Dilemma of Being ****sexual

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

Not really. The most you can say is that polygamy is prohibited in Church elders.



So it didn't change, from an acceptance of:

Marriage between a man and a child.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and her servants.
Marriage between a man and a woman...and several other women.
Marriage between a man and his rape victim.
Marriage between a man and the "spoils of war".
Marriage as a political contract.
etc.?

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law. Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies. In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible. In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob. As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this. It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.
2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it? (But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity. Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice. As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality. The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way. The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

If you would look at the Lord's laws in the Torah, and the system in which God preferred, it was based on Judges and not on a monarchy. It was due to the stubbornness of the people of Isreal that God permitted them to choose a king and they elected Saul because of his stature and image. At that moment, marriage as a political contract was something outside Mosaic law.

Sure, but that only serves to reinforce my point. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that "the definition of marriage" according to Biblical sources had a single monolithic meaning running throughout the disparate accounts, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Solomon to Jesus to Paul.

Marriages between a man and the "spoils of war" were not allowed. In most cases, God told the nation of Isreal to completely decimate their enemies.

In at least three cases (Judges 21, Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 20), virgin spoils of war were given to men as wives. Deut 20 is presented as words directly from the mouth of God:

When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.

In terms of a marriage between a man and a rape victim, this is seen within one of the daughters of Jacob. In which case, due to the violation and conviction of the abuser, his whole family was circumcised and while in pain of recovery they were killed by Jacob's sons. The fact that the family was willing to make res***ution and to even take on the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through circumcision demonstrates a genuineness to make things as right as possible.

I was thinking more of Deuteronomy 22.28-29:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

I'm not sure what I think of the "rape" of Dinah (Gen 34). That's a pretty weird story. It looks like it might have been consensual, but considered "defiling" because of not going through the proper protocol. (And by the way, if they demonstrated "genuineness to make things as right as possible", Jacob's family sure treated that honorably and respectfully, eh?)

Oh, there's also the account of Tamar, who is called "righteous" for impersonating a pros***ute and seducing her father-in-law in order to trick him into impregnating her.

In the case of Abraham, it was due to Sarah's unbelief as well as Abraham faultering and so sinned by sleeping with Sarah's servant and which concieved Ishmael, this action from his decendants has been a problem to this day between Ishmael's decendants being the Arabs. Even the Koran has changed this story with Abraham offering up Ishmael instead of Jacob.

It's nice of you to read back your interpretation of modern history into the Bible, but Abraham's consorting with Hagar is not explicitly condemned by God. Certainly Jacob's consorting with two wives and two servants is not condemned—indeed that's the origin of the twelve tribes!

As far as a marriage between a man and a child, I don't understand your reference. I don't understand it because in some cultures in the past allowed marriage around the biological coming of age. Females that menstrate are biologically capable to become pregnant, and so by nature's testimony many cultures allowed this.

That was my only point. That which is condemned by modern morality was not condemned by "biblical" morality. Just because a young girl has experienced menarche does not make her emotionally, mentally, and physically mature enough for marriage—that is, unless she's considered a piece of property transferred from one man (her father) to another (her husband) with or without her consent, and expected to begin bearing children immediately whether or not it kills her in the process.

It might be that mortality rates where high, threats from outside dangers were more eminent, even when the recorded longevity of some lived to be near their 110s. Having a larger tribe was therefore promoted as a means of survival of the community.

Sure.

So there a few questions that must be asked....
1) Does our modern age with its standards of propriety make you prejudice to the past cultures? Like you know in the comfort of your speculation what the needs of their community faced.

Yes, of course. Of course I'm prejudiced against ancient moralities that explicitly regard women as property, that forces women to marry their rapists, that execute women if they don't scream loud enough when they're being raped...

2) That just because something was tolerated by God, does that mean God endorsed it?

I think that if the scriptures are anything like what some Christians regard it as, i.e., a rulebook dictating eternal and unchanging morality, God might have had a word of condemnation when a practice was committed that violated it.

But it's a moot point when some of these disgusting practices are ascribed to have come directly from the mouth of God (e.g., Deut 20, 22).

(But since you may not believe in the God of the Scriptures, what do you really care in terms of accuracy of the biblical narrative, i.e. you are free to make speculative judgements without concern for precision because of motives known entirely to yourself).

If I believe in a god, it is in a God who is good. If the writers of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures had experiences with a real and true and good deity, their experiences were necessarily (and by definition) partial and incomplete.

Now since this is a sidebar to "****sexuality," I think your idea of progression does not understand Christianity.

I think one completely glosses over (and thereby, does not understand) much of the Bible if one wishes to state that the concept of marriage "never changed".

Christ did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it. Hence, your second part about lending money without return is not "condemned" in the New Testament. It was a command that is preferred because it shows greater love. It never "condemned" the practice.

There was a lot of scholarly debate over the acceptability of usury.

As far as slavery is concerned, just like the fact that God preferred a theocracy based on Judges instead of a monarchy, so likewise slavery is not found in a "thus sayeth the Lord," but is based on the obstinance of Israel to follow after the ways and customs of surrounding cultures.

And I'm saying that if God were providing some sort of unchanging morality, there could most easily have been a "thus sayeth the Lord" that outright condemned slavery. I mean really—God bothered to outright condemn shaving the sideburns and eating bacon, but didn't have a word of condemnation for the practice of owning other humans? That was an acceptable accommodation to the "ways and customs of surrounding cultures", but God had to put God's foot down on lobster and polyester?

Now, I address this knowing full well that the discussion on ****sexuality as it is condemned in the Scriptures is really a manner of a diversion. You don't care about consistency of the Christian faith, you want to undermine it; you don't care about truth, you care about what is the current sentimentality.

The culture war, we are all just pawns and it seems our positions cannot ever be compromised, cannot find a middle way.

What kind of compromise or middle way are you offering?

As for me, I've already offered something as close to a middle way as I think I can get: full legal equality under civil law, with religious exemptions for those who do not want to participate. Your church will never be forced to hire a gay person or perform a same-sex commitment ceremony; your family will never be forced to watch Ellen or Glee—hell, you can even join Westboro in protesting All Things Gay with signs and slogans.

In short: don't like gay marriage? Don't have one.

The Church has maintained its positions on morals while dealing with the reality of State corruptions (and sometimes the corruptions within the Church, yet not changing its teachings). I find that in the movie "The Mission" with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons demonstrates the state of affairs between the competing war fighting between Spain and Portagul where Portagul allowed slavery and Spain did not, that it was not the Jesuits or the Catholic Church that wanted it to remain in existence. It is the obstance of the selfishness of kingdoms that causes wars and enslaves people. I think you perhaps want to project on the Church the worst so as to justify your own position.

The church has enough sins to account for without me needing to project anything on it. For now, the mere fact of them wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people speaks for itself.

[Columcille]

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there. They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom. There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

I offer no middle way. Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality. I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities. So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals. But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment). I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I do not think the "spoils of war" in Deuteronomy meant marriage or even concubine connotations; would apply that to the children as well--I mean are male children raped because they were "taken?" I think you can read into the text what is not there.

What do you suppose was done to adult women taken as "plunder"? Nevermind, you don't have to wonder; the Bible is pretty clear here:

When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
– Dt 21.10f

They were definitely made servants, but in the year of Jubilee, even servants are allowed their freedom.

Not servants who were taken, shall we say, "in the Biblical sense":

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. (...) If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
– Ex 21.7, 10-11

There are some boundaries understood and not meant to be crossed, just if you take the literal sense of a word does not meant that it endorsed all exceptions of abuse and indecentcy.

I don't see those "boundaries" in any way precluding the acquisition of women as sex slaves through war or purchase.

I offer no middle way.

I didn't think so. So why'd you grouse at me for not offering a compromise?

Civil law and Canon law are completely seperate only as excepting when civil law choses to align itself with the principles of Catholic morality.

