So Violet asks, “I was wondering if you have a post that explicitly addresses how you believe a Christian who experiences same sex attractions should live their lives in terms of romance. I’d be interested to know if you think they should attempt a heterosexual marriage or just remain celibate….”
First let me tell a story. Several years ago I tried to take care of a man at the end of his life, racist, bigoted, sexually immoral to the point of believing that all marriage was a sham, intimacy with women was a pipe dream, his only worth and value was in his own sexuality, his conquests of women, of which there had been many. He had an extensive collection of art, all nudes of women, but he also had an intense rage and frustration towards women as a whole, because we allegedly had all failed to love him the way he thought he deserved to be loved. We were all sluts and whores and the usual names. He just could not understand why no one loved him and he could not recognize that he was just so unlovable. I myself had to resist the urge to step on his oxygen tube on more than one occasion.
He drank a lot however, and in his more maudlin moments he would confess all his sins to me, express his deep regrets about his wasted life and wind up sobbing on my shoulder. He just ached for something he couldn’t even identify, something he had tried to fulfill sexually. He had everything, great wealth, many women, a couple of daughters (who avoided him as much as possible,) and I suppose he once had good looks too, charisma, charm when he wasn’t so sick. He had acquired everything The World had to offer and yet he had nothing at all, nothing but endless regret and this all-consuming rage and torment about a life so wasted. He felt as if he had sold himself short.
It broke my heart and I eventually quit and left the man to his dying. I learned a few things however, from a man no less, about what happens to us when our entire identity comes from our own sexuality. About what a huge deception that really is, about how we’re all desperately seeking intimacy, love, connection with others, and yet when our own sexuality is all we believe we have to offer, that is how we are condemned to perceive others, too. So, what we seek, we actually destroy. If you yourself are nothing more than a flat, two-dimensional sexual creature, that is how you will perceive others too. You have edited love, intimacy, our higher selves, right out of that equation, the very things you crave.
A handshake used to be a man’s word, but today we believe that sex itself means nothing at all. We’ve changed the entire narrative without even seeing what we’ve lost.
We are not our sexuality, it is not our identity, it is only a small part of who we are, a tool given for pleasure perhaps, but also to build loyalty, devotion, intimacy in marriage not just with each other, but with our Creator, too. Men, women, gays, believers and non believers, doesn’t matter, that is what we all seek, love, our Source. It’s built into us, one might even say we were designed that way. That is the problem with sexuality, it is a powerful urge and yet so easily distorted, exploited, perverted, a tool we can even use to deceive our own selves with.
It’s really rare to find anybody who believes their sexuality is their very identity, the sole source of their worth and value, that doesn’t actually hate their own selves on some level and the other gender. Prostitutes rarely love themselves and they sure don’t love men, although they are paid to act as if they do. They tend to turn to the anesthesia of addiction rather quickly however, to numb themselves out from the pain they are experiencing. Our spirits never lie to us. Men are really not much different, all these players and cads who go through dozen of women and yet never find what they are really seeking. We’ve written great songs about it, “Wasting away in Margaritaville” comes to mind. A great song about seeking anesthesia, confused about what ails us.
So how do we make prostitutes and players feel better? We should just legalize it all, promote it, and pour approval all over them and then all will be well? But will it really? At the end of your life, will your spirit be fooled by those deceptions? Does the truth of who and what you are change when people express their approval?
Believe it or not Violet, I don’t worry about gays too much because they are a much smaller part of the population. I worry far more about heterosexuals, the way we now present women in pornographic ways, as flat two-dimensional sexual commodities selling products, about how we encourage men to perceive us as such. I worry about college girls hooking up and having sex with men they don’t even like for reasons they can’t even fathom, so confused about what the heck consent is, they think there needs to be a law. I worry about a culture with marriage rates that have declined to less than 50 percent. I worry about people who now believe our sexuality is our very I-dentity, who pursue pride rather than humility. I worry about the sexual abuse of children and the pedophiles who are already claiming that is just their identity, that pedophilia is just “love of children” and should now be recognized as a lifestyle choice, too.
Worry is perhaps the wrong word, I grieve over these things, things I am powerless to do anything about but watch unfold.
There are several skeletons in the gay closet that we aren’t supposed to talk about, a frequent history of child sexual abuse and/or problematic relationships with our parents. Suicide is rampant in the gay community, as is addiction, promiscuity, rape, assorted sexual rage. Domestic violence rates are nearly five times as high as in heterosexual couples. Even the most loving gay families raising children, seldom recognize how their child has been deprived of a biological relationship with an absent parent. There are numerous issues within the gay community that people often do not wish see, especially when we are so busy talking about love and rainbows.
I actually know several young people who now believe they are gay, because being gay is now perceived as being cool, as an act of rebellion. They are so not gay, but they experiment, they play with those identities, they try them on for size. They are as sexually confused as we all are, but now the ways of the world lead and guide them. They are gay for status points, gay converts people always said could never happen. Sure it could happen, sexuality is a surprisingly flexible thing. What we find desirable, attractive, is more about culture then biology. How many marriages have ended because someone suddenly decided they were gay? How many people have left gay relationships and gone on to get married because they realize they weren’t gay at all? Human sexuality is not as written in stone as we all like to believe.
Violet’s question is somewhat amusing, she wants a laundry list to mock, something cut and dry, perhaps a recipe for gay conversion or how to repress human sexuality. A switch we can just flip on or off with instructions. Unfortunately it’s a complex issue with multiple layers of deception and not easily resolved. I did have a chuckle here however, “I’d be interested to know if you think they should attempt a heterosexual marriage or just remain celibate….”
Said absolutely every Christian ever. Is that not the same precise question heterosexuals have often been called to ask themselves? What makes gays so different? Since biblical times, that is precisely what we have been called to do, no matter how miserably we fail or how often or how many of us fall short. Marriage or celibacy, those have always been the options. Sometimes I wonder if God didn’t deliberately put that there just so we would see how imperfect and flawed we are, how incapable of controlling our own urges, and how powerful our desire to do things our own way, and therefore how desperately we really do need a savior, a redeemer. And we all do, especially those who perceive themselves as perfect and un-flawed. Sexual sin is not a new thing, nor are any of us free of it, nor is God shocked by it.
There are those like Violet who seem to believe that gender is so fluid it is nothing more than a social construct, while sexual orientation and sexual desire is so rigid, it is written into our very DNA and we are born with it.
Some of us however suspect the precise opposite is true. Completely outside of the context of faith, gender is actually something we are born with, while human sexuality is nothing more than a social construct.
When we are constructing things like our own sexuality or perhaps civilization and culture, it’s always wise to check and see if perhaps we might be attempting to tear down some load bearing walls during our redesign plans, least the whole thing come crumbling down on top of us.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
How is basing our success in life on satisfying our appetite for sex, any different than basing our success in life on satisfying our appetite for food, alcohol, pot, gambling or you name it?
Living life to satisfy appetites is vice.
Vice leads to ruin.
This simple state of affairs has been known in the West for over 2500 years.
It has been known in the Orient for even longer.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Interesting, Silence. I don’t think it’s known very well and understood much in the West, at least not in recent memory and certainly not in pop culture.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Insanity,
Virtue was taught habitually by parents, educational and government institutions before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.
Since the pursuit of appetites as the main focus of human activity is simple barbarism, people like Violet preach a retrograde gospel, aka really bad news.
And the human experience over millennia of history and even over a single human lifetime prove that to be true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Virtue was taught habitually by parents, educational and government institutions before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.”
Ah yes, well that does explain everything. I was born into the 60’s in the midst of free love and no virtues, as many from my generation were.
You are right Silence, I have no doubt that in the absence of virtues we have complete barbarism. What kind of shocks me is that so many people don’t seem to understand that, don’t see it. Civilized behavior is a really thin veneer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To me that’s a misconception. I was born in the 50s. In my experience virtue was taught only in the abstract if at all, and factual information about sex (both behaviors and diseases) wasn’t even easily available to doctors. Infidelity, domestic violence, marital rape, child abuse and alcoholism were common, and no one spoke about them openly unless a family member died as a result. It was a time of great brutality, and keeping ugly secrets at all costs. It’s SO much better now in so many ways.
