Sex restricted to purely after marriage smells like one of those things a society that recognizes that women raising children alone leads to a worse outcome to having two adults to fund, raise and care for a child would be promoting.So pre marital sex is an aberration too then is it?
I'm glad to hear they are free of political influence and found the naturally occurring pathology of homosexuality, as they did with gender dysphoria recently too.The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1973.
Pretty obvious I would have thought.
Well you thought it was pretty obvious that the Paul Murray I quoted from earlier in the thread was a flog and then accused him of other things until you found out that the Paul Murray I quoted was different to the Paul Murray you had in mind.
When did you choose to be heterosexual?In your opinion.
The bible can be used to justify race based discrimination just as easily as that based on discrimination. Discrimination against homosexuals seems to be more socially acceptable, for now at least.He didn't say that though. They are your words.
Yes I'm sure. Scientific studies have shown that sexuality has a biological basis.Are you sure? You are probably of the opinion that people are sexual automatons with no power of choice over their sexual behaviour. I disagree. I think it's definitely more of a choice than being born black. Many "gays" probably pander to society's prevailing view that they were "born that way" and "can't help it" but many others are more courageous and tell a much different story. They unashamedly and categorically affirm that for them it IS a choice.
Quoting from your link, saying "Hunger may be biological, but eating M&Ms is a choice".
Not at all. Few people with any sense thought that a complex sociobiological aspect like sexuality could be factored down to a single gene.If you're referring to a gay gene that was debunked years ago.
You can GAGF as far as I'm concerned.
Some would call it a moral choice to reject the bible. Each to their own, huh?Getting back to Folau I don't think he was very tactful in what he did but it was still better than what the progessive elements in the church do. They welcome those who see themselves as 'born that way' and pat them on the back telling them what they want to hear. By preaching tolerance of homosexual behaviour they think they are loving the homosexual. They twist scripture and use warped logic to categorise such behaviour as normal. In reality they deumanize homosexuals, portraying them as mere animals, unable to resist their 'natural' desires. This removes moral responsibilty from them belying the fact that according to the Bible they supposedly believe in, we are all created in the image of God, with the power to make moral choices.
I suppose it's a reflection of how much society has changed in that large elements of it now view the Christian God as a prejudiced bigot for laying out boundaries for normal sexual behaviour and even more so for stridently warning us if we transgress those boundaries, we do so at our own cost (1 Cor 6:18).
Maybe one day society will move so far that it will come to believe there should be no real boundaries on sexual behaviour at all. Where will that leave us? What about people who feel like having sex with animals or young children? Will society come to believe them as being "born that way" and not to be condemned for just pursuing their 'natural' inclinations? Hopefully not.
Given that Australia isn't a theocracy, your ideas about morality don't have much relevance here in 2019.I didn't equate them at all. Read what I wrote again. I questioned whether we will reach a point where such people are not condemned and are instead viewed as just pawns of their biology without the power of making a moral choice.
If you wanted to, could you choose to look at the hairy starfish of another man and be enticed to eat of that delicious fruit?Where do you get 'hundreds of hours' from. Comprehension and maths obviously not a strong suit. Most of them are from here http://www.queerbychoice.com/
That was a site I was directed to years ago when I thought the same way as you and challenged someone to direct me to a single instance of someone choosing to be gay. Each snippet takes less than a minute to read.
Artciles? I haven't looked for or posted any articles.
The same person who directed me to that website years ago also challenged me to match the number of people who have explicitly said they chose, with an equal number that have explicitly said choice played no role or they were 'born that way'. I lost the challenge because I hardly found any. Hence why my outlook on the issue changed. Unlike some others I have no problem changing my view regardless of my presuppositions.