Same Sex Marriage Debate (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

Homosexuality was illegal for considerable periods of time. It was not decriminalised in New South Wales until around 1983 or 1984. Incest is still unlawful. That the situations are different and not directly comparable is a matter of fact.

Yes dumb dumb, but we're talking about the situation of same sex marriage being legalised.

It is interesting that your null hypothesis is that LGBTQIA+ individuals are different in their range of views / feelings from the straight community. I would think that the logical null hypothesis is that we are all part of the same spectrum of typical human views.

You made a specific, positive claim. You didn't say 'there's no reason to think that LGTBQFDG people have different views than straight people". You said "their views aren't different".

After all, homosexuality and bisexuality, etc, are part of the "normal" range of human sexual behaviour.

If homosexuality is "normal" sexual behavior then you're using "normal" in a totally meaningless way. The vast majority of people are not homosexual. Homosexuals have a minority sexuality, so its not inherently wrong to think their mean views on topics related to sexuality may be different.

Where is your empirical evidence to support adopting a null hypothesis that we are different.

You: "Homosexuals' views aren't different!"
Me: "Do you have evidence for that?"
You: "Where's your evidence its not true????"

Actually, that sort of religious conclusion is a learned response.

It is not a religious conclusion. It's a true conclusion. Allah created this way because it is sinful.

 

[stressedadfff]

It is not a religious conclusion. It's a true conclusion. Allah created this way because it is sinful.
[/QUOTE]
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

 

[Queenroot]

It is not a religious conclusion. It's a true conclusion. Allah created this way because it is sinful.

nice

 

[CM_Tutor]

If homosexuality is "normal" sexual behavior then you're using "normal" in a totally meaningless way. The vast majority of people are not homosexual.

"Normal" does not mean majoritarian, it means within the range of average / typical. A few sources on homosexuality as natural and normal...

American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/orientation.pdf and with red colouring and bolding emphases added. Emphasis in heading (including colour) retained from original.

Is homosexuality a mental disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder

Background Note: Sexual Identity and Behaviour. Western Australia Department of Health. Retrieved from https://gdhr.wa.gov.au/c/portal/jou...e=Sexual identity and behaviour&extension=pdf and with red colouring and bolding emphasis added. Emphasis in heading (including colour) retained from original.

Overview
The diversity of human sexual behaviour has been researched and documented over many years. A range of theories offer explanations about ‘heterosexuality’ being viewed as the 'norm' and how other types of sexuality can often be interpreted by some as not 'normal'. However homosexual, bisexual, asexual and transgender people exist across all cultures, social groups, occupations and educational backgrounds. The fact that people with a variety of sexual orientations are in all communities demonstrates that the presence of sexual diversity is in fact ‘normal’.

Sheila Mysorekar, Sheila (August 1, 2019). Homosexuality is not a disease. D+C Newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/world-health-organization-considers-homosexuality-normal-behaviour with bolding as in original but red colouration added for emphasis

The stigmatisation and discrimination of gay people may lead to mental-health problems – but homosexuality in itself is not a mental-health problem. That is the scientific consensus and endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO).

A large body of scientific evidence indicates that being LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersexual) is completely compatible with a normal and healthy life. Clinical literature shows that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behaviours are sound. They are perfectly acceptable variations of human sexuality.

LGBT - Health and Natural Variations of Human Sexuality. World Medical Association. Retrieved from https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/human-rights/lgbt/ and with emphasis asses.

A large body of scientific research indicates that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality without any intrinsically harmful health effects. Direct and indirect discrimination, stigmatisation, peer rejection and bullying continue to have a serious impact on the psychological and physical health of people within the LGBT community.

 

[SylviaB]

"Normal" does not mean majoritarian, it means within the range of average / typical.

Except the average is heterosexual. It's the opposite of what the typical person is.

Overview
The diversity of human sexual behaviour has been researched and documented over many years. A range of theories offer explanations about ‘heterosexuality’ being viewed as the 'norm'

Of course it's "the norm" because that's how we've evolved. Men have penises for having sex with women and impregnating them.

and how other types of sexuality can often be interpreted by some as not 'normal'. However homosexual, bisexual, asexual and transgender people exist across all cultures, social groups, occupations and educational backgrounds.

Okay, so? This literally describes any number of physical and mental disorders. I'm not saying homosexuality is a disorder, but the existence of a trait across different groups doesn't mean something isn't a disorder.