LikeLiked by 4 people
You make a good point too, Mikey. Keeping it all in the family was a real thing in the 50’s and there was often great suffering behind closed doors. I’m not sure if it’s better now, just different. All those things continue today, alcoholism, domestic violence, child abuse, in fact they may well be worse then ever. We won’t know until all the dust settles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So many things, especially in the Midwest, were SO taboo. My mother was sick for nearly a year – actually bedridden – and neither my Mom or Dad would tell us what it was. My guess is that it had something to do with her reproductive organs, but since such things were “never to be spoken of,” both of my parents took that information to their graves and now my daughters may be predisposed to certain ailments, but I have no relevant information to give them, but their mother and her mother both died of cancer, so at least they have that information and know what to tell their doctors to be on guard for.
My aunt was divorced for two years before my Mom ever told me, and even then, it was because I put 2 and 2 together and guessed – good families didn’t GET divorced. Yeah, things in the past always looked better, with the distance of time – they weren’t, they were just better hidden.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mikey,
Of course infidelity, domestic violence, marital rape, child abuse and alcoholism were common way back when.
Unfortunately that isn’t the topic of discussion.
Now, promiscuous sexual practice is lauded not only moral but the healthy pursuit of happiness.
And any mistakes are taken care of on the abortioners chopping block.
Adding further insult to injury is the absurd notion that two men, or two women can marry.
LikeLike
I disagree with some of the things you say, but I’m extremely impressed with your ability to say them. Clearly you think deeply and write well.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thank you Arch, much appreciated.
LikeLike
“A scheme which permits thousands of generations to live and die in wretchedness cannot be absolved from the charge of awkwardness or malevolence … it is impossible to call that being Good who, existing prior to the phenomenal universe, and creating it out of the plenitude of infinite power and foreknowledge, endowed it with such properties that its material and moral development must inevitably be attended by the misery of untold millions of sentient creatures for whose existence their creator is ultimately alone responsible.”
(John Fiske, 1902, Miscellaneous Writings, iv, Outline of Cosmic Philosophy, New York: Houghton, Mifflin, pp. 225)
LikeLike
These are troubled waters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB, this is one of your best posts. Very intriguing but I will need to chew on it a while before deciding how to respond. 😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ummm, I’m confused. Contrary to your definition the dictionary says gender is “the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).” So,gender is not biological but rather social and cultural.
I suspect that male/female is not a two way switch that has to be positioned at one or the other, but rather a full range continuum that stretches from 99% female + 1% male to 1% female + 99% male. I suspect we all exist somewhere on that continuum – part female and part male. Which we choose to act on is not only a function of how strong each is within the individual it is also a function of context. This is.in fact what I suspect the Bible councils against – do not let context affect your sexuality. For instance Romans was written by a soldier (Saul as Paul) for Romans who were primarily soldiers; While away from females and families (sometimes for years), do not engage in same sex relations as that is not your nature. This is the same advice wrt using prostitutes – its not a matter of your sexual orientation, it is a matter of sex outside a committed relationship.
Which is why I think Jesus did not once mention homosexuality -he did in fact rail against meaningless sex and that is the point, not which gender is partners with which gender. The load bearing wall is sex within a committed relationship, not heterosexual relationships.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“While away from females and families (sometimes for years), do not engage in same sex relations as that is not your nature.” – Paul, while you have some sound reasoning, and I particularly like your range of masculinity/femininity. Possibly regarding your statement about the army, your history may not be complete.
The Greek army of Alexander conquered the Levant in the 300’s BCE. A little word on the Greek army – all boys served. The custom was that every boy would serve a hitch as a novice, and as such, he was apprenticed to an experienced, seasoned warrior. The warrior was expected to train the boy, to make a competent warrior of him, and in return, the boy provided the warrior with all of the favors he might expect of a woman. At the end of their hitches, the men returned home to their wives and girlfriends, not considering themselves “gay” at all.
Rome inherited nearly everything from the Greeks – architecture, gods, etc. – for example, the Greek god, “Zeus Pater” (Zeus, the Father), slurred in Latin, became Ju-piter. It’s difficult to believe that they didn’t inherit the sexual practices of Greek armies as well.
LikeLike
Arch,
Greco-Roman dalliance between old geezer and young flesh was considered a vice.
That’s why the soldiers in your tale returned home to good old fashioned family values after the insanity of war.
The Greeks and Romans would laugh anyone to scorn for even considering gay marriage.
After all, to the Greeks and Romans, stupidity was indeed laughable.
But today, in the United Stated of America, stupidity is now the law of the land.
LikeLike
Paul,
Take a look at what’s dangling between your legs (if you are indeed, a man).
The penis is the irrefutable natural stamp of 100% manhood.
And lo, even gay men possess the mighty male penis, thus making every gay man, 100% male.
Similarly, the vagina is the irrefutable natural stamp of 100% womanhood.
And lo, even gay women possess one.
The reasons for confusion are if:
a) When one beholds one’s own crotch there is no there, there.
b) When one beholds one’s own crotch and there exists both penis and vagina.
c) Possession of any assortment of fractional combinations of both penis and vagina would likewise be cause for alarm and confusion.
Unless you admit to a, b, or c, there is no reason whatsoever to be confused about your gender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had never considered this perspective before. Very interesting.
LikeLike
In past societies, where homosexuality was a private matter (even if not actually illegal) and marriage a near-obligation you couldn’t opt out of and an absolute obligation for parents, many homosexual and bisexual people got married, had children and either returned to celibacy, continued to fulfill their spousal duties or kept a same-sex partner on the side. The focus wasn’t whether they should marry or not, or who they should marry. The focus was that if they reproduced they should provide their children with a mother and a father.
Regardless of faith and law, every documented culture from Ancient Greece to the 1920s agreed that if you were homosexual that was your own business and if you wanted to do anything outside of marriage, that was your own business, but if you wanted to breed your children should have a parent of either sex. This is the first Western society and possibly the first society ever where lifelong marriage is all about transient feelings and not at all about reproduction and education.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This topic dovetails into the comment I made on the previous post. I consider that the Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual marriage to have been the official death-date of American culture.
All civilized cultures are predicated on the strength of their families. Monogamy has been the standard since Ancient Egypt; and polygamy at less civilized levels. But marriage and family was ALWAYS fundamentally the same. One man maintaining a family of women and children; and from there the larger community extrapolates. Even in the most degenerated and licentious epochs, no one ever dreamed of sanctifying homosexuality.
The same was true even our own Sexual Revolution. Extensive damage was done to our society, but even so men and women were getting married and raising families. But what the SCOTUS decision has done is two things: one, it legally redefined what a marriage is; and second, it covered this redefinition under the anti-discrimination laws.
Historically: the State of Utah was denied entrance into the Union until it agreed to outlaw polygamy. Now, states are being sued and state employees fired for not agreeing to homo marriage. Even at the worst of the Sexual Revolution there were still ways to oppose things, like lurid sex education curricula in public schools. But now, object to homo propaganda being shoved onto Kindergarteners, and the State will intervene on the perverts’ behalf. Unless the States and Congress act to stop this; the collapse of our culture is INEVITABLE. And what will replace it will be the hecatombs we’ve seen in other nations taken over by radicals bent on creating some ‘new order’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eric, something we are hardly even talking about, we’ve now tried to redefine Natural Law in regards to children. Prior to the SC decision, biology was considered so sacred, it actually took due process and numerous court proceedings to adopt a child, because you had to prove why it was okay to circumvent those biological ties to parents. Intentional or not, we’ve just redefined that parent-child relationship, so children become more like accessories to families that the state doles out and assigns parentage to. We’re already making designer babies with two or three way DNA. Anybody can now be on a birth certificate in many states, so a child can actually have two dads or moms listed as mother and father and will not even have the biological truth of their birth recorded. A child now belongs to the family the State has assigned, rather then to those who may have given birth or fathered the kid. It’s like something right out of sci/fi, and if you read a lot of old fashioned sci/fi, this is where the dystopia always begins, with a complete disregard for Natural Law.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m really not sure, I/B, what you mean by “Natural Law.” Different species have different customs, there is little uniformity. Sea turtles come ashore, lay their eggs in the sand, and never see their offspring, when they hatch, they’re entirely on their own. Elephant babies stay with their herds forever, unless driven out for bad behavior. Many, many animals raise theirs until they are able to fend for themselves, then often never see them again.
There seems to be no one “Natural Law.”
I don’t know where any of this is going, any more than you do. But I can’t change anything that has happened, and very little of what is going to happen. Life is a short, great adventure, and frankly, I like waking up every morning, not knowing exactly what is going to happen next, and Humanity is an incredible experiment, again the outcome of which I have no influence. Possibly it’s better to just sit back and experience the ride, and if our short-sided decisions bring an end to the Human race, there’s a myriad of other species out there that could easily, in time, take our place as the dominant species on the planet – possibly even species that will be more friendly to it than we have.
(PS – thanks for letting my comments out, it was dark and lonely down there – and SO cold, so very, very cold –!)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am with you there, life is a short, grand adventure and often it is good to just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Natural Law however is an idea that applies specifically to humans. People are not sea turtles nor are we elephants. It has always been accepted and understood that biology is a tight bond that ties us to our parents. We have just severed that idea.
“– possibly even species that will be more friendly to it than we have.”
Yet another idea cloaked in secular humanism, a shame based idea that tends to rival that of the most bombastic religionist. Perhaps mankind should never have been giving dominion over this planet, perhaps we are so unfriendly we deserve to be replaced? If that kind of thinking is ever allowed to take dominance and rule the day, we will destroy ourselves because we will believe we deserve to be destroyed.
LikeLike
“I am with you there” – Well, that settles it! If you’re with me, who could possibly stand against me?
“It has always been accepted and understood that biology is a tight bond that ties us to our parents. We have just severed that idea.”
Does that mean I can count on my kid NOT moving back in with me the next time he loses his job? And can I tell him you said so?
Joking aside (for the moment), I agree entirely that the biological bond between parent and child has been an evolutionary factor that has propelled the species Homo sapiens sapiens forward over the eons, providing coherence to the tribe and strengthening it. But I’m not sure it’s correct to say that blanketly, “We have just severed that idea.” – seems pretty drastic.
First, there was Mayberry, then there was World War II, when the men went off to war and women learned that, due to the labor vacuum, they could do the unheard of – go out in the workplace and earn a living. Much like Puff, the Magic Dragon, Mayberry faded into the mists of time. Wolfe was right, we can’t go home again.
But THIS, I/B, is where the family dynamic began to change, and it wasn’t due to any diabolical scheme on anyone’s part, it was merely Humans adapting to changing circumstances, the one ability that brought us down from the African trees, to colonize the planet. Koalas can only eat eucalyptus leaves; pandas, only bamboo – those limitations will quite likely, in time, render those beautiful creatures extinct – part of that is our fault, in reducing their natural environment, part is theirs (or the fault of Nature), as they don’t seem inclined to adapt.
I’ve learned, in my associations with Christians on these blogs, that you (pl.) are not cookie-cutter people, each of you is different – CS is brain-dead, Tricia is both very devout and open-minded, you are highly intelligent and certifiable. We’re different too – the only belief that atheists have in common is that there is no evidence that a god/gods exist – otherwise, believe it or not, some of us actually share ideas with some of you.
I was raised in a two-parent home, by a caring mother and father, and went through the typical Freudian (yes, I know he’s slipping out of vogue now) stages of loving my mother and imitating my father. But even then, children raised in families of divorced parents, once women learned they weren’t totally dependent for support on men, didn’t have that advantage, the advantage, in my case of having a role model to emulate. How will a child raised by a gay couple imprint? How will a boy learn masculine traits, a girl feminine ones? Or will simple love be enough to overcome any obstacles?
I don’t know, and I admit I have some concerns, but no more than I would have for children in a broken-home environment. And will those clear-cut sexual differences – John Wayne men and Doris Day women – be as important to future generations as they were to those of yesteryear? I don’t know. But it’s in their hands now – the hands of future generations – to adapt to the circumstances. We, as a species, have been pretty good at doing that so far.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“If that kind of thinking is ever allowed to take dominance and rule the day, we will destroy ourselves because we will believe we deserve to be destroyed.”
Sorry, I got overanxious to respond before I saw this. Yeah, I can buy that, but I expect you to accept that there are also those religious nuts out there who believe we should bomb the hell out of the Middle East in order to hasten Armageddon and the “Second Coming.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Natural Law however is an idea that applies specifically to humans.”
Why just humans? And why are we bound by “Natural Law?” Is this in the Bible?
“It has always been accepted and understood that biology is a tight bond that ties us to our parents. We have just severed that idea.”
How have we severed that idea?
LikeLike
“Why just humans?”
Because we are creating a culture that governs humans rather than sea turtles or elephants?
“How have we severed that idea?”
By redefining the nature of family and what constitutes parenthood. You may have noticed, but SS parents cannot actually produce children biologically, by Natural Law. Therefore in order for them to have children, that child’s ties with biological parents must be severed.
How do we determine paternity? By testing for DNA. A child born within a marriage is legally presumed to be the natural child of both of those parents by virtue of marriage. There are multiple legal structures we have just dismantled on behalf of SSM without really considering all the implications.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB2:
In spite of what so-called ‘Progressives’ say; their entire world-view is centered on death and extinction. Their idea of the future is not to bring civilization to a higher level of Evolution, but to take it back to pre-civilized levels. They want a world where humans were before things like family, religion, law and government, science and industry, education and philosophy existed: i.e, back to the level of the ape.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David:
Natural law applies generally to all species, but also is species specific. For example, all mammals reproduce and give birth the same way, but there are differences in the nature of a human vs. a cow. Likewise there are natural laws differentiating mammals and reptiles.
The fact that human beings have both a physical and psychological bond to their families is one thing that separates us from the lower forms of life and destroying that bond would cease to make us human. For what it’s worth, it think it’s metaphysically impossible to eradicate that human nature, but legislating against will cause (and is fact causing) widespread psychological and sociological damage.
LikeLiked by 3 people
IB,
“Because we are creating a culture that governs humans rather than sea turtles or elephants?”
Fair enough. Ok, we’re creating a culture that governs humans.
But in developing said culture, if we’re going to take our cues from nature to determine “Natural Law”, then why not consider the behaviors of other animal species as well (as I think Arch is suggesting)? And if we’re only going to look at humans to decide what is “natural,” which humans will be the example of what is “natural” and what is not? How do know what is “natural” and what is not?
And does the Bible say that we are bound by Natural Law?
“By redefining the nature of family and what constitutes parenthood.”
Does redefining or expanding the definition of terms necessarily “sever” something? Aren’t your children still your children, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling? Aren’t you still a part of a family and aren’t you still a parent? So, what’s been severed?
“You may have noticed, but SS parents cannot actually produce children biologically, by Natural Law.”
But SS parents do have children which are biologically related to one of the two parents. This is not uncommon. The biological ties to the parents are still there.
In fact, the biological ties much stronger than they would be in the case of adoption. And yet we consider the adopted children to be the children of the adopting parents. In the case of adoption we DO allow the “severing” of biological ties. We may do this reluctantly, but we do sever these ties, and we’ve done so for centuries.
“A child born within a marriage is legally presumed to be the natural child of both of those parents by virtue of marriage.”
But is it always true that a child born into a marriage is always the “natural child” of both parents? Are the children always the biological children of both parents? Aren’t there heterosexual marriages in which the child is the biological child of just one of the parents? And yet, somehow, we manage to consider these children to be the legal children of both parents anyway.
“There are multiple legal structures we have just dismantled on behalf of SSM without really considering all the implications.”
Have we? Could you be more specific? Are your children no longer your children?
LikeLike
Eric,
“The fact that human beings have both a physical and psychological bond to their families is one thing that separates us from the lower forms of life and destroying that bond would cease to make us human.”
There are no other species in which there are physical and psychological bonds between parent and offspring? None?
So, how does SSM destroy the bond between parents and their children?
LikeLike
“1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/
Frankly, I can’t see that having much of an impact.
LikeLike
“In spite of what so-called ‘Progressives’ say….they want a world where humans were before things like family, religion, law and government, science and industry, education and philosophy existed: i.e, back to the level of the ape.”
Well, I’m not sure how you are defining the term “Progressive” here, but off hand, this strikes me as nonsense.
LikeLike
Who put such absurd ideas in your head, Eric – been listening to Limbaugh again? Pat Robertson?
LikeLike
Of course it doesn’t make sense to Liberals. Reality is never an obstacle for the liberal mind. Simply redefine reality according their wishes—and presto! There’s a New Normal with zero consequences.
So, sure—take away everything that defines a civilized culture, redefine it, and you still have a civilized culture, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Reality is never an obstacle for the liberal mind. … So, sure—take away everything that defines a civilized culture, redefine it, and you still have a civilized culture, right?”
Sigh. Now you’re just babbling.
LikeLike
Well David, there’s so truth to his words. How can you take away all the things that make a civilized culture and still expect to have a civilized culture? There is a pretty obvious cause and effect there, but there is also this group of people that seem to genuinely not understand that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“How can you take away all the things that make a civilized culture and still expect to have a civilized culture?”
Different “civilized cultures” have different features. I would have to see a comparative analysis of every “civilized culture,” to see just which features they all have in common before I could comment on what “things” comprised “all the things that make a civilized culture.” And so, i would think, would you.
LikeLike
Arch,
Here’s the comparison in a nutshell:
Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization that developed authentic human rights.
Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization that progressed past the beast of burden and the slave as engines of the economy.
Christian Western Civilization is the only civilization were each human being was an actual economic and social asset. In all other civilizations each person was just another mouth to feed and mind to control.
LikeLike
IF true, SOM, and I’m not saying it is, Christianity had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
“And so, i would think, would you.”
You’re wrong, Arch. See, unlike you I actually did the research BEFORE I declared that approval of SSM would be harmful culturally.
You want a “comparative analysis of every civilized culture,” when you can’t even seem to understand natural law that applies to sea turtles and elephants may just be a bit different than the one that governs humans??
LikeLike
“…you can’t even seem to understand natural law that applies to sea turtles and elephants may just be a bit different than the one that governs humans” – I can’t understand it? I’m the one who suggested it to you, indicating that there IS no one-size-fits-all “natural law.”
LikeLike
“…there IS no one-size-fits-all “natural law.”
Precisely, which is why I always just self identify as a sea turtle, crawl up the beach and lay eggs.
LikeLike
“How can you take away all the things that make a civilized culture and still expect to have a civilized culture?”
Well, yes, if you take away all of the things that make a civilized culture, then we don’t have a civilized culture.
But this is not what I was referring to when I said that Eric was just babbling.
LikeLike
“But this is not what I was referring to when I said that Eric was just babbling.”
But that is precisely what you said and the exact words you quoted and yet now you try to claim that is not what you were referring to?
LikeLike
“But that is precisely what you said and the exact words you quoted and yet now you try to claim that is not what you were referring to?”
Look at the entire quote. Look at everything that I quoted. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but I was responding to the entire comment, not just the sentence… “Take away everything that defines a civilized culture, redefine it, and you still have a civilized culture, right?”
Again, I could have been clearer, but I was responding to the general tone of the comment which was…”Oh my God, the Liberals have take away everything that defines a civilized culture! They’ve destroyed civilization!”
“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!”
This is what I was responding to when I said Eric was babbling.
LikeLike
They haven’t destroyed civilization, destroying it is their objective. What defines any civilization is its families, system of education, religion, economy, arts and sciences, and its laws. Liberals oppose every single one of these in Western Civilization and want to replace all of them with ‘redefined’ (i.e. utterly alien) versions of them.
LikeLike
Arch:
I was speaking comparatively and have been all along. There are varying degrees of civilization among cultures, though, and that has to recognized. But fundamentally, a civilization has basic properties common to all civilized peoples, though they may differ on forms. What the Liberals advocate though is Barbarianism.
LikeLike
“They haven’t destroyed civilization, destroying it is their objective. What defines any civilization is its families, system of education, religion, economy, arts and sciences, and its laws. Liberals oppose every single one of these in Western Civilization and want to replace all of them with ‘redefined’ (i.e. utterly alien) versions of them….What the Liberals advocate though is Barbarianism.”
More unsubstantiated nonsense. More babbling.
LikeLike
I am under the impression that it is still very difficult to adopt a child. Two good friends of mine (straight, married, both advanced Christian nurses) adopted two children (siblings) and it took many court proceedings, 10s of thousands of dollars, and over a year to make it official.
LikeLike
Not advanced Christians, lol! Nurses with masters degrees (one with a PhD) who happen to be Christians. Just wanted to make that clear! My point is that they are seen by society as moral, stable, people who understand child development and it was still hard for them to adopt.
LikeLike
Eric,
You make a great point about the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage signaling the end of the American Republic as originally founded.
I had put that and the death of Western Civilization way back in 1973 when the vaginal right to choose prenatal genocide was legalized by the SCOTUS.
The bottom line is that it’s clearly all over now, and we have to being designing and then building an entirely new Christian civilization.
LikeLike
Do you suppose you could possibly do that somewhere else? Antarctica springs to mind —
LikeLike
Arch,
How did you know that the inimitable Antarctic penguin would take the place of the American eagle?
I know. I know.
A little birdie told you.
LikeLike
You actually saved me some time writing my response, thanks! Now if you’d like to do the rest of my standup act, go for it, I could use a break.
LikeLike
Silence:
It’s even worse, because you can still be pro-life and refuse to participate in endeavors supporting abortion; but you have to convert-or-die on the queer issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You have to convert-or-die on the queer issue.”
I don’t understand. Someone is going to kill you if you don’t convert on the “queer issue?”
“The queer issue?” Interesting word choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of your best, IB.
(Referring to comments here): The picture becomes clearer still when we see that the real foundation of ordered, or civilized, or sustainable, or functional, and certainly of faithful society is not only male-female legal marriage, but the intimate sexual relationship which is the foundation of that marriage. We have forgotten that we did used to recognize the establishment of marriage at the consummation. The unique sexual relationship which makes us one flesh, which unites us on every level is the signal definition of marriage. It pulls us together and truly makes us a unit which grows stronger the longer we cultivate it.
That’s how God seems to see the matter, and he’s the designer.
What becomes clearer? Homosexuals don’t do this. They can’t. They have excluded the ONE thing which makes marriage marriage. They have created for themselves totally impotent relationships.
Seen in this light, it becomes clear what a mockery of true marriage gay marriage is. Pity the poor victims who fall for the tragic and utterly destructive deception.
Paul: Paul was not a soldier but a Pharisee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So I see.Thank you very much for the head’s up. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They have excluded the ONE thing which makes marriage marriage.”
So, no erect penis in a vagina, no marriage?
LikeLike
There is a huge difference between complementary sexual oneness and any other act which produces an orgasm. The heterosexual sex act which makes two into one was designed by the Creator of people and of marriage as the defining feature of marriage.
So, orgasm equals sexual intercourse?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“There is a huge difference between complementary sexual oneness and any other act which produces an orgasm.”
I’m thoroughly confused. What is complementary sexual oneness? Isn’t the “heterosexual sex act” the same as the erect penis in the vagina? So, no “heterosexual sex act,” no marriage?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I’m thoroughly confused.”
With all due respect David, the answer to that would be “more often than not.”
LikeLike
“With all due respect David, the answer to that would be “more often than not.”
Cute, but it doesn’t answer the question.
LikeLike
David,
“Erect penis in a vagina,” is how mammals do “it.”
Why is normal such a hostile concept?
LikeLike
“Why is normal such a hostile concept?”
“Hostile concept?” Huh? Who said this was a hostile concept?
I’m just trying to figure out what the criteria are for marriage.
LikeLike
David,
Here is you, in your own words, arguing with yourself and losing:
“So, no erect penis in a vagina, no marriage?”
Are you able to explain away your own words?
LikeLike
Are you able to explain away your own words?”
I don’t follow. In the quote you cited, I was asking Madblog a question. How am I arguing with myself and losing?
Your point?
LikeLike
I enjoyed this post and feel that above all there is a very “true” Christian viewpoint. One that is not judgmental and accepting of the differences in others. One that does not “cast the first stone”. I’m heterosexual, but I don’t feel that qualifies me to judge the sexuality of people who experience it differently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would love to comment, but I’m still waiting for my last comments to show up – hopefully while those to whom I commented are still young enough to read them.
LikeLike
Great stuff IB, a really thoughtful and respectful post. I can’t leave a comment now that will do it justice, but to just say well done!
LikeLiked by 1 person
wow. so well said.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well written post. I’m glad your talents are wasted in relatively obscure blogsville, because you could be very persuasive to the mildly ignorant passerby looking for comforting soundbites and odd conclusions that superficially sound plausible, all on the back of (frankly) rank ignorance about other cultures in the world and the historical development of human societies. There’s a compliment in there, I’m seriously impressed you rustled that up in such a short time.
But, where to start?
“I learned a few things however, from a man no less, about what happens to us when our entire identity comes from our own sexuality.”
How misleading. The entire direction of our lives is often dictated by relationship decisions we make, which are informed by who we are sexually attracted to. Your life is where it is because of the man you married. You’re even living in a place you hate because of your ‘sexuality’. Gay people only need to make a song and dance about being gay at this point in history because they’ve only now broken through into the mainstream in many of our societies, and it’s been an uphill struggle because of the attitudes of the ignorant.
“It’s really rare to find anybody who believes their sexuality is their very identity, the sole source of their worth and value, that doesn’t actually hate their own selves on some level and the other gender. Prostitutes rarely love themselves”
What? Do prostitutes believe their sexuality is their identity? Or are most of them women who have experienced abuse in their lives, have struggled to make ends meet and have few options, or have addictions to feed? You’re presenting some twisted view suggesting this identity ‘issue’ you imagine has led them to some kind of chosen profession. In reality, and ironically, the relatively small proportion of people who sell sex who are happy with themselves are probably the few who choose it because their sexuality is a huge part of their identity. You have everything upside down here.
“So how do we make prostitutes and players feel better?”
You’re lumping these together? Poles apart, you know better than this. Besides which, legalising prostitution is about protecting mainly women who often suffer horrendous abuse. It’s about recognising that paying for sex doesn’t disappear in any human society, and the best we can do is attempt to the protect the vulnerable people who usually aren’t involved for the best of reasons.
“I worry about people who now believe our sexuality is our very I-dentity, who pursue pride rather than humility.”
Pride is an important part of the change in attitudes towards gay people. It’s the opposite of ‘shame’, which they had previously been forced to endure just for being themselves.
“I worry about the sexual abuse of children and the pedophiles who are already claiming that is just their identity, that pedophilia is just “love of children” and should now be recognized as a lifestyle choice, too.”
Here we go. I shouldn’t be surprised that this has been dropped in. Just to clarify for other lazy and ignorant association makers out there – children are NOT CONSENTING ADULTS. They’re not encouraged to make decisions they’re not generally equipped to deal with, and their limitations for things like driving, drinking and having sex are generally enshrined in law, because we’ve all been children and agree they aren’t ready. Any adult wanting to have sex with children is wanting to abuse a person not ready to make that decision.
“Is that not the same precise question heterosexuals have often been called to ask themselves? What makes gays so different?”
Well, obviously from your point of view, your god gave humans sex as a gift between a man and woman. As you all keep on telling me in spite of biblical evidence to the contrary – to be enjoyed. Why would he create people that can’t experience that great gift like you and your heterosexual/bisexual friends can? Why would a benevolent being create people who can enjoy sex with other consenting adults who want to enjoy that gift with them, then tell them they can’t because she/he didn’t design humans that way?
“Completely outside of the context of faith, gender is actually something we are born with, while human sexuality is nothing more than a social construct.”
If you feel that way about sexuality, it’s because you’re bisexual. I don’t understand why you believe everyone feels the same way about sexuality as you do. Also, sex organs are something we are born with – one or the other, or something in between. Why do you expect that should always define our gender? I have long fingers – it’s doesn’t mean I’m a piano player.
“When we are constructing things like our own sexuality or perhaps civilization and culture, it’s always wise to check and see if perhaps we might be attempting to tear down some load bearing walls during our redesign plans, least the whole thing come crumbling down on top of us.”
Beautifully expressed. I don’t disagree. That’s why we should base all of our actionable opinions on verifiable evidence. Not on one of many possible interpretations of a very old book written by men in a time of ignorance.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for your kind words Violet, and your hidden compliment. Where to start, indeed? You’ve covered a lot of ground.
First pedophilia, “children are NOT CONSENTING ADULTS,” that’s certainly my opinion too, but that is actually nothing more than a social construct. All over the world children are forced and encouraged to work in prostitution, to engage in child marriage. Even in the US the age of consent varies from state to state, indicating how subjective and varied such ideas can be. In fact, the very idea of consent itself is a social construct, the result of our mores and values. At anytime those can change, as well as public opinion on the matter.
“The entire direction of our lives is often dictated by relationship decisions we make, which are informed by who we are sexually attracted to. Your life is where it is because of the man you married. You’re even living in a place you hate because of your ‘sexuality’.”
Actually, no. The nature of desire is really a fascinating thing, poorly studied and researched, often misunderstood, but rather easily manipulated and influenced….or shut completely off. The truth is, we control our own sexuality and our own desire. No doubt this is more easily understood in women who are often quite good at with holding affection when the whim strikes us, or suddenly feeling attraction when we feel motivated to do so.
That is a very unromantic and harsh truth for both men and women to accept, but it is true. We are actually not just blindly consumed by passion for another and cannot help ourselves. That is the story we sometimes try to tell ourselves and others, but in truth there is a whole lot more going on beneath the surface, within our brains, before we even get to that point.
“If you feel that way about sexuality, it’s because you’re bisexual.”
LOL! No. But it is bit disturbing to confront the reality and truth of how flexible our own sexuality really and truly is, isn’t it? There is ample evidence of this all through history and across all cultures. People were once attracted to the deformed and mangled feet coming from Chinese foot binding, or tiny empire waists or the plump and rubaneseque. The Kayan women have those long deformed necks from applying so many rings to them, allegedly very attractive. Some people develop an attraction to animals. In a prison setting, same sex relationships among heterosexuals are quite common.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Someone else has expressed it far better than I ever could. Perhaps this will make sense to you:
https://thesecondbreakdown.wordpress.com/2015/07/05/gay-marriage-legalized-pedophilia-and-bestiality-feared-next/
LikeLike
Violet,
All we have to do to get around children not being consenting adults is change the definition of “consenting adults,” the same way you folks changed the definition of marriage.
Why is it okay for you to redefine words so gays can express their sexuality, but it is not okay to redefine words of pedophiles can express their sexuality.
After all, the vaginal right to choose prenatal genocide (aka abortion) pretty much strips the young of any human rights.
Again, why is it a okay for the vagina to choose the prenatal genocide of the unborn, but it isn’t okay for other adults to choose what they want to do with the young?
After all isn’t a little adult sexual exploitation of children far less fatal than mothers joining the genocide parade?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. ‘The vaginal right to choose prenatal genocide’? Either you are referring to spontanous abortions or are dehumanizing women as a matter of fact. Sadly, but not surprisingly, it seems the latter.
LikeLike
Mildly,
Exactamundo!
Abortion dehumanizes women and their children.
LikeLike
Excellent post, IB. Our eagerness to call up, down and wrong, right is amazing. The sad thing is many people don’t recognize it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David: Are you really going to pretend you don’t know this? That heterosexual intimacy is intrinsic to marriage, as recognized by most cultures throughout human history? It is not only God’s original design, but bloody obvious to primitives and sophisticated cultures alike. Marriage ceremonies and rituals vary, but the couple is really recognized as married by the consummation.
In our effort to free sex from any of its moorings, and to let it drift wherever we will, we had to make ourselves forget that old thing. Now sex is for anyone, anytime, with no silly old restrictions, so it can’t actually mean anything, or I’m sorta married to that chick I just banged!
But human society has often acknowledged that the sex act within marriage is a special one, with unique meanings and attendant responsibilities. And it’s true. The cultivation of THAT particular sexual relationship produces all kinds of good stuff like deepening intimacy of every kind.
Is that you typing or your parrot?
So the short answer to your first question is yes. Our culture has recently decided that we want a far more superficial definition for marriage, one requiring only that the two or several persons involved declare that they feel something about each other. In order for us to swallow that two of the same sex can be married, ought to be married, we’ve had to subtract the physical component, and only require a declaration of feelings. That’s what marriage is for everybody now, according to the Court.
But feelings change.
LikeLike
“So the short answer to your first question is yes. ”
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you agree that no erect penis in the vagina, no marriage. Marriage require this specific physical act or it’s not a marriage and it can’t be marriage. Do I understand your correctly?
LikeLike
Your apparent inability to define sexual intimacy as anything more than a mechanical act illustrates the problem of our age with sex.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Your apparent inability to define sexual intimacy as anything more than a mechanical act illustrates the problem of our age with sex.” – I think you’ll find, generally speaking Madblog, that women place a greater value on intimacy within sex, than men, which would make your tomahto, David’s tomato.
LikeLike
Arch,
Maybe in your world porn, self-satisfaction and the inability to talk to women as if they were normal people, men don’t value intimacy with a woman as much as she with a man.
But that’s just an urban myth that misfits tell themselves so that they don’t have to develop actual, useful social skills.
Gee whiz, Arch, after 30 seconds in the checkout line the gorgeous cashier is showing me her tats from neck to ankle and points in between if you get my drift.
Learning how to talk to another human being as if they were actually another human being is the first step…
…I know. You’re now bored and want to go play video games or harrass some unsuspecting Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Now sex is for anyone, anytime, with no silly old restrictions, so it can’t actually mean anything, or I’m sorta married to that chick I just banged!”
Hmm. If your going to place a great emphasis on the erect penis in the vagina as a key characteristic of marriage, well then yes, I AM sorta married to that chick I just banged.
You’ve chosen to place great emphasis on a specific physical act … so… I bang, therefore, I’m married.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops. Your should be you’re.
LikeLike
In redefining marriage as a maybe commitment based on feelings ONLY, which it now must be, we have demonstrated that we have forgotten what sex is all about.
The real answer is actually yes, but really no. The mechanical physical act of sex means little by itself. But when we allow it to be all that it really is, there is so much more. Married hetero sex is supposed to be so very much more than we often act as though it is, but it is always more than any other sexual act could ever be.
Other acts have been described as mutual masturbation.
In the context of faithful commitment, and understanding of what sex was designed to mean, the sexual union of married people of opposite genders, who do as you have clinically described, gives us so much more than a physical orgasm. From it springs deeper relationship, a positive kind of dependency, emotional and intellectual intimacy, and dare I say…a deeper spiritual bond. They truly become one flesh.
Would you describe any other sexual act in this way?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re describing how you would LIKE sex to be, rather than how it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, she is describing how God intended and designed sex to be and how it actually IS for many of us. What seems to rule the world today is the human version of what WE think sex should be, instead. It’s sad because we’ve taken something quite beautiful and tried to make it into something shallow and a bit ugly.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“No, she is describing how God intended and designed sex to be…”
That’s nice, but that’s a theological argument, and America is not a theocracy. It’s not really relevant to the question of whether or not two men or two women have the right to enter into a civil and secular legal marriage contract.
LikeLike
“It’s not really relevant to the question of whether or not two men or two women have the right to enter into a civil and secular legal marriage contract.”
If that were true, then secular civil unions would have been sufficient. That is not true however, those seeking SSM do not just want a secular marriage contract, they want the full benefits and recognition of traditional Christian marriage and they want it approved of, performed, and condoned by churches.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If that were true, then secular civil unions would have been sufficient. That is not true however, those seeking SSM do not just want a secular marriage contract, they want the full benefits and recognition of traditional Christian marriage and they want it approved of, performed, and condoned by churches.”
Um, they can want it. But this is not what the Supreme Court said that they could have.
The Court ruled on the question of a secular marriage contract. The Court said that same sex couples have the right to enter into a civil and secular marriage contract. Whether or not a particular church wishes to call this a marriage or not is up to that church.
LikeLike
“Whether or not a particular church wishes to call this a marriage or not is up to that church.”
Baloney, David. Just as a bakery or a florist can now be sued for discrimination, churches too, soon will be pressed and forced to conform. You clearly do not understand the legal implications of what has happened, nor do you have any empathy for those who have already lost everything attempting to not recognize and validate SSM.
LikeLike
And that is exactly the stance Texas is using to try to skirt the SCOTUS decision – they’re considering taking the State out of the marriage license process and leave it all in the hands of the church.
I’m not gay, but none of my three marriages has taken place in a church, by choice.
LikeLike
“Baloney, David.”
Churches are covered by the First Amendment. Ministers are covered by the First Amendment. Bakers and florists are not, because they are not religious officials providing a religious service.
So, let’s wait and see if I understand the legal implications or not. I think that you’re letting your fears get the best of you. My old man had an expression…don’t holler til you’re hurt. Could be I’m wrong. Could be that I understand the “legal implications” better than you do.
Will a given church will never be required to recognize a SSM as a Christian marriage? Seems pretty unlikely. To give you an example, the Catholic Church does not have to recognize the marriages of those who were previously divorced.
Empathy for those who have already lost everything? You’ll have to be more specific here. You mean bakers and florists?
LikeLike
There is already a pretty powerful movement afoot that wants to remove the tax exempt status of churches that do not comply and recognize SSM.
Bakers and florists are not covered by the first amendment, huh? How foolish of me, and here I thought the 1rst amendment was designed to protect everyone’s right to believe or not believe as they see fit. I had no idea it only applied to ministers.
LikeLike
“There is already a pretty powerful movement afoot that wants to remove the tax exempt status of churches that do not comply and recognize SSM.”
Well, the question of tax exemption is an interesting one all by itself.
There are lots of “powerful movements afoot.” Wait and see. Don’t holler til you’re hurt. If you can’t make the Catholic Church recognize the marriages of divorced people, I don’t see how you can make any church recognize SSM.
“Bakers and florists are not covered by the first amendment, huh? How foolish of me, and here I thought the 1rst amendment was designed to protect everyone’s right to believe or not believe as they see fit. I had no idea it only applied to ministers.”
Yes, bakers and florists are free to believe or not believe as they see fit. No one is denying them the right to believe whatever they want to believe.
The questions is…at what point do we allow a secular business to discriminate in the performance of a secular task based on the religious beliefs of the business owner? What if I believe that interracial marriage is against the Law of God? Can I deny my services to an interracial couple?
I think that this is really a complex and interesting questions. When can I deny my services to a customer? Which grounds are valid and which are not? I think it goes way beyond a couple of bakers and photographers at same sex marriages.
Wait and see.
LikeLike
@arch, sorry but this is not a pipe dream, as many years can testify. There are many who would agree.
As for the nonsense that men are too shallow to appreciate a deep sexual relationship and the intimacy it produces, ask some of the men in these aforementioned above. Do y’all really WANT to be that shallow?
LikeLike
I won’t argue with you, MB, as I believe, generally speaking, that men and women are mentally (and emotionally) hardwired through evolution to view things differently, not that either of us is more intelligent than the other, but simply because we lack a common frame of reference. No person who absolutely LOVES broccoli, could ever make me understand the allure.
LikeLike
Of course men and women are very different. That’s the point. We need the otherness of the spouse. You are citing differences in preferences…
But where we are not different is in the need for the other, and although we experience sex very differently, there is no need to say that men experience it in a more superficial way. Men are differently but fully as able (sometimes more so) to experience a deep connection on all levels.
Don’t sell yourselves short.
But there
LikeLike
You make a really good point, Madblog. One of the most challenging things is to try and explain the spiritual, emotional, psychological, cultural aspects of sex within marriage and what it all means. It’s hard enough to explain to women who understand what you are talking about, let alone men, especially non believing men who don’t really want to perceive anything outside of the physical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It’s hard enough to explain to women who understand what you are talking about, let alone men, especially non believing men who don’t really want to perceive anything outside of the physical.”
Who was it who introduced the concept that a specific physical act is an essential criterion for marriage? Who said that marriage required the physical act of the insertion of an erect penis into a vagina. Who said that “sex” must be a certain specific physical act?
Wasn’t me.
LikeLike
“Your apparent inability to define sexual intimacy as anything more than a mechanical act illustrates the problem of our age with sex.”
I didn’t say that this was all there was to sex. You are the one who introduced the concept that a certain specific type of physical contact or a certain type of mechanical act is a requirement for marriage. This wasn’t my idea.
I believe that you are the one who is reducing sex to the purely mechanical when you describe sex other than “erect penis in the vagina sex” as “mutual masturbation.” You are the one who is reducing sex to a physical act when you deny that sex between two men or two women could contribute to a “deeper relationship, a positive kind of dependency, emotional and intellectual intimacy, and dare I say…a deeper spiritual bond.” How do you know what sex does for two men or two women?
Now, to get back to the point. If there is no erect penis in the vagina sex, then can there be a marriage? You seem to be saying no, but I don’t want to misinterpret.
LikeLike
“You are the one who is reducing sex to a physical act when you deny that sex between two men or two women could contribute to a “deeper relationship, a positive kind of dependency, emotional and intellectual intimacy, and dare I say…a deeper spiritual bond.”
With no opposite and opposing spiritual forces, without the yin and the yang reuniting and becoming one flesh, there simply is no marriage David. Marriage is a contract and a covenant that brings together two people that exist as opposite reflections of each other in a spiritual sense, and teaches them how to work together, grow spiritually, perhaps even to produce new life. No, you can not do this with your sister or your brother, because you already carry that gender and those aspects of that character. There is no unity and reconciliation with that which is already precisely like you. There is no blending of opposing forces. That is simply playing house, not marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Who was it who introduced the concept that a specific physical act is an essential criterion for marriage? Who said that marriage required the physical act of the insertion of an erect penis into a vagina. Who said that “sex” must be a certain specific physical act?
Wasn’t me.”
In fact it was you. You reduced the sublime to the clinical. From the beginning I spoke of the heterosexual complementary sexual act as a necessary component of a totally unique married relationship.
That which we all understand as “sex” –in spite of your pretending you don’t know what it is– is not some equivalent option on a menu of equivalent options. It is the sex that signifies a married relationship, and without it, the marriage which was designed by the creator of male and female, and which has been recognized as marriage by all societies in all of human history, is not marriage.
LikeLike
“From the beginning I spoke of the heterosexual complementary sexual act…”
Yes, you have have. From the beginning, you have spoken of a physical action.
And from the beginning, I’ve been trying to figure out just what, exactly, the “heterosexual complementary sex act” is. Hence, my questions. I’m not “pretending” anything here!
So, does the “heterosexual complementary sex act” include or require an erect penis in a vagina? Yes or no? I ask this in clinical terms because I wish to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I’m really not trying to be difficult. I do not want to make inaccurate assumptions about what is meant by the somewhat vague phrase “heterosexual complementary sexual act.”
LikeLike
“It is the sex that signifies a married relationship.”
Just wanted to check on something. Does this mean that those with non-functional genitalia or with genitalia destroyed by trauma cannot be married?
LikeLike
Not sure the name of this popular logical fallacy. Normative marriage is not invalidated because there are people who cannot manifest its attributes.
Marriage is what it is regardless of how imperfectly we are able to live it out.
But when we create a new kind of marriage where the attributes are intentionally discarded, we have something other than a marriage.
LikeLike
“Normative marriage is not invalidated because there are people who cannot manifest its attributes.”
Normative marriage is described as having and requiring attributes X in order for it to be a marriage. Couple Y cannot meet or fulfill attributes X. They are not married. They do not meet the requirements of normative marriage unless you change the definition of normative marriage.
“Marriage is what it is regardless of how imperfectly we are able to live it out.”
Wait a minute. I thought that we had to have an erect penis in a vagina in order to have “a deeper relationship, a positive kind of dependency, emotional and intellectual intimacy, and dare I say…a deeper spiritual bond.” No other sexual act could substitute. Nothing else was “true sex.” Only with an erect penis in a vagina do we have consummation. Only then do we have “the unique sexual relationship which makes us one flesh, which unites us on every level is the signal definition of marriage.” Now you say…eh, we don’t really need that?
Yes. Marriage is what it is regardless of how imperfectly we are able to live it out. And as you’ve noted, it does not require the act in which an erect penis enters a vagina.
LikeLike
Your obtuse-on-purpose thing is not as charming as you suppose…
Marriage normally (potentially) leads to procreation even though some couples are infertile. Because some couples are infertile does not change this normative manifestation of marriage. This is an illustration of the logical fallacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David,
The logical fallacy you are using is called, “The Nirvana Fallacy.”
You’re fundamental expectation that something must be perfect or it is invalid irrational and unrealistic.
Marriage is what it is regardless of whether people can live up to it, be faithful to it, or be physically and psychologically equipped for it.
Wouldn’t it be great if atheists and other leftists applied the nirvana fallacy to their own cockamamie ideas?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Obtuse on purpose? I don’t follow. Are your referring to my efforts to prevent misunderstanding? Yes, I deliberately work very hard to avoid misunderstanding and jumping to conclusions.
There’s no logical fallacy here. This is simple. You are the one who made a particular physical act the sine qua non of marriage. You stated that this act was essential to “a deeper relationship, a positive kind of dependency, emotional and intellectual intimacy, and dare I say…a deeper spiritual bond” and “the unique sexual relationship which makes us one flesh, which unites us on every level is the signal definition of marriage.” You said “without it, the marriage … is not marriage.” You said there is no “equivalent option on a menu of equivalent options. None. Nothing can take its place. It was on and on about the joys of penis-in-vagina sex (which I admit, is pretty nice).
You made all of this very, very clear. No erect penis in the vagina sex? No deeper spiritual bond, no unique sexual relationship, no marriage. End of story. (Note that I didn’t say “infertile,” I said that the genitals were non-functional. As in, no erect penis in the vagina sex. You changed this to infertile.)
If a specific physical act is an essential part of the definition of marriage (or if you prefer, the vague and squishy “normative manifestation of marriage), then no physical act, no marriage. Very simple. No specific physical act, and you fail to match the definition of marriage, normative or otherwise. If it doesn’t meet the definition, then it isn’t what it isn’t.
Now, as long as we’re talking about SSM, the physical act is an absolute requirement. Gays can’t do it, so there’s no marriage for them. You’ve found your reason to reject SSM.
But if you’re a heterosexual couple, and you can’t have erect penis in the vagina sex? No problem. We’ll just wave the requirement for a specific physical act. No functional genitals? Well, never mind all that “deeper spiritual bond” stuff. Now the specific physical act is optional. What’s a little “imperfection?” I’m sure that there are other ways to bond.
So, I think at this point, there are two options.
You can stick with your original position that an erect penis in the vagina sex is required before a relationship can legitimately be called a marriage. You can continue to make a specific act an essential part of the definition of marriage. That will allow you to say that gays can’t marry. However, as you clearly realize, this will also require you to discard or invalidate many heterosexual marriages as well. It is a reality that many heterosexual marriages fail to meet the requirements for marriage. But I sense that you’re reluctant to invalidate, denigrate and dismiss these marriages.
Option two, you can do as you now seem to be doing in your latest comments, and you can acknowledge that maybe marriage doesn’t not require a certain, specific physical act. Maybe, just maybe, there are other acts that can create “a deeper spiritual bond.” Maybe, just maybe, one doesn’t need to insert an erect penis into a vagina in order to be married. Maybe marriage is about more that a specific physical act. Maybe.
Your choice.
LikeLike
See you did understand me perfectly well, after all.
Marriage IS about more than a specific act. That’s what I’ve been saying. But it is normative for the act to be an intrinsic piece, even the foundation, of the marriage.
The box labeled “marriage” contains a specific sexual relationship. God designed that act, along with all that proceeds from that act, which is much, to be the foundation of a particular relationship we have called marriage.
In the box labeled “gay marriage” there is no such relationship, no sex as you have clinically described. Since gays have chosen to fill that box with other things and specifically and intentionally exclude that sexual package, they have something other than marriage.
Couples who cannot participate in the physical part of that sexual relationship may miss the fullest expression of some things which a physical relationship provides, but I would not say they are not married. There is a world of difference between embracing marriage in spite of our imperfections (we none of us come to it whole) and rejecting the essence of marriage, dumping out the box labeled “marriage”and adding what we want instead…and insisting that’s still labeled correctly. Intention is important.
If you can only interpret my thoughts as saying that hetero sex is a litmus test, then I cannot be of any more help to you. We’ve been down this road before: you insist on a on/off switch, a yes/no answer to a complex and subtle issue. But relationship does not consist of checking boxes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Obtuse on purpose? I don’t follow” Thanks for that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL! That really is somewhat humorous. “Obtuse, I don’t follow.” Well yes, that is kind of the very definition of obtuse, now isn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“God designed that act, along with all that proceeds from that act, which is much, to be the foundation of a particular relationship we have called marriage. “
Looks like you’re going with Option 1. Fair enough. If “the act” is the foundation of marriage, then no act, no marriage. It’s essential to the definition. “The act” is the sine qua non of marriage.
So, heterosexuals with non-functional genitalia cannot be married. Arguably, if they lose function while married, then the marriage is no longer a marriage. You have to apply your definition to all cases, not just the marriages that you’d like to dismiss.
“Couples who cannot participate in the physical part of that sexual relationship may miss the fullest expression of some things which a physical relationship provides, but I would not say they are not married. “
Yes, this is indeed what you are saying when you make the “act” foundational. You have made it very clear that if a couple cannot perform “the act,” then the couple cannot be married.
“There is a world of difference between embracing marriage in spite of our imperfections…”
“Imperfections?” Leaving the toilet seat up is an “imperfection.” You’ve place “the act” at the very heart of marriage. So, no act, no marriage.
Now you’re simply trying to avoid the implications of how you’ve defined marriage. Now you want to make this subtle and complex. You’re trying very hard to avoid the logical conclusions of what you’ve done.
“If you can only interpret my thoughts as saying that hetero sex is a litmus test, then I cannot be of any more help to you. “
But you did make this a litmus test. Look at all of the ways in which you expressed the vital, critical, central importance of penis-in-vagina sex! You were actually quite eloquent here. You’ve place “the act” at the very center of your argument, and that’s exactly what makes something a litmus test.
“We’ve been down this road before: you insist on a on/off switch, a yes/no answer to a complex and subtle issue.”
Actually, it’s you that insists on on/off and yes/no. All heteros can marry. No gays can marry. On/off. Yes/no. The only sex act that “counts” in penis-in-vagina sex. It’s your insistence that only one very specific sex act matters with respect to marriage that has turned this complex and subtle issue into “yes/no.”
But, oops, by making “the act” at the very center of marriage, you’ve just dismissed numerous heterosexual marriages. So, now you want to make this all “subtle and complex.”
“But relationship does not consist of checking boxes.”
Exactly! Progress!
LikeLike
“Well yes, that is kind of the very definition of obtuse, now isn’t it?”
But this is not the definition of “obtuse ON PURPOSE,” and it was this phrase that I was responding to. I was told I was being obtuse on purpose, and I was trying to figure out why this conclusion was drawn.
Now, if you prefer to deliberately misinterpret what I wrote, then perhaps it is you who are being obtuse on purpose.
LikeLike
“The logical fallacy you are using is called, “The Nirvana Fallacy.””
The beauty of the logical fallacy label is that every argument can be labeled as being one kind of logical fallacy or another. Of course, according to that font of wisdom, Wikipedia, The Nirvana Fallacy doesn’t even qualify as a formal fallacy. So, I think I can live with it.
“You’re fundamental expectation that something must be perfect or it is invalid irrational and unrealistic.”
I’m just using the criteria that I was given. Either marriage is something that can only occur if penises enter vaginas or it’s not. It’s a simple enough equation. I’m not looking for perfection. I’m just asking that the criteria presented be applied to all marriages: opposite sex, same sex, whichever. Doesn’t seem irrational or unrealistic to me.
I’m just looking for a little consistency. Otherwise, definitions and criteria don’t really mean anything. Everything is kinda relative, isn’t it? Marriage requires penises in vaginas. Except when it doesn’t. If a penis can enter a vagina, then the two individuals can be married. If a penis can’t enter a vagina, then those two individuals can’t marry. No, wait, they can. No, wait, the can’t. So much for absolute moral standards.
But it’s good to see that we don’t really have to follow the definitions. Might lead one to conclude that marriage could be many things to many people. Makes this rather flexible, doesn’t it?
“Marriage is what it is regardless of whether people can live up to it, be faithful to it, or be physically and psychologically equipped for it.”
Oh, I see. So, we can define marriage as being a certain thing, but we don’t really have to stick to it in practice. All we have to do is sorta, kinda live up to part of the definition. Excellent. This opens up all sorts of possibilities, doesn’t it?
Seems like folks here want to have their cake and eat it, too. Well, you all enjoy your deserts!
LikeLike
“With no opposite and opposing spiritual forces, without the yin and the yang reuniting and becoming one flesh, there simply is no marriage David.”
So you say.
So, no erect penis in the vagina, no marriage? I’m having a difficult time getting a simple yes or no answer here.
“No, you can not do this with your sister or your brother, because you already carry that gender and those aspects of that character. There is no unity and reconciliation with that which is already precisely like you.”
If I had a sister, she would not be precisely like me. She would not carry the say gender as me. So, I don’t think that your conclusion that there could not be a “unity” doesn’t follow. Now, you’re just making stuff up to achieve a desired outcome.
LikeLike
Sorry, should read…
So, I don’t think that your conclusion that there could not be a “unity” follows.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on HarsH ReaLiTy and commented:
I am unsure what was more amusing the post or the comments/arguements that followed. LoL -OM
Note: Comments disabled here, please visit their blog.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for the reblog, OM. We do aim to entertain around here 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for bringing me back to this post. 102 comments! I must read. I’m sure it’ll be good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UJU! Long time! How have you been, lovely lady? Nigeria still Nigeria?
LikeLike
Reblogged this on 61chrissterry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the reblog, much appreciated.
LikeLike
Great to read! Very thought provoking =)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey IB –
I was actually referred here by Violet to read your post here. I’m wondering where you’re getting your data from to support the claims in the below quote:
“There are several skeletons in the gay closet that we aren’t supposed to talk about, a frequent history of child sexual abuse and/or problematic relationships with our parents. …Domestic violence rates are nearly five times as high… .”
I’m not asking about suicide and addiction rates because I have found reports about that.
Thanks,
SB
LikeLike
Gabrielle, this was a great blog and written with the inspiration of God. Thank you for listening to Him and sharing what you heard. ⭐
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like that last sentence about load-bearing walls.
“So how do we make prostitutes and players feel better? We should just legalize it all, promote it, and pour approval all over them and then all will be well? But will it really?”
These questions bring to mind all the women (and men) I lead through post-abortion healing. Pouring legal approval over abortion did not change the damage it did to their hearts and souls and, in some cases, bodies.
I was completely celibate for the ten years between my failed marriage and my successful marriage. Every year at my annual exam the gynecologist would ask whether I was sexually active and at every exam I would answer, “No, I’m not married.”
I worry, too. About the epidemic of STIs that lead to STDs that can lead to infertility and cancer.
And I grieve when I see ads for shows like The Mistresses (or whatever the heck it is called) showing scenes from a menage a trois at an hour when children are likely watching. Foisting a weekly tv series showing women being exploited and exploiting themselves. Pitiful.
And speaking of children being exposed to adult crap, I am tired of labels such as “adult content” and “adult beverages” and “adult magazines”, as if they are perfectly normal and healthy privileges of adulthood. I would prefer they be labeled “inappropriate content (for all ages)” and “unhealthy beverages (for all ages)” and “sexually exploitative” magazines.
Okay, I’m done. For now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: what should a gay christian do? – part 2 | violetwisp
Exactly so! Without rules self-imposed, we harm others and destroy ourselves. But when we evolve workable rules, our first desire is to overthrow them. Then, with the high price of that in front of us, we simply repeat the cycle …
So our species. Within that, individuals perform a bit better, similarly or worse as their cases occur. Rather than flocking to behave as did the most successful, succeeding individuals perpetuate the initial distribution. Biology? Obviously, seems to me. Perhaps a survival trait for a species if not a road to ultimate extinction, following so many others. Damfino!
But: “Cogito, ergo sum.” We think; therefore we not only are, but are responsible too. And ultimately pay the price of responsibility, willy nilly. Violet is wise to seek advice but her destiny is hers and no others’ to acquit. She will pay for it obviously or not…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment. Words of wisdom there.
LikeLike