lying with a male as one would lie with a female an abomination. Of course, as Anglican youth leaders put it, the punishment for having homosexual thoughts is not comparable with the punishment for engaging in homosexual activity, but that doesn't make it, Biblically, any more forgivable. The two cannot be set apart, unless of course, God wouldn't mind if a gay person went to heaven, provided that he kept his thoughts to himself at the cost of his sanity and social welfare.

I think you would find there is a distinction between attraction (viewed as temptation), and actual lust/action. But ofc I don't think a moral stance should be any argument for/against SSM anyway. Its a nuanced difference more so.

edit: I am only in this reply first replying to this second paragraph before you get up in arms about me not answering your questions.

 

[Simorgh]

After 10 pages of rambling on about this issue, what conclusion have we finally reached?

 

[Rouz]

After 10 pages of rambling on about this issue, what conclusion have we finally reached?

Only if it was this easy!

 

[dan964]

I read this awkwardly-worded paragraph a number of times. I am still uncertain as to what you actually believe. On the one hand, you have expressed that neither choice nor genotypic makeup are shown to thoroughly explain sexuality. On the other hand, you maintain that bisexuality could be a choice in the same way as discovering your sexual orientation at a later stage in life is a choice. You also expressed that humans develop a sexual expression when they go through puberty, which to some extent has to do with genetics. In addition, you bring on the argument of sexual fluidity but you fail, at least at this stage, to distinguish it from choice.

Could you kindly and concisely, without fluff, state your belief, so that we can continue.

Is SSA a choice? Usually no.
Is SSA because of genetics? Not conclusive.

Basically the whole thing is more complex than just whether they are born or choose this way. And while it is easy to be explicit in saying it isn't a choice, there is no conclusive agreement on the actual cause of SSA.

Can people choose to let SSA affect them or not? Of course.
Can people choose to act on SSA in a way that some would consider immoral? Of course.
Can people choose to act on SSA in a way that is not immoral? Of course.


So there is a difference between SSA and lust for instance, just as there is between OSA and lust as well (OSA=heterosexual attraction).
One of the issues I take is the whole problem with making it an identity crisis, but maybe that is just existentialism coming through.

God wouldn't mind if a gay person went to heaven, provided that he kept his thoughts to himself at the cost of his sanity and social welfare.

Sorry I need to fix some problems with this statement.
And of course homosexual acts and all that are forgiveable, so I don't get what you are trying to say. People aren't in heaven, on the basis of their morality and certainly no difference in this area. God does not put the condition that you suggest for a person who has SSA to be in heaven, rather it is (at least in Christianity), trust & belief in Jesus. It affects the way you life and the decisions you make as a result of, in this example/argument, SSA.

There are two wrong opinions within churches:
1. To dismiss the issue and what the Bible teaches on the issue as being irrelevant. = the liberal position
(if you are called a Christian church, I think you have to take the text seriously)
2. To be like the Westboro baptist church = the "fundamentalist" position.
(if you are called a Christian church, you have to take the other things such as loving your neighbour & enemies seriously too).

 

[dan964]

Firstly, you did not answer what I asked you.
Secondly, you've been using morality, religious and else, to prove your stance, ever since we started
Thirdly, if I continue to see this pattern where you find a way around current points of discussion and add a new point occasionally weakly-backed-up, I may choose to stop responding.

1. Cut me a break I was in the middle of putting a better response. If you don't get what I wrote initially, I cannot help you that much. Basically, I don't agree with either opinion, that says it a choice or says they are born that way because of genetics, Simple, how simple. What actually is behind it, I am not sure, but I disagree with either of two the polar opposites in this case.

That response you quoted was only really to the second paragraph so I've edited the quote.

===
Firstly let me break down to see if you actually get what I am trying to say

On the one hand, you have expressed that neither choice nor genotypic makeup are shown to thoroughly explain sexuality.

Yes, so? edit: There is a difference between cause and explanation though. The key word is "thorough", the thing is that they still might be part of the explanation; but certainly not necessary has to be "the" explanation.

