you and qualified Christian theologians disagree. I guess they can find 'something' upon a detailed reading when you find 'nothing'.Clearly. They're able to distinguish the sin from the 'good thing' and call the sin a sin and the good thing a good thing. There's no excusing and embracing of sin.
But that was my point -- sexual orientation is usually extremely limiting. I'm very much a straight guy, and I really don't know what sort of coercion/mind control/gayemup therapy it would take to get me to have sex or date a guy. For all practical purposes, I'm permanently limited to dating only women. This means that about one half of the planet is fundamentally and permanently unattractive to me. (I'm not into transgenders, either, so...yeah. It's permanent.) If sex/gender is as irrelevant as race for the purpose of sexual ethics, then it seems like we should view people who cannot be attracted to persons of a particular race in the same way as those who are limited in their orientation: perhaps not morally deficient, but unfortunately limited in a way that we should try and help them overcome, if we can. We'd probably be willing to send someone to therapy to try and get over the weird issues that keep him from seeing other races as potentially attractive; it's no longer kosher to do that about sex. So what's the difference? Either they aren't really comparable, or they are -- and perhaps we're just so used to people being gay and straight, rather than bisexual or pansexual that we don't generally see it as wrong. But if that's the case, then those sexual orientations should be next on the chopping block.
Or, we can just stop using that analogy.
So all those who can have sex, but choose not to, aren't really in adult relationships? (I'll have to tell my girlfriend that we're both kids.
And besides -- again, I'm not making an argument that such relationships shouldn't be legally allowed. I'm talking about the morality involved, specifically from a Christian point of view. And I'm hard pressed, as a Christian, to believe that God couldn't possibly ask certain people to not have sex, or not have the sex that they want -- if He could ask us to be willing to die for Him, why not give up sex? You don't have to agree, but I think it's a pretty coherent viewpoint to hold. (And not particularly bigoted. Although we might just have to define that word...)
So dont try to pander that all the weight of these 'theologians' are all on your side of the issue...they're not.
And fwiw, not all 'qualified' theologians agree on what you claim either.
Its a very contested issue and probably will remain so.
Normally things that are called abomination don't magically become good
Because it's been that way since Christ? Immutable truth doesn't typically change
Can you tell them more about 'their argument', especially with regard to the history involved?
Honestly, I'm pretty much tired of debating this analogy. I don't see how it helps either of us, at all.The analogy being "race is like sexual orientation"? I only find that useful in these respects: you don't choose your race/sexuality, you can't change your race/sexuality, and race/sexuality is a crappy reason to discriminate. I don't think I've ever tried to extend it past that. I don't see how it getting silly in one direction is a reason not to use it where it was.
Spoiler tangent :
Sure. But I'm not sure how my belief that action x is wrong is necessarily discriminatory against people who perform x, unless I act in such a way that I deprive them of some opportunity they would otherwise have, and should have. (I'm using discriminatory in a negative sense here -- "He discriminated against that black guy!" rather than "He's very discriminating when it comes to apples.") Can you explain how I'm being discriminatory?
If I'm abnormal for not engaging in any sex in an adult relationship, just because statistically most people do, then I think it'd be equally fair to label homosexuals abnormal because they engage in sex that most people's don't. It's a slightly different sort of abnormal, but abnormal nonetheless. You didn't answer my question, though. Do adult relationships necessarily involve sex? That seemed to be what you were saying, and I'd like some clarification.
I'm not so sure. I know a lot of young Christian people who think gay marriage should be legal who still think gay sex is wrong. I imagine a lot of those people are fine with both, but you can't neatly extrapolate from one to another.
Except, very few of those other sins are innate to the marriage itself. I may be a thief, but that's quite apart from my identity or duties as a hypothetical husband. But if I'm a husband with a husband, then the sin is pretty much essential to the marriage bond -- thus nullifying it.
Jewish dietary laws no longer bind us nor are we required to stone homosexuals, adulterers etc.I've got one word for you:
bacon
Exactly.
It isn't in force, when was the last time you heard of a homosexual being stoned in the US?
