Can justification of gay marriage lead to justification of incest?

[Sair]

In a purposeless universe all statements about value or significance are arbitrary - as criminals are well aware…

Then everyone who doesn’t grovel to your god is a criminal?

Then you are motivated by expediency rather than morality.

Where do you think human morality even comes from? Surely not the dictates of an imaginary god, who, historically, aligns with the expedient desires of the ruling classes.

1. Christians do not claim that human beings are the sole creatures made in the image of God. All rational beings without exception have that privilege.

That sounds like no version of Christianity I’ve ever heard of.

1. The foetus is arbitrarily deprived of the opportunity to develop the wherewithal for sentience.

Not arbitrarily, but on the basis of the needs of already existing sentient beings.

1. Needless killing is evil even though it doesn’t cause suffering.

Yet suffering increases the evil. Do you imagine that the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 atrocities considered their killing needless?

1. To kill on the ground that the victim will not miss what it never had presupposes that one has the absolute right to decide who shall live and who shall die

Well, that has to be weighed against the notion that any of us have the right to condemn another sentient being to a lifetime of suffering and neglect.

The maxim that man is the supreme measure of all things is an indisputably anthropomorphic concept of morality. It varies so widely from one individual interpretation to another that it is worthless! It is equivalent to worshipping a false god…

Actually, it’s an indisputably practical maxim, considering that we are human. What other recourse do we have, apart from the religious mythology created by humans?

The pantheist has an anthropomorphic concept of morality because man is** arbitrarily** regarded as the supreme measure of all things, arbitrarily elevated above everything else and arbitrarily distinguished from the natural environment.

Don’t pretend to have taken the measure of pantheism when you clearly have not an idea of what it involves, even in philosophical terms.

The theist has a** ratiocentric **concept of morality because it is based on rational, purposeful reality.

A terribly human concept, don’t you think? Given that your god is a human construct, what right do you have to condemn any other form of morality or any other philosophy as anthropocentric?

Subjective shades of grey lend themselves to wonderful opportunities for expedient manipulation whereas the appeal to sacred scripture has a **rational **foundation in the teaching of Jesus.

Who was a human, and whose supposed sayings and doings were recorded by humans, through a thoroughly human perspective. I repeat, you have no grounds to condemn any other philosophy as anthropocentric.

 

[inocente]

Do you believe Jesus condoned prostitution? If not why not?

Irrelevant as the vast majority of gays, just as most heterosexuals, are not prostitutes. Do you agree that it would be scurrilous to imply they are?

It remains that Jesus never said anything about gays, and so any attempt to set them apart in Christ is as baseless as trying to set ginger haired roof repairers apart in Christ.

That didn’t prevent Him from condemning immoral and degrading behaviour…

True, but the obvious question is if someone deems gay behavior immoral and degrading, where are they getting that morality, since if Christ never said anything about it then by definition it cannot be Christian morality?

 

[Sair]

Epistemic rigour does not alter the fact that morality is reduced to expediency. Honesty is a moral criterion that begs the question…

Would you rather base your morality on falsehoods?

"This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprising that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense – lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

Considering that this seems to be the main focus of those who consider it harmful for children have gay parents, that’s really not surprising. The perception of harm is directly related to the belief that males and females must always have specific roles in society - that their contributions are based on their gender, rather than their individual personalities.

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

Let’s hope there’s an equal amount of research into whether the restriction of gender roles is beneficial or harmful to individual persons…

“And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families.”

What about if there are two fathers?

This result is a vice rather than a virtue! It demonstrates that a child’s true sexual orientation may be distorted by the influence of a lesbian mother.

What determines a child’s ‘true’ sexual orientation? What do you make of the plethora of homosexuals who had heterosexual parents?

Chastity is regarded as a vice rather than a virtue, thereby fostering an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies, needless abortions, spoilt lives and failed relationships…

Again, this result is hardly restricted to the children of homosexual parents.

