Sexual Orientation

Zombrex

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I don't think you quite get how falling in love works!
You don't just choose to love somebody, i don't think that would even be possible. If your way of thinking had an ounce of truth to it we'd all be in perfect relationships, simply find someone you're compatable with and then choose to love them - perfection.
If it worked your way, there'd be no need to be counselling anybody, everybody would be perfectly happy!

Exactly, there would be no more broken hearts. Husbands just run off with a 24 year old secretary leaving you heart broken? Easy, just choose to not love him any more. You choose to love him originally right? Now just choose otherwise, and choose someone else, maybe that nice neighbor you were chatting to yesterday. Simples, problem solved, no staying up all night crying, no heart broken trips to your parents. Husband who, so last week!

Of course, as you say, it doesn't work like that.

sbsquarepants

Zombrex wrote: »

Exactly, there would be no more broken hearts. Husbands just run off with a 24 year old secretary leaving you heart broken? Easy, just choose to not love him any more. You choose to love him originally right? Now just choose otherwise, and choose someone else, maybe that nice neighbor you were chatting to yesterday. Simples, problem solved, no staying up all night crying, no heart broken trips to your parents. Husband who, so last week!

Of course, as you say, it doesn't work like that.

Would be great if it did though!

To my mind PDNs version of a loving marriage sounds horribly cold and sterile. You've hit the nail on the head exactly, you can only fake these things, you can't actually feel them. If you could there would be no divorce, no broken homes, no unhappy marriages, no depression. Just choose to be happy - it would be amazing - pity it's complete nonsense!

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Would be great if it did though!

To my mind PDNs version of a loving marriage sounds horribly cold and sterile. You've hit the nail on the head exactly, you can only fake these things, you can't actually feel them. If you could there would be no divorce, no broken homes, no unhappy marriages, no depression. Just choose to be happy - it would be amazing - pity it's complete nonsense!

LOL at the judgementalism and the false assumptions.

Or perhaps you're advocating staying stuck in a loveless marriage rather than going and being happy with someone else? Doesn't seem that great a plan to be honest. (if that is what you mean?)

I advocated no such thing. You are free to disagree with me, but I'd prefer it if you refrained from misrepresenting me.

You're telling homosexuals to deny their nature, which any amount of scientific and anecdotal evidence will tell you is not a good idea and causes a raft of problems for people.

Really? Where did I tell anyone to deny their nature? More untruths.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

doctoremma wrote: »

Excuse me?

You think because I had a "light bulb" moment with my husband, that I could easily have that with someone else? That I don't have the capacity to recognise the mature, well-developed relationship that has happily emerged from that "light bulb" moment is far more important to me? That we are held together by little more than hormones and magic?

No, I think that you have made a choice to love your husband for better or worse, but that in your previous post you downplayed the choice aspect so as to score points in a debate on an internet forum.

You seem to have a definition of choice that doesn't jive with the rest of the English-speaking world.

Edit: or reality.

sbsquarepants

PDN wrote: »

LOL at the judgementalism and the false assumptions..

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no judgementalism or assumptions in there, false or otherwise.

PDN wrote: »

I advocated no such thing. You are free to disagree with me, but I'd prefer it if you refrained from misrepresenting me..

I think you've read it wrong. I didn't misrepresent anything, i merely asked is that what you meant.

PDN wrote: »

Really? Where did I tell anyone to deny their nature? More untruths.

Did you not say that gay people should refrain from homosexual acts, as they are sinful? If that's not saying they should deny their nature, then what is?

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Did you not say that gay people should refrain from homosexual acts, as they are sinful? If that's not saying they should deny their nature, then what is?

Where did I say they should refrain from anything?

Stop making stuff up.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Has already happened. It would be great if everyone stayed in love with the first person they fell in love with, but it doesn't work like that. If it did everyone would marry the first person they fall in love with. No point pretending it does.



Ah yes, was wondering when it would get around to this, the Christian obsession with feeling justified in blaming people, as if that achieves anything. Girl no longer loves her boyfriend, decides to break up with him to date other people. You can blame her for this all you like, doesn't make her love her boyfriend any more so aside from perhaps allowing the boyfriend to vent a little at the end of the day does blaming her achieve anything? Would the boyfriend want her to continue going out with him even though her feelings have changed and she doesn't feel as he feels?

People cannot control who they fall in love with, or who they fall out of love with. You can of course control who you marry, and who you decide to stay with even though you aren't in love with them any more. And you can decide to blame someone who gets divorced because they don't want to be with the person any more.

Personally I think that if someone is no longer in love with their partner or spouse staying together anyway, while initially seeming noble, leads to bitterness and resentment by both parties. I certainly would not want my wife faking it for the next 60 years under some noble notion that she owes it to me. I've seen this happen a few times and it is not pretty.

You may disagree, you may feel that a person should continue in a loveless marriage because they have already made a life long commitment to the other person and that they should continue to be loving to that person (the action rather than emotion) even if that is not coming from genuine love.

That is up to you, you may feel happier being able to blame any person who breaks up with their girlfriend or divorces their husband because they no longer feel as they once did. But that has little to do with the reality of what love is or how it works. It is either genuine or they are faking it. Faking it might be seem noble initially but I think if you think about it for a bit you would agree that in reality it is probably the less of both options, particularly in the long run.

What is this 'love' you speak of ?
Boy fall out of love with girlfriend, eh how? Love isn't a virus you catch, it's a thing you do, everyday not once but everyday. If you think that the attraction you first felt was love, then I feel sorry for you, you'll be chasing that bus the rest of your life.
OK I'm parodying your stance a bit but the thing is love isn't one thing, it lots of little things and to last you have to find a way to balance your list of things with your OH's list.
People can and do fail to fullfill their list or find that they cant do so with the person they first thought would be 'the One'. Thats life, it isn't a matter of blame or credit. But it dosn't help to insist that the state we call falling in love is the only love or even the only love worth persevering. Love must change and grow.
I really hope that your post above was an over reaction to the perceived slur on couples who cant find happiness together.

Y

Actor

sbsquarepants wrote:

If that's not saying they should deny their nature, then what is?

Just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it moral.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

What is this 'love' you speak of ?
Boy fall out of love with girlfriend, eh how? Love isn't a virus you catch, it's a thing you do, everyday not once but everyday.

Not sure how serious that was, but just in case, Love is not a thing you do. It is an emotional state you are in with regard to feelings towards another person.

"Loving" or acting lovingly towards another is a thing you can do. But anyone who has watched a romantic film can see that humans can act lovingly to each other without being in love with each other. Heck you don't even have to like the person so long as the pay cheque is large enough.

tommy2bad wrote: »

People can and do fail to fullfill their list or find that they cant do so with the person they first thought would be 'the One'. Thats life, it isn't a matter of blame or credit. But it dosn't help to insist that the state we call falling in love is the only love or even the only love worth persevering. Love must change and grow.

Love certainly does change and grow (recent scientific studies on brain chemistry have shown that the state the brain finds itself in in different stages of a relationship shift significantly as the relationship progresses)

But that isn't the issue. The issue is the assert made by some that you choose who to be in love with. As has been pointed out if that was the case heart break would be a thing of the past.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Not sure how serious that was, but just in case, Love is not a thing you do. It is an emotional state you are in with regard to feelings towards another person.

"Loving" or acting lovingly towards another is a thing you can do. But anyone who has watched a romantic film can see that humans can act lovingly to each other without being in love with each other. Heck you don't even have to like the person so long as the pay cheque is large enough.



Love certainly does change and grow (recent scientific studies on brain chemistry have shown that the state the brain finds itself in in different stages of a relationship shift significantly as the relationship progresses)

But that isn't the issue. The issue is the assert made by some that you choose who to be in love with. As has been pointed out if that was the case heart break would be a thing of the past.

Yeah 'cos romantic films are such a guide to real life.:rolleyes:

OK, I get the last bit, not sure anyone said you choose who to love as much as choosing how to love. And btw that can mean leaving them as much as sticking with it.
The thing is you seem to assume that falling in love trumps all else, I'm married 29 years and if I chased every one I fell in love with in the last 29 years I would not be still married. I chose not to, more than that; I chose my wife over them. The love I had was worth more than the love I thought I'd find. It's called growing up.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah 'cos romantic films are such a guide to real life.:rolleyes:

I was talking about the actors

No one thinks the stars of the last romantic comedy are in love with each other just because you watched them spend the last 2 hours acting lovingly to each other.

There is a world of difference between being in love with someone (the emotional state that you do not control) and acting lovingly to someone (the actions that can be a result of being in love or any a host of other reasons)

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK, I get the last bit, not sure anyone said you choose who to love as much as choosing how to love.

Seems to be what some are saying. Though I'm probably going to be accused of selective quote mining and misrepresentation any moment now ... :P

tommy2bad wrote: »

And btw that can mean leaving them as much as sticking with it.

