Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Sonofason]

It's about harm reduction. Not only for you, but for any children that might result from such a union.


Again, it's about harm reduction. HIV/AIDS is fatal if untreated. Plus, children can be born with it. There are also laws in many areas against having unprotected sex with another person while knowing you're HIV+ and the other person not knowing. You could be charged with attempted murder or murder. Ultimately though, it is up to the persons involved to make the best choices for themselves as they see it. The best we can really do is educate people about it. So far that has helped a lot.


Only because their disability may not allow them to have the cognitive ability to give consent legally.


Not in a courtroom or in shared reality.

So you believe that you have a right to reduce the harm I might do by having sex. Well damn, I feel the same way about you. So you are telling me that I should not be permitted to marry my sister because of the possibility of harm done to someone who doesn't even yet exist. And that this non-existent person has more rights than I do?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes, I'm saying that all depravity belongs in the closet. There is nothing necessarily depraved about a man and a woman having sex. But if it is done in public, it is a depraved behavior. There is nothing necessarily depraved with a man and a woman discussing the orgasms they had the previous night. But it is depraved if they discuss it in public places where they can be heard by others who may not appreciate what is being said perhaps in the presence of young children.

I would not go so far as to call it "depravity". Maybe poor taste or manners.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you believe that you have a right to reduce the harm I might do by having sex. Well damn, I feel the same way about you. So you are telling me that I should not be permitted to marry my sister because of the possibility of harm done to someone who doesn't even yet exist. And that this non-existent person has more rights than I do?

I didn't say I have the right to do anything to you, nor should I. I would rather work with people through education to minimize harm. In cases where the law already bans something that is shown to be harmful, I think the law should merely stand. If you want the law to change, you will have to show that what you are proposing will not be harmful in order for me to support changing the law to allow it. That is how gay marriage won and how drug legalization is winning, at least partially the reason. So if you really want to marry your sister that badly, provide strong evidence that it is not a harmful relationship, both to you and society at large.

 

[crowfeather]

A general lack of consideration for others has become the norm, and is to be expected.
This is unfortunate, but undeniably true.

 

[Sonofason]

I would not go so far as to call it "depravity". Maybe poor taste or manners.

I wonder if the writer of Ephesians would agree.

He wrote, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:3-5)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether or not what they believe is true, why on earth should they be permitted to create laws and place restraints on others who do not believe as they do?

Global warming has scientific evidence and data. That is why laws based on science are good. They aren't based on beliefs, they are based on facts.

If we who believe in the God of Abraham were able to prove that God exists

In this case, I am willing to say that is 100% impossible.

and do whatever can be done to rehabilitate you.

Homosexuals do not need "rehabilitated," not can you change their sexuality without high risk of psychological damage and trauma. And then it doesn't change them anyways.

A simple way to avoid this entire dilemma is to dis-allow LGBT marriages.

Or we could just disallow the Bible, close churches, and ban Christianity.
But I'm not that into controlling others and making such ludicrous demands of them.

I would never force you into a marriage. I would simply not permit you to marry a person of the same sex.

How so very "Christian" of you. "I can enjoy this, but you, minority, who do not like what I like, do not deserve this equal right and privilege."

I'm saying that all depravity belongs in the closet.

Homosexuality is not depravity. Trying to prevent them from finding loving relationships and marriage is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wonder if the writer of Ephesians would agree.

He wrote, "But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:3-5)

I'm not a Christian, so that doesn't mean anything to me. As for America as a whole, there are less and less Christians by the day.

 

[Sonofason]

I didn't say I have the right to do anything to you, nor should I. I would rather work with people through education to minimize harm. In cases where the law already bans something that is shown to be harmful, I think the law should merely stand. If you want the law to change, you will have to show that what you are proposing will not be harmful in order for me to support changing the law to allow it. That is how gay marriage won and how drug legalization is winning, at least partially the reason. So if you really want to marry your sister that badly, provide strong evidence that it is not a harmful relationship, both to you and society at large.

Rather than the one who is being restrained be required to show why he ought not be restrained, don't you think it is more fair for the one who wants to restrain someone show why that person should be restrained?

I see a lot of people trying to defend homosexual relationships by trying to suggest that homosexual relationships have nothing to do with sodomy, as if that were the truth haha, That would be like me saying there is nothing wrong with a man marrying his sister, because marriage has nothing to do with sex. And since marriage has nothing to do with sex, there can be no harm done if a man should indeed marry his sister.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Rather than the one who is being restrained be required to show why he ought not be restrained, don't you think it is more fair for the one who wants to restrain someone show why that person should be restrained?

I see a lot of people trying to defend homosexual relationships by trying to suggest that homosexual relationships have nothing to do with sodomy, as if that were the truth haha, That would be like me saying there is nothing wrong with a man marrying his sister, because marriage has nothing to do with sex. And since marriage has nothing to do with sex, there can be no harm done if a man should indeed marry his sister.

Are you seriously saying you need evidence why marrying your sister is harmful?

 

[Sonofason]

Global warming has scientific evidence and data. That is why laws based on science are good. They aren't based on beliefs, they are based on facts.

