new

There is not a lot of explanation here. What is meant by the gay couples not having the same benefit? Anyway the ethical principal of not treating anyone differently seems sound when one imagines it in some contexts, but is absurd when one extends it to a general principle without restriction of context:

For example, let us say some innocent person is shot, the people in the ambulance rush to them and take them to the hospital...but they don't treat people who were not shot the same way...they ignore them if they are not in the way, and they expect them to move out of the way if they are. All of this is perfectly reasonable ethical behavior...but certainly the people are being treated grossly differently.

Now one might object to my analysis and say I am applying the principle of fairness in the wrong way. Rather the principle really is that the ambulance should rush to those who were shot independent of who that person might be, being that the people themselves are of equal importance to be tended whenever there is dire need of such tending.

But then some people will not ever need an ambulance and some people will need it more than once. So the principle of having ambulances will serve some more than others. Suppose there is somebody who is invulnerable and healthy by nature. They will never get to ride in the ambulance unless the policy is changed. They are necessarily treated differently. And yet on account of this, the ambulance crew can't be said to be unfair or unreasonable. For the purpose of an ambulance is to take care of people that need emergency care.

When things have a purpose, like ambulances and marriage for that matter, then it does not become necessarily unfair to treat people differently in regard to their relationship with that purpose.

The purpose of marriage as a social and biological structure has been to promote healthy reproduction. This does not mean that a particular couple who are not fertile should not be allowed to marry. The fact that they are not fertile is really nobody else's business. But it does mean a man should not marry his sister. That structure or tradition is bad for healthy reproduction. The traditional policy of recognizing marriage between any adult man and woman who do not have other mating obligations to form a bond and agreement to only mate with each other, but not allowing it if they are too closely related by family line, is a good one.

Its not perfect, but its good. Now there is more to marriage then simple reproduction--there is the bond between the adults and the affections of romantic love and more firm kinds of love that grow out of it. These bonds can be formed by homosexual couples. In this respect homosexual partnerships resemble marriage of infertile couples. But there is on this account no good reason have to call these couples marriage and to have society forced to drop the distinction and to have policies toward such unions identical to the policies toward marriages.

The problem with the fall is that folks stopped being holy beings (granted a derivative holiness, but who would claim otherwise?) and became merely moral. The body of death isn’t this Eeeeeevil thing ... it can be a moral thing. Usually is. Indeed, the flesh aping the fruits of the spirit is one of the problems even true Christians (blood bought saints) can have when they try to do “good” in their own strength rather than out of obedience to the Spirit.

Or, as one old salt was to have once asked a young just out of school preacher: “Were you sent or did you just went?” The problem with the body of death is it wants us to obey it, and not the Holy Spirit. And it’ll be a good, religious little body of death if that’s what it takes. Telling the difference between obeying and “look at me” need not be hard ... but remember when Paul wrote that his concern was that the Gospel was proclaimed and not that he always got worked up about who was proclaiming it?

The odd thing to me is that you have reached the point of thinking me ludicrous NOT because I’ve been writing gustily about difficult matters, where there is reasons one might actually have differences and discourse thereafter arise (with no guarantee of any settlement, mind you) but because I have posted about what should be considered low hanging fruit, things beyond contention.

Like the need for homosexuals to repent, that they CAN repent (or else Paul was inaccurate to say and such were some of you), and in fact that they should be told to repent even if it means they fell put upon. To say those things isn’t to ignore sexual immorality in general, but to address a very specific form of sexual immorality that is doubling down on unholy. Nuance is all fine and good. But if, as you say, they’ve heard it all before then it doesn’t hurt them to hear it again. It’s on their heads if they refuse Christ. No one will be thrown into the lake of fire because of what is written in the books but because their name is not found written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. That includes homosexuals who didn’t repent.

What am I to do? Shut up and wave as they merrily pass by? My words ARE weak and useless! I don’t pretend that they are powerful and persuasive! But if I’ve got this talent in my hand I’ve got a choice: either TRY to do business with it (even if that’s just depositing it for the interest gained) where I have a forum or bury it in a handkerchief for later. That’s MY choice and I’m responsible for obeying.

God can make even weak and useless things to bring forth fruit. Good thing too because weak and useless describes His people pretty well. And me very, very well!

So, yep, I’m ludicrous. Actually, I’ve a silly streak that’s a mile wide and not a bit shallow, when it comes to it. What’s your excuse?