Exactly, which is why heart break is a thing. If what some people were claiming were true heart break wouldn't exist. You would simply choose not to be in love with the person who just left you. Obviously that isn't how it works.

tommy2bad wrote: »

The thing is you seem to assume that falling in love trumps all else, I'm married 29 years and if I chased every one I fell in love with in the last 29 years I would not be still married.

Er, I'm not sure it is a good thing that you have been falling in love constantly with other people while you have been married, given that love tends to be rather binary, ie you tend to only be in love with one person at a time.

Though perhaps you are confusing falling in love with someone with simple attraction to another person. As you said the love you might find. If you haven't found it yet then you haven't fallen in love with this new person.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I chose not to, more than that; I chose my wife over them. The love I had was worth more than the love I thought I'd find. It's called growing up.

Well that depends on the answer to the above question.

Personally I don't think it is a good idea to stay in a loveless marriage simply to keep married and not break up with your partner. I think that does a disservice to both yourself and your partner, given that there is an expectation on your partners part that you love her. Not and pretending otherwise is living a lie, no matter how lovingly you act to her.

Not saying this is what you have done (again I think by "falling in love" you think we mean simply being attracted to others), but it is what some people do, people who genuinely fall out of love.

tommy2bad

Yeah, I misread you about the romantic films. Tired after Bruce is my excuse.
I think we agree being in love is best in a binary situation but I don't think being in love is binary.
Theirs a point when you have to make a choice. I don't think that I would love my wife any less if I had two wives because each love is different. I can chose to be loveing to any number of people, I can fall in love with a lot of people but not in the same way each time. As you said it's complicated but I and I only speak for myself, have met others that I regret having to leave alone but thats not saying that I love my wife less, just that if all things being equal I could be as happy with them.

Or do you believe that theirs only one? and that once found all others are redundant? Isn't that obsession more than love?

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

'Varying denominations'....often based on different readings of the bible. As I said, there are over 38,000 Christian churches. That alone speaks to the difficulty of interpretation. Seeking an answer on something as specific as homosexuality is therefore doomed to failure.

So I've read the Bible with Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, non-denominational Christians, Brethren, Baptists, and varying shares of Pentecostals. The vast majority of the time, we've come to pretty much the same conclusion on whatever passages of Scripture we were studying. How is that? Or is it just a fluke?

There are quite a number of passages that clearly speak about it in both Old and New Testaments. One example:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 wrote:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The ESV gives us a footnote saying the following:

6:9 The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts

Irrespective of denomination, that's still Biblical whether people like it or not. Notice that it takes its place amongst an array of other sins. That it isn't isolated on its own.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Do you know many peolpe who have changed their sexuality? I personally haven't heard of it happening. Sexuality is not something we learn, like a language

There have been cases of people in marriages becoming homosexual, likewise there have been people in homosexual relationships who have married, and no longer do the things they formerly did.

Just because I have desires does not make it acceptable to act upon them. Christians struggle with sin, but if we have died to sin as the Bible tells us in Romans 6, then we should turn away from sin and actively forbid it from enslaving us again once more.

sbsquarepants

PDN wrote: »

Where did I say they should refrain from anything?

Stop making stuff up.

Did you not say that being attracted to your own sex is not a sin, but acting on it is? Do you not think people should give up their auld sins?
Is it too much of jump to put those two together and come up with what i said? I've noticed in general, not you specifically, but in general religious types are seem very quick to hide behind semantics.

Actor wrote: »

Just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it moral.

I couldn't agree more. Serial killers appear in nature, as do rapists, child abusers and so on. It's one of the main reasons i'm an atheist - i can't believe any benign being would deliberately create such monsters and set them free on the world. My view is any creator is either a right <insert suitable expletive> or imaginary - either way he's not worth bothering with.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah 'cos romantic films are such a guide to real life.:rolleyes:

OK, I get the last bit, not sure anyone said you choose who to love as much as choosing how to love. And btw that can mean leaving them as much as sticking with it.
The thing is you seem to assume that falling in love trumps all else, I'm married 29 years and if I chased every one I fell in love with in the last 29 years I would not be still married. I chose not to, more than that; I chose my wife over them. The love I had was worth more than the love I thought I'd find. It's called growing up.

You've fallen in love with loads of other women while married to your wife? If that's true it's quite sad.
But what i think you're doing is confusing love with attraction, i can't walk down a busy street without seeing someone i'm attracted too, i don't however fall in love with them, there is a huge difference.

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Did you not say that being attracted to your own sex is not a sin, but acting on it is? Do you not think people should give up their auld sins?

