What is marriage, and why does it preclude homosexuality? (Moved from C,P&E to DOH)

[Jerrell]

No it isn't.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. You made that up, because thats what you WISH it said.

I've discussed this with you before, and I will not get all bent out of shape trying to prove it to you. However, just because you make up excuses doesn't change the words of the bible, neither the meaning, nor the Truth.

 

[BAFRIEND]

As far as I understand it, the Bible does not define marriage. Rather, it seems the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church decided what marriage should be, and then the powerful groups of Protestants, when they broke off, found no problem with their ideas.

Actually, it goes back further to the custodians and writers of the OT: Judaism.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You make an excellent argument here, one I wish had been dealt with much earlier in the thread. I am going to concede a great deal of what you say in the earlier paragraphs, and then bring up the concept Catholic theologians have advanced regarding marriage. That is, there are two purposes in marriage: the procreative and the unitive. It is, on the one hand, for the conception and nurture of children, and on the other, the fulfillment of God's plan in giving us the desire for intimacy in the first place. For the Catholic, these must run together -- neither alone is sufficient. If marriage were only for procreation, then the infertile, women after menopause, etc., would be excluded from it. If it were for intimacy only, then the whole element of the proper nurture of children would be left unfulfilled.

That is correct- the aspects are inseperable.

However, I submit that this is normative rather than mandative -- that God does create people for whom normal one man/one woman marriage is improper. (The verse A4T mentioned earlier about eunuchs, generally understood to mean there are those who espouse celibacy as His call for them in particular, supports this.) My wife and I were not blessed with children of our bodies -- but He was able to lead us to understand that our call is to minister to others, together, including children alienated from their natural parents, and to comfort, counsel, and nurture those people, including those children, using the gift He gave us of our mutual love and support to sustain that ministry.

First, I think it is wonderful that you do this
However, you are not mandated to have children in a marriage- you are mandated to be open to children. What God creates as part of our nature isn't normative, it is "mandatory". Marriage isn't a 'good idea', it is part of human nature.

Marriage is, in my mind, for the creation of families. But that is, in my view, not just limited to two-parent-plus-kids families -- all those whom He has called together are included. The man who adopts children as a single parent because he has parental love to give and they are in need of it, and finds fulfillment in nurturing them. The gay couple who adopts children and raises them. The elderly couple who takes in their own abandoned grandchildren and resumes the parental role in their later years. These are all real and healthy families, and ones that don't meet the very limited "family values" definition.

Sin is failure to love God with all that is in us, and to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to show that love in very practical ways -- where there is hurt, we are to comfort. Where there is sadness, we are to bring joy. Where there is injury, we are to heal. Where there is strife, we are to bring peace. Running down a shopping list of "Thou shalt nots" is not cataloguing sin; looking at the hurt in the world is. And when we have done that, our call is to relieve that hurt. Anything less is arrant sin.

I don't look at humanity through laws, I look at us in light of virtues. What is man ordered to? What is our purpose? A same-sex sexual relationship is innately disordered. You can not take something which is good in one direction and apply it to another. A man can not use his desire for love, sex and intimacy and apply it to woman in an affair. Monogamy is not 'normative', it's "mandatory". People often argue good as a reason to do evil.

A guy may list reason after reason why marrying his sister is good (she'd get her tubes tied, they'd adopt, do missionary work, they are in love) but that doesn't change the fact that the nature of the relationship is wrong.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Anyway, its a really bad poll...

I'd agree, actually...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I've discussed this with you before, and I will not get all bent out of shape trying to prove it to you. However, just because you make up excuses doesn't change the words of the bible, neither the meaning, nor the Truth.

truly said like someone who knows they have no evidence to present.

 

[Jerrell]

truly said like someone who knows they have no evidence to present.

() I'd rather not waste my time presenting evidence to someone who doesn't care about it anyway....

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

() I'd rather not waste my time presenting evidence to someone who doesn't care about it anyway....

That's an ad hominem argument- either make an actual one or don't question her character.

 

[Jerrell]

That's an ad hominem argument- either make an actual one or don't question her character.

I had a long discussion with her before on another thread, I will not waste my not repeating myself on this one.

P.S.- What in the world is ad hominem?.....use regular words so i don't have to use an online dictionary.....

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I had a long discussion with her before on another thread, I will not waste my not repeating myself on this one.

P.S.- What in the world is ad hominem?.....use regular words so i don't have to use an online dictionary.....

Ad hominem is an argument made against the character of the person instead of the truth or validity of what they say.

Since you don't want to argue her, perhaps you'd like to make your arguments to me?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's an ad hominem argument- either make an actual one or don't question her character.

Thanks for the support

 

[Jerrell]

Ad hominem is an argument made against the character of the purpose instead of the truth or validity of what they say.

Since you don't want to argue her, perhaps you'd like to make your arguments to me?

I don't like arguments, I like discussions. And i also never like to head into a discussion knowing that the other person is bent on arguing with me.....

But, we'll see...right now I need to rest. I'm still growing

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I don't like arguments, I like discussions. And i also never like to head into a discussion knowing that the other person is bent on arguing with me.....

But, we'll see...right now I need to rest. I'm still growing

Okay, let's discuss it then. Present your points.

 

[Jerrell]

Okay, let's discuss it then. Present your points.

What exactaly are we discussing again....afterall, I don't know your viewpoint?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Thanks for the support

No problem- I find purely bible-based arguments against homosexuality amusing...

 

[Jerrell]

No problem- I find purely bible-based arguments against homosexuality amusing...

So I guess, are u not Christian, or are you agnostic or something?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So I guess, are u not Christian, or are you agnostic or something?

You could have tried reading my profile. My character is wearing a cassock and holding a rosary for crying out loud.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So I guess, are u not Christian, or are you agnostic or something?

I'm a Christian.

But Biblical inerancy, literalism, and legalim are not necesarily part of being a Christian

 

[Anglian]

Dear davedjy,

Boswell's articles is interesting, but contains nothing to make one think that the Church approved such 'marriages'; that manuscripts recording them exist is true - Arianism existed and the Church refuted that too. It is possibly unwise for Boswell to assume that the Church approved everything for which evidence can be found.

I would still like to see some evidence that the Orthodox or Catholic Churches ever approved such unions; their teaching and traditions are all the other way.

Maybe it falls down to your personal beliefs...Sola Scriptura, or not? Tradition is not part of my and many other Christian's beliefs.

Of course, and I respect that. My only point, and it is relevant to AtheriusLamia, is that his Church (like mine) does not hold with Sola Scriptura so he and I have to take Tradition into account. Those who do not can, and will, continue to quote Scripture past each other.

...or an opportunity for unnecessary conformity to erroneous interpretational conclusions based upon certain passages.

The problem with that is that those who disagree with you would say it is you who are misinterpreting things, which is why Tradition, for the Apostolic Churches, is called in in aid.

Many thanks for your points.

In peace,

Anglian

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I'm wondering where I can go to learn more about the history behind the Leviticus condemnation of anal sex. Any ideas?

 

[Lupinus]

I'm wondering where I can go to learn more about the history behind the Leviticus condemnation of anal sex. Any ideas?

of course, actually it's probably on your book shelf already.

Leviticus and the bible in general