Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Sparko]

You are holding different people to different standards on the basis of nothing other than their membership in a genetically coded group.

You just defined it. But why is that intrinsically wrong?

So it is wrong for the same reason that telling two people their marriage or sexual activity is wrong because of their racial make-up. My genetic make-up should not be the determinant for what is and is not moral.

Why is it the same? Just because you say so?

Age discrimination is wrong too, correct? Yet you were perfectly fine in saying that pedophilia was immoral because of age discrimination between the participants.

[Pluto]

Ugh... I KNEW my lack of clarity would get me eventually :/. I can't see people's expressions online to know when I need to expand more on a point >.<. Let me see if I can provide a bit more context to what I said.

First off, as I indicated previously, I am not arguing the morality of homosexual acts. If I was, I would be doing it completely differently. I suspect that would play out somewhat similarly to your other discussions in terms of content, and so probably wouldn't be all that interesting to me.

This is pretty much correct. There might be complicated nuances to it,(Most people have some additional reasons used explain why it is so) but this is the core of it. I suspect you already know this, but the immorality of homosexual acts is a pretty much unavoidable conclusion from Christianity. Even though it probably doesn't count as a core doctrine, there is really no way to take the Bible seriously without concluding it.

Apparently not "unavoidable" because many Christian groups have moved away from this, preferring to emphasize the love aspect of the NT and not the sexual-prejudices of the culture in that age.

If you want some verses showing this I can give them to you, but that would only be for your information.

It would not help the discussion. The bible is an interesting piece of literature and has some historical significance - but it is not the basis for my beliefs by any means.

My point here is more to support what comes later when I state that this view is not going to go away. That there are some Christians who disagree with this is not surprising. Given enough effort, I can probably find some who claim to be Christians and yet reject the bodily resurrection of Christ, let alone any lesser doctrine. All else being equal, the proportion of Christians who hold a given religious belief is going to increase with increasing clarity of Biblical teaching.(Bodily resurrection of Christ? Super obvious, nearly 100%. Minutia of preferred eschatological positions? Much lower.) If my position on this is correct, there will be a significant fraction of Christian that will hold the 'homosexual acts are immoral' position even under significant societal pressure. The offer of explanation was if you want to see the reason for that to judge for yourself. By necessity, that entails looking at the Bible. If you are not interested, I'd ask that you accept this as true for the remainder of the discussion.

Yes, but I would add "his definition of Christianity." I suspect that won't be widely accepted here.

Where the first prong(Bake wedding cakes for all types of weddings) has been replaced with the emotionally charged, logical consequence of that requirement. As you indicated previously, you'd prefer the baker to take option b), so you are not actually requesting a). While this form of the dilemma is not what you intend when you make this requirement, nor is it how you likely think about it, this is how a Christian is going to interpret it, so it is important to keep it in mind.

I would say the existence of Option B provides the baker with an avenue for being true to his beliefs.

There are a couple of consequence to this form. First, folks aren't likely to respond kindly to it, as perceived threats to fundamental beliefs are not typically liked or well responded too. This demands care to be taken in any implementation or discussion.(This is not meant as a condemnation of you or your actions. It does explain why a firestorm erupted when a baker was suddenly sued for a considerable sum of money.) Secondarily, This view is not likely to go away with time. Since it has its roots in a fairly straightforward reading of the Bible, as long as Christianity exists, this view(and the resulting dilemma) will exist.

I recognize all of this. But that something is "not well received" is not an argument for not saying it. Going back to the civil rights era, the operators of the bus were not happy to be told their seating arrangements were immoral. It still needed to be said.

Any questions so far? I do not think this is an argument against your position yet(Though the second consideration might suggest something).

Most of this was necessary prep work for what I'm going to say later. So if you have no disagreements, I'll move on.

Anyone, in any context, who offers a service to People A but not People B based solely on their membership in a class is acting in a discriminatory fashion unless that choice is informed by that membership (e.g., not providing haircuts to a bald man, not providing gynecological services to a man, etc.).



No. While I still believe the choice/action is immoral, it is protected by the 1st amendment. Within bounds, what a church does within its confines is up to the church. There are, of course, limits, but bigotry/prejudice/discrimination are not part of those exceptions.