What I think people should do is very different from what I tell people to do. I think people shouldn't waste their time watching soao operas - but I don't tell them what to watch on TV.

If you are not a Christian then giving up a few sins won't help you in the slightest. You might as well keep sleeping with whoever or whatever you like for all I care.

Is it too much of jump to put those two together and come up with what i said?

It would be too much of a jump if you were concerned about honesty.

I've noticed in general, not you specifically, but in general religious types are seem very quick to hide behind semantics.

And I've noticed that atheist types, not all of them but you and a few others specifically, are very quick to enforce your stereotypes about believers and tell untruths about them.

sbsquarepants

PDN wrote: »

What I think people should do is very different from what I tell people to do. I think people shouldn't waste their time watching soao operas - but I don't tell them what to watch on TV..

I assume you don't tell them you think they'll burn in hell for watching eastenders though.
Probably preferable to watching it in any case!

PDN wrote: »

f you are not a Christian then giving up a few sins won't help you in the slightest. You might as well keep sleeping with whoever or whatever you like for all I care..

I'm not and i will:)

PDN wrote: »

It would be too much of a jump if you were concerned about honesty.

And I've noticed that atheist types, not all of them but you and a few others specifically, are very quick to enforce your stereotypes about believers and tell untruths about them.

Again, it's semantics and it's yourself that's struggling with the concept of honesty. The whole i don't care what you do, i just think you'll burn for it line rings extremely hollow to me.

PDN

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I assume you don't tell them you think they'll burn in hell for watching eastenders though.
Probably preferable to watching it in any case!

I've never told anyone they would burn in hell for being gay either. :rolleyes:

Again, it's semantics and it's yourself that's struggling with the concept of honesty.

Right, so you misatttribute opinions to me and, when I point out your dishonesty, you dismiss it as semantics.

Where have I ever told anyone to stop being gay?

The whole i don't care what you do, i just think you'll burn for it line rings extremely hollow to me.

Yes, it would be much easier if other people always conformed to your misinformed preconceptions and stereotypes, wouldn't it?

qrrgprgua

Very interesting blog. There is also a video on ABC news.

Note:- I am not for one moment saying gay men should marry women.. just that's its interesting to see how this couple live a full filling marriage being 100% open and honest to each other. I heard some people say they are living a lie.. How quick people apply labels.

http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together

wolfsbane

Andrewf20 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are not immediately created by God at our conception - we are formed from Adam's seed. Adam's nature is what we are, not the original perfect creation.
But who created Adams nature?

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.



*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Mardy Bum

wolfsbane wrote: »

Andrewf20 said:

God created Adam's nature - a perfect nature, sinless. That nature was however able to choose to sin - and Adam did. We call that the Fall of Man.

Our nature since has been twisted, sinful, opposed to God. God has to intervene if we are to get a new nature.



*******************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Are you a creationist or are you taking that metaphorically?

wolfsbane

doctoremma said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
No, but I'm 62. When kids are indoctrinated with the normality of homosexuality - using a same-sex home in a reader without comment, for example - that is equivalent to teaching homosexuality is moral.
I don't think it is. I think it's teaching kids that there are a multitude of different peoples out there in the big world and that not everyone is the same. Isn't this part of how you instil respect for others? I don't see how you can instil respect for homosexual people by saying 'Here's Peter and Dave, they live together and kiss each other, that's deviant, you know'.

Can we not respect the rights of people who are immoral? Can we not regard them as our fellow-man, but doing things we don't approve of? I think we can. I do. I think people who worship idols are immoral - but I respect them as good neighbours, etc. My respect homosexual friends, just deplore their immoral sexuality. I do business with them, and treat them as I do my heterosexual friends.

We don't need to criticise homosexual couples when we use a home situation in school books - just use the heterosexual standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They would not have an incestuous home as a Janet & John type reader, I assume.
Incest is illegal. So no, I've never seen a book that presents this as an acceptable family situation (at least, not as a school book).

In some countries/states it is not illegal. In New Jersey, for instance. Would it be right for that state to use an incestuous couple as the mom & dad for their family model? Do you say that it would be OK to do so in Ireland if they made incest legal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Unless you think schools do not promote any morality?
Difficult to say. I'm not sure it's a school's job to promote morality in any way other than what is defined in law. I certainly don't think a school should be teaching that homosexuality is immoral or moral, more that it simply IS.

That's the problem we face - schools do teach morality. As you say, it is the morality currently defined by law - but if the law permits incest or polygamy or bestiality, is it right for any of that to be used as a model for the kids? (By model I mean an example of acceptable relationships).

