"Consenting adults"

[meltzerboy]

There actually are gay men and lesbians in monogamous and committed relationships, too. Some of them are legally married. So there is no risk of infection in those relationships either. As my own church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has stated:

elca.org/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality

This is the same belief as in Reform Judaism.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Your wrong, homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage are immoral. Sorry, YOUR WRONG

My wrong what?

yes, you have to commit your life to another person, of the opposite sex, before participating in an activity that is designed to result in procreation.

I understand that you feel such acts alone, or with a non-spouse, or with someone of the same spouse, or where a man dresses up like a werewolf and the woman dresses up like Kate Beckinsale from “Underworld” tied to the bedpost is immoral in your eyes. We know where you and the Church stands.

When someone brings up that an activity is between consenting adults it’s usually because someone, say from your church or a similar one, feels it important to not only state that the act is immoral but also is trying to prevent such acts from taking place.

Again the question of what the Church feels is immoral is not in question. What is in question are the following:

1. Should laws be in place that prevent certain acts that one or more churches find immoral be enacted?
2. If the act takes place between two open, honest, and consenting adults and it truly does not affect a third party in a way a nonbeliever could see, then how do the third parties know about this act and how does the sin affect those third parties?

Immoral behavior is not to be glorified, doing so only makes the fact your sinning that much worse. It also encourages others to sin, which then is your sin also. I know, your thinking, what! if I cause someone else to sin it’s counted against me too!

But your church is but one of many. You understand that what you take as sin is not what all other churches say is sin. From a religiously neutral perspective we need to see what ill effects are caused by this sin (as far as your church is concerned) done behind closed doors beyond spiritual ill effects (which, again, not all churches will say is a spiritual sin).

The physiology that happens to be involved between homosexual male sex partners hmm coincidence I think not. The fact the rectal lining is damaged, because this isn’t what an anus is for people and often bleeds while having homosexual “intercourse” increasing the chances of the disease being transmitted from one person to the other. Just coincidence. God said no homosexual sex and there’s one reason.

As both meltzerboy and I pointed out, cases of lesbian sex (which constitutes about half of all homosexual sex) is just shy of immune to transmitting HIV. As Thorolfr pointed out your theory as to genetic makeup of women to make them susceptible to receiving diseases like HIV through heterosexual sex throws out your idea that physiology shows what God is thinking.

The human body is not built to throw a 90 mile an hour cutting fastball but there are several thousand men worldwide doing it. It’s rare for someone to do that for years and not require some kind of surgery. Just because it is not conducive to the body we don’t say God has spoken out against baseball. If homosexuals know the risks then who am I to stop them?

(continued in next post)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Just because God chose not deal with the matter of female homosexual sex in the same way as he deals with male homosexual sex doesn’t in anyway make God ok with it.

But your argument was built on the bodily makeup making it easier for the disease to be passed, and then when shown how a different bodily makeup between two participants built up such an immunity that I was only able to find ONE reported case of HIV transfer due to lesbian sex in the decades since the disease was known – you dismiss it out of hand as not counting because it doesn’t fit your argument.

sickle-cell anemia is genetic, it’s due to the degradation of our genetic code due to death being introduced into the world, due to the fall of man, the sin of Adam and Eve. Death of man, death of beast, and the death of divinely designed systems, that should have been perpetual. The fact that sickle-cell anemia affects mainly African people isn’t God targeting Africans since every race group has their own genetic issues.

The very real reason that sickle-cell anemia targets mostly those of African descent is in the link I gave you. I can’t go into further detail as it is the one banned topic. Suffice it to say that Adam and Eve are unnecessary to explain this fact about the disease.

Skin cancer is a result of ozone depletion, resulting from the sin of not properly maintaining the earths systems due to greed and harm done to our little “garden” called earth. Unfortunately the ozone depletion does effect everyone, not just those responsible, just like sin does. Also this disease targets people of fair complexion more then say, Africans.

While ozone depletion has led to an increase in skin cancer, you are quite wrong to say that “skin cancer is a result of ozone depletion”. People have been getting skin cancer since there were people and a sun. Even some animals can get skin cancer.

Aids and hiv are a bit more specific, but unfortunately, like sin, the disease affects more then just those that are involved directly in that sin, although not to the same extent.

You and I agree that AIDS and HIV affect more than just those that are infected. There is a reason why it is an epidemic. But this is not the first such disease and certainly will not be the last. You lamented as to much we are spending on this disease. It’s that spending that has helped developed drug cocktails that have led people (both the ones who got it through what you would call immoral activity as well as those who did not) to live semi-normal lives.

Except the pre-med student only knows the physical nature of the disease and not the spiritual nature of it. Your comparing apples to oranges. The medical student and theologian are approaching a disease from different angles and with different reasons for approaching at all. A medical student says what can we do to cure this disease or reduce its effects. The theologian asks why does this disease exist.

You are the one comparing apples and oranges. You are the one that made claims as to why this Earth has HIV. You claim the theologian knows why the disease exists, but is UTTERLY DEVOID of facts. There is no evidence. You can’t tell me a single verifiable thing about the origin or AIDS or polio or ALS other than making up something and ending it with the icon.

Jesus cured disease, which would also make him a doctor I guess. Oddly, He cured disease and forgave sin, many times, at the same time. Why, because disease and sin go hand in hand.

“Disease and sin go hand in hand”?! What sin do the children born with childhood leukemia have to commit to get that disease? What sin did my nephew have to commit in the womb to be born three months early and spend almost a year in the hospital? You may wish to back off on the notion that disease and sin are two halves of the same coin.

It’s been that way since the beginning. Some diseases are just more directly linked to a specific sin then others.

What we are talking about here is the harm of personal sin on the individual and on society as a whole. Fact, homosexual sex doesn’t take place, the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly. Sex outside of marriage doesn’t take place, the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly. Intraveinous drug use stops and the spread of aids and hiv diminish greatly.

Infant death and birth defects spike as a couple has kids later in life. A woman’s risk of dying during pregnancy and birth increase with each successive one. Vasectomies, tubal ligations, and barrier contraception are steps that could prevent that. By your reasoning birth defects, infant mortaility, and birthing mortality are diseases that target certain activities – namely heterosexual sex. Is that immoral too?

This is a disease that targets, in high numbers, people involved in immoral activities. Then those people, cause people, outside of those groups to be infected, thus causing harm to the rest of the world, as result of doing what God said not to do and for good reason. The fact the harm that sin causes can be diminished due to monogamy (the adoption of a simulated marriage) or the use of some barrier, doesn’t change its destructive nature or the fact it’s sin,

Again, when things like monogamy and barrier contraception go against your theory you toss them aside.

but does show God is not without mercy, as in the fact Jesus cured disease and disease is often curable, by men. Also Jesus forgave sins and gave the power to forgive sins to men.

Then why does the cure for leprosy in the Bible not work?

Sin can be repented of, disease can be cured. Sin is spiritual, disease is physical, both are linked. One being the result of the other.

Again, think of kids with childhood leukemia before you write things like that.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

My wrong what?
Again the question of what the Church feels is immoral is not in question. What is in question are the following:

1. Should laws be in place that prevent certain acts that one or more churches find immoral be enacted?
2. If the act takes place between two open, honest, and consenting adults and it truly does not affect a third party in a way a nonbeliever could see, then how do the third parties know about this act and how does the sin affect those third parties?

I can’t answer the second question, but I will answer the first.

The government has three things it can do with the law and human behavior: promote, permit, or prohibit.

For example, the government policies PROMOTE work in law enforcement, fire safety/rescue, military service, teaching, etc. Those same policies PERMIT working as an investment banker. Government policies PROHIBIT working as a drug dealer.

Why?

The government promotes certain jobs because they greatly benefit society. It prohibits certain forms of work because they harm society. It permits other occupations because they don’t fall into either category.

So if it can be shown an action causes harm to society, then yes the Government should enact laws prohibiting such actions.

I realize this has nothing explicitly to do with religious opinions, but many people in modern debates about issues have tried to paint the opposition as being “religious” even when the arguments being made have little or nothing to do with religion.

(for a better articulated argument, check out this video on YouTube discussing same-sex marriage)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So if it can be shown an action causes harm to society, then yes the Government should enact laws prohibiting such actions.

The principle is sound. The problem is the classification of certain acts as being beneficial, neutral or harmful. Who will make that distinction?

Not the government, for sure. The members of government are not equipped to make such decisions, their primary (and sometimes only) concern is to stay in power to get re-elected.

During the his presidency, Nixon created a panel of scientists to examine the effects of marijuana. Sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? But he also said that if the study will NOT support the laws of prohibition, he will disregard the findings of the panel. Guess what? There was no evidence that marijuana is harmful, so the result of the panel’s findings were properly deposited into “file thirteen” and the laws did not change. Pretty sad.

As for the proper role of the government should be restricted to uphold the handful of necessary laws, which enable everyone to live as freely as they wish. But this would lead to another kind of conversation.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

For example, the government policies PROMOTE work in law enforcement, fire safety/rescue, military service, teaching, etc. Those same policies PERMIT working as an investment banker. Government policies PROHIBIT working as a drug dealer.