So I can definitely conclude the dilemma applies to all secular wedding involvements(Cake-baking, photography, etc)

It looks like your moral objection applies equally to necessarily religious parts(pastors officiating, etc), which is consistent, but first amendment consideration prevent you from doing anything about it. Would a lack of the first amendment mean that you would approve of similar restrictions as in cake-baking scenarios?(Aka, Pastors cannot officiate weddings if they are unwilling to officiate gay weddings.)

We've FINALLY got all the prep work out of the way, and can move on to the real meat. Though unfortunately I'd need to know the answer to the last question about pastors etc, to write anything in detail :/(Darn slightly improper assumptions...). Instead, I'll ask a question and tell a bit about what the actual topic is.

The question is: What do you think a Christian wedding would look like after the implementations of these restrictions?(Involving those who hold the 'homosexual acts are immoral' rule)

As you might have guessed, the point of this is to consider the impact of these restrictions on the Christian community and likely responses to it, both during the implementation and after. In any pluralistic society(and by this I mean that different people have different morals, not sure if that's the technical definition), some degree of compromise on laws is necessary if peace is to be desired. Otherwise, there will be a de-facto societal war as each side attempts to enforce their own morality on the other side, which is possibly, though not necessarily, worse than the original offense. An example of two that I would consider worth it:Slavery(The holding of other humans in bondage) and Abortion(Murder of the unborn). There is no real room for compromise in the long run here. In contrast, one that isn't worth it is the prohibition(Drunkenness is immoral). While it likely did reduce drunkenness, the costs were too high. I'd ask that you don't apply this yet to this particular case yet, as I haven't presented a case so far. Furthermore, everyone likely has to make their own determination on what battles to fight. This is why I said it is going to be a 'consideration' and not an 'argument': such fuzzy cases are nearly impossible to make airtight cases for.

[carpedm9587]

It only seems that way because you have a vested interest in not actually reading what we are writing, or comprehending it. So you seem to just skim over it, seeing what you want to see in order to pick out the parts you want to claim prove you right or us wrong. You are not here to understand our view but to refute it at all costs, even if you have to turn a blind eye on what we are saying.

I've read every word - and thought through every response. Your arguments are simply not making much sense, and you're not responding to the arguments that have been put forward.

I make the point that in Christianity, marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is how God set it up. Not a Man and anything else. Not just not another man, but not trees, not cars, not animals, etc. So a gay marriage is not actually a marriage in our eyes, according to our beliefs. Yes, we have to acknowledge such unions legally since we live here, but morally, they are not valid marriages. Therefore any marriage that is not valid means that the participants in any sexual acts are the equivalent of two singles having sex under Christianity, which is immoral. So a man having sex with another man in a gay marriage is the same as an unmarried man and an unmarried woman having sex. It has nothing to do with their sex but with how God created marriage and his rules for it. It would be just as wrong for a man to have sex with his car, even if he were "married" to it.

I understand all of this. So your perspective is completely bound up in the genome of the participants, which is what I have been saying from the outset. I understand you think god wants this. I understand your bible says "this is what is moral." I understand all that. I also understand the irrefutable logic:

XX + XX = immoral in all sexual contexts - XX + XX = marriage never
XY + XY = immoral in all sexual contexts - XY + XY = marriage never
XX + XY = moral in at least some contexts - XX + XY = no marriage possible

Because of "all sexual contexts" and "never" - you (and your god and your bible) are making decisions on the basis of genetic identity. Context is irrelevant. ALL sexual contexts are immoral.

That is identical to:

Black + White = immoral in all sexual contexts
White+White = moral in at least some sexual contexts.
Black+Black = moral in at least some sexual contexts.

If the latter is racial prejudice/bigotry, then the former is indisputably sexual prejudice bigotry. You simply cannot escape the logic. You can attempt to defend it by means of your faith, your god, your bible, or anything else. But you cannot get away from the reality of what is being said/done: morality is being determined by the genome of the participants.

You have said nothing to refute the logic, or even address it. Essentially, you just keep coming back to, "but you don't understand - we're Christians. These are deeply held convictions. It's part of our faith. God says so - so we have to."

What you are doing is demonstrating the danger of "god says so." It can be used to justify even bigotry and prejudice. It was used that way in the civil rights and pre-civil rights era. It is being used that way now. Sorry - but you don't get a pass.

And with that, I will leave the last word to you. I've repeated the logic often enough, and read your responses often enough, and there is no forward motion. There is no point in continuing.

[oxmixmudd]

This thread is moving faster than I have time to keep up with ...

I'll address one more item here for now, maybe I can respond to the whole thing tonight:

"Just" 90%? Jim, you appear to be setting up to make an argument on the basis of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Depending on who's numbers you believe, I have not seen homosexuality numbers that have ever exceeded 10%, and most believe the number is closer to 3-4%. So I have no clue how this statistic on your part, which has no association with reality, does anything to frame the argument. Also, I don't know where your math comes from, but we don't go from 7B to 5000 in "a few generations" even with only 10% of the population being heterosexual. That being said, there is no doubt that as the % of homosexuality increases, it would put downward pressure on population growth. If that is what you want to agree on, consider us agreed. The specific numbers involve too many variables to make accurate predictions.

This response is very characteristic of a real problem. And the problem is this. You have waxed eloquent here and in the previous post rather than simply acknowledge what is an obvious fact. same-sex relationships do not produce children, and the obvious consequence of that is that if there are too many humans with purely same-sex attraction the species goes extinct. There is no real qualification necessary for that statement. It is simply true.

Look at your first 'exception' to the statement of the simple fact. I did not ever even imply that 90% was a real number. I in fact said:

It's not something I'm worried about, it's just making the point.

And you do know what the point was. It was to say that one does not even need 100% same-sex in the human population for the population to collapse - which is also simply true. You need to review your mathematics. With only 10% of the current population production, the population collapses very rapidly. And with it being a percentage and not a fixed new number, the collapse is exponential. We can do the numbers if you like and get a precise value - but in the end it just doesn't matter - because the point is simply to help corner you into admitting what is an obvious truth. Same-sex relationships can't produce children and too many same-sex people spells the end of humanity. That you need to be cornered on such a simple thing is a major problem.

Why not just say - "Yes, that is obvious, if too many in the population are same-sex, the population implodes and the species goes extinct." You could say that, and then add "But there is no indications same-sex attraction was ever or could ever get high enough for that to be a problem". I'd agree, and we could move on.


But the issue here is that every point, no matter how minor, not matter how obvious, if it could reflect in any way negatively on your current position, becomes a protracted verbal dance.

I'm not interested in verbal dancing Carpe. I really am just interested in getting at the truth. But if you are so afraid of the truth when it might be unfavorable to your opinion that you can't even acknowledge the obvious, then there isn't a lot of room for meaningful discussion.


Jim

[seer]

So your perspective is completely bound up in the genome of the participants

Right, so sex between humans and animals is completely bound up in the genome of the participants so by your logic we can't call that immoral either. But we do...

[carpedm9587]

Ugh... I KNEW my lack of clarity would get me eventually :/. I can't see people's expressions online to know when I need to expand more on a point >.<. Let me see if I can provide a bit more context to what I said.

First off, as I indicated previously, I am not arguing the morality of homosexual acts. If I was, I would be doing it completely differently. I suspect that would play out somewhat similarly to your other discussions in terms of content, and so probably wouldn't be all that interesting to me.


My point here is more to support what comes later when I state that this view is not going to go away.

If this is where you are bound, Pluto, I can save you some effort. I am perfectly aware it is not going away. The civil rights era is 50+ years old, but we still have racial bigots and white supremacists, and they are seeing a resurgence in the past decade (since Obama was elected, actually, and again with Trump's candidacy). I see no reason too believe sexual bigotry/prejudice will not follow the same path. There will always be those who cling to those views. My goal, frankly, is to ensure they are a minority.

That there are some Christians who disagree with this is not surprising. Given enough effort, I can probably find some who claim to be Christians and yet reject the bodily resurrection of Christ, let alone any lesser doctrine. All else being equal, the proportion of Christians who hold a given religious belief is going to increase with increasing clarity of Biblical teaching. (Bodily resurrection of Christ? Super obvious, nearly 100%. Minutia of preferred eschatological positions? Much lower.) If my position on this is correct, there will be a significant fraction of Christian that will hold the 'homosexual acts are immoral' position even under significant societal pressure. The offer of explanation was if you want to see the reason for that to judge for yourself. By necessity, that entails looking at the Bible. If you are not interested, I'd ask that you accept this as true for the remainder of the discussion.

