liberal approaches to homosexuality and transgender

[hedrick]

If the purpose of marriage is solely to produce children, I could understand why there would be restrictions on homosexual marriage (and men spilling their seed on the ground) because it would be in opposition to the sole purpose of marriage, and so most in the current-day west would be getting married for all the wrong reasons, i.e. love.

I'm sure you're aware that there is a strong tradition in Christian ethics of saying this. It has problems, however. It would prohibit sex where either partner is known to be incapable of having children, which most Christian traditions don't do. The result is somewhat odd arguments that say it's OK to have sex when you know procreation is impossible, as long as you aren't creating artificial barriers to it. Furthermore, timing your sex so that you're not fertile isn't considered an artificial barrier.

Huh? There are plenty of gay people who would love to have children, and certainly are not intentionally setting up barriers to prevent doing so. They're no more incapable of having children than a woman who has had a hysterectomy or a pair in which one of the partners is for some reason infertile.

In fact everyone understands (and today, generally acknowledges) that there are multiple purposes to sex and marriage. The "procreation only" gets invoked only selectively. That makes it hard to accept as a serious moral principle.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm sure you're aware that there is a strong tradition in Christian ethics of saying this. It has problems, however. It would prohibit sex where either partner is known to be incapable of having children, which most Christian traditions don't do. The result is somewhat odd arguments that say it's OK to have sex when you know procreation is impossible, as long as you aren't creating artificial barriers to it. Furthermore, timing your sex so that you're not fertile isn't considered an artificial barrier.

Huh? There are plenty of gay people who would love to have children, and certainly are not intentionally setting up barriers to prevent doing so. They're no more incapable of having children than a woman who has had a hysterectomy or a pair in which one of the partners is for some reason infertile.

In fact everyone understands (and today, generally acknowledges) that there are multiple purposes to sex and marriage. The "procreation only" gets invoked only selectively. That makes it hard to accept as a serious moral principle.

Yes, I'm definitely aware of all of the problems with this tradition of marriage soley for the purpose of children, but I felt like I had to throw it in the ring since someone surely would have brought it up as an argument despite the fact that practically no one actually practices it nowadays. However, I have heard these arguments before right here on CF along with that quote of going forth and multiplying all over the earth and adding in comments such as homosexuals blatantly being disobedient of the command (apparently along with people who are infertile, menopausal, etc. though they are all somehow okay and exempt.)

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. They are both accommodations due to differences from the ideal of creation. They're not the same, obviously.

In principle same-sex relationships can reflect God's intention as well as opposite-sex relationships.

One flaw with this comparison is people who lost a leg really want that leg back. Not a crutch.

Now there are some disorders where people actually fantasize getting their leg amputated but that is a rare and not entirely on subject.

But in the disability case people really don’t want that disability. In the case of homosexuality the case is usually they do.

So we have some problems with the comparison.

At any rate, they are both departures from the description given in Genesis and the Gospels.

Both departures yet not truly equivalent.

God did not design marriage to be polygamous. He did not command the patriarchs to do so, and when they did it caused serious relational problems.

So polygamy is disordered according to God’s design and we don’t as the church accommodate it.

In the NT we are told to flee two sins. One is idolatry and the other is sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is fornication. Or illicit sexual relations. This includes any sexual relationship outside of what Christ confirms in Matthew 19.

Therefore, we have no authority as the Church to change what Christ Himself upheld. And notice He confirmed this union of man and woman while taking the Jews to task on divorce.

Many churches took their “authority” to re-establish what the Jews of Jesus time established on divorce. Look where that got us. The “Church” (minus a few denominations and the Roman Catholic Church) took non Biblical positions in divorce and not only the Church but our society suffers.

Christ never gave the church authority to change marriage and make divorce easier.

He did demonstrate we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, take care of the widow and orphan. He also by example healed the sick and infirm.

So getting someone an artificial leg is emulating Christ. Redefining what He clearly defined as marriage is not something He left as an option.