Sure, and that is not at all in most cases. You remain free to regard any marriage other than that between an never-married Catholic man and a never-married Catholic woman as invalid; but you don't expect civil law to follow in tow.

I, as a Catholic, should not compromise the teachings of the church to satisfy the world's sensibilities.

Of course not. Neither should you impose the teachings of the church on outsiders to the church.

So when it comes to the people in a democracy choosing their affairs, that is based on priorities of representation in voting for candidates. The Catholic Church "wanting to deny civil equality under law to gay and lesbian people" is based on a consistency of its teaching authority regarding correct morals.

The Catholic Church's "teaching authority" is limited to the Church and its members.

But the Church has no civil authority, but it does have absolute authority of what it teaches and those who profess to be Catholic should know and act based on the teachings of the Church. Hence, Catholic politicians as an extention of their faith are to publicly endorse the moral teachings of the Church (without having to endorse Catholic doctrine contrary to the First Amendment).

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

I shall tell you that I have not voted for a Catholic politician in my life so far, because many of them (John Kerry, Nanci Pelosi, Joe Biden, the late Kennedy) are prochoice and support many of supposed ideas which you seem to approve. None of these "Cafeteria" Catholics teach or endorse Catholicism and neither do the Catholic politicians who defend the right to life and apply themselves to support their Catholic/Christian/independent base. Not every Buddhist/Hindu/athiest has to agree with your position on ****sexual civil rights, and so do not confuse cultural compe***ive morality with a theological endorsement.

I'll tell you what I find disgusting (though it's another rabbit-trail): Catholic bishops who move to deny communion to Catholic politicians who do not think outlawing abortion is the best way to prevent it (without, of course, advocating or endorsing abortion), but have nary a word to say about Catholics like Mark Thiessen and Rick Santorum openly embracing and advocating the "intrinsic evil", the "***ault on human life and dignity", the practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person" which is torture.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Exactly! Once again, if you don't like gay marriage, don't have one. But seeking to make a law respecting the establishment of your religion is plainly, flatly, and nakedly uncons***utional.

[Columcille]

Actually, as far as moral teachings are concerned, democratic societies determine laws based on the will of competing values. Hence, while your idea of a compromise is to live and let live, the moral fabric of the family is threatened by lasciviousness and what the Church considers free license for all sorts of vices. Hence, there are some who want to impose taxes on soda drinks because they feel it increases gluttony and health problems ***ociated with it; there are some who want to restrict and put limits on how car companies are making vehicles and so hope to manipulate the behavior of citizens to reduce our reliance and dependence on oil. Granted, many of these things are considered noble--but it is the same thing in regards to a competing moral value. You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit. I think such allowances are dangerous to the fabric of society, our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction. I find your moral position to be part and parcel of all our human depravity and it is intrinsically disordered.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage. You have stated so much in the following quote:

There's no contradiction between a politician personally choosing to live according to Catholic values and refraining from imposing those values on (a largely non-Catholic) cons***uency.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity), the basis of creating a desirable society rests in the moral boundaries set by the free will of its people and represented in kind. Hence, we see people like Confusius dictating the moral framework of its leaders in creating a more peaceful society. Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide? So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

...the moral fabric of the family is threatened...

...dangerous to the fabric of society...

I suppose all I can say is that I disagree, and that I haven't seen any credible evidence that same-sex relationships are a threat to opposite-sex relationships.

You want civil rights extended to ****sexual couples so that they are allowed to marry in all states and not just in those which by individual states permit.

Indeed. Partial civil equality is not equality at all.

our greatest ***et is our citizens, and citizens are created through heterosexual reproduction.

I have no reason to believe that would stop being the case if same-sex marriages were given equal status under civil law.

Hence, my grouse with you is that you want to limit the freedom of Catholic speech on morality on the political stage.

No, really, I don't. I think the Church is wrong, but I support its right to be as unwelcoming and hostile to gay and lesbian people as it chooses, within the purview of Church members—those who willingly submit to the Church's official teachings.

