Faith writes:
You don't like the comparison with pedophilia because you think that's a really terrible sin while you think homosexuality is acceptable, but in God's eyes they are both sins, and both are psychological aberrations in a way that other sins are not, so that it's hard to find other comparisons. There are plenty of heterosexual sins but none of them are characteristic of a person the way homosexuality is or I would use them as my comparison.
Actually I was glad you brought pedophilia up. Getting back to the topic, would it be okay for a baker to refuse to bake, say, a birthday cake for a known pederast? You know, like one of those Catholic Priests? How about a rapist or a murderer? How about anyone convicted of a felony? How about petty theft? Jaywalking? See, there is a line of egregiousness above which you may be justified in refusing service. And below which you are not. To paraphrase George W., it's fuzzy math.
The SCREAMING difference for me is that, in the case of pedophilia acted upon, there are VICTIMS. For your garden variety same-sex marriage, it is between 2 consenting adults -
there are no victims.
You might have noticed that I used the phrase "case of pedophilia acted upon" above, to echo your other strange sentence, from
Message 284:
Belief isn't belief until it's acted upon.
Does someone who knows he is a pedophile, but only admits to it and never acts upon it still deserve to be refused service of a birthday cake? I'm thinking of Allen Ginsberg and his membership in NAMBLA. This a more general question to this audience and not specifically addressed to Faith.
More fuzzy math.
Jimmy Carter famously admitted to having lusted in his heart, but he never acted upon it. He deserves to be served the cake.
- xongsmith, 5.7d