Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[seer]

The science, both genetic and psychological, says otherwise.

What are you talking about? I said homosexual inclinations may be innate, or they may not. But the fact that an inclination my be innate tells us nothing about the morality of the behavior that follows. And I'm not sure what you mean by genetic - have they found a gay gene that I don't know about?

[carpedm9587]

What are you talking about? I said homosexual inclinations may be innate, or they may not. But the fact that an inclination my be innate tells us nothing about the morality of the behavior that follows. And I'm not sure what you mean by genetic - have they found a gay gene that I don't know about?

This perspective, Seer, is frankly ridiculous. Imagine anyone saying, "it's OK to be heterosexual, but it is immoral to have heterosexual sex in all circumstances." That is what the homosexual community is being told.

A person who is heterosexual will be attracted to members of the opposite sex and, in relationship, have sex with members of the opposite sex. A homosexual person will be attracted to members of the same sex and, in relationship, have sex with members of the same sex. A bisexual person will be attracted to members of either sex, and in a relationship, may be having sex with a member of the opposite sex or the same sex.

Labeling sex between Individual A and Individual B as "moral" if they have opposite sexual equipment and "immoral" if they have the same is simply arbitrary. I understand it's historical roots, but it makes no sense.

As for the genetic evidence, I'll let you do your own digging on that one. If you look, you will find what has been uncovered in the past couple of decades. Just google "homosexuality genetics" and you'll find lots of information. There is no more a "homosexual gene" than there is a "heterosexual gene." There ARE genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals that are fairly well documented.

[hedrick]

Most of this discussion is irrelevant. For good or bad, US law considers gay marriage acceptable. A system like the US won't work unless there's a reasonable degree of acceptance by citizens of each other. We may not like others' religion, sexuality, or anything else. The 1st amendment protects our right to that judgement. But we still have to treat them reasonably.

I think it makes a lot sense for schools to encourage acceptance of any group where that acceptance seems at risk. When I was a kid, I was in a community where acceptance of Jews was marginal. My school taught us about Jewish holidays and generally tried to get us to accept each other. No one thought they were trying to convert Christians or interfere with our rights. Today when there are issues with acceptance of gays, I'd expect schools to encourage that. I wouldn't expect them to mandate student religious beliefs, but rather their ability to accept gays as fellow students and citizens and work with them.

I think the same thing applies to businesses. I don't really want to have to worry about whether a business will serve me. But I'd also point out that these laws started because a large number of good Christians didn't accept blacks. Yes, the extension of these laws to gays is recent, but it's not like this is the first time Christians have insisted on discriminating. It's time for us to stop. It's causing problem for our witness. This has been documented by everything from Barna's book "unchristian" to this recent study: https://psmag.com/news/is-the-christ...-from-religion. Note that I'm not saying this needs to change your position on sexual morals, but Christian attempts to defend discrimination against gays are a problem.

[carpedm9587]

Most of this discussion is irrelevant. For good or bad, US law considers gay marriage acceptable. A system like the US won't work unless there's a reasonable degree of acceptance by citizens of each other. We may not like others' religion, sexuality, or anything else. The 1st amendment protects our right to that judgement. But we still have to treat them reasonably.

I think it makes a lot sense for schools to encourage acceptance of any group where that acceptance seems at risk. When I was a kid, I was in a community where acceptance of Jews was marginal. My school taught us about Jewish holidays and generally tried to get us to accept each other. No one thought they were trying to convert Christians or interfere with our rights. Today when there are issues with acceptance of gays, I'd expect schools to encourage that. I wouldn't expect them to mandate student religious beliefs, but rather their ability to accept gays as fellow students and citizens and work with them.

I think the same thing applies to businesses. I don't really want to have to worry about whether a business will serve me. But I'd also point out that these laws started because a large number of good Christians didn't accept blacks. Yes, the extension of these laws to gays is recent, but it's not like this is the first time Christians have insisted on discriminating. It's time for us to stop. It's causing problem for our witness. This has been documented by everything from Barna's book "unchristian" to this recent study: https://psmag.com/news/is-the-christ...-from-religion. Note that I'm not saying this needs to change your position on sexual morals, but Christian attempts to defend discrimination against gays are a problem.

It is nice to hear from someone who is Christian and who is speaking in this way. I fear you are in for some significant resistance, but I just wanted you to know you voice is appreciated. It strikes a good balance.

[hedrick]

It is nice to hear from someone who is Christian and who is speaking in this way. I fear you are in for some significant resistance, but I just wanted you to know you voice is appreciated. It strikes a good balance.

Jesus was known for his willingness to be with "sinners" (many of whom were categorized that way only due to the Pharisees' interpretations of the Law, but some of whom really were). Some Christians think we should follow his example.

[seer]

This perspective, Seer, is frankly ridiculous. Imagine anyone saying, "it's OK to be heterosexual, but it is immoral to have heterosexual sex in all circumstances." That is what the homosexual community is being told.

A person who is heterosexual will be attracted to members of the opposite sex and, in relationship, have sex with members of the opposite sex. A homosexual person will be attracted to members of the same sex and, in relationship, have sex with members of the same sex. A bisexual person will be attracted to members of either sex, and in a relationship, may be having sex with a member of the opposite sex or the same sex.

Are you missing my point? Which was, inclinations, whether innate or not do not tell us whether those inclinations, and the following behaviors are moral or not. In other words, it is a non-starter when deciding moral questions.

Labeling sex between Individual A and Individual B as "moral" if they have opposite sexual equipment and "immoral" if they have the same is simply arbitrary. I understand it's historical roots, but it makes no sense.

We are back to worldviews aren't we. I believe that there is a God given teleology for human sexuality, and anything that deviates from that norm, adultery, fornication, sex with animals, sex with your mom, homosexuality, prostitution, etc... is immoral.

[seer]

Jesus was known for his willingness to be with "sinners" (many of whom were categorized that way only due to the Pharisees' interpretations of the Law, but some of whom really were). Some Christians think we should follow his example.

Would Jesus call homosexuality a sin, and tell the homosexual to repent?

[Bill the Cat]

Jesus was known for his willingness to be with "sinners" ....

Being among them? Yes. Encouraging their sin? Not a chance.

[hedrick]

Would Jesus call homosexuality a sin, and tell the homosexual to repent?

You can see my answer to that elsewhere, but it's not relevant to this discussion. The question is how we treat people who we think are wrong. If we can't find a way to do that, there's no way the US can continue. If it's not gays, it will be Muslims, or immigrants, or someone else.

[seer]

You can see my answer to that elsewhere, but it's not relevant to this discussion. The question is how we treat people who we think are wrong. If we can't find a way to do that, there's no way the US can continue. If it's not gays, it will be Muslims, or immigrants, or someone else.

Yes it is relevant. So to get along we must keep our mouths shut and accept all manner of depravity? Remember, this is our country too...

[Cow Poke]

Jesus was known for his willingness to be with "sinners" (many of whom were categorized that way only due to the Pharisees' interpretations of the Law, but some of whom really were). Some Christians think we should follow his example.

He was there to impact them, not to be impacted by them. And, in the case of the "woman caught in adultery", he told her to go and sin no more.

[Charles]

Yes it is relevant. So to get along we must keep our mouths shut and accept all manner of depravity? Remember, this is our country too...

Seer, honestly, he is not even close to saying that. His point is very easy to understand so I have to wonder if you are misunderstanding him on purpose.

[firstfloor]

How about when my son had to sit through a Social Science class where homosexuality is taught as just another morally acceptable lifestyle? Where, if he didn't he would lose the credit for the whole course. And why must the Christian, by law, be forced to bake a cake for an event he finds deeply immoral? Should the black baker be forced to bake a cake for a KKK party? A Jew for a neo-nazi party? Where does the Constitution say that any man has a right to MY LABOR?

Education is the key to ensuring that future generations of [Dutch] citizens continue to practice the principles of nondiscrimination, equal treatment and respect. With the recent rise in anti-gay violence and religious fundamentalism, the need for effective education that confronts anti-liberal stereotypes is ever more urgent. Neglecting to include homosexuality in school curricula will intensify students' suspicions about homosexuals by allowing their ignorance to remain unchallenged. In some particularly vulnerable students, such as those raised in anti-gay religious or cultural traditions, this ignorance could evolve into full-fledged homophobia. Conversely, if schools have the courage and wisdom to include discussions on homosexuality as part of the regular curricula, students will have the opportunity to confront stereotypes about gays. With open lessons about homosexuality, students might learn that their identity does not depend on defining others' differences as wrong. Thus, meeting homosexuals in the safe, open environment of the COC’s presentations represents one crucial step forward in the direction of accepting and respecting difference.

https://www.humanityinaction.org/kno...ondary-schools

[carpedm9587]

Are you missing my point? Which was, inclinations, whether innate or not do not tell us whether those inclinations, and the following behaviors are moral or not. In other words, it is a non-starter when deciding moral questions.

We are back to worldviews aren't we. I believe that there is a God given teleology for human sexuality, and anything that deviates from that norm, adultery, fornication, sex with animals, sex with your mom, homosexuality, prostitution, etc... is immoral.

You can believe whatever you wish. I don't expect you to change. It's why this will eventually be settled by our legal system and cultural norms - and people who cling to the views you have will be isolated and seen negatively in a historical light.

[hedrick]

Yes it is relevant. So to get along we must keep our mouths shut and accept all manner of depravity? Remember, this is our country too...

You’re welcome to say what you like. But in a business you have to serve them, and as a citizen you have to defend their rights and work with them on civic matters.