My family is threatening to disown me if I get married to my fiance

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think it was less attacking people and more a “how is it fair” response. And he has a valid point. How is it fair that people will accept one situation that apparently goes against our beliefs and not another? Now I’d guess, and I mean guess, that most Christians would probably approach both situations the same, so they would accept or reject both, but his parents do not. I feel like he’s trying to find out how some Christians can justify one thing they call sin and not another. Obviously only Theo knows his actual intentions but it seems to me that he’s a person that is being rather hurt by behaviour that someone (his parents) are saying is because they Christians, and he’s just upset and trying to find out how they can justify it. I don’t think he’s attacking all Christians, just hypocritical ones. As I said, only he knows his motives but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, because he’s clearly hurt over the behaviour he’s experienced.

I see your point and it is valid. All the more reason why it is dangerous to make compromises when it comes to the word of God.

 

[whereloveandmercymeet]

I see your point and it is valid. All the more reason why it is dangerous to make compromises when it comes to the word of God.

Exactly. It’s where people cherry pick that is the issue. However you apply and interpret the Bible, it needs to be uniformly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

hypocritical
/ˌhɪpəˈkrɪtɪkl/
adjective
adjective: hypocritical

1. behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case

In considering the meaning of 'hypocritical,' I'll stick with the Merriam-Webster usages. The one you've posted is 'new' to me, and is also one that I think catches way too many fish, such that nearly any behavior that some other person doesn't like can be construed as 'hypocrisy':

Definition of HYPOCRITICAL

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In considering the meaning of 'hypocritical,' I'll stick with the Merriam-Webster usages. The one you've posted is 'new' to me, and is also one that I think catches way too many fish, such that nearly any behavior that some other person doesn't like can be construed as 'hypocrisy':

Definition of HYPOCRITICAL

Thanks. I edited the post to reflect the Merriam-Webster definition. Either way, by definition, it would be hypocritical to say that it is "bigotry" to tell a person they should not be with the person they love only to turn around and say it is wrong for a father to have a consensual intimate relationship with his adult daughter. Once again, I am glad that this is not an issue that I will have to rationalize because I compromised the word of God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thanks. I edited the post to reflect the Merriam-Webster definition. Either way, by definition, it would be hypocritical to say that it is "bigotry" to tell a person they should not be with the person they love only to turn around and say it is wrong for a father to have a consensual intimate relationship with his adult daughter. Once again, I am glad that this is not an issue that I will have to rationalize because I compromised the word of God.

Sure. I'm all about holding 'fast' to the Word of God. However, I just think everyone should be clear that there is a big difference between relating to one's son that his choice of fiance is enshrouded in sin ... versus the outright disowning of that same said son.

 

[PloverWing]

I just wanted to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is not about accepting transgender people. It is about condoning what is essentially a homosexual marriage and whether or not a Christian parent should accept the marriage or not.

By "accepting transgender people", I meant "accepting transgender people as truly having the gender they're transitioning to". And that is very much relevant to the thread. If one views the OP's fiancee as being truly a woman, then that changes the conversation.

I understand if your position is "The OP's fiancee isn't really a woman, because she hasn't fully transitioned physically." That's a reasonable position to hold. I also understand if your position is "The OP's fiancee isn't really a woman, because she'll always be a man, no matter how much surgery she has." That's a position that many Christians hold. But in both cases, the status of transgender people -- the question of whether a trans woman is genuinely a woman -- is most definitely relevant to the discussion.

 

[PloverWing]

Well, what about polygamy? Would you not be a bigot if you did not agree with a man having several wives? What about your thoughts on incest? I remember reading a little somethin' somethin' about having sex with your father's sister. In fact, it was right there next to the verse condemning homosexuality and bestiality?

I'm really not following what you're trying to do by introducing these other moral questions. If what you're trying to say is:

"Any sexual act you feel like doing is morally okay" is a bad moral principle​

then, yes, I think everyone in this discussion will agree with that, including Sparagmos and the OP.

If you're trying to say that the arguments for the immorality of polygamy, homosexual intimacy, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are identical arguments, then I disagree. These look to me like separate questions, that have to be argued separately, from different premises.

Note: One might quite reasonably decide that all five are morally forbidden acts. I'm simply asserting that these are five separate issues and require five separate arguments.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

By "accepting transgender people", I meant "accepting transgender people as truly having the gender they're transitioning to". And that is very much relevant to the thread. If one views the OP's fiancee as being truly a woman, then that changes the conversation.

I understand if your position is "The OP's fiancee isn't really a woman, because she hasn't fully transitioned physically." That's a reasonable position to hold. I also understand if your position is "The OP's fiancee isn't really a woman, because she'll always be a man, no matter how much surgery she has." That's a position that many Christians hold. But in both cases, the status of transgender people -- the question of whether a trans woman is genuinely a woman -- is most definitely relevant to the discussion.