Since most boys are heterosexuals they felt inhibited and repelled as the result of being **compelled to live with homosexual parents without any choice in the matter…
**

Are most boys heterosexual? Or are they compelled, by social expectations, to be so? This gets right back to the old nature/nurture argument, after all. And is it really better for a young man to be aggressively masculine than slightly effeminate? In any case, I’ve never met any child who had any choice whatsoever in who his or her parents were…

 

[tonyrey]

Do you believe Jesus condoned prostitution? If not why not?

You have evaded my question by asking an irrelevant question…

It remains that Jesus never said anything about gays…/QUOTE]
Jesus could not possibly have said everything about moral issues…

…and so any attempt to set them apart in Christ is as baseless as trying to set ginger haired roof repairers apart in Christ.

A non sequitur.

That didn’t prevent Him from condemning immoral and degrading behaviour…

True, but the obvious question is if someone deems gay behavior immoral and degrading, where are they getting that morality, since **if Christ never said anything about it **then by definition it cannot be Christian morality?

Your question is based on a false assumption. How do you interpret His reference to Sodom - and His constant insistence on** the sanctity of marriage**?

 

[tonyrey]

Honesty is a moral criterion that begs the question…

Non sequitur.

Epistemic rigour does not alter the fact that morality is reduced to expediency.

"This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprising that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense – lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.

Considering that this seems to be the main focus of those who consider it harmful for children have gay parents, that’s really not surprising. The perception of harm is directly related to the belief that males and females must always have specific roles in society - that their contributions are based on their gender, rather than their individual personalities.

A false deduction which implies that their physical and psychological roles can be reversed!

"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.

Let’s hope there’s an equal amount of research into whether the restriction of gender roles is beneficial or harmful to individual persons…

Indeed - without feeling constrained by political expediency.

“And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families.”

What about if there are two fathers?

The absence of a mother in the home is certainly not good for families.

This result is a vice rather than a virtue! It demonstrates that a child’s true sexual orientation may be distorted by the influence of a lesbian mother.

What determines a child’s ‘true’ sexual orientation?

Biological processes.

What do you make of the plethora of homosexuals who had heterosexual parents?

They have been conditioned by the permissive society to think their sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

Chastity is regarded as a vice rather than a virtue, thereby fostering an increase in the number of unwanted pregnancies, needless abortions, spoilt lives and failed relationships…

Again, this result is hardly restricted to the children of homosexual parents.

It is increased by presenting chastity as a vice rather than a virtue…

Since most boys are heterosexuals they felt inhibited and repelled as the result of being compelled to live with homosexual parents without any choice in the matter…

Are most boys heterosexual?

The biological norm is a heterosexual individual.

Or are they compelled, by social expectations, to be so?

The biological norm is a heterosexual individual.

This gets right back to the old nature/nurture argument, after all. And is it really better for a young man to be aggressively masculine than slightly effeminate?

The unisex mentality is certainly fashionable but unrealistic and unscientific.

In any case, I’ve never met any child who had any choice whatsoever in who his or her parents were…

Irrelevant.

 

[inocente]

You have evaded my question by asking an irrelevant question…

I’m pretty sure that if there’s any evasion going on, it’s not me. The thread isn’t about discussing every subject under the sun, so if you want to discuss prostitution please explain how it is relevant when the vast majority of gays are not prostitutes, just as most heterosexuals are not prostitutes.

Your question is based on a false assumption. How do you interpret His reference to Sodom

That only someone who found the verse on a homophobe website, and has never read the book from the start, and knows nothing about the sins of Sodom except the word sounds like sodomy, and imagines that Jesus is given to blurting out irrelevant asides as if afflicted by Tourette’s, could possibly imagine in their wildest dreams it’s about gays.

But if anyone can find a reference to it being about gays in any vatican.va document I’ll reconsider.

• • and His constant insistence on** the sanctity of marriage***?

That marriage is instituted by God not man and so perhaps the state should have no role at all in the institution; also that far more damage is being done by drive-thru civil marriage and divorce than any arguable damage done by extensions to give equal rights; and that because I already posted that view some time back, we are now repeating ourselves.

 

[karebear92]

Could you remind me of the part where He spoke of homosexuality?

That’s irrelevant and you know it. He came to fulfill the prophets. He did not come to abolish their teachings. You also know as well as I do that Christ left his Church to teach His followers the proper morality and spirituality regarding the current issues the world faces. Jesus essential came to fulfill Judaism and expand salvation to the whole world. Almost all of the things He addressed dealt with the fulfillment of Judaism, and the teachings on homosexuality were not something that needed to be fulfilled at the time.

In addition, that wasn’t my point at all. I believe someone used the example of the prostitute. He loved and treated prostitutes just as he treated everyone else, but He still told them to go and sin no more.

That is what Catholics must do: they must condemn the act (“go and sin no more”) but also have the compassion to love and help them the same as anyone else.

 

[karebear92]

Of course not. But somehow it seems to me that He had an exquisite talent for meeting people where they were and moving from there.

He said to “go and sin no more.” He did not start from where she was. She was a prostitute who most likely made a living from prostituting. He did not say to continue her actions but just be safe and make sure it is always consensual. He told her to perform her actions “no more,” as in never again.

I really don’t understand the point you are making at all.

 

[karebear92]

True, but the obvious question is if someone deems gay behavior immoral and degrading, where are they getting that morality, since if Christ never said anything about it then by definition it cannot be Christian morality?

That is simply not true. Christ did not come to start a new religion. Christ came to fulfill Judaism, so He did not have to come here and rehash and discuss why murder, stealing, having gods before Him etc. are wrong. In addition, He also gave Christians the benefit of leaving His Church (obviously this point will be harder for you to accept) to teach and instruct His followers on current issues.

 

[inocente]

That is simply not true. Christ did not come to start a new religion. Christ came to fulfill Judaism, so He did not have to come here and rehash and discuss why murder, stealing, having gods before Him etc. are wrong. In addition, He also gave Christians the benefit of leaving His Church (obviously this point will be harder for you to accept) to teach and instruct His followers on current issues.

I think you’re rather downplaying Christ’s role in Western ethics. His morality wasn’t simply a continuation of all of Mosaic law, or else we wouldn’t plant mixed crops or eat shellfish, and we’d put supposedly detestable gays to death and their blood would be on their own heads (Lev 20:13). And if the Church’s morality has evolved at all from that taught by Christ, it might better be called Catholic rather than Christian morality.

The issue for me and many others is not simply that Jesus never said anything about gays, but we can find no condemnation of them in the Spirit either - the God of love, who created countless galaxies, who so loved the world he sent his only son, being so petty as to be bothered about what folk do behind their curtains? No way José!

 

[karebear92]

I think you’re rather downplaying Christ’s role in Western ethics. His morality wasn’t simply a continuation of all of Mosaic law, or else we wouldn’t plant mixed crops or eat shellfish, and we’d put supposedly detestable gays to death and their blood would be on their own heads (Lev 20:13). And if the Church’s morality has evolved at all from that taught by Christ, it might better be called Catholic rather than Christian morality.

No, clearly Christ played the most significant role in Western ethics and world ethics, but His role, as He said, was to fulfill the prophets, not to abolish their teachings. He came to fulfill Judaism, not found a new religion.

Catholicism and Christianity were the same thing until the reformation. That is 1500 years, and the Church addressed many, many things in those years. One of those was whether gentiles had to follow Judaic laws. Jesus never addressed that.

The issue for me and many others is not simply that Jesus never said anything about gays, but we can find no condemnation of them in the Spirit either - the God of love, who created countless galaxies, who so loved the world he sent his only son, being so petty as to be bothered about what folk do behind their curtains? No way José!

But then you have to question everything Jesus didn’t teach: The trinity, His divinity, Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus as entirely God and entirely man etc. So you cannot say that it must be taught by Christ. Since that isn’t your only issues, I will address your second one.

Of course God cares. God cares about everything we do. That only further proves his incredible nature. There is absolutely nothing that God does not care about. He loves us indefinitely and knows everything. For one to say tat he does not care what one does behind their curtains would be to diminish God’s love for all. Everything He gives us is a gift, and when we abuse those gifts He knows it, so it is only rational to say that He cares. Do you really think that God does not care when people abuse his gifts for there own earthly pleasure? No way José!

 

[inocente]

But then you have to question everything Jesus didn’t teach: The trinity, His divinity, Mary as the Mother of God, Jesus as entirely God and entirely man etc. So you cannot say that it must be taught by Christ. Since that isn’t your only issues, I will address your second one.

It’s only necessary to question where there’s an apparent contradiction with the Spirit.

Of course God cares. God cares about everything we do. That only further proves his incredible nature. There is absolutely nothing that God does not care about. He loves us indefinitely and knows everything. For one to say tat he does not care what one does behind their curtains would be to diminish God’s love for all. Everything He gives us is a gift, and when we abuse those gifts He knows it, so it is only rational to say that He cares. Do you really think that God does not care when people abuse his gifts for there own earthly pleasure? No way José!

Now I didn’t say He does not care, rather that He’s not so petty as to be bothered.

The idea that there’s necessarily a sin involved, that there’s a gift which is being abused, appears circular and subjective: (a) gays are icky; (b) Jesus never said gays are icky; (c) sure, but obviously He would have done if the subject ever came up; and we know this because … … … (d) gays are icky.

The basic issue is that the underlying logic about sex and procreation and thereby what is and isn’t moral relies on the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law, and so post-dates the NT.

 

[karebear92]

It’s only necessary to question where there’s an apparent contradiction with the Spirit.

Please explain. How is it a contradiction with the Spirit?

Now I didn’t say He does not care, rather that He’s not so petty as to be bothered.

Semantics? If he isn’t bothered, then he doesn’t care either way.

The idea that there’s necessarily a sin involved, that there’s a gift which is being abused, appears circular and subjective: (a) gays are icky; (b) Jesus never said gays are icky; (c) sure, but obviously He would have done if the subject ever came up; and we know this because … … … (d) gays are icky.

(a) Gays aren’t “icky.” Bisexuals aren’t “icky.” Pedophiles aren’t “icky.” Those who live and have sex outside of wedlock are not “icky.” They all struggle with a sinful inclinations. That doesn’t make them icky. I have a friend who happens to be homosexual. He is not “icky.” He is a very nice, compassionate guy who happens to struggle with same-sex attraction.
(b) I already addressed the this.
(c) That isn’t at all what I said. In fact, he would never call anyone icky. He is above ickiness. But things against His will are sinful.
(d) refer to a.

The basic issue is that the underlying logic about sex and procreation and thereby what is and isn’t moral relies on the Thomas Aquinas version of natural law, and so post-dates the NT.

Not true, as Judaism, the religion in which Christianity’s origins are based condemned it. The Christian Church never changed that and Christ never clarified it such that anal sex for the mere purpose of pleasure is equal to the procreative and unitive purpose of sexual acts between a man and a wife. Nor did he clarify when He said “God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6) that God only did that to make the human race rather than because that was how marriage was to be. Thomas Aquinas died in what? 1274 or something like that? The Church teaching on Homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, and homosexual marriage has never changed before that.

 

[tonyrey]

You have evaded my question by asking an irrelevant question…

It is directly relevant because Jesus loved and forgave sinners even though He did not condone their sins.

Your question is based on a false assumption. How do you interpret His reference to Sodom

That only someone who found the verse on a homophobe website, and has never read the book from the start, and knows nothing about the sins of Sodom except the word sounds like sodomy, and imagines that Jesus is given to blurting out irrelevant asides as if afflicted by Tourette’s, could possibly imagine in their wildest dreams it’s about gays.

An argumentum ad hominem.

But if anyone can find a reference to it being about gays in any vatican.va document I’ll reconsider.

Do you believe the Catholic Church condones homosexual actions?