By all means teach kids to respect the rights of all to choose how they relate sexually. But it is entirely wrong to teach them all forms of sexuality are moral.

********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

wolfsbane

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Are you a creationist or are you taking that metaphorically?

Creationist. The historic position of Christianity.

wolfsbane

PickledLime wrote: »

Granted, i fit the dictionary definition of 'adulterer' in that myself and my girlfriend are unmarried and have sex. I probably should have said that i reject the notion of it being sinful.

Because i'm an atheist i don't acknowledge the existence of religious sin. I do however, acknowledge the existence of moral sin. The 3 types of sexual sin are paedophilia, rape and (to a lesser extent because at least two consenting adults are involved), cheating on one's partner. You are classing all sex outside of marriage as 'sin'. So am i to be lumped in with the rapists and paedophiles?

I'm not saying your point of views are immoral, i'm saying that the majority would find them to be somewhat bizarre and rooted in religious zealotry. Myself and my girlfriend's relationship is the accepted norm, your views are not.

Yes, you are lumped in with the rapists and paedophiles in as far as your fornication is a sexual sin. Not as grave as theirs, but still sin.

But you are right about Christian sexual morality being a minority. So? What has that to do with it being true or not?

****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by wolfsbane;
That's the problem we face - schools do teach morality. As you say, it is the morality currently defined by law - but if the law permits incest or polygamy or bestiality, is it right for any of that to be used as a model for the kids? (By model I mean an example of acceptable relationships).

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

wolfsbane

twinQuins wrote: »

Should the state allow teaching that certain races are inferior? That women are the weaker sex?

You're damn right the state doesn't allow bigotry to be taught.

But you are bigoted enough to be happy for the state to ban polygamy and incest, and to classify paedophilia as perverse even if not acted on? Why are you not campaigning for their views to be respected? How come homosexuality gets equal moral status with heterosexuality in your world-view, but other sexual preferences and orientations don't?

Where does/should the State get its morality from, in your opinion?

*****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Mardy Bum

wolfsbane wrote: »

Creationist. The historic position of Christianity.

Ok so I take it you are not a Catholic then either. Is there any reason for your stance i.e the particular church you belong to or is it a personal decision?

wolfsbane

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? What morality do you say should be taught in schools?
***********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Sin City

wolfsbane wrote: »

So you would have no problem for the State to teach incest is OK to your kids, if it was made legal? Or bestiality? Or racial supremacy? Does being legal make it OK? Does majority opinion make it OK?

We do have to have a basic public morality if we are going to have the State educate our kids. I'm arguing for the sexual morality component of that to be the the Christian one. What one are you arguing for? Wha

t morality do you say should be taught in schools?
***********************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

informed consent cant be.given in the case of bestiality and depending on the age of incest , unturned consent also can't be given, also the genetics of any offspring could be at risk

comparing these to homosexuality is abhorrent

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yes because it's acceptable and legal.
What legal activity or life choice or orientation do we exclude from our 'official' culture? unmarried mothers? gays? immigrants?
What is the reason to turn a blind eye to anyone other than that you disaprove.
How do you justify that?

I think what Christians should be concerned about is introducing people to the Lord Jesus through evangelism, and it is as we introduce people to see the living Lord Jesus and as people accept Him as Lord and as people are encouraged to follow Him that true transformation in society can happen.

As Christians we pray in the Lord's prayer:
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed by thy name,
thy kingdom come, thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven,
give us this day our daily bread,
forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us,
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever and ever,
Amen.

Do we really believe it when we say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? Do you realise how powerful that statement is?

It means, God's opinion trumps yours. God's word comes first. That means we speak and live by God's standards rather than the standards of a fallen world.

Cossax

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are bigoted enough to be happy for the state to ban polygamy and incest, and to classify paedophilia as perverse even if not acted on? Why are you not campaigning for their views to be respected? How come homosexuality gets equal moral status with heterosexuality in your world-view, but other sexual preferences and orientations don't?

Where does/should the State get its morality from, in your opinion?

*****************************************************************
Ephesians 2:2 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

You wouldn't ever just stick your signatures into...you know, a signature, would you?

The state should get its morality through a framework of consultation but where ultimately we allow as much freedom as possible, so long as it doesn't infringe on others. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with Dark Ages era prejudices.

As such, I can't see why the hypothetical state would have an issue with polygamy but to bring in incest, bestiality or pedophilia is muddying the waters at best and bigotry if we were to be uncharitable.