Same Sex Marriage Plebecite Discussion

Same Sex Marriage has become very topical and pretty hotly debated but aside from the usual up front "Are you for or against?" line designed to knock people off the fence and choose a side, what about the side issues. Yes the side issues that exist for those of any leaning.

General answer is, its as Senator Richard DiNatale said, currently its a denial of a fundamental human right. To put it more accurately, from the Greens website "The Greens believe that freedom of sexuality and gender identity are fundamental human rights"
Well they probably, quite genuinely & honestly do believe that, but strangely from a Biblical point of view, they're quite right. You DO get to choose. You may be denied human rights but Scripture is clear, we choose to follow God's Word or break it. So actually, the only denial a person faces is via the law of the land.  At present if you identify as Same Sex Attraction oriented, you're good to go, no long wagon train to a concentration camp. Your persecution really exists as not being able to be legally married as Men & Women have since laws became laws in Australia. In fact if you look closely DiNatale gives the impression you are denied a human right by not having the freedom to identify sexuality & gender. No such denial exists. You are denied the legal process of a legal marriage though.

For most of us, what people do, chose to do is their own business. But the REAL issue is can a same sex couple marry? Currently no but is it a human rights violation? No one has tested that but currently the answer is no. In Richard Di Natale's (and the Greens) case its a recognised fundamental human right...well if so how so, please present the standard by which you make the claim.

If we look to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, go to Article 16 it states...

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

No mention or inference nor clear cut clarity on Same Sex Marriage. You can argue "Men and women" means mixed gender marriage or it means both genders have the right to marry any gender but it doesn't say anything like that. In 1948 I'd suggest it was not the latter that was intended. Irrespective there is no clear case that denying SSM is a fundamental human rights issue. If you think it is, you should change the standard before making the claim.

If the Greens truly maintain that view then things will go awry when SSM is actually passed as law in Australia. How, why?
Its then possible for a same sex couple to approach a priest and ask the priest to perform the ceremony, to be married by him in his church. Now according to Di Natale's current claim that being unable to be Same Sex Married is indeed a denied "fundamental human right", the priest can be reported for refusing to marry same sex couples because he is effectively committing a human rights violation against the intending couple. Even if the priest/pastor is following their own Scriptures.

Yep I know, the argument will begin, but here's the thing human rights apply to humans, governments & groups. You cannot have a government denying human rights (by denying SSM) without a priest denying it if he denies to marry a couple when SSM becomes law.
A priest can deny human rights, but a whole country cannot?

Silliness. Dizzy yet?

Whether you support or oppose SSM, you cannot legitimately agree that DiNatale's "fundamental human right" is a legitimate argument when it fails intellectually flat. Say its unfair, or its get with the times or whatever else, but its not a Human Rights Violation.

Slavery, torture, murder, forced marriages, marriages of under age people, rape, genocide, child soldiers and any number of other Human Rights Violations occur every day in immense numbers in a lot of countries. Its estimated that 40,000 female sex slaves are sold & smuggled into Japan every year. Sorry, although not our country, that's a bigger travesty than SSM on the Human Rights Abuses list. Religious, cultural and racial persecution. Real human rights violations. Greens utter silence compared to their loud voice on SSM. There is some validity for saying the Greens will always push for preservation of human rights, more so when Christianity gets placed second or gets placed outside. I've heard the argument that they're more accommodating of eastern religion than Christianity or Judaism and it does kinda look that way from time to time.

But aside from that, at least the priest isn't intellectually corrupt. He can claim that SSM or Same Sex relations are immoral. How? Well he has a Moral Law, handed to him from a transcendant moral law giver. He actually has, through proper in context exegesis of Christian Scriptures, the ability to cite a moral law given by a transcendent creator God with which to judge an action as being moral or immoral. He cannot judge or condemn the person though.

Oh but if you don't believe there is a God, morals are just evolutionary traits, designed to make the gathered group work together better and more safely thrive. Mighty good for the group, but not binding until a legal system comes along and even then not morally binding.

If it were the case that there is no God at all, Morals are useful, engender co-operative interaction but really aren't binding. Morals are just a preferred but non binding code of practise, a code of conduct.