On the other hand, you maintain that bisexuality could be a choice in the same way as discovering your sexual orientation at a later stage in life is a choice.

Some people sexuality does change (typically as people experiment too), and that impacts the decisions they make; and bisexuality is a massive example. This is only one facet. It doesn't not imply that SSA choose to be SSA-people for instance; which I generally think they don't choose. It basically goes to show that it is just not that simple to say they are born that way, so deal with it...

Also the fact that there are now a liturgy of sexual expressions, goes to show that this discussion is not as clear-cut as you would probably like it to be.
I know you might wish me to say it is one or the other, so you can slam it down (if I say it is a choice); but I equally don't buy into the rhetoric that suggests the people are born that way either (and hence must act a certain way...)

2. Ahem, notice the only reason I am even discussing homosexuality what because of that link which was filled with misrepresentation. You would care to notice that my initial discussions about SSM, where on what marriage is generally, and wasn't aimed for instance against particular SSA-individuals. Yes, the question of moral conscience is a big one still.

3. Ahem also, I am not avoiding the topic of discussion. I stated it the first time and you were confused, so I have stated it again. I don't think it is clearcut to the origins/causes of SSA (choice, born this way, discover, change, environment, society, education etc. etc).

But what is clear, is what people do with said SSA. And that is the distinction that I was implying. and yes you don't have to agree with me morally, to recognise that there is a difference between something that in most cases don't have control over (which I agree with you on), and something they do. And in the case of the whole original topic of the discussion, it is very much a matter that actually not depenedent on the former; unless you think that marriage is supposed to be for all people as an arbitrary celebrated union of two people sexually attracted to each other.

And that is where the disagreement lies. And you have to understand that it is fundamentally a different understanding of marriage that is the key thing in this debate, not whether homosexual acts are moral or not.

Ahem, also if you complain about morality, then what do you think, about taking the moral high ground by claiming that SSM is non-discriminatory, and that it gives equality? Unless you think values & morals aren't interchangeable.

I don't think it is/achieves that. I think if equality is really what people want and non-discrimination is what people want, then I highly suspect (and I've heard there are people who genuinely want this), then I reckon the end conclusion would be actually get rid of marriage altogether (at least on a civil level).

 

[Rouz]

1. Cut me a break I was in the middle of putting a better response.

Yes, my apologies. I think by the time I finished writing that you had already posted your response. I have removed that entry.

 

[Flop21]

Why are you guys talking about homosexuality like it's wrong or right? Why would it be wrong?

We're all human. No one is being hurt in a homosexual relationship when it's between two consenting adults.

So what's the problem?

 

[dan964]

After 10 pages of rambling on about this issue, what conclusion have we finally reached?

Nothing really. Except that people sit on different sides, and don't entirely get what the entire side thinks all of the time.

Some people are like, just hurry up with and legalise SSM (consider how parts of Labor & Greens reacted when Abbott was axed for instance, the first thing they wanted to push, not sure if it was serious was SSM, because Turnbull's opinion is different to Abbotts).

Some people want to listen.
Some people want to argue.
It is not called a controversial issue for nothing.

And it bugs me that people are using excuses to shut down discussion on this issue.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Nothing really. Except that people sit on different sides, and don't entirely get what the entire side thinks all of the time.

Some people are like, just hurry up with and legalise SSM (consider how parts of Labor & Greens reacted when Abbott was axed for instance, the first thing they wanted to push, not sure if it was serious was SSM, because Turnbull's opinion is different to Abbotts).

Some people want to listen.
Some people want to argue.
It is not called a controversial issue for nothing.

And it bugs me that people are using excuses to shut down discussion on this issue.

That and the fact that there is a lot of name calling going around because you have certain values.

 

[dan964]

Why are you guys talking about homosexuality like it's wrong or right? Why would it be wrong?
We're all human. No one is being hurt in a homosexual relationship when it's between two consenting adults.
So what's the problem?

Like I said, irrespective of whether it is right or wrong, the current definition of marriage is not based (or at least theoretically) on the moral acceptibility of homosexually-active relationship.