Also, just to be clear, the APA making a declaration about something does NOT mean this is the academic consensus on the topic. The APA are under no obligation to align their positions with what the literature says. This is ESPECIALLY true of government departments.

A large body of scientific evidence indicates that being LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersexual) is completely compatible with a normal and healthy life.

Again, not the same as it being "normal".

Clinical literature shows that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings and behaviours are sound.

This is a meaningless sentence.

They are perfectly acceptable variations of human sexuality.

There is nothing scientific about this sentence. What does "acceptable" mean? By what standard? According to whom?

A large body of scientific research indicates that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality without any intrinsically harmful health effects.

"Natural" doesn't mean normal. And the naturalness is not that clear considering that the heritability of homosexuality is significantly below 100%.[/QUOTE]

 

[dan964]

@Drdusk, granting marriage rights to non-heterosexual couples is about extending rights granted to the majority to a minority as a part of achieving equality under the law.

Incest is not lawful for any couples so the situations are not directly comparable. And, placing the together invites comparisons between them, which the LGBTQIA+ community really doesn't need (or deserve). In fact, making the comparison appears to strengthen the fallacious "slippery slope" argument made against SSM. Members of the LGBTQIA+ community are share the same range of views / feelings as the straight community. I do not think it likely that they (or any other substantial group in society) will be arguing for legalising incest, polygamy / bigamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or any other extreme fringe belief that are held by very few in our society.


I know that some feel disgust about homosexual activity, and I hope that your comment was directed at your opinion of incest rather than both incest and homosexuality... but the ambiguity in the wording permits an interpretation that equates the two.

Equality isn't neccessarily 'do what you want as long as it's the one option I like'. I would rather say it's allowing people (within reason) to choose what option they want. It really depends how you're defining it.

Firstly, to add my comments on the 'slippery slope'. I don't think incest is the next rung, because relatively speaking incest won't really take off is because its relatively rare compared to homosexuality. The next battle if you like is on what it termed religious 'discrimination' or another battle is that on transgender 'rights'.

I don't think equal opportunity is the main issue though, because your choice of sexual partners (with exception to incest/pedophilia/bigamy) has not be restricted for at about 30 years in Australia. Nowadays 'equality' seems to be mainly about empowerment, usually of an oppressed/suppressed minority; we see similar for e.g. in the black lives matter movement for instance; or the #metoo movement.

The main concern is a new orthodoxy that ironically silences or suppresses any dissenting views. Take for instance the new laws in Victoria against conversion therapy. While outlawing conversion therapy is good intent, the law is so broad it can open up for instances where a pastor encouraging a gay person to be celibate as being illegal. This is highly problematic and a overreach.

It almost like 'equality' it appears they want homosexuality to be considered the same as 'heterosexuality' in every way aside for obvious natural and psychological reasons that they are not the same (for similar reasons that a man is not the same as a women). (But in practice, its almost like they want 'homosexuality' and 'queerness' to be more normal then 'heterosexual').

We had mardi gras, wear it purple day, idahobit, pride month; its not about 'equality' I think, its about stopping 'oppression', which apparently includes silencing those who disagree and a new orthodoxy. That is the actual slippery slope, and even 3 years on, it does feel 'we did say this would happen' moment. In order for the ideaology to have momentum, now with gay marriage legal, LGQBTIQ people (especially transgenderism) still are the 'oppressed' so they need more empowerment (meaning more rights).; so that if you are not celebrating or proud of it, you are somehow hateful and bigoted???

 

[dan964]

It is interesting that your null hypothesis is that LGBTQIA+ individuals are different in their range of views / feelings from the straight community. I would think that the logical null hypothesis is that we are all part of the same spectrum of typical human views. After all, homosexuality and bisexuality, etc, are part of the "normal" range of human sexual behaviour. Where is your empirical evidence to support adopting a null hypothesis that we are different.

Putting aside the obvious that the actual physical acts are different. A lot of the differences are because of differences in gender/sex of the people involved in the relationship*

For e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541985

Two men interacting sexually is different from say a man interacting with a women, because psychologically and physically a man is different to a woman; and there is good evidence for that e.g. differences in brain structure.

And even then you have also stereotypes, and culture, and how that affects perception, ideals and even behaviour.