                                             * -*

and His constant insistence on** the sanctity of marriage**

?
That marriage is instituted by God not man and so perhaps the state should have no role at all in the institution; also that far more damage is being done by drive-thru civil marriage and divorce than any arguable damage done by extensions to give equal rights; and that because I already posted that view some time back, we are now repeating ourselves.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether the justification of gay marriage leads to justification of incest? The answer is that both are distortions of Christ’s teaching: “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

— Matthew 19:4–6; also Mk 10:7–9​

 

[inocente]

Please explain. How is it a contradiction with the Spirit?

Maybe it’s a Baptist thing. Here’s a piece of music by Bach which expresses gentleness, freedom, joy, unity, courtesy. Imagine that the band and choir, and Bach himself, are all openly gay. I think it would be a great contradiction to say that diminishes them in any way in the Spirit, or mean they have any special burden.

Christmas Oratorio #1 / Gardiner - youtube.com/watch?v=a6MMW-NJmt8

Semantics? If he isn’t bothered, then he doesn’t care either way.

You can care about your child without being bothered that her favorite color is indigo.

We live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. A few days ago we gathered at a neighbor’s house, tapas and drinks, and sang some carols together. Most of our neighbors are hill farmers, but one is a professor, another is the local police chief and so on. Two of the men have lived together since long before we moved to Spain. We all care about them but none of us are bothered that they are gay, and perhaps they care more for us because no one is bothered.

I have a friend who happens to be homosexual. He is not “icky.” He is a very nice, compassionate guy who happens to struggle with same-sex attraction.

I think the most fundamental moral here is that the majority needs a really good reason to make fellow citizens struggle with what we say are sinful inclinations.

I’m sure from your and tonyrey’s posts that you’re both in Christ, but cannot fathom why you believe you have a sufficient reason.

Not true, as Judaism, the religion in which Christianity’s origins are based condemned it. The Christian Church never changed that and Christ never clarified it such that anal sex for the mere purpose of pleasure is equal to the procreative and unitive purpose of sexual acts between a man and a wife. Nor did he clarify when He said “God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6) that God only did that to make the human race rather than because that was how marriage was to be. Thomas Aquinas died in what? 1274 or something like that? The Church teaching on Homosexual acts, sex outside of marriage, and homosexual marriage has never changed before that.

But anyone with a Bible can see clearly that morality has changed.

For example, Christian morality has no relationship to “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” - Lev 25:44-46

Even the one aspect you’ve picked is hardly recognizable: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” That doesn’t apply to women, nor (hopefully) are gays now put to death.

 

[inocente]

It is directly relevant because Jesus loved and forgave sinners even though He did not condone their sins.

Being gay isn’t a sin.

An argumentum ad hominem.

How?

The official Church document on gay marriage contains a number of references to scripture, but none suggesting Jesus is talking about gays when He mentions Sodom. I can only think that the authors omitted such a sure-fire argument because they know it wouldn’t be true, but am sure the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would welcome alternative constructs.

Do you believe the Catholic Church condones homosexual actions?

No.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether the justification of gay marriage leads to justification of incest? The answer is that both are distortions of Christ’s teaching: "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."

— Matthew 19:4–6; also Mk 10:7–9​

Jesus is quoting Genesis while teaching about divorce from the sacrament of marriage, not about civil union. As for a slippery slope to incest, the Church’s aforementioned official document makes no mention, which I assume means the authors, along with me, give it no credence.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Being gay isn’t a sin.

Neither is SSA.

Jesus is quoting Genesis while teaching about divorce from the

Yes, because divorce is about breaking up a union between a male and a female.

What do you think “FROM the BEGINNING he made them male and female” means? He made “them” male and female for a purpose. He didn’t make them male and male, although he did make more than one male and one female.

 

[inocente]

What do you think “FROM the BEGINNING he made them male and female” means? He made “them” male and female for a purpose. He didn’t make them male and male, although he did make more than one male and one female.

It means “… sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (each known as a sex). Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents. Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogametes), but in many cases an asymmetry has evolved such that two sex-specific types of gametes (heterogametes) exist: male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Male and female is more to do with physical anatomy than spiritual personhood.