2. You'd find that yes, for secular people, like yourself, when it comes to matters on this issue, as long as there is consent and it doesn't hurt anyone it is okay. You'd find disagreement, but then again like I have said, I don't think marriage equality should be legalised or not legalised on the basis of one's private sexual life/relationships for instance...

 

[dan964]

That and the fact that there is a lot of name calling going around because you have certain values.

Yeah a bit of that from both sides I will say.
And for those who advocate for same sex marriage it is primarily by interpreting the opposite opinion as hatred just adds to it all, and is just as damaging as the opinions they claim are damaging to LGBTIQ youth.

 

[Rouz]

God does not put the condition that [gay people should stay in the closet] for a person who has SSA to be in heaven, rather it is (at least in Christianity), trust & belief in Jesus. It affects the way you life and the decisions you make as a result of, in this example/argument, SSA.

21st century [protestant] Christianity is very pretty. The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. It clearly says sinners will go to Hell unless they [accept Jesus as their saviour and] repent and by repentance the Bible means a 180 degree turn. Applying this principle, homosexuals will go to Hell unless they [accept Jesus as their saviour,] repent and go hetero both in practice and in their mind.

It is the height of apologetics to say that you can be a believer in Christ and have no issue with being gay at the same time. You cannot be gay and claim that you walk with Jesus. Of course, you may claim that believing and having trust in Jesus changes your heart and your decisions but that's just another ugly truth that is disguised as a pretty concept. It it the truth that in order to be Christian, you have to change.

There are two wrong opinions:
1. To dismiss the issue and what the Bible teaches on the issue as being irrelevant.
2. To be like the Westboro baptist church.

1. I am not dismissing what the Bible teaches as irrelevant. It is actually very relevant because a sizable majority of opponents of marriage equality base their opposition purely in this book.
2. What about other fundamentalist/extremist churches? Isn't it wrong to dismiss fundamental Christianity as irrelevant?

I'll leave the response to the other part of our discussion to a later time.

 

[dan964]

21st century [protestant] Christianity is very pretty. The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin. It clearly says sinners will go to Hell unless they [accept Jesus as their saviour and] repent and by repentance the Bible means a 180 degree turn. Applying this principle, homosexuals will go to Hell unless they [accept Jesus as their saviour,] repent and go hetero both in practice and in their mind.

It is the height of apologetics to say that you can be a believer in Christ and have no issue with being gay at the same time. You cannot be gay and claim that you walk with Jesus. Of course, you may claim that believing and having trust in Jesus changes your heart and your decisions but that's just another ugly truth that is disguised as a pretty concept. It it the truth that in order to be Christian, you have to change.

Rather than being you have to change, it is more that it will change. And it doesn't necessarily mean that people with SSA will lose it for instance. I don't think you understand repentance, but thats okay, its not expected.
Repentance has to do with the attitude towards it. what you find, is that rather than magically becoming heterosexuals, same-sex attracted people don't seek to define themselves by their SSA (it is viewed as temptation not as actually wrong btw).

I will note: with the term "gay", what you do think does it actually mean? Does it mean that one has SSA, or does it mean something else? How do you use it?

1. I am not dismissing what the Bible teaches as irrelevant. It is actually very relevant because a sizable majority of opponents of marriage equality base their opposition purely in this book.
2. What about other fundamentalist/extremist churches? Isn't it wrong to dismiss fundamental Christianity as irrelevant?

I'll leave the response to the other part of our discussion to a later time.

wrt (2): Westboro church is not the only church, there are others, it is just an example to describe what I mean.

wrt (1): you actually misunderstand what I was getting at; It wasn't addressed to you
I was kind of looking at two extreme views within Christianity on the issue, I understand you would differ as someone who I guess would be non-religious, so I cannot expect you to agree with that; so don't expect it to be directly at you, unless you consider yourself a liberal Christian who does do that (not all fit into these ends).

 

[dan964]

Anyway, I have already stated my opinion on the whole thing earlier.
No need to state anything more...

I think the issue at hand is what actually is marriage, not whether homosexuality (however you categorise or break down it), is legal, moral or not.