I think in a lot of these threads we come to a conclusion someone who is a Blood bought regenerated Christian who is homosexual will continue to be led by the Holy Spirit to continue on in these relationships. As if that is the “incurable” to God’s Power. Or that such a brother or sister cannot somehow live a life without having sufferings and challenges. We as the Church seem to think we alleviate or eliminate suffering and challenges by allowing our brethren to succumb to them. Water down what God has revealed because hey we don’t live in 1st Century AD, even though these sufferings and challenges existed then.

We should note the laundry list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6 ending with:


11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[archer75]

Yes, I'm definitely aware of all of the problems with this tradition of marriage soley for the purpose of children, but I felt like I had to throw it in the ring since someone surely would have brought it up as an argument despite the fact that practically no one actually practices it nowadays. However, I have heard these arguments before right here on CF along with that quote of going forth and multiplying all over the earth and adding in comments such as homosexuals blatantly being disobedient of the command (apparently along with people who are infertile, menopausal, etc. though they are all somehow okay and exempt.)

This business about multiplying all over the earth is, I think, a command we can feel we have obeyed.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus stated that there would be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven and that we would be as the angels. Paul wrote that there is no male or female in Christ Jesus.

If the purpose of marriage is solely to produce children, I could understand why there would be restrictions on homosexual marriage (and men spilling their seed on the ground) because it would be in opposition to the sole purpose of marriage, and so most in the current-day west would be getting married for all the wrong reasons, i.e. love.

However, if marriage is more to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church, then the gender of the humans involved shouldn't make any difference because when it gets down to who and what a person is, there is no gender distinction when living into the reality of God's kingdom. We are all one flesh in Christ. The "male" and "female" represent all of humankind originating from the "Adam", whether it be the first (perhaps genderless) Adam formed from the clay, or the second Adam who is Christ.

I have no idea what argument you are presenting. That we should not marry?

 

[bekkilyn]

I have no idea what argument you are presenting. That we should not marry?

I tend to agree with Paul that it is better to not marry, but it's okay to marry if we must. Celibacy, whether temporary or permanent, is a calling and not everyone is called to it.

I wasn't really posing an argument so much as making some statements for consideration.

 

[redleghunter]

Of course those of us who don't believe in inerrancy might prefer to take the view that the authors of Scripture didn't know what sexual orientation is, and had no reason to write descriptions of marriage that take it into account.

Well that method was used by Satan on two occasions. First time in Eden and then when Satan tempted Christ.

Jesus responded with “it is written.”

I think what you present is a subtle way of saying we can make the Scriptures mean what we want. Or at least leave us enough to doubt and conclude Scriptures are silent on many matters. But this is not one. Jesus Christ was crystal clear on what the order was. One man, one woman. And it had nothing to do with a Jewish First Century culture. Jesus went back to Genesis 2:24.

Even in the 1st Century, the Jews living among the Gentiles knew there was homosexuality and the Christians of the Diaspora would know of same sex marriage in Greco Roman society. It was mostly among the rich and elite. For example Nero was married several times and one of his last “marriages” was to a man and Nero dressed as the bride.

So it was not unheard of. But among Jesus and the apostles it certainly was not “accepted” in any way and not even the apostles were given the authority to change what Jesus taught and clearly confirmed.

 

[hedrick]

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

And that's the point. Paul is talking about what people had actually done wrong, not making a judgement on a question that wouldn't come up for 19 centuries. It is very unlikely that any of Paul's congregation had been in a same-sex Christian marriage. But it is quite possible that they had been in relationships that either were adulterous (because they had wives also) or abusive (because they involved children or slaves).

 

[redleghunter]

However, if marriage is more to reflect the relationship between Christ and the church, then the gender of the humans involved shouldn't make any difference because when it gets down to who and what a person is, there is no gender distinction when living into the reality of God's kingdom.

The imagery of marriage is used for the covenants. But it is a far stretch to connect the image to something it clearly does not represent in human to human relations.