 

[karebear92]

You can care about your child without being bothered that her favorite color is indigo.

It simply isn’t the same thing. Sex is not something one chooses. Sex is a gift from God, but more specifically it is a gift from God given for a particular and undeniable purpose: procreation (and unity, though I don’t know if you accept the latter). So rather than being like a child choosing a color it would be like you giving your child whose family cannot afford food 1,000 dollars to get back on their feet. Unfortunately your child has a tendency to spend money on things solely for their pleasure. So when you give them the money you say “I am willing to help you out until you find a job but only spend this on the necessities.” So then your child leaves but decides that the last few months, through no fault of his or her own, has been tough. So instead of spending the money on rent or food he or she spends it on a cruise so that he or she can relax. Now how could you not care that your child deliberately went against your will and abused your gift to pleasure themselves?

It isn’t merely a choice. It is a gift.

We live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. A few days ago we gathered at a neighbor’s house, tapas and drinks, and sang some carols together. Most of our neighbors are hill farmers, but one is a professor, another is the local police chief and so on. Two of the men have lived together since long before we moved to Spain. We all care about them but none of us are bothered that they are gay, and perhaps they care more for us because no one is bothered.

I am glad they found companionship. However, they are not married (at least not naturally. I don’t know the Spanish laws). Personally I could not support a homosexual relationship, but I am glad they found great friends in you and you great friends in them.

I think the most fundamental moral here is that the majority needs a really good reason to make fellow citizens struggle with what we say are sinful inclinations.

I’m sure from your and tonyrey’s posts that you’re both in Christ, but cannot fathom why you believe you have a sufficient reason.

Well, I personally believe that some have to struggle for the greater good of the majority. Mentally handicap individuals often cannot drive because it would be dangerous to themselves as well as society. Some people cannot adopt children because they do not have the proper setting to raise children.

Aside from that there is also the point I have been arguing. Marriage is a natural institution. It has its natural purpose(s) as I stated before. We do not have the power to change what naturally exists.

But anyone with a Bible can see clearly that morality has changed.

For example, Christian morality has no relationship to “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” - Lev 25:44-46

Even the one aspect you’ve picked is hardly recognizable: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” That doesn’t apply to women, nor (hopefully) are gays now put to death.

God cannot change, as if he changes He was not perfect. So as morality is essentially defined as His will, it also cannot change.

Nowhere does it say one must own slaves. Obviously slavery (in the North American way) is immoral, but this could also be seen in relation to being written because of the hardness of their hearts. Christ never said anything resembling owning slaves. Nor did He change the morality of slave owning.

As for the second, that is the purpose of Christ (well not entirely but that is what His incarnation did). He came so that sacrifice of life and animals was not necessarily We are saved through Him and His sacrifice. And that has nothing to do with gay marriage. While I believe gay sex is sinful and an abuse of the natural gift God gave us, I am not trying to legislate against it.

As to it not applying to women, however, I see a few scenarios. Without being graphic, two homosexual males can have what seems to be intercourse (penetration) while two females can’t, so perhaps it wouldn’t even fall under sex but sexual stimulation, which is still an abuse of God’s gift (much like masturbation is). Or perhaps they are speaking as often done in the old testament: using man in a broader sense but still using man as an example. You would have to ask a biblical scholar or someone else, however. I cannot say for certain.

 

[qui_est_ce]

It means “… sex is a process of combining and mixing genetic traits, often resulting in the specialization of organisms into a male or female variety (each known as a sex). Sexual reproduction involves combining specialized cells (gametes) to form offspring that inherit traits from both parents. Gametes can be identical in form and function (known as isogametes), but in many cases an asymmetry has evolved such that two sex-specific types of gametes (heterogametes) exist: male gametes are small, motile, and optimized to transport their genetic information over a distance, while female gametes are large, non-motile and contain the nutrients necessary for the early development of the young organism.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

Male and female is more to do with physical anatomy than spiritual personhood.

God designed them male and female for a reason. I have no idea what the Wiki article has to do with God’s designs in creating them male and female.