In fact if we notice some cultures have some things being ok, whilst others its not. Cannibalism is and was quite ok with some cultures, it wasn't just morally ok, it was a spiritual imperative for self improvement. European culture has a different view, even without the European being in the pot cooking we observe to opposite cultures. We soon see that whilst some will call them cultural differences, or regional points of distinction, fact is they're different and for the atheist, they are all invented by humans over time. They are relative and they're only binding by whatever legal system is in place.

Meaning (if you're an honest atheist) in countries of the Middle East where SSM is not allowed under law, its cultural and/or regional, decided by the majority as a part of law. Some its a result of religion, but if you don't believe in God its not moral or immoral. Its the law and its based on cultural differences. In any case its relative, not universal as a Human Right is supposed to be. Keep it, break it, change it but its not a fundamental human right.

Headline of the future maybe...
"PASTOR IMPRISONED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"
because perhaps he stuck with his religion & refused to marry a Same Sex couple.
If we stick with the DiNatale line, a Priest/Pastor refusing to marry a SSM is breaching Human Rights. Strangely if a Priest/Pastor who is forced to marry SSM against their will, that has its own human rights violations problem. See Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."Come on Richard, support or oppose SSM. Support a Plebiscite or Act of Parliament, we really don't care, but apply rigor to your argument, keep it uncorrupted and cogent.

Now here's the thing, its bad enough that the SSM issue is an issue at all. Its somehow, in the mind of the Greens, leap frogged all other Human Rights Violations in priority even though SSM will affect less than 2% of the Australian population. How did an issue affecting so few, come to impact so many at potential a huge cost to the public purse?

The Courier Mail reported the Greens propose to decriminalise Ice & party drugs in general.
I think I could be forgiven for thinking the Greens have little credibility in areas of great harm and their moral compass has dead batteries.
Legal Ice is good, Illegal SSM a breach & violation of human rights. Yep, I got it.

Richard needs to get his act together or go harder so he is taken for the loud fool he is and therefore more readily dismissed by clear thinking Australian.

Now before you yell Intolerant Bigot at me, I haven't even said I support/oppose SSM.
But if you yell that you should first be reasonable about the dangerous absurdity of DiNatale's basis of claims and be well hoarse in the throat before you "GUESS" where I stand and make a condemning judgement. Maybe you need the wise council of a good pastor.

If that Pastor uses proper in context exegesis to explain his moral compass and you reject it, he might yet tell you not to follow Richard's themes because they're twisted and not actually human rights abuses as Richard claims. Remember just because you like something doesn't make it moral or ok.

Just because you don't like something or you're being denied something, you should not use emotional leverage like citing Human Rights to bolster your otherwise bland and lacking argument.

Richard, stop the tricky dicky. Prosecute your position with proper reason please.

Bigotry, how hard is it to define?

Bigotry - based on ignorance, its drives a dogma on, despite data or facts...well that's my view at least. First person to yell bigot somehow isn't a bigot somehow. Its a debate closer. Any discussion on feminism that goes places with full sunlight to search out more facts can from some people urge the yelling of "Sexist pig". Other debates "Capitalist dog", "Agrarian Socialist", "Lazy Bludger scum" "Scab". The derogatory name tag of unfair bias, immoral hypocrite etc is meant as a convenient shut down button to discourse and free thinking by the plain dim witted. Its using bias to shut the differing opinion.

Radical vegans will call hunters "Murderers" and dairy workers "rapists"

Its a bizarre Year 3 logic tanty tactic that's slowly taking over & taps into people's fear of being branded "offensive"...the bigot is the offensive bigot therefore they are to be railed, ridiculed and prevented from exploring anything on the subject.

Now this came up in a twitter feed of a well known, very well regarded Journo. I don't always agree with him, but he challenges people's thinking, challenges mine. He's been accused of being a Liberal Stooge & a Labor Stooge. How that works I don't know but it works in his favour as far as journalistic credentials. Badge of honour whether he know, cares or not.
So even though we disagree from time to time, I hold him in some high regard.

Now on his feed the topic of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) came up. This journo's only comments were about where we'd be in years to come looking at the plebiscite. He made no comment about Christians, but another person in the feed did. The journo did well not to get drawn in.

But I did.

In short, genuine Christians would not shave beards & would avoid shell fish if they were true genuine Christians. The premise is "times have changed" and you should never cherry pick some things to be ok for change. Its all or nothing. If you prefer to be clean shaven or decide its ok to chow down on prawns, crays or yabbies you must also be ok with SSM. Its about being consistent

Extended, if shaving is ok then so too is eating shell fish or having a same sex relationship because all Leviticus must either be maintained or dismissed.