You have stated so much in the following quote:

The quote doesn't say what you say it says.

There is a contradiction, because by refraining to present their Catholic morality (as opposed to doctrine, like nobody is forcing you to believe in the Incarnation of Christ nor the Trinity)

Again—the Catholic Church does not sanction marriage between non-Catholics, or between divorcees. And yet there is no effort to restrict the civil marriage rights of non-Catholics (except when it comes to same-sex couples).

Morals have to be understood, then enforced. What good is it when law makers set the limit for BAC to .08 as a means of preventing vehiclar ****side by drunk drivers if every law enforcement did not enforce it and just let every case slide?

That's not a moral law; that's a law governing public safety. Big difference.

So I feel your immoral position endorses a dangerous slippery slope at undermining family values. If I allow your idea of a compromise, then while I may not be endorsing it personally, I am condoning it by inaction. It is like for me no difference than being an accessory to the crime.

I guess I understand where you're coming from a little bit here. I regard the support and permissiveness of torture to be similar to being an accessory to the practice. But again, for me there's a big difference between a practice that harms another and undermines human dignity, and a practice that I dislike but ultimately doesn't affect anyone but the offender.

For example, I regard promiscuity to be unhealthy—but I would never support a law restricting people's private consensual sexual activity. I regard many movies and TV shows to be sexist and degrading—but I would not want to live in a society with an official government censor. I think most fast food is disgusting—but I wouldn't want the government to shut down McDonald's.

In short, I can tell the difference between a moral value and a regulation of the public safety. I understand that some people's understanding of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" differs from my own, and may even conflict with my deeply-held beliefs—and yet welcome them to pursue it.

[Columcille]

It is not my contention to open the eyes of the blind; my only concern is what I believe and why I believe it. Whether you agree with me is not my concern. I rest my belief in the two-fold authority authority of the Church: namely Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible. The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice? Why should I want on judgement day before God tell him that I was an accessory to other's sinfulness? Why should I encourage the alcoholic to drink by giving him money? Why should I loan money to a gambler? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to use taxpayer money to kill innocent children in the womb? Why should I vote for a candidate who wants to give the ****sexual an endorsement of an act that is morally disordered per the Scriptures and the Magesterium of the Church indicate?

All morals have consequences, and so in my eyes the moral issue is a safety issue. I will not ever support in good conscience for a candidate who takes your idea of a middle ground.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I vote my conscience based on Catholic principles; you vote based on your own. I vote prolife because that is "life," and I vote for responsible liberty in which I think ****sexual agenda is a danger to the fabric of family values and so it is irresponsible.

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

The CCC states that ****sexual acts are "disordered." Hence, why should I want to condone by inaction a license for others to have free reign on vice?

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

By "responsible liberty", I take it that you mean "no liberty at all"? That's the only way I can make sense of your words.

Faithful Citizenship states that torture is "intrinsic evil", an "***ault on human life and dignity", a practice "fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person". Why should you want to condone a license for others to have free reign on vice?

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices. I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality. So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I do not agree with torture or the death penalty, the Church's position on that is fairly clear. No candidate is perfect, so I prioritize my candidates based on the overall sanc***y of life. Prolife is first because the amount of innocent children's lives taken each year far outnumber those who are tortured, but if two prolife candidates are available and one is against torture and the other is for it, then the one who is against torture is given a greater priority in my book.

So if a candidate is prolife, but also pro-****sexual agenda, if he is the only prolife candidate to vote for... then based on the overall "sanc***y of life" that candidate would procure my vote. However, I tend to think most prolife candidates are not pro-****sexual, so I have never had to worry about such voting between. However, I did vote against McCain for Huckabee in the primary because Huckabee is both prolife and against embryonic stem cell research. Hence, Huckabee had for me a greater "sanc***y of life" rating in my priorities.

