Pah
Uber all member
The difference is your assumption that no harm will come to another. Incest, prohibited at the licensing bureau, has a health reason which attachs to progidy. Homosexuals, can not, as yet, procreate. The family those in the gay community would raise would not be at risk for genetic mutation due ti inbreeding. Try another excuse.FerventGodSeeker said:...Thus, if two men love each other, in your view, they should be able to marry. Well if that's true, then, since I love my sister, I should be able to marry her, right? We love each other, we're not hurting anyone else, we would only be engaging in activities that others may deem inappropriate in the privacy of our own homes, and, more than anything, our attractions are not a choice. We can't help the fact that we are madly, romantically, deeply in love with each other. Aren't all those reasons the very ones you give for defending a homosexual couple's right to marry? Why, then, is homosexuality different?
That is a thought clouded in ignorance.And if cows could fly, it would be much harder for us to get milk. But they don't, so it isn't. The fact is, heterosexual unions are the only ones that can produce life. Heterosexual unions are the natural, normative human sexual relationship, as is self-evident by the fact that, as you pointed out, only heterosexual sex can produce offspring and continue the species. If homosexual sex was the only way life could be produced in human relationship, then I would agree that heterosexual sex is frivolous and seemingly unnatural.
Bisexuals produce children. Those forced, for whatever reason, into society's sterotypical roles produce children in spite of gay orientation. But, more importantly, the gay couple is willing and effectively able to raise children abandoned by heterosexual families/women. The species is NOT continued by only procreation - it is but the first step in developing a child to become reproductive. Survival depends on nuture and attainment of reproductive capability.
The Church and church members so easliy forget that.
Who said incest and adoptive parenting are unnatural? It one case it is forbiden by the state, in agreement with Church and biblical principle, for purposes of health of the child. "Other attractions" are forbiden because, as in every marriage vow, consernt of the parties is given. When it can not or is not given, marriage is not allowed. That too is a state issue and by virtue of the clergy being agents of the state is shows the confirmation of Church.Then question is, why are those other attractions considered "unnatural", and how is homosexuality different? No one I've spoken to has been able to point out much of a difference.
I hope you listened when I spoke above.I'm perfectly willing to listen to an explanation, I've just never been given one that is very satisfactory. I've heard that homosexuality is different than pedofilia because homosexuality involves consenting adults who love each other, which makes some sense, I can see where that explanation is coming from. But polygamy and incest also involve consentual adults who love each other. How is homosexuality different?
On the matter of polygamy, the Bible in the Old Testament fails to condem it. I also see no secular reason to prohibit it. It was a great injustice visited on the LDS Church to bribe a renounciation of polygamy for statehood. I will support polygamous marriage.
It is beyond the Church's reach to establish a class for discrimiination. That hetrosexuals should be allowed behavioral choice and not the gay community is pure injustice. It is an insult to the ideals of the Constitution under which the Church flourishes.While the attraction itself may not be a choice, acting on those impulses is a choice. Heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have a choice as to when and where to have sex (unless they're drugged or raped, which is obviously a different story). When I refer to a "homosexual", just to be clear, especially in a Biblical or Christian context, I refer to someone who is involved in a homosexual lifestyle, not simply someone who may struggle with homosexual urges or attractions. There are many former homosexuals who have left a gay lifestyle, and yet may still struggle with homosexual attractions. They make the choice not to have homosexual sex, just as a drug user has a choice to do drugs or not.
Enough of this talk of "lifestyle". A homosexual "lifestyle" is no different from a heterosexual "lifestyle". That you assume faith denies the gay community love, that even today's gayness is yesterdays sin, is an open truth. You have no "lock" on biblical interpreatation and can not, with out soulfull risk, deny the personal revelation that so many gay's have.Again, I've addressed the love issue before. If you know that a particular lifestyle that a person is involved in is leading them down a path which could negatively affect their whole life, even their eternal state, then the loving thing to do is to point that out to them. Leaving them to rot in their own lifestyle which you know is wrong in the name of "tolerance" is not loving at all.
What is not done is to deny self-identification. What is done is to control behavior with the police power of the Constitution justified only by a compelling state interest.We tell people what they can and cannot do all the time in society. It's necesarry to maintain social order and stability. You can't drive 50 mph in a residential neighborhood. You can't do illegal drugs. Children cannot vote, or go to rated R movies by themselves. Homosexuals have the same rights in regards to marriage that heterosexuals do...they may marry a willing person of the opposite sex. Every adult has that right. No one, however, whether homosexual or heterosexual, may marry someone of the same sex.
The gay comminity does not have the same rights as heterosexuals. If love and conmittment is anything, it is a fundemental, foundational reason to marry. That you and the Church would redefine marriage to eliminate the core of marriage is abominable. The natural right is a consenting mate of choice.