Originally posted by square_peg
View Post
I agree with the first sentence, but as you might've guessed, the reason I have no issue with same-sex marriage is precisely that I don't believe homosexual sex is necessarily harmful. You appear to be inferring that homosexual sex must be harmful because you accept the premise that it's sinful from traditional scriptural interpretations, whereas I'm starting with an observation that it's not necessarily harmful and thereby inferring that it's not necessarily sinful.
Hmm...I'm no medical expert, but I'm unconvinced that glass can actually pass through the digestive tract with no harm. And it's true that we do need certain metals, but aren't people with pica disorder consuming those substances in much larger quantities than is healthy?
But even if this is true, it's merely an issue of number/subcultural norms. That is, there's no inherent reason that large numbers of gay people supposedly aren't abstinent or monogamous, and no inherent reason that large numbers couldn't eventually choose abstinence and monogamy.
Besides, I admit that currently this is just conjecture, but I suspect that higher rates of abstinence and monogamy among straight people are due in large part to Christian traditions pervading our culture, even among secular folks. But I also suspect that gay people are less likely to hold to Christian-based traditions precisely because so many Christians have made them believe that being gay and being Christian are incompatible. If the church had consistently preached from the beginning that the two can go hand-in-hand, I figure that abstinence and monogamy rates would be much higher within the gay community.
Well, yes, we can--we're supposed to--eat metals without causing ourselves harm, but a healthy amount is only a few milligrams per day. How exactly can people with pica do so while consuming far more than that?
This is a new one. Ordinarily I hear "that it's possible to engage in the activity safely essentially does make it natural, but being natural doesn't make it right." If our physical nature is capable of engaging in it without causing immediate harm, how is it unnatural? I thought being unnatural was essentially defined by the presence of immediate harm.
People can put molten metal on their tongues with no harmful effects, is that natural? What about having motorcycles attempt to pull them apart? Walking on burning coals with no protection? Swallowing swords? All of these things can be done, and have been done without harm, but would you really call them "natural"?
So what non-scriptural reasons are there that homosexual sex wouldn't also apply? And what non-scriptural reasons for the homosexual aspect itself? Straight couples can safely engage in anal sex, for instance, but I've never heard anyone argue that such an act is sinful when done within the context of committed straight relationships. Straight couples can perform oral sex on each other, and I've never heard anyone argue that the act in such a context is sinful.
As far as non-scriptural arguments, that would go to the "natural law" arguments. They are philosophical, and not derived from Scripture, although appear to be endorsed by Scripture as accurate. Sexual union is supposed to be primarily* about procreation. This is not possible with homosexual couples. Their bodies do not even match up in the way a man and a woman clearly do.
You do realize that the context for sex at all is in a heterosexual marriage, right? That's how God intended it from the very beginning, and which Jesus affirmed. While the Bible does say that the "marriage bed is not defiled", it also says this.
1 Corinthians 10:23New International Version (NIV)
The Believer’s Freedom
23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.
Personally I think anal sex is a bad idea period. That something can be done, and even safely, doesn't mean it should be done. Even when taking precautions you are more likely to cause problems. Personally, I think the same is likely true of oral sex. I could be wrong, but I think our mouths are exposed on a regular basis to different kinds of bacteria than the genital region. This alone could cause problems, even if protection is used(condoms aren't exactly foolproof), and the couple is monogamous. Now, I could be wrong about possible dangers involved in oral sex.
*I'm not saying that there are not other good things about sex, but those are more of an "icing on the cake".
Comment