Once again, biologically the fiance will always be male. The only place where the fiance is a female is in his mind.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

How is it possible for you to accept gay marriage but not polygamy, incest, and bestiality without having a double standard? You cannot answer this question so I completely understand why you are dodging it.

Remember, you are the one who said, "Please don’t let your parents’ bigotry keep you from marrying the person whom you love." So by your own words, not accepting polygamy, incest, and bestiality, and even pedophilia makes you a "Bigot" in your own words. Thus you are hypocritical for suggesting that you are not a bigot while setting a double standard at the same time.

Polygamy, beastiality, incest & peadophilia are all illegal. Homosexuality ISNT.
I thought you would be all for incest & polygamy, since it seems to be tolerated in the bible! How come you arent? Again you dont seem consistent.

 

[Radagast]

If you're trying to say that the arguments for the immorality of

I think he's trying to say that if a moral argument can also be used to justify some really bad thing, then it's a flawed moral argument.

Specifically, he's claiming that "but we truly love each other" is such a flawed moral argument.

 

[PloverWing]

I think he's trying to say that if a moral argument can also be used to justify some really bad thing, then it's a flawed moral argument.

Specifically, he's claiming that "but we truly love each other" is such a flawed moral argument.

Thank you, Radagast. This statement is much clearer.

I agree that "we love each other", if that is the entirety of the argument, is an inadequate moral argument. It could be one component of a larger, more substantial argument, but it is not sufficient if it stands alone.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Polygamy, beastiality, incest & peadophilia are all illegal. Homosexuality ISNT.
I thought you would be all for incest & polygamy, since it seems to be tolerated in the bible! How come you arent? Again you dont seem consistent.

So just because something is illegal then you will say it is wrong? Gay marriage was illegal until a few years ago. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries. Does it have to be illegal in any country or just the one you live in? Second, just because someone did it in the Bible that doesn't mean that it is okay. There was murder in the Bible. But nobody is arguing for murder here. Likewise, there was scripture specifically against polygamy, incest, bestiality, and even homosexuality.

Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?
Why did God allow incest in the Bible?
What does the Bible say about pedophilia/paedophilia?
What does the Bible say about bestiality?
What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?
What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm really not following what you're trying to do by introducing these other moral questions. If what you're trying to say is:

"Any sexual act you feel like doing is morally okay" is a bad moral principle​

then, yes, I think everyone in this discussion will agree with that, including Sparagmos and the OP.

If you're trying to say that the arguments for the immorality of polygamy, homosexual intimacy, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are identical arguments, then I disagree. These look to me like separate questions, that have to be argued separately, from different premises.

Note: One might quite reasonably decide that all five are morally forbidden acts. I'm simply asserting that these are five separate issues and require five separate arguments.

The discussion between myself and Sparagmos was over her statement in which she said her parents were "bigots" and are wrong for "keeping [Theos] from the person he loves". The issues regarding polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are identical arguments in the fact that to be against any of them will require you to be against someone "being with the person they loved". The consequence of compromising the word of God is that it make it extremely difficult to use the word of God to justify any Christian moral conviction. I believe that I clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to justify homosexuality and reject incest and polygamy without setting a double standard.

Theos brought up a valid point when he rightfully exposed the blatant hypocrisy in the church for allowing the divorced to get remarried and used that to bring discredit to other Christian moral values. The point that I was making is that when it comes to the word of God, it is an all or nothing situation. Either you hold to scripture as a standard for Godly living or you don't. This was clearly demonstrated when I asked Sparagmos to then justify her positions on the other issues because she could not turn to the word of God. Instead of merely saying that those things are wrong because God says they are wrong, she then had to rationalize that pedophilia and bestiality is wrong grounds of lack of consent. Not because God clearly said they are wrong. Since consent was the standard she set, she could not justify her rejection of polygamy so she had to also condone that too. Where it got interesting is when I asked her to defend her statement that incest was wrong. She couldn't without becoming the "bigot". How can you justify supporting your son's homosexual marriage and reject your other adult son from marrying your sister (his aunt)? Could you say or do anything to reject a single father from marrying his adult daughter? I would argue not, at least not on biblical grounds.

 

[PloverWing]

The discussion between myself and Sparagmos was over her statement in which she said her parents were "bigots" and are wrong for "keeping [Theos] from the person he loves". The issues regarding polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and pedophilia are identical arguments in the fact that to be against any of them will require you to be against someone "being with the person they loved".

Sparagmos can clarify her position for herself, if she wishes, but here's how I heard the sequence of posts:

I don't think Sparagmos was making an argument at all, in the initial post about the OP's parents' "bigotry". I think she was writing from the point of view of someone who has examined arguments at some time in the past and came to a conclusion, and is now trying to reassure someone (the OP). Her post #37 wasn't addressed to you, to try to persuade you, but rather was addressed to the OP, as an expression of support.

