(December 11, 2017 at 11:34 am)Chad32 Wrote:(December 11, 2017 at 11:20 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 1. It's about what they physically can't do, not what they can.
2. No, because sex between a straight couple who is not married, or who is divorced and remarried, or who is married but has sex in a selfish way, is also contrary to our views on sexual morality.
Any Christian who treats gays badly or sees their sins as "worse" than ours is obviously bigoted against gays on a personal level. And it shouldn't be about that. None of us are perfect and we ALL sin. Heck, if I was gay I highly highly doubt I'd be able to live a celibate life forever, as would be morally ideal for me to do so. I reserve 0 judgement for those people.
You have a very narrow view of what sex is about. I had that view too. But it's not about having kids. Hell, we've reached a point in scientific advancement that you don't even need to have sex, to have children. Having children and having sex is becoming more and more completely separate actions.
Sex is a bonding experience, more than anything. There is no sexual morality or immorality, except whether or not everyone involved is a consenting adult. We don't need to tack on social constructs like marriage, or even children into it. A man can't give birth, but a man can still raise a child if he wishes to.
As I explained in a different sex, natural law shows us that sex has 2 functional purposes: 1. procreation, 2. bonding (to help couples stay together in case there is a child). At the end of the day, sex is about forming a family. We evolved accordingly. Sex literally would not exist otherwise.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh