Scott Stephens on the sin of homosexual marriage
He makes a good point regarding the problem of a conscience vote and a majority of either side. Unfortunately, he errs in his conclusion and remains vague regarding the Christian's position on homosexuality, gay marriage and scripture. So instead of declaring, God's truth namely the sin of homosexuality and pleading for people to confess their sin- repent of their sin- go no further and in damaging God's design for marriage...instead he trots down the ABC track of 'hurt' homosexuals. Then he implies like Shorten, Wong and others that when bible believing Christ followers vote against immoral homosexual marriage they will be included with the haters.
But he doesn't stop there. He states by believers voting NO they are saying that homosexual sex -is deficient. At least he got something correct. Homosexual relationships are dysfunctional relationships, rarely showing fidelity, based on lust not love, with no gay gene, with no born gay - this isn't love, but sinful lust.
...........................................................................................................
Scott Stephens writes: "The plebiscite raises for me a further question about collective responsibility. Much of the rhetoric surrounding the plebiscite speaks of it in rather heroic, highly individualistic terms: each person gets to have their say guided only by the dictates of their own conscience. But the very act of aggregating these individual votes introduces a problem that's often ignored.
In any election or plebiscite, all that matters is a numerical majority. The reasons why people voted the way they did makes no difference. This is particularly true in the case of a negative vote, in which people are rejecting some proposition. The reasons for that rejection may be base and visceral, or they may be principled and highly reflective. Either way, the force of the message they carry is borne in their numerical total, not in the sophistication of their motives. As Pierre Rosanvallon has rightly observed: "Rejection is the simplest thing to aggregate. Indeed, all rejections are identical, regardless of what may have motivated them."
Here's my point. It is incumbent on those whose opposition to marriage equality is not tainted by bigotry, disgust or disdain for minority rights, to fully recognise that their "No" vote in a plebiscite on same-sex marriage will be indiscriminately mingled with a great many votes that are. That the reasons for their opposition are finally inconsequential.
In any election or plebiscite, all that matters is a numerical majority. The reasons why people voted the way they did makes no difference. This is particularly true in the case of a negative vote, in which people are rejecting some proposition. The reasons for that rejection may be base and visceral, or they may be principled and highly reflective. Either way, the force of the message they carry is borne in their numerical total, not in the sophistication of their motives. As Pierre Rosanvallon has rightly observed: "Rejection is the simplest thing to aggregate. Indeed, all rejections are identical, regardless of what may have motivated them."
Here's my point. It is incumbent on those whose opposition to marriage equality is not tainted by bigotry, disgust or disdain for minority rights, to fully recognise that their "No" vote in a plebiscite on same-sex marriage will be indiscriminately mingled with a great many votes that are. That the reasons for their opposition are finally inconsequential.
And, moreover, that their "No" vote will ultimately be coopted to convey a message to the LGBTI community that they themselves did not intend - namely, that LGBTI people are not worthy of equal respect, that their love and pledge of fidelity is fundamentally deficient, that they are not deserving of a share in our common humanity."