Why?

The government promotes certain jobs because they greatly benefit society. It prohibits certain forms of work because they harm society. It permits other occupations because they don’t fall into either category.

So if it can be shown an action causes harm to society, then yes the Government should enact laws prohibiting such actions.

I realize this has nothing explicitly to do with religious opinions, but many people in modern debates about issues have tried to paint the opposition as being “religious” even when the arguments being made have little or nothing to do with religion.

They paint them as religious because for the most part they are religious. Remember that we are a pluralistic society, so stating that a god or gods say that such actions are against his, her, or their plans is insufficient.

(for a better articulated argument, check out this video on YouTube discussing same-sex marriage)

So I watched the video twice, and here’s what I see:

1. It states that the sole reason for marriage is for the “perpetuation and stabilization of society”. While that is one role of marriage it also there to provide a legal recognition that a relationship between two people exists on record, and to provide legal protections that such on-record relationships are afforded.
2. It claims that marriage between a man and a woman best raises children. The jury is still out on that one.
3. The third item on the video’s “why natural marriage benefits society” says that it protects women then has text underneath that says “who often give up or postpone their careers to have children from being abandoned and harmed economically by uncommitted men”. Let’s put aside that being married to someone doesn’t prevent that person from being abandoned, and that the economic responsibilities for a child don’t change when a person is unmarried. My question is why the author of this video didn’t include this item on the list of “how same-sex marriage benefits society”. Surely a same-sex couple that has children can have one partner who gives up his or her career to raise a child and then be abandoned physically and/or economically from the partner. Is the reason why it’s on one list and not the other because the author of this video has no problem breaking the commandment about bearing false witness in pursuit of his agenda?
4. The fourth item on the video’s “why natural marriage benefits society” says that it civilizes men. This time let’s set aside this notion that males are by and large beasts. The problem with this item is that it puts the cart before the horse. It’s not marriage that civilizes men, it is civilized men choosing marriage. It would be like saying MENSA makes people geniuses when instead it’s geniuses who sign up to be in MENSA.
5. The fifth item on the video’s “why natural marriage benefits society” says that it reduces crime rates. Everybody who has ever read a study anywhere please repeat after me: Correlation is not causation! The same traits that cause a person to commit crimes are the ones that cause a person to abandon his or her child, not financially support the child, and not marry the mother or father of the child. Marriage doesn’t fix those issues in a person but instead show such that a committed person is less likely to have those issues. And again there is no explanation why this can’t be applied to same-sex couples.
6. It claims that “same-sex marriage offers no benefit for society as a whole” despite the fact that it covers the same ground from a societal perspective.
7. It claims that “natural marriage” centers on bringing up the next generation of citizens while same-sex marriage is solely about validating sex partners. Two problems that I’ve already covered: First, marriage is not centered solely on children. It’s an important aspect for those who choose to take that step but it doesn’t invalidate those partnership that can’t or won’t have children (will get to that part of the video shortly). Second, same-sex partnerships do raise children, so you can’t say they aren’t bringing up the next generation of citizens.
8. “What about natural marriages that don’t create children? They are the exception not the rule.” With more and more couples opting out of the parent track, and with the number of senior citizen widows and widowers getting married increasing it’s hard to ignore how often opposite sex couples aren’t having kids – except this video essentially does so. It dismisses those facts out of hand because it doesn’t fit with the narrative that it wants to present.

(continued on the next post)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(continued from previous post)

