How so? Good question.mjmjr25 wrote:
How so? Both biologically driven, apparently.
I'm not worried about rubbing people the wrong way, the analogy is sound.
18 is adult? Not everywhere. Bodies mature differently in different cultures as well. Not too mention an 30yo who grew up on a secluded Montana farm does not have the emotional ability to make decisions that a 14yo on the streets of Thailand does. My oldest sister got her first period at 15. My wife had her first at 9. How can one say 18 is adult - i'm really surprised you would use an age you state is arrived at the use of "generalities". One size fits all for biological reasoning now. News to me.dsheinem wrote:This is very simple.mjmjr25 wrote:Dave, societies determine what is illegal. Sex with a 12 year old is legal in some countries, illegal in others.
Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia, so it is wrong then?
I don't understand where legality/illegality comes in to play, at all, for a personal belief.
As for a victim. Your definition of victim is completely subjective.
Is a 15yo girl who consents to sex a victim? Some would say yes, some would say no.
Is an 18yo who consents to homosexual sex a victim? Some would say yes, some would say no.
How do you define victim? If a young boy is taught that homosexuality is not a sin against God, then to me, that person is a victim of those who are influencing him. Just like the 8yo whom is molested by his uncle is a victim.
18 is the age of "adulthood" not becasue of some magical "pick an age out of a hat" but becasue that is when puberty generally stops for both men and women and hormones stop impacting decision-making as much. The brain continues to physically grow/mature for a few more years (into the early 20s), but 18 is the recognized age of legal decision-making and independence for largely scientific rationale. So no, a consenting 15 year old is not the same as a consenting 18 year old, for good reason.
My definition of victim is not subjective, it is simply defined as someone being hurt (mentally and/or physically). There is a mountain of evidence to suggest pedophilia causes severe trauma for the underage person at the time and then throughout their life. Homosexual sex in and of itself does not. If someone is biologically inclined to hurt others, we rightfully treat them or incarcerate them. If they are biologically inclined to love people of the same sex who reciprocate those feelings, then I don't see the need to interfere. There is no victim.
I get that societies determine what is legal but no, I don't think that all laws are good ones simply becasue they are agreed upon. Saudi Arabia's laws are largely grounded in religious beliefs, and as a result many people suffer for behaviors and desires that they have no biological control over.
I think we are hung up on "adulthood" vs "legal adulthood". Since my interest in the topic is largely grounded in gay rights, I am inclined to think in legal terms about the points you've raised. Obviously people mature differently, but as a society we need to recognize legal independence from parents/guardians and a "biological average" is a good place to start.mjmjr25 wrote:
18 is adult? Not everywhere. Bodies mature differently in different cultures as well. Not too mention an 30yo who grew up on a secluded Montana farm does not have the emotional ability to make decisions that a 14yo on the streets of Thailand does. My oldest sister got her first period at 15. My wife had her first at 9. How can one say 18 is adult - i'm really surprised by using an age arrived at that focuses on "averages". One size fits all for biological reasoning now. News to me.
So becasue you take an "eternal" perspective on the issue you somehow don't have to justify "disapproval" by real world tests of logic, law, and reason?But it is apparent why these debates never will reach agreement. You are looking at things through a temporal perspective. Most of those who share my view are looking through an eternal context.
Theologically sin is not weighted, I get that completely. Yet practically/politically, it sure as hell is and "disapproval" of some sins over others leads to the denying of equal rights and worse.Homosexuality, to me, is a temptation like all the other temptations. I don't dispute some folks have a more natural tendency to gravitate toward that lifestyle. Where we disagree is you don't see harm, I do. Sin is not weighted.
Adultery is cheating, and cheating implies a victim. Even if you don't care, you are still technically a victim of cheating.I am curious though, you stated Adultery was wrong because there is a victim. If my wife cheats on me, but I don't care, am I a victim? Is adultery in this instance still wrong, or is adultery wrong on case by case basis? What if I didn't care at first, but then 5 years later in a new relationship, it was conflicting me differently in my new relationship and now with this new partner, i'm having trust issues. Did I become a victim 5 years later.
So many unfunny jokes in my mind right now. I'll keep them there.mjmjr25 wrote: If my wife cheats on me, but I don't care, am I a victim?
mjmjr25 wrote::
But it is apparent why these debates never will reach agreement. You are looking at things through a temporal perspective. Most of those who share my view are looking through an eternal context.
The real world in your context is but a blink, David. A blink. Every temporal decision I make is based on the eternal, that is the justification. It isn't any more complicated than that. I certainly enjoy this existence and I love many things I do, but not for a second does anything in this existence outweigh the eternal.Dsh replied:
So becasue you take an "eternal" perspective on the issue you somehow don't have to justify "disapproval" by real world tests of logic, law, and reason?
Typing from an iPad at present, so short answer:mjmjr25 wrote:Ok, either I don't know the trick to split quotes, or I don't have the patience to do the way I know works, so that aside:
mjmjr25 wrote::
But it is apparent why these debates never will reach agreement. You are looking at things through a temporal perspective. Most of those who share my view are looking through an eternal context.The real world in your context is but a blink, David. A blink. Every temporal decision I make is based on the eternal, that is the justification. It isn't any more complicated than that. I certainly enjoy this existence and I love many things I do, but not for a second does anything in this existence outweigh the eternal.Dsh replied:
So becasue you take an "eternal" perspective on the issue you somehow don't have to justify "disapproval" by real world tests of logic, law, and reason?
Your (3) OP questions are what i'm responding to, not this new topic of rights. I don't have a dog in that fight and it isn't on my plane of thought.
As for real world tests of logic, I think I understand what you mean, but again, even logic is subjective given ones culture, so you should clarify to mean "What I believe to be logical in America today..." because that changes often. Logic in itself is truthful, bringing validity to reason, your confusing your beliefs of what is logical to you, to be everyones understood logical thinking - it isn't.
Case in point. In Western Pakistan, in the tribal cultures, it is logical to to rape women as punishment for looking "inappropriately" at men whom are not their husband. Those who think this is crazy, are the ones, in that society, who are "illogical".
Law, most of which are based again, particularly in this country, on God's Law, are changing everyday to express the new "logic". So why would I frame my life choices on something that changes day to day, by flawed man? Last year it was illegal to drive over 55mph on hwy 61. I drove 60, I broke the law. This year the new limit is 65, I drive 60, now i'm not breaking a law? Those are the logical and lawful bounds you want others to justify their decisions by? I should confine myself to live by standards that change frequently or should I do what I do, live by a system that does not change, that is constant.
I've answered these, but i'll make it crystal.dsheinem wrote:Typing from an iPad at present, so short answer:
My three questions were:
1. -what clear religious grounds exist to justify disapproval of homosexuality?
2. -what amount of evidence of it being natural would cause you to reconsider your position of approving or not?
3. -What is meant by "disapproval" - how does it manifest itself?
4. Sorry, but in all your holier-than-this-life explanation, I still don't see an answer to any of these questions.
5. Oh, and any simple survey of history will show you that "God's law" is far from constant, and is just as subject to the machinations of governments and opportunists as any secular law.
again, just on these two skipping the whole thing for brevity's sake for now - not meaning to be rude if you took me that way...mjmjr25 wrote: 1. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
5. Man has changed God's Law. God's Law has not changed. Unless you are referring to the New Covenant, but beyond that, no.
