Debating Christianity and Religion

An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way. As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.

Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.

As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."

This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?

I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child. Is it wrong to condemn these individuals for their attractions but praise or support an individual who has homosexual feelings?

If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?

In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.

KingandPriest wrote:

steellord123 wrote: [Replying to post 75 by KingandPriest]

Age of consent may very well change, but for entirely different reasons. In fact, it's changed many times before and no two states seem to be the same even now. The science and obvious age of body development doesn't support the current laws. It's too absurd that a person magically becomes mature to do everything at exactly 18, so we're a long ways from perfecting the rights and protections of minors in any respect. I don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality, other than that the advent of science allows us to learn more about human behavior, in various ways

Public perception certainly has not been forced either. You think 50 years is a snap of the finger? It has dragged way behind the science, if anything

To your question about homosexuality, the context of this thread was about legal impact and future rulings based on precedent. Changing perception about laws regarding a minors ability to consent can use prior case law to substantiate that two consenting individuals can decide to get married with no regard to age. Gender identity used to be a qualifier for marriage, and is no longer. One may be able to make the argument (legally) that age falls into the same class as gender. All other benefits regarding the protection of discrimination by gender fall into the same class as age, race, religion, etc. My point was to show how a legal case could be presented. I am not saying it should or would, just how it could occur.

One can make an argument legally using any precedent or context it doesn't make the argument valid or good. To my previous point we allow people to have sex legally, we allow straight people to marry. These could be used in the same way to set precedence for pedophillia that homosexuality could.

The focus exclusively on homosexuality as it relates to any of the societal ills you brought up on this thread appears nefarious in this regard.

What I don't understand is the religious rights obsession with homosexuality. It is not the governments business to get in the personal lives of two or more consenting adults.

[Replying to post 79 by KingandPriest]

Race used to be a qualifier for marriage, and is no longer. In the 40 years between Loving and Obergefell did it lead to what we today consider minors (under 18) able to marry? Of course not. The two are just unrelated. Have the legal status of consent to marry period, and having the correct race or gender to legally marry one's chosen partner, are separate issues with separate arguments - a person is developmentally mature to enter binding contracts with XYZ ramifications vs a person is in love with the same sex or someone of a different race, or whatever

What I don't understand is the religious rights obsession with homosexuality. It is not the governments business to get in the personal lives of two or more consenting adults.

No but it's religion's business they figure and they want religion to run the government so. In fact if they don't fight it every step of the way they are giving in to satan, or some such

KingandPriest wrote:

As the feelings in society changes about what is acceptable sexual behavior, the thoughts on "the age of consent" will undoubtedly change. Currently 18 is the current consensus, but what prevents this from changing just like public perception of homosexuality has changed because of forced changes to social norms.

False, in most states the age of consent is 16 or 17 and in most countries the age of consent is lower than 18.

KingandPriest wrote: 50 years ago, it would have been inconceivable to think same sex marriage would have been deemed legal. 50 years from now, the perception about age of consent may also change.

True, over the years the age of consent has generally gone up, so in 50 years the age of consent in many places may be higher.

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Just because I was born a sinner does that mean it's okay to sin? Just because someone is born gay does that mean its okay to have same gender sex? Lets be clear, even if it wasn't a sin to be gay and have sex, they problem would still be that the Biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman so no matter what they did they would be guilty of per-maritual sex.

MuffMaYne wrote: [Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Just because I was born a sinner does that mean it's okay to sin? Just because someone is born gay does that mean its okay to have same gender sex? Lets be clear, even if it wasn't a sin to be gay and have sex, they problem would still be that the Biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman so no matter what they did they would be guilty of per-maritual sex.

If that's what you believe for yourself that would be one thing. Enforcing your beliefs on others is where most would draw a line as that is the crux of most social ills. Then again a biblical definition of marriage in some sects and faiths includes gay marriage.

My question is why is it a problem if other people besides you have gay sex or pre marital sex?

Does this problem adversely affect you?

If people don't share your beliefs is it a problem for them?

MuffMaYne wrote: ... the Biblical definition of marriage is between a man and a woman so no matter what they did they would be guilty of per-maritual sex.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Solomon’s Wives
11 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.� Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.

It seems the Bible is not so clear after all.

[Replying to post 86 by benchwarmer]

Gen 4 "Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."

Does quoting that someone did something in the Bible mean thats its okay or good?

But even if you assume that its okay for a MAN to have multiple WOMEN as his wives thats still marriage being a thing for a MAN and a WOMAN as i previously stated.

So again. Marriage by BIblical standards is a bond between MAN, WOMAN, and GOD.

MuffMaYne wrote: But even if you assume that its okay for a MAN to have multiple WOMEN as his wives thats still marriage being a thing for a MAN and a WOMAN as i previously stated.

Perhaps English is not your first language, but "A woman" refers to a single woman.

You'll need to define what you mean by "Biblical standards". Where either of the men I mentioned condemned for having more than one wife? Is anyone in the Bible?

My main point was that the Bible itself is not very clear whether marriage is really only between one man and one woman. Your use of "a woman" means one woman. That is what I was talking about.

[Replying to post 88 by benchwarmer]

It doesn't matter if its woman, women, or any other verbage you wanna use for female. Here let me make this as simple as possible for you.

Marriage by biblical standards is between the genders of males and females. Males marry females.