//Both sucide and active homosexuality are called out as sin and wrong within the bible. Jesus does not correct these assertions//

A lot of things are considered sinful in the Bible that Jesus doesn't correct and Christians still do. Everybody picks and chooses the sins that they think are important and just focuses on them. Nothing wrong with that.

//we should show kindness to the person, but not to help them die.//

And what about those cases where helping them to die is showing them kindness... and unnecessarily prolonging their suffering just to make ourselves feel holier is an unkindness (not to mention deeply selfish).

Toni Lavis...

Your confused. What secular society does, regarding law-making, is shift from the old morality with a Christian ethic, towards a new and more progressive (sic) morality, or secular ethics.

Obviously there are some parallels. It's the little bits left over, causing some anxiety. With the new ethics in play, (eg the acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and agreeable (sic) alternative to prohibition), the way is now clear to doze furrows through every aspect of society, the enlightened progressives believe need changing.

Where your progressive arguments come unstuck, is letting those progressive ambitions, get carried away with the reality.

There needs to be an ambit claim by the progressives, presented to the ruling class, sketching out this new path in its entirety. Something resembling the whole reworking of the penal code. That action will save everyone from all sides of the argument, much wasted time and energy.

The confusion this task will encourage, lies in identifying the power brokers?

At the moment, the Christian religion still holds considerable sway: But past history dictates its propensity to quickly revert to paganism. (Viz-a-viz this author, and his fairy dance down Oxford street, as the first Christian church to represent itself in the Pagan celebration of all things debauched, the Gay Mardi Gras).

And, historically too, the difficulty of the Israelites to remain focused on their commitment to God and his ways, when trekking out of Egypt with Moses.
And the broader perspective, ( if you wish it), God eliminating all but the good and dedicated to the Lord pre-flood, with Noah.

Anyway Tone, nice talking to you!

To Toni Lavis.

[A lot of things are considered sinful in the Bible that Jesus doesn't correct and Christians still do]

You're right. There are even things that Jesus explains that Christians act against. But my point is that if we aren't following Jesus's teachings are we really Christian?

The issue with struggling with sin and striving to overcome it is one thing. On any sin, if a person is striving to do better and seeks forgiveness, then that person is doing ok. On the other hand if someone accepts their actions (even if they are wrong) and continues in those actions, those are what should be stood against.

Active homosexuality (having sex as opposed to struggling with same sex attraction) is a sin. It's not made right by the existiance of other sins. Consider other sins. Lying is not made right just because it is common enough. Nor is it made right if there are other wrongs present like adultery, violence, or disrespect to your parents. Each of those is still wrong. There is no tolerance for adultry as a lifestyle.

Now all that said. This is where we need to act wisely. To be loving to our neighbors, while also standing against sin.

[what about those cases where helping them to die is showing them kindness]

Suicide is never the solution. Find other ways to offer kindness. Make an effort. It might go farther then you expect.

//Make an effort. It might go farther then you expect.//

You really don't have a clue about the real world, do you?

Unending, unbearable agony that no drugs can relieve cannot be fixed by visiting somebody to give them a bunch of grapes and a 'get well soon' card. And given that euthanasia would only be applicable in certain cases of TERMINAL illness, a 'get well soon' card is too dark even for my sense of humour.

Look, being nice to people never did them any harm. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. But it's not going to help anybody when what is ailing them is not a lack of kindness and good will, it's the cancer that is slowly and extremely painfully killing them. All the love in the world isn't going to make that go away. And if you've found a novel method of killing cancerous cells with hugs, you really should write a paper. A lot of cancer researchers will want to speak to you.

Earnest do-gooders who believe they are being somehow being compassionate by forcing some unfortunate people to endure as much torture as is medically possible before they die so that said do-gooders can give themselves a pat on the back for being so 'nice' and 'kind' really need to take a good long hard look at themselves, and ask themselves if putting their needs ahead of others is the best path.

Toni.

[You really don't have a clue about the real world, do you?]

I thought we were almost getting past the need to insult to discuss something with someone else's different view. It's ok. You did better then I expected. Try again. You'll get better at this I'm sure.

To your points on pain why just limit it to terminal illness. Instead also include painful chronic illnesses that don't end in death? Here is an article to consider nonterminal chronic pain.

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/chronic-illness-vs-cancer

Another problem is that cancer isn't the only element with cancer pain. It's also the cancer treatments. If you want to support a legislative kindness without advocating suicide. Look at trying to offer pain relieving drugs to those in painful terminal illnesses. Or reasurch into effective cancer treatments that don't increase the pain. Actually try instead of going to the nearby solution of killing the people in pain.

Because when you offer one solution often times people stop looking for others. Why look for solutions for the pain when we've got the solution already. Commit suicide. If you don't see the danger in this approach then perhaps you don't know how people think in large groups. Or worse you don't realize your thinking in the same way already.

Don't be lazy. Actually try.

[forcing some unfortunate people to endure as much torture as is medically possible before they die so that said do-gooders can give themselves a pat on the back for being so 'nice' and 'kind' really need to take a good long hard look at themselves.]

This isn't about me, and I don't give myself a pat on the back while another suffers. (Whether it is terminal or not). This is about the person who is actually suffering. Putting suicide on the table will negitively affect the search for other solutions. What it will do though is get those in pain to get out of the way so you don't feel sorry for them and can get back to your life. As I see it legislated suicide is the heartless route. Not the other way around.

Everald shows that he is substantially misinformed as usual.

If he were to take the trouble to ascertain what transpired in Canada after legalisation of SSM some 12 years ago, he would find that Canadians naively thought originally that there would be no consequences apart from same-sex couples being given the opportunity to marry. How wrong they were. The homosexual activists have succeeded in attaining substantial suppression of the fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, conscience and parental guidance. Favourable comment on heterosexual marriage is outlawed.

Now that the Parliamentary phase to legislate SSM has begun, it is clear that the Yes side has no intention of allowing freedom of speech, adequate protection for freedom of religion and freedom for parents to absent their children from radical LGBTIQ sex education in schools.

The unstated aim of SSM activists is to destroy heterosexual marriage.