Understand that from the point of view of someone who believes that same-sex marriage is perfectly acceptable, the conservative position can look like bigotry. Understand also that the commonly-offered reply that people who support homosexual relationships must also support bestiality can be heard as a simple insult, rather than a genuine argument. And then tempers flare on all sides.

The consequence of compromising the word of God is that it make it extremely difficult to use the word of God to justify any Christian moral conviction. I believe that I clearly demonstrated that it is impossible to justify homosexuality and reject incest and polygamy without setting a double standard.

This has not yet been demonstrated. You have correctly argued that appealing to consent alone is insufficient. You have not shown that there are no other possible arguments that might distinguish between these issues.

We are reaching the limits of what can be discussed in this forum. It's worth being aware that people have constructed Scripture-based arguments that disagree with your conclusions. I cannot reproduce those arguments in this forum, but this discussion from WWMC summarizes some of them: liberal approaches to homosexuality and transgender.

 

[Radagast]

It's worth being aware that people have constructed Scripture-based arguments that disagree with your conclusions.

That may be, but such arguments are utterly unconvincing to conservative Christians.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

So just because something is illegal then you will say it is wrong? Gay marriage was illegal until a few years ago. Homosexuality is illegal in some countries. Does it have to be illegal in any country or just the one you live in? Second, just because someone did it in the Bible that doesn't mean that it is okay. There was murder in the Bible. But nobody is arguing for murder here. Likewise, there was scripture specifically against polygamy, incest, bestiality, and even homosexuality.

Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?
Why did God allow incest in the Bible?
What does the Bible say about pedophilia/paedophilia?
What does the Bible say about bestiality?
What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?
What does the Bible say about divorce and remarriage?

I would say that everything that is illegal isnt necessarily wrong. However as it isn't illegal in my country, and also because it does no harm to anybody else, then there is absolutely no reason NOT to do it.

I am sure that there are lots of activitoies that people do that are also legal, but that DOES cause harm, such as driving a polluting car. It would be far less harmful to the planet if instead of driving your car somewhere to sightsee, that instead you stayed home & had sex with somebody of the same sex. Think how much less carbon & other pollutants will end up in the atmosphere, & no danger of an unwanted pregnancy either. Maybe it should be made into LAW to save the planet!

I am sure that there are lots of laws that have been changed or revised over the centuries as society has changed. There are probably many laws STILL in existance today that should no longer be valid, & there are probably some things that are still on the statute books as illegal that nobody ever bothers to enforce. A law only makes sense if it prevents harm to others, i& is for the good of society. This should be arrived at by common sense & consensus. Consensus does not mean that a majority have to agreee, especially if it is taking away the rights or dignities of minorities who have a valid place in society.

Just like I would say because the bible says its right or wrong dosnt make it so either. The bible condoned & even encouraged slavery, should we bring slavery back because the bible said its ok? The bible condoned & encouraged genocide, would you say that is ok, because it is in the bible? The bible is an old book, that has never changed with the times, & a lot of what is in it is no longer relevent in todays modern society. There are probably some sensible laws in the bible, however the majority of them are nonsense in todays society. In fact many of the laws have probably never been relevant, even back then!

That is why conservative christians have to creatively interpret & excuse many parts of the bible, because they themselves dont want to follow many of the laws, & realise it is no longer relevant to todays society. But of course the bigots amongst them will reinterpret & excuse almost anything in it that dosnt suit THEM, but homosexuality obviously offends THEIR sensibilities, so they will never excuse that one.

Even Paul of Tarsus himself realised he could nevver sell the Jewish law to the gentiles, so despite the fact that Jesus himself said the not one jot or titlte of the Jewish law was to be changed, again when it was expedient for the early christian church, nearly everything was changed, except of course the homosexuality bit.

I wonder if we still had the entire Jewish law as Jesus had planned, would you still be interested in being a christian? The fact is there probably would not even be a christianity today if the jewish law wasnt done away with, because not enough people would have converted, & the christian religion would have died out. In fact the early christian religion that DID continue to observe the jewish laws DID DIE OUT! Pauls version of christianity won out! So much for Gods laws being unchanging, when practically the whole lot was changed.

So maybe God has changed his mind about homosexuality as well, but the Gospel writers just forgot to insert it into the text? I notice that Jesus himself never even mentioned it. If it is such a big thing with God, you would think he would have slipped in at least one phrase about it! It certainly is a big thing with some conservative Christians today, because it is about the only thing they bang on about, but for Jesus it was apparently a non issue that didnt even deserve a mention.

