I should probably tell my aunt that her twenty-year loving relationship with another woman with whom she has lived with faithfully for so long, sharing life's experiences together, is morally wrong and sinful.
Or maybe I should just recognise that all real and genuine love, when shared by two people in mutual union, is beautiful and wholly good.
I don't think one needs marriage to have real and genuine love between two people. Aren't we to love our neighbors as ourselves? This is a Christian duty, not a thing born out of marriage. Yes, marriage has that concept, but I think many agree that marriage is what allows for eros love to exist between two.
When one argues that homosexuality is a sin, one is not saying you're not allowed to love one another. By all means, if a union between ANY two strengthens one's "storge, philia, and agape" then I support such a union. But I think those who are arguing on the position that homosexual acts are sins are saying that the "eros" is wrong.
I think it's very clear, natural or unnatural, we are called as Christians to transcend nature through Christ.
Absolutely, but for some of us this transcending can be done in the context of marriage OR in the context of celibacy; for others, it is SAID to be possible ONLY in the context of celibacy. And the latter presumes that the group on whom celibacy is imposed (homosexuals) will BY DEFINITION (made by whom, and based on what evidence, other than lines from Scripture interpreted according to the conventional majority prejudicial views?) do something horrible if they marry with one another.
Well, I don't know whether celibacy is imposed upon homosexuals. If however two homosexual people can unite and help one another obtain theosis and aid in avoiding the eros of one another, then I don't mind them in unity. Perhaps, the Church should consecrate such unions then. Are churches that do have gay marriages (like the Anglican Church) saying that eros is not allowed within such a marriage? That would be interesting, and would probably lead me to say, why are we then condemning them?
There are also communal ways of reaching theosis. To have a partner, whether it be a sibling or a friend, not just a spouse, can help too.
But I am no one to lay hate upon one person's "natural tendencies" over another.
Me too, and I very passionately believe that no one can, be him a bishop or a patriarch or even a council of bishops and patriarchs - it is simply impossible. That belief of mine annuls all claims, made by whoever and on whatever ground, tha gays cannot marry because their sex is "unnatural" and thus wrong.
I can't really say that just because I love them doesn't mean I can't say it's wrong. I'm saying I can't judge you because I also do wrong things.
Let's look at polygamy for instance. Is it a choice? Well, many animal kingdoms have harems. It seems to be natural for some men in the world. Perhaps, that's why men "cheat" on their wives sometimes. And I'm sure these men don't want to, but it happens. Maybe women also feel the same sometimes, that they can't just have one male partner in a relationship. Why then do we allow exclusivity in marriage when we can ease people's natural inclinations (which is moral in other religions like Islam and Mormonism and existed in the Old Testament) to marry more than one. One day, this may be socially acceptable, but many of us here don't find it as such. Why is this logically unacceptable, and somehow homosexuality is logically moral for others? I feel there's emotional arguments in play here, not consistency.
More importantly, I think this is hammered out enough. Perhaps, we should look at the arguments of other churches that argue that homosexuality is not a sin. I think those are more interesting to talk about. This is the documentary I watched that I was talking about where Christians take a "pro-gay" interpretation of verses in the Bible:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04AVRslVRbY
I'd like to read arguments about these nine videos.