The question I have for you, Christopher, is whether you consider the sexual urges of these three men to be “natural”? And, if so, would you also consider them to be “God-given.” Should any of these three men act upon these urges simply because they came about naturally? And, if one or more were to act upon the urge, should I keep my objections to myself to avoid interference with the will of God?
Perhaps you are of the opinion that it would be wrong for the businessman to have sex with the 13 year old because she is not a consenting adult. But, remember, Christopher, Jesus never spoke out against statutory rape in the New Testament.
But, fortunately, we do have a basis for preventing the second man from having sex with the 13 year old. Since he is married, the act would constitute adultery, which Jesus specifically condemned in the New Testament.
Of course, that would also provide us with a reason to condemn the third man if he were to have sex with his 13 year old daughter. But, according to your twisted logic, he would be no more culpable, morally speaking, than the second man if both were to act upon the sexual attraction to the 13 year old. Incest was never mentioned by Jesus in the New Testament so it has no relevance in your theology.
Having sinful sexual urges is not the thing that separates homosexuals from the rest of the population, Christopher. It is the arrogant tendency to characterize the sinful urge as the will of God, to yield to it, and to make it the center of his being that makes the average homosexual too self-absorbed for me to tolerate. And you are simply not let off the hook by Christ’s refusal to state the obvious.
I know this response was not what you wanted to hear, but I must respectfully ask you to keep your epithets to yourself. If you feel the urge to unleash another hostile email, please do me a favor and try to control the impulse. It is the very thing that separates the citizen from the savage.