Good question. It was after she answered a question for a homosexual man that sounded awfully approving of the relationship that I stopped listening to her altogether. It doesn’t fit… She seemed to be so “tuned in” to truth. Relationships between men and women should not involve sex before marriage. Sexual relationships between men and women should be married relationships. The focus of men and women who can’t make said relationships work should be the product of said relationships: children. Children are not pets. Children deserve all of you, not some of you. Children deserve parents, not caregivers. Marriage is about complementarity and self-giving. A woman fulfills one role, the man another. Messing with said roles and complementarities can turn the relationship on its head and make it unworkable.
Ok, I get it. That makes sense. Where then, does a same sex relationship fall in this world view? You don’t have to “wait” to have sex, because there is no such thing as marriage for same sex partners, right? Why? Because marriage protects partners and is a life long vow. And why is that vow important? CHILDREN!! The natural product of sexual relations between a man and a woman; an impossibility from the simulated intercourse of two people of the same sex. “Marriage” between two of the same sex is an afterthought and not the goal “worth waiting for”.
A relationship between two persons of the same sex is, by definition, disordered. But somehow all the rules about sex/marriage/right/wrong to which she adheres to without exception are just dropped when it comes to gay people? This shouldn’t be so. She doesn’t pull any punches when heteros make decisions she knows are hurting them. Why is it different for folks of the same sex?:shrug: