It seems some have moral issue with sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond – and that is understood if applied universally. So, I would presume that if a same-sex couple does not have premarital sex, gets married in a Methodist church (or in Canada, etc..), and then continues to live a monogamous life, then this would be acceptable?

Why would you want to change this behavior – or this hope – for those who find their affectional inclinations are toward those of the same-sex? Shouldn’t we promote monogamy, a happy affectional bond, strengthen the family, etc…and support the laws which could do so?

Looking at the Old Testament, how do we determine which prohibitons and punishments still stand, and which ones no longer apply? I asked earlier: do we still chop the hands off a woman who grabs another man’s genitals to help her own husband during a fight? How is that “sin”? Does it still apply?

Holy God, sinful people,..Christ paid the price for all my sin.

The reason I am asking is that it seems very clear to me that murder, rape, stealing, etc. violate very CLEAR and UNIVERSAL moral priniciples (love you neighbor as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) How does homoseuxlaity violate these same principles. Why do homosexuals deserve capital punishment (and the fires of Hell) while rapists can make it right simply by marrying the girl and paying her father the bride price?

I have never been able to figure out why all homosexual behavior is considered “sin” (and worthy of horrific, painful, eternal punishment) — except that it is not heterosexual.

I can’t say what they have on their mind, because I haven’t ever asked them why they asked, but usually their psych or med students who are interested in behaviour. And most of the time, they (the ones I’ve come across) were given very selective references too (psych students and med students usually), so I guess it’s not suprising that so few ask the question at all. But again, who knows what’s on the mind of the curious. And who says the ‘curious biased person’ isn’t actually a psych student studying sexuality. Once again, I don’t know. I’ll start asking 🙂

Ivan.

When you say don’t quote Scripture, you are limiting a discussion artificially.

I disagree that it is an artifical limitation to the discussion when he asks not that scripture be quoted. The reason why he makes that limitation is because he wants to know the moral principle that is being upheld as opposed to the completely arbitrary adherence to select Biblical writings. (How many Christians endorse the death penalty for violating the Sabbath?)

I can say that murder is wrong because it deprives someone of their right to life.

I can say that slavery is wrong becasue it deprives someone of their right to liberty.

I can say that theft is wrong because it deprives someone of their right to property.

Homosexuality deprives someone of … ?

This is why people call homosexuality and drug use victimless crimes: they don’t deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.