And thirdly, there is the 'oppression' narrative, you cannot be proud as a heterosexual, but you can as a homosexual, or bisexual or queer person because you have a history of being 'oppressed'. Gay culture is a thing, don't believe me, look at the Mardi Gras parade. That is part of the culture.

 

[CM_Tutor]

I t is interesting that your null hypothesis is that LGBTQIA+ individuals are different in their range of views / feelings from the straight community. I would think that the logical null hypothesis is that we are all part of the same spectrum of typical human views. After all, homosexuality and bisexuality, etc, are part of the "normal" range of human sexual behaviour. Where is your empirical evidence to support adopting a null hypothesis that we are different.

Putting aside the obvious that the actual physical acts are different. A lot of the differences are because of differences in gender/sex of the people involved in the relationship*

For e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541985

Two men interacting sexually is different from say a man interacting with a women, because psychologically and physically a man is different to a woman; and there is good evidence for that e.g. differences in brain structure.

And even then you have also stereotypes, and culture, and how that affects perception, ideals and even behaviour.

And thirdly, there is the 'oppression' narrative, you cannot be proud as a heterosexual, but you can as a homosexual, or bisexual or queer person because you have a history of being 'oppressed'. Gay culture is a thing, don't believe me, look at the Mardi Gras parade. That is part of the culture.

I was comparing the range of attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values held be members of the LGBTQIA+ community and the heterosexual community. I was noting that there is no obvious reason why the two groups would differ in (say) feelings about incest or opinions about some topic or likelihood of speeding while driving or whatever. Similarly, if I was studying genetic predisposition to cancer, I would start from the assumption that it is uniform amongst humans and not assume that gays or straights or Asians or Brazilians or tall or short people would differ. I'd be open to empirical evidence that there were some group differences, but I'd start with a default that there aren't. Now, obviously there are differences in sexual behaviour when comparing groups with different sexual orientations - I mean, if a study of sexual activities of gay and straight men reported statistically indistinguishable levels of penetrative vaginal intercourse, I would have serious doubts about the methodology or data collection. However, this wasn't the kind of difference that was being discussed when I made the above-quoted comment.

Without reading the article in full, I can't comment on the link that you provided, but the abstract raises questions for me about the childhood ages that are being recalled. Young children (under 6, say) engage in activities that can be stereotypically classed as male or female without it being anything about gender identity. They typically enjoy dressing up and taking on roles that are both cis- and trans-gendered, but again without it having any meaning as far as identity goes. Young children learn in part through imitation, re-enacting what they have seen and experiencing diverse roles as part of understanding and making sense of the world. A young boy putting on a dress and adopting a female role in an imaginary play scenario is not expressing a transgender identity nor questioning his masculinity - he is simply exploring an aspect of society. Some parents worry that such behaviour indicates some latent tendency towards a non-cisgendered heterosexual identity, but they are projecting a sexualised view of play onto a scenario where sexual orientation and gender identity are well beyond the boundaries of the actual activity taking place. Consequently, I have some major doubts about the paper linked based on the abstract, though it may be a perfectly reasonable piece of work.

As for your third point, I think your statement that "you cannot be proud as a heterosexual" is both inaccurate and hyperbolic. Our society does not lack for heterosexual individuals and couples who enjoy broadcasting their sexual identity and clearly rejoicing in their roles. At one level, there are the celebrities who revel in being famous for their attractiveness and high profile relationships. Then, there are the bigots who decry homosexuals as disgusting and perverted and who evidently take great pride in their (frequently misogynistic) objectification of members of the opposite sex. At another (and much more benign) level, there are countless recent parents who joyfully introduce their new baby to friends and family, bursting with pride in their new child and proclaiming (even if not directly / overtly) their heterosexuality and evidently active sexual lives.

Heterosexuals rarely need to declare their sexuality as it is the default assumption given that most people are straight. However, it also means that the lived experience of LGBTQIA+ individuals is beyond their experience and thus it is difficult to truly appreciate the experience of being in a minority. It is like a white person telling a person of colour that they understand what it is like to experience racism - they may be well-intentioned, well-educated, insightful and empathetic, but they will struggle to fully understand the perspective of living with others judging you based on race.

