Anonymous #1 16w

“I care for you so much I’m banning you from having homo sex” I’m dead

9

Anonymous #3 16w

If someone believed a path was leading you away from what’s good and true, and they didn’t say anything, would that be love? Mocking is easy. But real love often risks being misunderstood.

-1

Anonymous #1 16w

Gay sex is good and true any other thoughts are just discrimination and homophobia

0

Anonymous #3 16w

If disagreement means hate, then dialogue is dead. I believe what I do because I trust God’s design, not because I fear or hate anyone.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Quit using random texts written by people that aren’t Jesus to justify sinning against your brothers and sisters of Christ. Jesus loves everybody. God designed some people to be homosexual.

6

Anonymous #3 16w

Jesus didn’t contradict the rest of Scripture. He fulfilled it. He never called sin love, and He never said truth should bend to feelings. Love welcomes everyone, but it also calls us higher.

-1

Anonymous #1 16w

Disagreeing with homosexuality, is inherently homophobic, that’s exactly like saying “I don’t agree with [insert any defining feature that somebody can’t change about themselves]” and that’s actually absurd

7

Anonymous #1 16w

You spread sin (hate) into the world by projecting these false teachings of God and Jesus

4

Anonymous #3 16w

Calling truth hate doesn’t make it hateful. Jesus loved sinners, but He never affirmed sin. Love isn’t silent, and truth isn’t cruelty. If I’m wrong, show me with Scripture, not shame.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

Truth and hate aren’t mutually exclusive. Something can be both. I find the historicity of the translation of homosexuality into the Bible very interesting and I suggest you read about it. It never appeared in translations up until 1946 when homophobia and discrimination was at the highest. God has always loved everybody regardless of who you love. Some religious leaders failed to recognize their own sin and hatred for their brothers and sisters and that’s how it ended up in the Bible.

6

Anonymous #3 16w

God’s love is never in question, but His love also calls us to repentance, not affirmation of everything we feel. The 1946 theory has been thoroughly debunked by both Christian and secular scholars. Truth isn’t new, and love isn’t license.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

Does the church recognize the state sanctioned marriage to be a biblical version of marriage?

3

Anonymous #1 16w

If we can’t agree on history and facts, I’m done having an open conversation about this.

3

Anonymous OP 16w

No, the Church doesn’t recognize state marriage as biblical marriage by default. A true marriage, in the Church’s eyes, is a sacrament, lifelong, open to life, and between a man and a woman.

1

Anonymous #3 16w

Fair enough. But disagreement on history doesn’t mean I reject facts, it means I’ve looked deeper. My door’s still open if you want to discuss it respectfully. Peace.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Alright, since the church doesn’t recognize it as true marriage then there’s no religious obligation for christians to want the state to ban same sex marriage as the marriage given to people by the state is not one that directly impacts the church.

5

Anonymous OP 16w

It’s true the Church isn’t bound to state definitions, but Christians still care about truth in public life. Laws shape culture, and culture shapes hearts. Loving your neighbor includes wanting what’s good for souls and society alike.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

It doesn’t matter. Biblically speaking there’s no obligation to change what the state recognizes as marriage if the church doesn’t recognize state marriages to be biblical to begin with. To ban it knowing that information is just being discriminatory for the sake of being discriminatory as there’s no verse or scripture calling on christian’s to force the state to adhere to a biblical marriage interpretation

6

Anonymous OP 16w

Christians aren’t called to control the state, but we are called to be salt and light. Staying silent while culture redefines truth doesn’t honor Christ. Speaking up isn’t about forcing, it’s about loving enough to care where things are headed.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

You have freedom of speech to criticize and condemn. But you’re acting outside of biblical obligation if you attempt to warp state sanctioned marriage into a version that the bible has.

5

Anonymous OP 16w

Christians aren’t trying to ‘warp’ state marriage, we just believe truth belongs in every part of life, not only inside church walls. We’re not told to control laws, but we are called to live and speak what’s true, even when it’s unpopular.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Sure you are you’re not acting in accordance to the Bible if you’re attempting to make state, sanction marriages, more socially accepted by the church when the church historically does not recognize marriage to be true

5

Anonymous OP 16w

The Church doesn’t conform to the state. But Christians still care about what the state promotes, because laws teach, and culture forms consciences. I’m not trying to make state marriage sacred, just not spiritually misleading.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

yes, you are. If you are attempting to do something in the Bible does not call on you to do. You’re not acting in accordance to the Bible and if the church does not recognize state sanction marriage to be true, then the statesversion of marriage should hold no bearing on theChristian faith

5

Anonymous #1 16w

actually, the tradition of the church is to call on those not to unintentionally caused authoritarianism within democratic agencies, intentional, or not what you’re doing is attempting to create a social acceptance of something the church does not want to accept

5

Anonymous OP 16w

I’m not trying to make the state adopt Church sacraments. I’m saying Christians shouldn’t support redefining moral truth just because it’s popular. If silence helps error grow, love speaks, even when it’s misunderstood.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Yes you are, if you are attempting to make the state adhere to what the bible defines as marriage, that’s exactly what you’re doing. It is purely unbiblical action to redefine the states version of marriage to fit your religious version.