There may have been some valid reason for it way back then, when population growth was extremely low & the death rate extremely high. No doubt they wanted people to have as many kids as possible, because usually half or more of the children born would be dead before the age of 15. They had no antibiotics or any other modern medicine back then, cleanliness probalbly wasnt that high, & something as simple as a scratch could lead to a major infection, sepsis of the blood & death, or a rotten tooth could poison the blood & also lead to death. There was also constant war & famine to be concerned about.

Maybe it was reasoned that homosexual persons arent going to increase the population, so that was why it was outlawed by the Jews. However today, the only population concerns we have is too much population.

Whatever the reasons were back then, they are no longer valid today.

Fortunately today in most modern weatern democratic countries we have secular laws, not biblical laws. If you want to know what it is like to live in a country that adheres to the laws of its religion, look at places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Isis. Maybe you should try moving to one of those countries, because I am sure that there laws will be more to your liking, as the majority of the laws in the Quran can also be found in the bible. I am sure western democracies are far too liberal for your liking.

Not sure why you want to send links to Got Questions to support your arguments. What gives them the moral authority to interpret the bible? Do they have a direct line to god, where they can call him & say, hey god, tell us how to interpret this?

I am sure if I search the intternet, I can find a dozen interpretations that differ from the ones given by GotQuestions. This site obviously suits you because their views align with yours, but they do not have the sole authority to interpret the bible. If everybody interpreted the bible the same way you would only have one christian denomination, not dozens.

When slavery was legal in America, the slave owners used the bible to SUPPORT their right to own slaves, because they wanted to interpret the bible that way. In fact Thomas Jefferson apparently said that the slave owners have the biblical texts on their side (not an exact quote).

I really cant for the life of me why an all knoowing, all powerful omniprescent god would be so obsessed with peoples sex lives, can you? it certainly dosnt sound like a god, just bigoted humans who would have this obsession.

The bible was written by men, plain & simple. You want to claim it is the word of god, but you have no more proof than Muslims have that the Quran is the word of god. You just want to use the bible as an excuse for your bigotry, which by your words in trying to link it to paedophilia & beastiality is plain for all to see. In case you ask me what the difference is, homosexuality is between consenting adults. With beastiality it is unlikely the animal has given consent, & the same with paedophilia, where the child is not old or mature enough to give valid consent

In fact, since same sex couples cannot reproduce children through the act of intercourse, & no unwanted pregnancies can occur, which may lead to an abortion, which christians are also against, why not encourage it? Think how many less abortions there would be in the world if all those who did not want kids had sex with a partner of the same sex!

I dont think you can make a valid case to condemn something just because of what it says in the bible, without also making a case to condone other things in the bible that god apparently said was ok.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I would say that everything that is illegal isnt necessarily wrong.

Yet you brought legality up to explain why you think same sex marriage is okay but not polygamy and incest. So if you cannot say that "everything that is illegal isn't necessarily wrong" I will ask again, how can you say same sex marriage is okay but incest and polygamy is wrong without being as "bigoted" as your parents?

 

[Theo Barnsley]

Yet you brought legality up to explain why you think same sex marriage is okay but not polygamy and incest. So if you cannot say that "everything that is illegal isn't necessarily wrong" I will ask again, how can you say same sex marriage is okay but incest and polygamy is wrong without being as "bigoted" as your parents?

I know you like to put words in my mouth to suit your own argument, so please quote me where I said that polygamy & incest IS wrong? I know that they are against the law, but if two consenting adults wants to have an incestuous relationship, or somebody wants two wives, or a woman wants two husbands, then I dont see how it is going to affect me or anybody else. Of course the bible only allowed men more than one wife, however in todays society it would be fair if women were also allowed more than one husband, & to balance things out a bit.

I personally wouldnt want two wives, & I have never been attracted sexually to a close relative, so it is not something that affects me either way.

There may be valid reasons for the law against incest, such as a child being born of an incestuous relationship being born deformed or something, but the god you love to quote when it comes to homosexuality certainly saw nothing wrong with incest or polygamy, so if a lobby group starts lobbying the government to legalise incestuous relationships, I am sure they will have your full support. They will be able to quote the bible to suppot it, & if YOU are going to be consistent & not a hypocritical bigot, you will have to support it, because it is ok in the bible.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

I see your point and it is valid. All the more reason why it is dangerous to make compromises when it comes to the word of God.

The whole of Christianity IS a compromise of 'gods' word. Paul of Tarsus changed practically everything, to win over Gentile converts. Jesus said 'not one jot or tittle of the law is to be changed'

Paul totally obliterated all the jots & tittles!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I know you like to put words in my mouth to suit your own argument, so please quote me where I said that polygamy & incest IS wrong? QUOTE]
So, let me get this straight. You think it is okay for a father to have a consensual sexual relationship with his adult daughter?