You may have missed my earlier posts on this topic. I acknowledged that the biblical passages defending slavery are far less clear than the passages decrying homosexuality. As a consequence, it was easier for the various Christian churches to re-interpret those passages and get behind the civil rights movement. The passages against homosexuality are pretty "in your face," and are not going to be so easily dismissed. As a consequence, "bible literalists" may never see their way out of this mindset. Others with a less literal interpretation, or a willingness to see the bible as a set of literature written within a specific cultural context are more willing to let go of the ugly parts of the book as they embrace what they see as the core message of Jesus of Nazareth. This dynamic is, I think, what you are referring to.

Most of this was necessary prep work for what I'm going to say later. So if you have no disagreements, I'll move on.

So I can definitely conclude the dilemma applies to all secular wedding involvements(Cake-baking, photography, etc)

It applies to ANY context in which people are being differentially treated based on their membership in an immutable group. Genetic assignment is clearly one of those.

It looks like your moral objection applies equally to necessarily religious parts(pastors officiating, etc), which is consistent, but first amendment consideration prevent you from doing anything about it. Would a lack of the first amendment mean that you would approve of similar restrictions as in cake-baking scenarios?(Aka, Pastors cannot officiate weddings if they are unwilling to officiate gay weddings.)

No. Membership to a church is voluntary. Presumably a gay person joining a church that discriminates against gay people knows what they are getting into. It is between them and their church to work it out. The same applies for racial discrimination. I find the discrimination (in both cases) morally repulsive, but if it is happening within the context of a community, it is not my business. Likewise, I'm not going to tell a person what they can and cannot say in their home, or who they must permit entry.

We've FINALLY got all the prep work out of the way, and can move on to the real meat. Though unfortunately I'd need to know the answer to the last question about pastors etc, to write anything in detail :/(Darn slightly improper assumptions...). Instead, I'll ask a question and tell a bit about what the actual topic is.

The question is: What do you think a Christian wedding would look like after the implementations of these restrictions?(Involving those who hold the 'homosexual acts are immoral' rule)

Why would they look any different? Churches don't usually wed people if neither person is part of the community, so the marriages are "internal" issues, IMO.

Perhaps I'm not understanding your question?

As you might have guessed, the point of this is to consider the impact of these restrictions on the Christian community and likely responses to it, both during the implementation and after. In any pluralistic society(and by this I mean that different people have different morals, not sure if that's the technical definition), some degree of compromise on laws is necessary if peace is to be desired. Otherwise, there will be a de-facto societal war as each side attempts to enforce their own morality on the other side, which is possibly, though not necessarily, worse than the original offense. An example of two that I would consider worth it:Slavery(The holding of other humans in bondage) and Abortion(Murder of the unborn). There is no real room for compromise in the long run here.

I personally think that assumption is part of why we are not making any progress.

In contrast, one that isn't worth it is the prohibition(Drunkenness is immoral). While it likely did reduce drunkenness, the costs were too high. I'd ask that you don't apply this yet to this particular case yet, as I haven't presented a case so far. Furthermore, everyone likely has to make their own determination on what battles to fight. This is why I said it is going to be a 'consideration' and not an 'argument': such fuzzy cases are nearly impossible to make airtight cases for.

I have to admit that I have no idea where you are going. However, I will continue to read and respond. Your posts are civil and you appear to have a case to make. I am curious to know what that case is.

[carpedm9587]

This thread is moving faster than I have time to keep up with ...

I'll address one more item here for now, maybe I can respond to the whole thing tonight:

This response is very characteristic of a real problem. And the problem is this. You have waxed eloquent here and in the previous post rather than simply acknowledge what is an obvious fact. same-sex relationships do not produce children, and the obvious consequence of that is that if there are too many humans with purely same-sex attraction the species goes extinct. There is no real qualification necessary for that statement. It is simply true.

So let me be clear: same-sex relationships do not (yet) produce children. At the current state of our technology, if there were too many same-sex couples, population growth would cease and population contraction would begin. The level at which it would stabilize would depend entirely on the distribution of same-sex/opposite-sex couples and the birthrate of opposite-sex couples. At the extreme, with 100% same-sex, the human population would end within a century.

Does that help clarify?