5

Anonymous #1 16w

and I don’t doubt that this behavior is unconscious, but unintentionally what you’re attempting to do is create a new moral truth for the church to accept

3

Anonymous OP 16w

I’m not trying to change the Church or control the state, I’m just refusing to call something true when it isn’t. Christians don’t rewrite doctrine to match culture. We hold the line, even when we stand alone.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

The church already doesn’t it call it true. In order to argue against same sex marriage for the state, you’d need a secular reason as to why it should be banned. Do you have one?

5

Anonymous OP 16w

Fair question. Marriage between a man and woman isn’t just religious, it’s rooted in biology, family structure, and the long-term good of society. Every child comes from a mother and a father. Law should reflect that natural reality.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

It’s not. Native American cultures didn’t recognize a 1 man 1 woman marriage. “long term good” is a subjective claim that would need an amazing amount of evidence to support your argument It’s also a logical fallacy that every marriage is required to produce a child. If that was a secular necessity you’d see more atheists wanting to ban infertile couples from marrying.

4

Anonymous OP 16w

Marriage has always been about more than love, it’s the one relationship society has recognized because it can create life. Not every couple does, but only male-female unions ever can. That’s not subjective, it’s biology.

-1

Anonymous #1 16w

Ah yes, please point to the marriage gland in the body for demonstration please. Are you serious?

6

Anonymous #1 16w

Let me rephrase Do you think only fertile people should be allowed to marry, using the secular logic you’ve presented?

5

Anonymous #4 16w

There’s no ‘friendship gland’ either, but friendship is real and has a social role. Marriage’s unique role is that it brings together the two halves of humanity in a way that can create life. That’s why societies recognize it specially.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

No, because marriage isn’t a reward for fertility, it’s a recognition of the kind of union ordered toward new life, even if not all couples can have children. Male-female marriage has a unique structure. Same-sex unions don’t.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

Alright so capacity of having children holds no bearing. Do you acknowledge the fact that people are born gay or straight?

5

Anonymous OP 16w

I believe people can experience deep-seated desires they didn’t choose. But Scripture and natural law show that not every desire defines us, or leads to what’s good. That’s not hate. That’s trust in a higher design.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

right, if they cannot choose that, that’s a biological implication. So it’s biologically factual to say that there are homosexual relationships as well, this is true as over 1,000 species practice homosexual behavior. So secularly speaking, biology isn’t a reason to force 1 man 1 woman. Thats now two things that wouldn’t work using your secular logic

4

Anonymous OP 16w

Seeing a behavior in nature doesn’t make it a moral or social ideal. Animals do all kinds of things we wouldn’t base laws on. The question isn’t what’s possible, it’s what’s best for human flourishing. That’s where male-female marriage still stands apart.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

We’re talking about using secular logic to ban same sex marriage. You said it’s “biology” if now you’re saying biology isn’t a good reason then that’s an invalid argument that you attempted to argue.

2

Anonymous OP 16w

Biology doesn’t ban anything, law does. I’m saying male-female unions are the only type biologically structured to create life, which is why society treated them differently. That’s not contradiction, it’s cause and effect.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

I don’t think I’m being clear that’s my bad. I’m contesting the reasons why, using secular logic only, we should ban gay marriage. You said “it’s rooted in biology” Biology in us and other species have shown homosexual relationships, so if you’re going to make the argument that biology would be a reason, you can’t be selective with what you agree in terms of what biology shows.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

To add, you’ve already stated that it’s not required for a marriage to bear children, so fertility holds no secular bearing on whether or not gay marriage should be legal

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Biology shows possibilities, not purpose. Male-female unions uniquely align with reproduction, which is why societies gave them special recognition. That doesn’t mean every marriage must produce kids, but only that kind ever can.

3

Anonymous OP 16w

The question isn’t what’s biologically possible, it’s what’s structurally oriented toward creating and raising future citizens. That’s a public good, and marriage policy has reflected that.

3

Anonymous #1 16w

You acknowledge choosing who you’re attracted/love to is not a choice, correct?