Fair enough. We all prioritize what is important, and hopefully realize that all candidates are imperfect. The reason I prioritize torture above abortion is that there's not a single person who actually advocates abortion. Nobody thinks it's awesome; nobody wants to encourage women to abort their children. Current torture apologists are actually arguing that torture is (under certain circumstances, or to certain people) just and right.

Incidentally, do you think it is hypocritical for Catholic bishops to move to deny communion to pro-choice politicians but not to pro-torture politicians?

As far as your idea of "no liberty" at all, so be your perspective on me. I think liberty must be responsible, not given to all vices.

In what sense is it "liberty" to be restricted from consensual private behavior by force of law, explicitly because of sectarian religious beliefs? You've added the modifier "responsible", which for all the world looks to me as if it completely negates the word being modified.

I am just as much against free liberty for beastiality and polygomy because those are still vices in my book as much as ****sexuality.

I am against them not because they are "vices" but because they violate the harm principle and Informed Consent.

So if you want to endorse all sorts of "liberties" to include irresponsibility, that is how I would view your support of ****sexual agenda.

The only "****sexual agenda" that exists is the agenda for civil equality. It's not to take over the world and turn all your kids gay or even to infiltrate your church—it's solely to be treated equally under civil law.

[asdf]

Sorry for the delay in response, BigJulie.

As for the data you cited, in the future I'd appreciate it if you could cite your source. In poking around online, I found that it's often copy+pasted into arguments, and promulgated by groups like FRC and Exodus.

I'm not impressed.

For one, these studies have been criticized because of their lack of a representative sample. Recruiting people from gay bars or readers of a quasi-pornographic magazine is not likely to bring about the kind of diversity that would be representative of gay people as a whole.

Second, it quite simply does not square with the gay and lesbian people I know. Of the gay people who are my friends, almost all of them are in long-term committed relationships. I know of one guy out of the tens of gay people I know who has been rather promiscuous in the past.

Third—and this goes back to our discussion of disease rates across racial demographics—we simply don't discriminate against people even if they were demographically inclined to be promiscuous.

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I am glad you understand that same-sex relations are condemned within the Bible. Any, but's makes the first part of your statement irrelevant.

Not really. It just puts a caveat on it. Just like:

– I understand that slavery is accepted within the Bible. But I think that's wrong, as do most Christians today.
– I understand that lending money at interest is condemned in the Bible. But most Christians don't regard that as binding today.

Nature (God) predicts that it takes a man and a woman to have a child. Marriage to me isn't some type of convenience for men and women to "love" each other, but for the protection of children which may and usually does come from such a union. It makes sense to me that God would protect that child as he says "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Children should not be deprived of what God provided when they were born--a mother and a father. Men and women are not the same. If they were, there would be no reason for a man or women to be ****sexual. As they can see a difference when choosing a partner, I am justified to seeing a difference as well.

There's no reason to believe that children need to be "protected" from having gay parents. You're projecting a very narrow religious view on society at large.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Heart2Heart

My relatives and I have had many discussions about ****sexuality, since a person in my family is ****sexual. Unfortunately, one of the family members approve of the behavior, because she believes the person was born with a genetic defect. What is your view on this? Do you agree with the person's belief that a ****sexual is born this way? Do you think it is a genetic defect?

I do not believe it is a genetic defect, but I think the individual who was born with it, is predisposed to practice it. Do you think he or she can control their behavior?

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Really makes no difference to God if the person was born that way or not....sin is sin, regardless of how long you have been doing it....

You dont get a p*** because you have a longer history of doing a sin and thinking you were getting away with it...LOL

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

[MichaellS]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I wrote this about 2 years ago...and its just the same as the way I answer this question today...

Well it is a fine statement. You're bringing it up causes me to think, you or someone thinks the subject lacks fuller disclosure, even to that point? But then again, I'm not a psychologist.

Uh-oh, now I'm likely to get banned for stalking

[alanmolstad]

I don't know what that means. ..but I bring it up because I got a PM message and this is my response

[MichaellS]

Sorry for the interruption then, carry on.