1. “The only relationships that create children are between a man and a woman”. That is technically true, but there are scientific methods that also count. I know the Church is against them, but they exist. But even putting that strike against the video’s truth tally aside, let’s talk about adoption. We are in a situation where the number of children to be adopted far outpaces the number of available couples – with the exception of white infants. One group that is stepping up in the adoption of children that are not white and/or not infants are homosexual couples. No this is not about creating life, but it is about helping life to become the next generation. That’s something the author of the video claims is vital, yet ignores the role homosexual couples have played and continue to play in that goal as it pertains to adoption.
2. The video says that where same-sex marriage is promoted schools have also promoted pro-gay curricula. This is true. The same has been true when non-whites have been treated as equals and when women have been deemed equal. You, your church, or anybody protesting outside a funeral are more than welcome to not think gays should be allowed to express intimacy or get married. The key point is to treat people with respect.
3. “Your business and taxes fund homosexual relationships.” I’m not sure where the word “fund” came from. Businesses have to be equal in their dealings with the public, just like how a lunch counter can’t exclude black people and a home seller can’t refuse to sell to a Jewish couple.
4. “Your freedom of speech is gagged.” The video then gives two headlines. “Sports anchor fired for tweeting support for true marriage” and “Consultant fired for writing book opposing same sex marriage”. This is a bit of a mess as businesses have the right to fire someone – especially a public figure – if it puts the business in an unfavorable light. Look up Jimmy the Greek for a non-gay example.
5. “Your religious freedom is overruled” followed by a headline about Catholic Charities stopping adoption service. I’m assuming this is referring to Catholic Charities in Illinois. They pulled out of foster care and state adoptions but they still do private adoptions. It’s very simple in working with the state, the state will want its service to help all of its people, and not just certain groups. It’s not going to work with a food bank that only delivers food to one race of people.
6. “The law already says that everyone can already marry someone of the opposite sex.” Yes and before Loving v. Virginia several states already had laws that said people could marry their own races.
7. “Isn’t this a discrimination against homosexuals? No, this is a discrimination against behaviors.” And the video and you have certainly not given even the slightest compelling reason why this behavior should be discriminated against.
8. This one is a DOOZY. Paraphrase: Is it discrimination when the government promotes police work even if you don’t become a police officer. No, because others become police benefits society. In the same way promoting opposite-sex marriage doesn’t discriminate against those who don’t participate in it.

The video is so frustratingly incompetently lazy to show that if the government promotes or permits same-sex marriage it doesn’t discriminate against those who don’t participate in it. In fact it helps in the same ways that earlier in the video that it claimed heterosexual marriage does (stability, protection, family, etc.) Again, it’s such a lazy argument.

1. Homosexuals “can already commit themselves to each other until death do they part without government endorsement.” Yet, it of course skips over the fact that without government endorsement those commitments they lack the most basic rights and protections the law gives.

The video is a tire fire of faulty reasoning.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

They paint them as religious because for the most part they are religious. Remember that we are a pluralistic society, so stating that a god or gods say that such actions are against his, her, or their plans is insufficient.

So I watched the video twice, and here’s what I see:

I abbreviated your two-post quote for brevity’s sake. I’m also not going to respond to everything.

First of all, the fact that someone is religious does not mean they are making a religious argument. Ryan T. Anderson doesn’t mention God in any of his arguments in favor of traditional marriage. He’s devoutly religious, but he’s not arguing from a religious standpoint.

In the same way, although I am devoutly Catholic, I do not resort to religion in my defense of the unborn. I focus on scientific evidence that it really is a living human being and should therefor be protected under the law.

That was the main point I was trying to make earlier.

Second, you’re main complaint about the video seems to be that same-sex marriage DOES provide benefits to society along the same lines as heterosexual marriages. While I don’t deny some studies have come to this conclusion, others have not.

The studies which support same-sex marriages and parenting have repeatedly been shown to be flawed in their methodology or else victims of the same funding questions as any study confirming traditional marriage is good and same-sex marriage is not. So if we’re going on something other than religion, what do we really have that we can rely on?

Honestly, I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I’m not really trying to argue the same-sex marriage debate right now. I brought out the video only because it did a better job explaining the “promote, permit, prohibit” argument. Since those are really the only things the government can do, the question now becomes, (as I believe you even said yourself) what do we base our decision on?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

First of all, the fact that someone is religious does not mean they are making a religious argument.

True.

Ryan T. Anderson doesn’t mention God in any of his arguments in favor of traditional marriage. He’s devoutly religious, but he’s not arguing from a religious standpoint.

But when his arguments are as appallingly faulty as his are, then all that are left is the fact that he will be disingenuous with his arguments because he is coming from a religious standpoint.

Second, you’re main complaint about the video seems to be that same-sex marriage DOES provide benefits to society along the same lines as heterosexual marriages. While I don’t deny some studies have come to this conclusion, others have not.

The very same list of bulletin points that the author of the video gave for promoting opposite-sex marriage (e.g. protecting those that leave work to care for a child, reduction in crime, etc.) he could have used for same-sex marriage but did not. Either he or you need to explain why those points apply to one type of marriage and not the other.

Since those are really the only things the government can do, the question now becomes, (as I believe you even said yourself) what do we base our decision on?

Non-lies.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So let’s make it personal again…

Let’s say that I sinned last night. Not sure if you want the details, but I can be specific if you need me to be. Now you (and others) claim that that is now your business. Where do we go from here?

