So, let me clarify: A monogamous gay relationship, in your eyes, is harm and betrayal to society.So, I think trying to define the parameters of sexual ethics is entirely pertinent. You think that the line is at betrayal and trust. I think that adultery not only incorporates betrayal and trust issues between the couple, but also between the couple and society. We trust couples to uphold their vows to one another and to do no harm to one another. Simply because there is consent doesn't mean there is still not harm and betrayal to society. For example if a married couple engaged in a threesome they would still be violating their vows to one another and betraying society even if the act was consensual.
My position is only that, if you believe that to be true, then you need to be able to rationally show it. That's pretty much all I have been asking you this entire time. If you can show me that that's true, then the debate would be over.
Dude... what?This is the third tactic:
Sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the arguments.
I'm asking you questions about the basis of what you believe and why, and you're accusing me of purposefully blinding myself... to what arguments, exactly?
no, I've been away much of the weekend and only caught the tail end of this. I'll skim back and look for it and comment on it, if it's worth commenting on.Did you read the quote about the bookstore?
Oh. So, your case is that, even if monogamous gay marriages don't look different than monogamous straight marriages, there is something nefarious about them under the surface, and that the failures of straight marriage are somehow being used to obfuscate the evils of homosexual monogamy.My argument is that beneath the nice clean gay facade is a very sad and sordid reality. We as a society have simply chose to ignore that sordid reality because so many heterosexuals engage in their own sad, self-centered, sexual activity.
Fine. That is a position that you can choose to hold. But it's not "argument" -- an argument suggests that you've build an actual argument. Instead, all you're offering is your supposition.
Show it to be true. That's all you have to do. So... why don't you?
What does "lowering the standard" have to do with monogamy?Everyone is pretty aware of the pervasiveness of non-marital sexual activity so let's just lower the standards and make it easy on everyone. You won't judge me and I won't judge you. As opposed to humbly recognizing one's own faults and submitting to accountability.
You're assuming that gay marriage "lowers the standard" even though it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and quacks like a duck. All I'm asking for is a little proof, you know.
Uh.... Sorry. I've been to MCC churches and it was no different than going to an evangelical church in terms of beliefs, commitment, purity of lifestyle, and faith... except that the couples were gay. (In fact, I found them more gracious toward the antagonistic conservatives than I have found conservatives to be of them.) And the gay couples I know are not promiscuous. Again, we are talking gay monogamy here, not gay promiscuity.According to article I linked to earlier that Gay Christian's experience was not only that people weren't held accountable for promiscuity, but it was actually promoted within gay christian circles.
My other problem now with the logic of this comment of yours is that, by comparing gay promiscuity to hetero promiscuity as evils, you've kind of filtered out the "gay" part. Yes, we both agree that promiscuity is wrong and the church should speak out against it. But "promiscuity" does not equal "gay." Just because promiscuity is wrong, that has nothing to do with being gay.
By shifting this into an argument against promiscuity, you're removed it as an argument against being in a gay non-promiscuous relationship.
As far as I can tell, your case is build on innuendo. Not only are you assuming what is "true and good," but you are dragging in people who aren't actually part of the topic we are discussing. We're discussing gay monogamy/marriage, not gay promiscuity.Again this is because they are not interested in what is true and good, but what is acceptable.
I agree with you, but this is a big tangent.Right, and that's my point. I think too often the church itself doesn't take the insidious nature of sin seriously and prefers to focus on maintaining a facade of righteousness. This is obviously not very CHrist like given that he didn't give a shit about being seen with whores.
Moreover, the fact that church's more readily accept repentance from those that commit heterosexual adultery over gay adultery is regrettable and unfortunate.
I'm not going to pretend that the church isn't full of hypocrites.
So far, I don't see any "rational basis" for your stance in terms of collecting data from observation and experience, you're just applying standards from one reading of a book you've chosen a priori to be correct, and then using that as a basis.
I don't really care what you choose to believe, as long as you're honest about the basis of it and that it's not based on practical/rational reality but simply your personal religious values. And at that point, you're discussing implementing laws not founded in real data but simply to enact your own personal religious values. And at that point, your accusation against society for being lame and/or 'accepting instead of holding to higher standards' is not actually apropos -- society is actually acting on the basis of respect for other people's views that do not seem to cause harm or show a significant difference in outcome. That's the basis of a free non-theocratic democracy, isn't it? To only interfere if there is a detriment to society? It's actually a pretty respectful position and one of conscious choice and setting aside getting one's own preferences so that everyone can have freedom -- that's a positive, not a negative, in that light. But you seem bent on just judging it by your own personally held values.
In the end, I can respect you more if you either just acknowledge all that or if you are actually able to ground your case in rationality and seal the deal, as I have said before.
Honestly, I know I'm listening what you're saying and giving it a fair shake. I wish you'd actually make an argument for your position, rather than just arguing your conclusions and labeling them as arguments of some sort. Arguments proceed out of a broad variety of data rather than starting and remaining with the conclusion.