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Attraction isn’t always a choice, action is. Everyone has desires they don’t act on because not all desires lead to good outcomes. That’s part of being human.

3

Anonymous #1 16w

Alright, that’s biology then. And you attempted to use biology as a reason to ban gay marriage. In that screenshot you don’t argue morality based off biology. You specifically it’s “it’s rooted IN biology” well so are homosexual relationships. So if biology is a reason, then that’s in favor of gay marriage as well, because biologically speaking, both occur

1

Anonymous OP 16w

You’re conflating two different things. Just because both desires exist biologically doesn’t mean they serve the same function. Male-female unions are uniquely structured for new life and stable families, that’s why societies recognized them as marriage.

2

Anonymous OP 16w

My argument isn’t ‘biology proves morality’, it’s that male-female marriage uniquely fulfills a biological and societal role no other pairing can. That’s why the state treated it differently, not to punish feelings, but to preserve a structure that benefits everyone.

0

Anonymous #1 16w

Again not true. As I said societies have recognized homosexual marriages as early as the Mesopotamian era. Native American societies to this day still recognize it as a long standing cultural fact. The false dichotomy you’re presenting is that we cannot continue to have children if we allow gay people to marry legally. That does nothing to affect the rate at which straight people marry and bear children. It’s rooted in biology that gay relationships happen, that logically is the same statement

3

Anonymous #1 16w

This isn’t bringing up the fact that gay people aren’t “incapable” of having children. There are bisexual people who have children all of the time. Gay people who have sex with straight people only to find out they were gay after, and their partner is now pregnant. But again, Having children isn’t a requirement for marriage so that can’t be a secular reason as well, since you’ve acknowledged that.

3

Anonymous OP 16w

No one’s saying children are required. We’re saying marriage exists because of the link to children, not just romance.

3

Anonymous #1 16w

If you’re not willing to acknowledge how most cultures historically do recognize same sex marriage as a norm, that is an exception you’re making. If you say that it’s rooted in biology somehow, well so are same sex marriages, and choosing not to acknowledge that as true despite it being biological is also an exception you’re making. The use of “natural” is also flawed here as you just acknowledged that same sex attraction isn’t something that’s always chosen, implying biological attraction

1

Anonymous #1 16w

And the rate of child birth does not go down when allowing gay people to marry. That should hold no bearing secularly speaking.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Recognition across cultures doesn’t make something functionally the same. Societies have practiced many things, what matters is what the union does. Male-female unions uniquely produce children and link them to both parents. That’s the public interest.

2

Anonymous #1 16w

You said societies, multiple. You’re making an exception by saying that other societies that do recognize it aren’t as valid. That’s the same thing you did when stating the biology of marriage. It is biologically true but you’re making an exception due to child bearing. But don’t make that same exception for those who are simply infertile. There is no supporting evidence that allowing gay people to marry effects the birth rate, if that’s a concern.

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Recognizing patterns in many societies doesn’t mean all practices are functionally equal. Infertility is a natural limitation within a structure still oriented toward reproduction. Same-sex unions lack that orientation entirely. That’s the distinction.

3

Anonymous #1 16w

Let me ask, why do they need to be functionally equal? Reproduction is not required for a marriage to valid, that is what you argued. So unless you have data to suggest that it at all would effect birth rate, this point is also dependent on making an exception

1

Anonymous OP 16w

Marriage serves both personal and societal purposes. While reproduction isn’t required in every case, the institution’s public role historically centers on child-rearing and family stability. That’s why functional differences matter when considering legal recognition, not just individual relationships.

3

Anonymous #1 16w

So your view of marriage is dependent on the existing state institution? This is in theory an argument from secular logic. And secular logic wouldn’t inherently be tied to a single institutions view and purpose of marriage.

1

Anonymous #1 16w

I’d also like to ask, sorry I don’t mean to ask you so much. For the countless society that do recognize same-sex method why aren’t they considered valid?

1

Anonymous OP 16w

societies*

1

Anonymous OP 16w

My view isn’t dependent on just the state but on the broader, historical purpose marriage has served across cultures, primarily family and societal stability. Societies recognizing same-sex unions often have different cultural frameworks, which doesn’t automatically redefine the institution globally. It’s ok though, I should get some sleep before night classes start. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

4

Anonymous #1 16w

I’d like to continue if you would whenever possible. I’ve appreciated the civilness. Marriage across cultures changes so I guess if some cultures viewed same sex marriage as important, would they be correct in those claims?

1

Anonymous OP 16w

You’ve been cool and asked some good questions, I appreciate it. I’m just pretty drained and need to chill with some hobbies for a bit. Maybe some other time. Take care!

3

Anonymous #1 16w

You too!

3