Here's where it runs aground badly.

The shaving, shell fish thing, that's Levitical/Mosaic Law. It was still in effect when Christ was born, lived and even as He died, but when He became the New Covenant it was already gone. It stayed on in practice, but as far as God & Christ were concerned, it passed away before Christ did. So its not in effect today so no one has to feel the need to avoid shell fish or never shave.

Christ was clear, what comes out of the mouth is what defiles a man, not what he eats.

Secondly, Levitical & Mosaic Law ONLY applied to the Hebrews, not Gentiles then nor Christians at anytime. Using it now as some sort of twisted leverage device to allow Same Sex Relations within God's Word is wrong. 100% Scripturally wrong. 100% False Exegesis.

When the Temple was destroyed, around 78AD, it was definitely 100% gone for Jews as well.

Then up comes the clobber clause, which says in Luke 7:1-10 that the centurion came to Christ to get his "slave" healed, which Christ did. The claim is that in the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, the word slave should be replaced with the word "lover" because in the Greek it uses the word "pais" which translates to lover.

The contention is, the sick servant on the edge of death was the centurion's same sex lover. True or not we don't know, but this is held up as Christ being quite ok with Same Sex Relationships.

Thing is, it doesn't.

What it says is Christ will be there for anyone wanting to be saved. None of us are worthy, all of us are sinners. That no matter who you are, you cannot get into Heaven without Christ. The Bible is clear that forgiveness is there for anyone who genuinely asks for it, even murderers, thieves and adulterers.

So yes, Christ being Christ he healed the "slave" without even seeing him.

So why mention this slave being healed at all? He saved a centurion's servant but what's the big deal, what's the big point, why is it so relevant?
Christ referred to the centurion as having the greatest faith in Israel. It has to be more than that.
Its possible the slave and the centurion were lovers & this is showing even people on the widest extremes of sinning have a chance of salvation & redemption. After all the Scriptures describe homosexuality as an "abomination" before God. He Hates it.

If the centurion had the greatest faith in Israel, its most likely he was no longer in a homosexual relationship with the slave. He called Christ "Rabbi", he was clearly a follower of Christ so its not hard to think God was showing that any sinner, even those guilty of "abomination" before God could, if they asked, be saved. Christ didn't do things for the sake of doing things. There was meaning and instruction involved.

Levitical & Mosaic Laws were gone, but God's Law was not. If it was an abomination before God in the beginning, it still is today as it was when Christ walked the earth.

The thing that some people don't get, can't answer and don't like being pointed out to them is this...

If God has changed His mind and is now perfectly ok with homosexuality well he's going to have to apologise to everyone from Sodom & Gomorrah. At no point did He say someone is devoid of hope or salvation. Those that aren't saved are those who don't ask for it. Its become this "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach that spells it out most eloquently. If there was a same sex turn around by God or Christ, it has huge implications and would not have stayed as something that's inferred , it would be clearly spelt out. It is not because that's not how it is.

Here's another very clear comparison. Christ saved a prostitute from being stoned to death, he didn't do that to say young school leavers today, short of a few dollars, are now ok to enter into the sex trade.

Now if you're pushing a doctrine that's based on ignorance you can call it bigotry. The doctrine of twisting Scripture you don't believe in nor understand to somehow call Christians "bigots" is sadly full blown bigotry itself.

If I could I'd challenge this Scripture twisters to the simplest of tests, a simple question.
How many wise men visited Jesus in the manger?

Now I bet London to a brick, that despite all the nativity plays at school, despite all the nativity scenes on Christmas cards and in shop windows most would get it wrong...

Maybe not always. Some will get it right after cohorts get it thoroughly wrong and are embarrassed.
But regardless if they're relying on Shell fish & beard arguments to somehow undermine Christians as hypocrites they're going to come unstuck...or they'll continue along falsely believing that which isn't so and deceiving others who are not sure.

I think ALL humans are hypocritical. Moral high ground has few if any full time residents and generally those who think they possess it the most, probably possess it the least.

If you're game, go to the comment section below & say how many wise men you think visited Jesus in the manger. Just a number will do or if you're a more private person PM/Email me a number. No prize or penalty.

And you won't get called Bigot ;-)