Member Rara Avis
What I did say was that salvation would result in sinning less and less.
That's not at all what you said, but it's equally wrong. By that logic, given enough time, you will stop being a sinner. Wanna bet that happens?
Practicing, unrepentant homosexuals are not Christians.
There you go playing God again. Sorry, Stephen, but *you* don't get to decide that.
The particular type of relationship repentance has to salvation is irrelevant to this discussion ... as long as we agree it cannot be absent.
The path to salvation isn't irrelevant, especially when someone tries to confuse it. Still, do you sincerely believe, Stephen, that you know all there is to know about sin and God's will? Didn't think so. Or, at least, hoped not. Do you repent the many, many times in this thread you've arbitrary placed your will over God's? Or does failure to recognize your transgressions free you from the burden you would cast on others? (Slippery slope, ain't it?)
I'll just bet you're morally opposed to fornication, polyamory, and pornography.
Good examples, Stephen. Let's stop all of them from marrying first, and save the homosexuals for later. Sound's like a perfectly workable compromise to me.
That doesn't mean that the evidence is not persuasive, it just means that those who demand "proof" in the sense that you're using it, aren't satisfied with such observations.
LOL. You might want to look up the word persuasive. I'm not satisfied by such observations because, duh, they're not at all persuasive. You can't point at any single facet of homosexuality that isn't equally present in an equally promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle. Sex isn't a toy and people get hurt when they think it is. When you advocate a law that no one can have sex until they're married, and no one can get married if they've ever had sex, then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, you're still applying the double standards you accused Essorant of following.
Morality cannot or should not primarily be determined by statistical averages and pragmatic perception.
Morality cannot and should not be determined by men. That's God's role. Ours is simply to determine laws that will allow us to live together in relative peace. You follow your sense of morals, I'll follow mine, and we both will abide by man's laws. That should work out real well for both of us on this Earth, and God will sort out what comes after that.
Cohabitation (with it's various degrees of commitment) has existed as a contrast to what covenential marriage offers. That's quite different than pressing something so fundamentally different to the point of redefining Marriage as a public institution. Cohabitation comes with the assumption (whether right or wrong) "Marriage isn't needed". So it's not the same thing as pushing that something else BECOMES marriage, when it wasn't/ isn't/ hasn't been.
That's either incredibly paradoxical, Stephen, or incredibly enlightening. Sounds like you don't have a problem with sin and morality after all? You just want it to be a sin with which you're comfortable. That sin can even evolve into sanctity (common law marriage) as long as you're comfortable. Hey, I got no problem with that, either. Not until your comfort becomes someone else's discomfort.
If law embraces homosexual marriage, the society/ culture will be helped along the path of viewing it as normative and perfectly acceptable.
Let's hope so. Of course, it won't happen overnight. In spite of laws passed more than thirty years ago, racial prejudice and bigotry hasn't been erased quite yet. Homophobia, sad to say, will likely survive well past my lifetime, too. People will probably always fear and hate what they can't comprehend.
It's not evangelism OR law.
We can certainly agree on that, Stephen. Your proposal lacks the compassion of one, and the justice of the other.