Bradski-

I don’t need the details. In one sense, you are no different than anyone else. We all sin and we do so often. The big issue is when we have put ourselves into a position to sin advertently as opposed to inadvertently.

The man who glances at a skantily clad woman in a magazine or movie may have sinnned…the man who is living with and having sex regularly with a “partner” is purposefully engaging in acts that ARE sinful whether he knows or admits this or not.

So, where do we go from here?

1. We acknowledge that God exists.
2. We recognize that God has expectations and standards he expects us to live by.
3. We admit that we have not met those criteria and ask for forgiveness.
4. We modify our future behavior accordingly.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So, where do we go from here?

There is another way.

1. We realize that “sin” is a useless and man-made concept.
2. We realize that “love” is “love”, regardless of the particulars.
3. We cherish love no matter what form it takes.
4. We avoid hurting others.

And life is incomparably better. Simple, eh?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is another way.

1. We realize that “sin” is a useless and man-made concept.
2. We realize that “love” is “love”, regardless of the particulars.
3. We cherish love no matter what form it takes.
4. We avoid hurting others.

And life is incomparably better. Simple, eh?

Simplistic perhaps.

Don’t worry…I’ll be around to explain why your #1 is erroneous.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Simplistic perhaps.

Nice little put-down.

Don’t worry…I’ll be around to explain why your #1 is erroneous.

Any time…

 

[Bradski]

So, where do we go from here?

1. We acknowledge that God exists.
2. We recognize that God has expectations and standards he expects us to live by.
3. We admit that we have not met those criteria and ask for forgiveness.
4. We modify our future behavior accordingly.

When I said where do we go, I meant where in this conversation. You say it’s your business what I’ve been doing (although you have no idea what that is). So the ball is now in your court.

If it is your business, what are YOU going to do?

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure it’s worth saying that something is your business if that statement doesn’t actually mean anything. If no-one can express how it might manifest itself, then I think we can safely assume that it is meaningless in the first instance.

 

[markncols]

There are a lot of good points being made in this discussion. There is no simple answer because the question has so many variables. I think the best thing to do is if you think consenting adults are doing something wrong remember it is not our right to judge. Something else to keep in mind is that everyone is fighting their own demons.

 

[GeneviveD28]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is horizontal thinking…from person to person on a horizontal plane. Thinking with God is vertical thinking…because His reasoning is above us.

If two people want to go roll in the mud and they’re not hurting anyone…okay, that’s their business…on a horizontal level. But the maitre’d of a five-star restaurant will not allow them to be seated with their clothes covered in mud. Indeed, while the couple would probably glory in their muddy attire at a tractor pull, they would proabably be embarrassed to be seen in such a state in more elegant settings.

Transfer this concept to the soul. The consenting adults who have a go that is sinful in the eyes of God have stained their souls. They may be willing to brag of their exploits among their beer-buddies, but in the presence of an all-holy God, they will be shamed into silence.

So, what they do as consenting adults behind closed doors DOES matter.

Hi Randy,
that was very beautifully put. Thank you.

 

[classicar]

Kudos to Randy Carson—the best explanation for what matters. God cannot be hurt, yet it matters gravely too Him what we do with our free will, on an extremely eternal plane. We should all think hard about what we do in front of an all-seeing, all-knowing God, no matter wether it is “hurting” anybody or not. Classicar.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Kudos to Randy Carson—the best explanation for what matters. God cannot be hurt, yet it matters gravely too Him what we do with our free will, on an extremely eternal plane. We should all think hard about what we do in front of an all-seeing, all-knowing God, no matter wether it is “hurting” anybody or not.

The trouble with is that God could do something about it, IF he so chose! Since he never expresses his “displeasure” it is reasonable to maintain that he does not care. If you are a parent, and see that your child does something you do not approve, then you had better STEP in and explain why that behavior is “frowned upon”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The trouble with is that God could do something about it, IF he so chose! Since he never expresses his “displeasure” it is reasonable to maintain that he does not care. If you are a parent, and see that your child does something you do not approve, then you had better STEP in and explain why that behavior is “frowned upon”.

More than once in Scripture God stepped in and expressed his displeasure with sodomy, if that is the point of this discussion. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Remember Paul condemnation of sodomy in his letter to the Romans?

Moreover, we are created with a conscience that tells us when something is wrong. That too is God’s way of stepping in. Where God does not step in is to forcibly prevent us from sinning against him, against the natural law, and against ourselves. It’s called free will. Do atheists believe in it?

“Thinking against nature, you will become foolish; and persisting you will go insane.” St. Irenaeus

People should be free to choose between heaven and hell, and they do.