We don’t need to appeal to allegory or imagery when it comes to human marriage. Jesus defined it and taught it. That should be the end of it but some have to find a way around Jesus’s actual words.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm still curious as to what "marriage" actually is and of its purpose, because unless we really pin it down, we can't really make good arguments as to who is allowed to be involved in a marriage. What we consider to be marriage nowadays looks nothing at all like any of the marriages found in scripture, and there is no such thing as marriage in heaven itself.

 

[redleghunter]

In principle same-sex relationships can reflect God's intention as well as opposite-sex relationships.

Not seeing the principle.

 

[bekkilyn]

The imagery of marriage is used for the covenants. But it is a far stretch to connect the image to something it clearly does not represent in human to human relations.

We don’t need to appeal to allegory or imagery when it comes to human marriage. Jesus defined it and taught it. That should be the end of it but some have to find a way around Jesus’s actual words.

How do you define what a man or a woman is? Is it just outward biology? In such cases, there are many people who are born with a mixture of the two. If it's something inside, then how do you determine the qualities that compose one or the other but not both?

Jesus really didn't address any of these things (probably because they really don't matter within the Kingdom of God).

 

[~Zao~]

I tend to think that all same-sex attractions and sex before marriage are biblically in the same boat, according to the fundamental view. Marriage laws are civil and not religious so should remain separate seems to be the conservative application of the principle. I tend to agree.

 

[redleghunter]

And that's the point. Paul is talking about what people had actually done wrong, not making a judgement on a question that wouldn't come up for 19 centuries. It is very unlikely that any of Paul's congregation had been in a same-sex Christian marriage. But it is quite possible that they had been in relationships that either were adulterous (because they had wives also) or abusive (because they involved children or slaves).

How can you make that statement? Homosexual relations and unions existed in the Roman Empire. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles. Do you truly think as a pastor Paul did not know the full depravity of mankind and especially the Gentiles he ministered to?

 

[redleghunter]

I'm still curious as to what "marriage" actually is and of its purpose, because unless we really pin it down, we can't really make good arguments as to who is allowed to be involved in a marriage. What we consider to be marriage nowadays looks nothing at all like any of the marriages found in scripture, and there is no such thing as marriage in heaven itself.

Truly not at all confusing:

Matthew 19: NASB

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created themfrom the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[St_Worm2]

...there are plenty of things in this world that don't quite fit the ideal. People are born with or develop all sorts of conditions that require accommodation if they're to live the best life possible. Christians understand this everywhere except with sex, Christians consider it a good thing to make allowances for people who have differences, and let them comply with the intent of creation, even if they do so differently. There's nothing in Jesus' teachings to suggest that sexuality is the one area where accommodating differences should be prohibited.

Hello Hedrick, where does the Bible tell us that we need to be "accommodating" of someone's sin (no matter what their sins may be), and/or of someone's lifestyle of impenitent sinful behavior*? How can such a thing be a loving choice for Christians to make, ever, when the Bible makes it clear what the outcome of such choices, apart from repentance, will be .. e.g. Romans 1:26-27, 2:12-13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10*?

Thanks!

--David

1 Corinthians 13
6 Love .. does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth.​

.

 

[redleghunter]

Jesus really didn't address any of these things (probably because they really don't matter within the Kingdom of God).

“Have you not read that He who created themfrom the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE

 

[redleghunter]

I tend to think that all same-sex attractions and sex before marriage are biblically in the same boat, according to the fundamental view. Marriage laws are civil and not religious so should remain separate seems to be the conservative application of the principle. I tend to agree.

Separate meaning the secular government can do what they want but what the government allows as legal is not exactly Christian marriage?

 

[~Zao~]

I tend to think that all same-sex attractions and sex before marriage are biblically in the same boat, according to the fundamental view. Marriage laws are civil and not religious so should remain separate seems to be the conservative application of the principle. I tend to agree.

Actually God’s rule should be in gvmnt aligning vertically and God’s love rule in the amongst the people. I was just being pc.

 

[bekkilyn]

Truly not at all confusing:

Matthew 19: NASB

3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created themfrom the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This doesn't help.