Look at your first 'exception' to the statement of the simple fact. I did not ever even imply that 90% was a real number. I in fact said:

And you do know what the point was. It was to say that one does not even need 100% same-sex in the human population for the population to collapse - which is also simply true. You need to review your mathematics. With only 10% of the current population production, the population collapses very rapidly. And with it being a percentage and not a fixed new number, the collapse is exponential. We can do the numbers if you like and get a precise value - but in the end it just doesn't matter - because the point is simply to help corner you into admitting what is an obvious truth. Same-sex relationships can't produce children and too many same-sex people spells the end of humanity. That you need to be cornered on such a simple thing is a major problem

Your numbers are fuzzy, Jim, and make huge assumptions about variables not included. Your 10% is percentage of couples that are opposite sex one moment, and population production the next. Your numbers completely omit simple things like average births per couple, etc. So when you make explicit claims like "collapse to 5,000 people in a few generations," you just cannot come to those conclusions on the basis of the information you're using.

So why don't we just stay with a simple fact: with today's technology, same-sex couples do not produce children and too high a level of same-sex couples can lead to population collapse. No problem acknowledging that whatsoever.

Why not just say - "Yes, that is obvious, if too many in the population are same-sex, the population implodes and the species goes extinct." You could say that, and then add "But there is no indications same-sex attraction was ever or could ever get high enough for that to be a problem". I'd agree, and we could move on.

If you make specific claims without adequate backing, my science/mathematics/philosophical background kicks in and I'll refute them as unsubstantiated. However, it appears my statement (above) may have met your requirement here.

But the issue here is that every point, no matter how minor, not matter how obvious, if it could reflect in any way negatively on your current position, becomes a protracted verbal dance.

I'm not interested in verbal dancing Carpe. I really am just interested in getting at the truth. But if you are so afraid of the truth when it might be unfavorable to your opinion that you can't even acknowledge the obvious, then there isn't a lot of room for meaningful discussion.

Jim

If you make statements that are adequately backed up, then we will move forward. I WILL challenge statements I perceive as not adequately supported in the course of making an argument. If that is unacceptable, then you are right that there is no room for meaningful discussion and we should just put a fork in it. As for the rest here, you appear to be going back to the mind-reading and personal accusations. You are certainly free to do that, but they don't do much to advance your argument. They're pretty much a waste of time. You waste time writing them, and I waste time reading them, making me less inclined to want to read and more inclined to move on to the next discussion. So...up to you...

Meanwhile, if you have a point, perhaps you'd consider making it so we can see what it's strengths and weaknesses are?

[Cow Poke]

Meanwhile, if you have a point, perhaps you'd consider making it so we can see what it's strengths and weaknesses are?

This is unnecessarily dismissive - Jim has been INCREDIBLY patient with you, he HAS been making points, and he does not deserve this kind of arrogance.

[carpedm9587]

This is unnecessarily dismissive - Jim has been INCREDIBLY patient with you, he HAS been making points, and he does not deserve this kind of arrogance.

You interpreted that as dismissive and arrogant?

[Cow Poke]

You interpreted that as dismissive and arrogant?

He HAS been making points - just because you don't like them doesn't mean he hasn't. Yeah, I think it was dismissive and arrogant.

[carpedm9587]

He HAS been making points - just because you don't like them doesn't mean he hasn't. Yeah, I think it was dismissive and arrogant.

Interesting. First, I don't think Jim doesn't make points. We had an extended discussion on his parallelism between the baker situation and the white supremacist. His argument was one of the better-framed I've seen, and really forced me to think (which I enjoy). As I noted in a previous post, I came darned close to having to concede the point and reverse my position on the bakers. I was actually writing that concession when I came across the flaw, and ended up writing a completely different post.

My only two objections to Jim's style of posting are, first, like Sparko and Teal and Seer (and occasionally you), he wastes a great deal of time on attempts to read my motivations (usually in negative terms) and criticize my character. They're all entitled to their views - but it really doesn't contribute much to the argument at hand. Second, this latest exchange is very long in the setup. Pluto is doing the same thing. I can deal with that for a while, but when it is continually sidetracked by irrelevant asides, I find it a bit tedious.

So, IMO, Jim needed a prod to get on with it, and I administered said prod. Hopefully, we can get to his actual argument in the next couple of posts.

Likewise, you have justifiably administered critiques on my verbosity - in light of which... I'm done now.

[Sparko]

And with that, I will leave the last word to you. I've repeated the logic often enough, and read your responses often enough, and there is no forward motion. There is no point in continuing.

You never responded to this post (copied here for convenience):

=============

You are holding different people to different standards on the basis of nothing other than their membership in a genetically coded group.

You just defined it. But why is that intrinsically wrong?

So it is wrong for the same reason that telling two people their marriage or sexual activity is wrong because of their racial make-up. My genetic make-up should not be the determinant for what is and is not moral.

Why is it the same? Just because you say so?

Age discrimination is wrong too, correct? Yet you were perfectly fine in saying that pedophilia was immoral because of age discrimination between the participants.

[carpedm9587]

You never responded to this post (copied here for convenience):

Didn't see it. This appears to be heading down a different path, and you're asking questions, so...

You just defined it. But why is that intrinsically wrong?

Because morality is about action and intention. It is about sorting actions into ought/ought-not. When we bring to bear membership in an immutable group, we introduce the notion of prejudice/bigotry against (or for) that group. That is the entire basis for racism. If an action in a given context is moral for Person A, it cannot be immoral for Person B simply because they are a member of a different immutable group.

Why is it the same? Just because you say so?

Both are rooted in genetics. I've answered this before.

Age discrimination is wrong too, correct? Yet you were perfectly fine in saying that pedophilia was immoral because of age discrimination between the participants.

This is an example of what I find pointless in a discussion. I've answered this multiple times. If you have an issue with the answer, than respond to the answer and lets look at it. If all you do is repeat the same question over and over again and then proceed to ignore the answers, I'm not going to waste my time answering it over and over again. See my previous responses.

[Sparko]

Didn't see it. This appears to be heading down a different path, and you're asking questions, so...



Because morality is about action and intention. It is about sorting actions into ought/ought-not. When we bring to bear membership in an immutable group, we introduce the notion of prejudice/bigotry against (or for) that group. That is the entire basis for racism. If an action in a given context is moral for Person A, it cannot be immoral for Person B simply because they are a member of a different immutable group.

Now you just defined what you think morality is. You still haven't said why discriminating by sex in certain situations is always immoral.

Both are rooted in genetics. I've answered this before.

So? Does genetics equal inviolable? If someone is genetically predisposed to addiction, does that mean we can't impose any rules based on that "genetics" and say "Doing Heroin is wrong?"

This is an example of what I find pointless in a discussion. I've answered this multiple times. If you have an issue with the answer, than respond to the answer and lets look at it. If all you do is repeat the same question over and over again and then proceed to ignore the answers, I'm not going to waste my time answering it over and over again. See my previous responses.

No this is what you do when you can't answer something or you realize someone has countered your point. You evade and make excuses not to answer. You didn't answer this before or multiple times. You claim that discrimination is wrong. Age discrimination is wrong. So why is it OK to discriminate on age in the case of pedophilia? I am sure you will want to stick another arbitrary condition here like "immutability" but in the situation at the time age is immutable. The boy cannot just change his age. As long as he is young his condition is immutable and genetic and the act is immoral based solely on his age. So why is it OK to discriminate based on age? Age is actually a protected class in the Civil Rights Act.

[carpedm9587]

Now you just defined what you think morality is.

I defined what morality is broadly defined to be: sorting out ought/ought-not actions.

You still haven't said why discriminating by sex in certain situations is always immoral.

I've answered this. Sex is a genetically coded characteristic. Sex can/does factor into some moral decisions. But a genetically coded reality cannot be the sole basis for a moral decision, because then the decision is not being made about action/context, which is what moral decision-making is about.

So?

You asked what made them the same - I answered you.

Does genetics equal inviolable?

I have no idea what you are asking.

If someone is genetically predisposed to addiction, does that mean we can't impose any rules based on that "genetics" and say "Doing Heroin is wrong?"

At no point did I imply or even suggest anything like this.

No this is what you do when you can't answer something or you realize someone has countered your point. You evade and make excuses not to answer. You didn't answer this before or multiple times. You claim that discrimination is wrong. Age discrimination is wrong. So why is it OK to discriminate on age in the case of pedophilia? I am sure you will want to stick another arbitrary condition here like "immutability" but in the situation at the time age is immutable. The boy cannot just change his age. As long as he is young his condition is immutable and genetic and the act is immoral based solely on his age. So why is it OK to discriminate based on age? Age is actually a protected class in the Civil Rights Act.

You are entitled to your opinion, Sparko, but I'm simply not going to keep repeating myself because you haven't read or don't remember or are ignoring my previous answer to the same question. However, you can review the answer here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post543482