And, sadly, much anti-LGBTQIA+ prejudice is religiously derived / inspired and involves demands that non-religious people conform to the beliefs and demands of religious people. The present trend for those with religious beliefs to see themselves as victims when they have actually been imposing their values and been the source of prejudice, rather than its target, is both unreasonable and unhelpful. Moves towards equality of treatment under the law are wrongly treated as examples of zero-sum games, where one group's gains must be balanced by another group's losses, and yet decriminalising LGBTQIA+ sexual behaviour does not diminish the straight community (whose rights are unchanged) in any way. Religious groups and the straight community are not oppressed, they are not under attack, they are not victims of discrimination. The Mardi Gras is not any kind of threat to you, nor is it evidence of diminished rights of the straight or religious (or any other) community.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Firstly, to add my comments on the 'slippery slope'. I don't think incest is the next rung, because relatively speaking incest won't really take off is because its relatively rare compared to homosexuality. The next battle if you like is on what it termed religious 'discrimination' or another battle is that on transgender 'rights'.

People of faith are not the targets of discrimination, nor are their rights to hold their beliefs or practice their religion under threat.

I don't think equal opportunity is the main issue though, because your choice of sexual partners (with exception to incest/pedophilia/bigamy) has not be restricted for at about 30 years in Australia. Nowadays 'equality' seems to be mainly about empowerment, usually of an oppressed/suppressed minority; we see similar for e.g. in the black lives matter movement for instance; or the #metoo movement.

What leads you to feel threatened or the target of discrimination in the legalisation of same sex relationships, or in trying to reduce the instances of disproportionate incarceration, mistreatment, and premature death in the black / Aboriginal communities? What is threatening about trying to reduce mistreatment and abuse of women to anyone who is not engaging in those behaviours?

The main concern is a new orthodoxy that ironically silences or suppresses any dissenting views. Take for instance the new laws in Victoria against conversion therapy. While outlawing conversion therapy is good intent, the law is so broad it can open up for instances where a pastor encouraging a gay person to be celibate as being illegal. This is highly problematic and a overreach.

So, a law that may have problems in its drafting is seen as silencing or suppressing views that see homosexuality as harmful (it isn't), aberrant (it isn't), something that can and should be changed (it can't), and seeking to promote and potentially profit from a practice that is demonstrably harmful, ineffective, and unethical (according to peak bodies dealing with medicine, psychology, and psychiatry) should not be discouraged? We take steps to prevent and even prosecute snake oil salesmen selling bleach as a cure for COVID - is that protecting society or silencing / suppressing an alternative view that is provably false on medical and scientific grounds?

It almost like 'equality' it appears they want homosexuality to be considered the same as 'heterosexuality' in every way aside for obvious natural and psychological reasons that they are not the same (for similar reasons that a man is not the same as a women). (But in practice, its almost like they want 'homosexuality' and 'queerness' to be more normal then 'heterosexual').

Homosexuality, queerness, transgenderism, none of these are abnormal and we are (as a society) slowly internalising this fact and dealing with the consequences of older inaccurate / mistaken beliefs. Why do you see that as diminishing the straight majority? Why does a gain for group A need to be a loss for Group B?

We had mardi gras, wear it purple day, idahobit, pride month; its not about 'equality' I think, its about stopping 'oppression', which apparently includes silencing those who disagree and a new orthodoxy. That is the actual slippery slope, and even 3 years on, it does feel 'we did say this would happen' moment. In order for the ideaology to have momentum, now with gay marriage legal, LGQBTIQ people (especially transgenderism) still are the 'oppressed' so they need more empowerment (meaning more rights).; so that if you are not celebrating or proud of it, you are somehow hateful and bigoted???

Stopping the oppression of group A is not inherently taking something from group B, unless it is taking away the ability / right to oppress. And, I don't see how the religious communities are being silenced. They retain exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, can fire a teacher for expression any view out of line with doctrine on sexuality, can expel students for being gay. How does this make you feel silenced and oppressed?

 

[dan964]

I was comparing the range of attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values held be members of the LGBTQIA+ community and the heterosexual community. I was noting that there is no obvious reason why the two groups would differ in (say) feelings about incest or opinions about some topic or likelihood of speeding while driving or whatever. Similarly, if I was studying genetic predisposition to cancer, I would start from the assumption that it is uniform amongst humans and not assume that gays or straights or Asians or Brazilians or tall or short people would differ. I'd be open to empirical evidence that there were some group differences, but I'd start with a default that there aren't. Now, obviously there are differences in sexual behaviour when comparing groups with different sexual orientations - I mean, if a study of sexual activities of gay and straight men reported statistically indistinguishable levels of penetrative vaginal intercourse, I would have serious doubts about the methodology or data collection. However, this wasn't the kind of difference that was being discussed when I made the above-quoted comment.

No of course, I agree with you on generalities on views on those issues held by the different groups.
I interpreted your comment particular the 'feelings' aspect in a particular way - it is worth noting that the same opinion can be formed by people with different experiences.

At another (and much more benign) level, there are countless recent parents who joyfully introduce their new baby to friends and family, bursting with pride in their new child and proclaiming (even if not directly / overtly) their heterosexuality and evidently active sexual lives.

I would disagree with you on this point [that parents introduce a new child] because you yourself not it is not a overt or direct proclamation of celebration of heterosexuality like say Mardi Gras. I also was more commenting on the specific and overt nature of 'gay pride' as well. Your other examples are valid, as I agree that in the media sexuality as a whole is kind of flaunted.

Heterosexuals rarely need to declare their sexuality as it is the default assumption given that most people are straight.

(I think it is important to clarify disgust at a particular sexual activity does not qualify one as a bigot)
I was as you did, Often the comparison has been made whether helpful or not, between the LGBTIQ community and the black community and the notion of 'oppression'. It is seen as good and celebrated things such as 'black pride' or 'gay pride'; but if you as a white person or heterosexual pride, it is decried as 'racism' or 'objectification' etc etc. It is not that heterosexuals aren't proud but that it appears it is not ok for a heterosexual person to be proud. It has become a new morality of sorts. It was more a comment that 'equality' does mean what people think it does; that it is about this 'empowerment', and my argument is that yes it is good to end abhorrent medical practices, it tends towards I think an overcorrection imho.

And, sadly, much anti-LGBTQIA+ prejudice is religiously derived / inspired and involves demands that non-religious people conform to the beliefs and demands of religious people. The present trend for those with religious beliefs to see themselves as victims when they have actually been imposing their values and been the source of prejudice, rather than its target, is both unreasonable and unhelpful.

I think you do well misrepresenting a lot of religious people with that very broad brush strokes, both their intents and what we've been actually saying. Most of the people who voted 'no' were conservative thinkers, who wanted to preserve the good in the existing traditions and culture of our society; some of that borrowed (or corrupted even) from Christian traditions. But again that doesn't mean if you are conservative you are necessarily bigoted either.
The most obviously example of bigotry on this thread, SylviaB, for instance, is hardly religiously motivated (although I've noticed his mocking of Islamic arguments shows his distaste towards religion) - as he is thoroughly anti-religion.

demands that non-religious people conform to the beliefs and demands of religious people

I addressed this kind of comment before as inaccurate at best, and perhaps even false nowadays. Simply expressing a view of what is best for society which may be based on a religious understanding of say marriage (to bring it back to the thread question) should not be seen 'as demanding that non-religious conform to the beliefs and demands of religious people'.

I think your quote is heavily loaded (It probably more represents how you see religion as well), simply disagreeing that same sex marriage should have been legalised does not amount to prejudice or harm. Sure, conversion electroshock therapy yes, bullying in the playground for being queer, yes. But believing that God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman (which puts you at odds with culture anyways) apparently is harmful?

At least what I've seen, this is generally not the case, and nowadays the opposite is true. A Christian baker is expected to bake a cake for a gay wedding even though they disagree (as a conscious matter) but mean no ill. and there are countless examples as such. What we see is a double standard! Sure it doesn't amount to the persecution that Christians face at the hand of extremist Muslims or Buddhists, or the persecution that Muslims face at the hands of the CCP.

Moves towards equality of treatment under the law are wrongly treated as examples of zero-sum games, where one group's gains must be balanced by another group's losses

, and yet decriminalising LGBTQIA+ sexual behaviour does not diminish the straight community (whose rights are unchanged) in any way.

Except this is not we are arguing or debating since homosexual behaviour has been decriminalised since 1984 in NSW.

Religious groups and the straight community are not oppressed, they are not under attack, they are not victims of discrimination. The Mardi Gras is not any kind of threat to you, nor is it evidence of diminished rights of the straight or religious (or any other) community.

Mardi Gras is a mute point; I generally avoid it as it is overt display of sexuality. (I was more commenting on again the need to overbalance or almost 'over-recognise').

In Australia, religious groups as a whole, not yet. Religious individuals in particular settings, sometimes, and that has already seen a flurry of court cases. But the direction is troubling, consider for instance the 2020 bill "Conversion Therapy Bill' is for instance broad enough that it could (although it hasn't) yet to target or limit Christian behaviour such as even encouraging abstinence: https://lawandreligionaustralia.blo...on-about-victorian-conversion-practices-bill/

 

[dan964]

People of faith are not the targets of discrimination, nor are their rights to hold their beliefs or practice their religion under threat.

It is ignorant to say that religious discrimination doesn't exist. Although I agree the right to hold their beliefs is under threat (yet).
But the actual point I was making is that LGBTIQ have all their legal rights, their next challenge to remove the 'oppressors' aka religious people.
So it is a not yet.

What leads you to feel threatened or the target of discrimination in the legalisation of same sex relationships, or in trying to reduce the instances of disproportionate incarceration, mistreatment, and premature death in the black / Aboriginal communities? What is threatening about trying to reduce mistreatment and abuse of women to anyone who is not engaging in those behaviours?

Ok this assumes a lot. It was not the point I was making, I was merely pointing out that 'equality' does not mean equality; it means empowerment of an oppressed group of people. Its not a helpful comparison to assume that opposition to same sex marriage means one is not opposed to disproportionate treatment in Indigenous communities or notopposed to family/domestic violence.

It is an ideological struggle because:

(1) it contains an explanatory theory of a more or less comprehensive kind about human experience and the external world;
(2) it sets out a program, in generalized and abstract terms, of social and political organization;
(3) it conceives the realization of this program as entailing a struggle [oppression/discrimination];
(4) it seeks not merely to persuade but to recruit loyal adherents, demanding what is sometimes called commitment;
(5) it addresses a wide public but may tend to confer some special role of leadership on intellectuals.
[or in this case those with the shared experience]

It is the social organisation/programme that the particular ideology (LGBTIQ) that is the main reason I reckon most (sensible) people voted 'no'*.
You don't have to agree with the ideology that promotes it, to say that mistreatment or bullying or abuse is wrong.
(* what I mean is not everyone who voted no was sensible)

So, a law that may have problems in its drafting is seen as silencing or suppressing views that see homosexuality as harmful (it isn't), aberrant (it isn't), something that can and should be changed (it can't)

"This definition captures a range of conduct, including:… A person going to a religious leader seeking advice on their feelings of same-sex attraction, and the religious leader telling them they are broken and should live a celibate life for the purpose of changing or suppressing their same-sex attraction. While some religious practices may meet the definition of change or suppression practice in certain circumstances, the definition has been carefully crafted, and is not designed to capture all religious practices or teachings or to prevent people seeking religious counsel.

For example, the definition of a change or suppression practice would not capture conduct where, for example, a person goes to a religious leader seeking advice on their feelings of same-sex attraction, and the religious leader only informs this person that they consider such feelings to be contrary to the teachings of their faith, and does so only to convey their interpretation of those teachings and not to change or suppress the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity…"
Second Reading Speech, Legislative Assembly Hansard 26 Nov 2020, p 21

This is a really fine line here. As I said before the law can be used to perhaps argue that it is illegal for a pastor to encourage a congregation member who is same sex attracted to be celibate (because apparently that is 'suppression'). The expectation and the direction that legislation is going to build on that in the future (in particular anti-vilification legislation) suggest that is what might be the result (although we may not quite get to that point). You will find that I personally, as many Christians are, am against conversion therapy such as electroshock therapy and aversion therapy; and I've addressed that on page 22 in earlier comments with you on this matter.

Homosexuality, queerness, transgenderism, none of these are abnormal and we are (as a society) slowly internalising this fact and dealing with the consequences of older inaccurate / mistaken beliefs. Why do you see that as diminishing the straight majority? Why does a gain for group A need to be a loss for Group B?

Stopping the oppression of group A is not inherently taking something from group B, unless it is taking away the ability / right to oppress. And, I don't see how the religious communities are being silenced. They retain exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, can fire a teacher for expression any view out of line with doctrine on sexuality, can expel students for being gay. How does this make you feel silenced and oppressed?

Note I said 'more normal' - a comment again on the overt nature of gay pride; and the celebration of all thing queer (it sometimes is a bit much).

In general, a couple of things I'm observed, you seem determined to paint most religious people as 'oppressing' LGBTIQ people because we have 'older inaccurate / mistaken beliefs' and that we 'demand that all non-religious people conform to religious beliefs and ideals'.
I take issue with this overall narrative, as the truth and its solution is a lot more complex. And there are genuine issues, e.g. bullying and bad practices in psychology that need to be addressed. Because the truth of the matter is bigotry is not a religious problem it is a societal problem (as Christians would say it is a sin problem).

What do you think ' taking away the ability / right to oppress' looks like honestly? Because you'll find that I'll probably disagree with you on that very sharply.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Peter Sanders, the former organist at St Mary's Anglican Church in West Armidale, has been married to his husband since early last year.

He said he was told in May that he could not continue in that role unless he and his husband separated, lived celibately and undertook religious counselling.

Parishioner Thelma McCarthy, 96, said she had been a frequent churchgoer all her life, but has now also stopped attending services at St Mary's.

"As you read on through the Bible, God is all about love, about loving each other and forgiving each other," Ms McCarthy said. "I've always been associated with my church with love."

Father Peter MacLeod-Miller of St Matthew's Anglican Church at Albury is a prominent advocate of LGBTI+ equality in the church, [said] "Whether you're in the church or out of the church, in the pulpit or the pew, this stinks to high heaven."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...-church-after-dispute-over-marriage/100272680

Seems like an example of a church with parishioners who accept and believe the New Testament's messages of love and acceptance... and with a leader so convinced of his own righteousness as to be blind to his own prejudice. I'm glad to see the support the men are receiving from other parishioners and others in the church... but the message from the church - live separately, be celibate, undertake counselling - shows no comprehension that "we accept you so long as you deny who you are" is not loving, it is not accepting, it is simply a reflection of prejudice.

 

[dan964]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...-church-after-dispute-over-marriage/100272680

Seems like an example of a church with parishioners who accept and believe the New Testament's messages of love and acceptance... and with a leader so convinced of his own righteousness as to be blind to his own prejudice. I'm glad to see the support the men are receiving from other parishioners and others in the church... but the message from the church - live separately, be celibate, undertake counselling - shows no comprehension that "we accept you so long as you deny who you are" is not loving, it is not accepting, it is simply a reflection of prejudice.

Its a bit more complex then that.

Firstly, the particular context is about roles of "ministry" (or leadership roles) in the church. If you are involved in ministry that would involve subscribing to the values and morals of the church as noted:

"Involvement in positions of ministry or other leadership … is conditional upon agreeing to the Faithfulness in Service code."

The standard both in the Sydney (and Armidale) dioceses is the Faithfulness in Service document, which contains this line:
"7.2 Sexuality is a gift from God and is integral to human nature. It is appropriate for clergy and church workers to value this gift, taking responsibility for their sexual conduct by maintaining chastity in singleness and faithfulness in marriage.".

If a church or diocese believes that marriage is between a man and woman (engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage as understood in Scripture is against what God's word teaches/commands; which obviously the bishop in Albury doesn't hold to the same view) then obviously a person entering into a sexually active relationship of a homosexual nature is not in line with that. Implicit to this is a certain understanding of what right sexuality is, according to Biblical teaching. Its about a desire to honour what God has said on the matter in his word.
I think is a reasonable request for a organisation (in this case a church /diocese) to expect those in leadership to uphold the values of the organisation. (I don't believe that amounts to prejudice, although it can lead to some very delicate situations like that mentioned in the article)

Secondly, even the idea of love and acceptance there is implicit understanding that needs to be had. The basis for Christian idea of love is God's love for us demonstrated in Jesus dying for unworthy sinners; and that is a message of forgiveness and acceptance (but not this neo-postmodern idea of acceptance). (Because this basis is external to us, it is unconditional so the conditions for the acceptance are not "denying who you are").
But when it comes to serving in leadership, a certain level of agreement with certain values is needed - that is something conditional.

Thirdly, Christian faith instructs that we have a new identity, one that is not characterised either by actions or our sexuality, and that our old life characterised by what the Bible calls sin, is to end. Jesus himself called people to repent and deny themselves and take up their cross and follow him; so clearly any understanding of love (theologically) needs to understand that. How that looks from perspective is less straight-forward, which is why Scripture exhorts Christians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

Bit complex, and even the article I think captures some of the very delicate nuances as the pastors (however imperfectly as it may be perceived) have tried to both uphold their convictions but also address these people with both love and conviction of truth (not necessarily mutually exclusive as your reply seems to imply)