Yes, that would be your belief. Now show me the facts.

In this case, I am willing to say that is 100% impossible.

I see you are very open minded.

Homosexuals do not need "rehabilitated," not can you change their sexuality without high risk of psychological damage and trauma. And then it doesn't change them anyways.

That is your opinion, I do not share your beliefs.

Or we could just disallow the Bible, close churches, and ban Christianity.
But I'm not that into controlling others and making such ludicrous demands of them.

Yes you could. And one day, you probably will, despite how ludicrous a demand you now claim it would be.

How so very "Christian" of you. "I can enjoy this, but you, minority, who do not like what I like, do not deserve this equal right and privilege."

prior to the legalization of same sex marriage, homosexuals and heterosexuals both had the right to marry an unmarried adult of the opposite sex. That sounds pretty equal to me.

Homosexuality is not depravity. Trying to prevent them from finding loving relationships and marriage is.

There has never been a law preventing people from having loving relationships. And marriage is certainly not a guarantee of a loving relationship.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you seriously saying you need evidence why marrying your sister is harmful?

Well, you are the one claiming that it would be harmful. If you are going to make such a claim, I do believe you should back up this claim with some evidence.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, you are the one claiming that it would be harmful. If you are going to make such a claim, I do believe you should back up this claim with some evidence.

Um, inbreeding isn't enough?

 

[Sonofason]

Um, inbreeding isn't enough?

Just as homosexual marriage is not about sodomy, a familiar marriage is not necessarily about sex my friend.
Why can't two people who love each other marry one another?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just as homosexual marriage is not about sodomy, a familiar marriage is not necessarily about sex my friend.
Why can't two people who love each other marry one another?

Are you talking about sexless marriage? Again, I believe such marriages are illegal - between close relatives - and I don't have the desire to change that. I don't think you do, either, but are just playing games. You never answered exactly how gay marriage imposes anything on you.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you talking about sexless marriage? Again, I believe such marriages are illegal - between close relatives - and I don't have the desire to change that. I don't think you do, either, but are just playing games. You never answered exactly how gay marriage imposes anything on you.

So you think that I should not be allowed to marry my sister simply because it is currently illegal. Yet you fought and fought for your right to marry another male even though it was currently illegal. And now you refuse to give me a reason why such a union should remain illegal. If you were to go back, you would see that I have indeed answered your question. But I do not expect my question to be answered. These things I have come to expect.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you talking about sexless marriage? Again, I believe such marriages are illegal - between close relatives - and I don't have the desire to change that. I don't think you do, either, but are just playing games. You never answered exactly how gay marriage imposes anything on you.

Is it really any of your business if a marriage of mine is or is not sexless? Is it really any of your concern?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you think that I should not be allowed to marry my sister simply because it is currently illegal. Yet you fought and fought for your right to marry another male even though it was currently illegal. And now you refuse to give me a reason why such a union should remain illegal. If you were to go back, you would see that I have indeed answered your question. But I do not expect my question to be answered. These things I have come to expect.

I brought up inbreeding. That's quite reason enough, in of itself. Surely you would not expect all such marriages to be sexless?

So you really aren't being imposed upon by gays any more than you are by straights since you just said you don't want to see public indecency from anyone, basically.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is it really any of your business if a marriage of mine is or is not sexless? Is it really any of your concern?

I don't really care, but I would wonder what the point is (aside from people who are elderly or can't perform due to health reasons).

 

[Sonofason]

I brought up inbreeding. That's quite reason enough, in of itself. Surely you would not expect all such marriages to be sexless?

So you really aren't being imposed upon by gays any more than you are by straights since you just said you don't want to see public indecency from anyone, basically.

And surely you would not expect me to believe that homosexuality is not about sodomy either.

Well there is that, and also the detrimental affect of homosexual influences upon children, and the judgement of God which follows.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, that would be your belief.

Except it's not a belief when I can pile up the evidence (and there indeed has been much posted on other threads to avoiding derailing this one).

I see you are very open minded.

Actually, I am pretty open minded. However, I am also very rational and realistic, and talking burning bushes, people walking on water, turning water into wine, a woman suddenly and instantly turned to salt, and the dead returning to life, these things just are not possible.

That is your opinion

Again, not an opinion but fact.

Yes you could. And one day, you probably will, despite how ludicrous a demand you now claim it would be.

No, I wouldn't. For one, I know it wouldn't work, for two it would help spread it, and three I have no desire, will, or urge to do so.

That sounds pretty equal to me.

Except it's not because a homosexual will not be happy or satisfied in a heterosexual marriage. They don't want it or desire it. That's not equal. That's like saying AC is pretty equal to DC because they are both electricity, but they are anything but equal.

And marriage is certainly not a guarantee of a loving relationship.

Very true. However, our culture celebrates formal unions that we call marriage. This is a right, and it is unconstitutional to not grant this right to a group of people who are doing no harm to anyone (save for those such as yourself who make it a point to be *harmed* by it). It is a legal contract, if both parties are of legal age and sound mind, religious objections are not enough to prevent two people from enjoying this right.