How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ]
 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What exactly IS marriage anyway?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


325 posted 07-23-2004 01:31 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
To me that sounds like sexism.††I wasn't trying at all to refer to sexism as in masculinism, patriachism, etc, but sexism as in sexism against people of the same sex.

But Essorant, that's not what sexism is.


sexism: (sek' siz' em) n. 1. Prejudice against the female sex.  2.  An arbitrary stereotyping of males or females on the basis of the gender.


Sexism is discriminating against something amorally oriented, namely the gender one was born with.
So you can argue that homosexual marriage is right, but you can't say that to disagree amounts to "sexism".


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


326 posted 07-23-2004 02:16 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Sexism:


Any overmindness, orientedness or centeredness about, and fixing or hanging upon  sex/gender, and judging  beings or things by sex/gender or a sex/gender-theme.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


327 posted 07-23-2004 02:32 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,


Could you please cite me the dictionary your above definition came from?  Pardon me, but that sounded like it came from the "Essorant-ary" rather than a real diction-ary.  


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


328 posted 07-24-2004 03:59 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

"The AllTruthbook" by AllWise.  
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


329 posted 07-24-2004 09:09 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

that's what I thought.    


What you should realize is this ...

sexism is defined as discriminating on the basis of gender.


racism is defined as discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or physical characteristics.


Both of these attitudes (sexism and racism) are wrong, or invalid because race and gender are both normal and inborn features ... and completely amoral in their outcome.


Sexual preference, whether it is in the form of pederasty, homosexuality , or just plain adultery, is NOT an inborn feature in people ... it is aquired.  And those who say it is pre-programmed, offer nothing scientifically evidential to support that idea.  


So just calling the opposing view sexism or crying "civil rights violation" which is calling it the equivalent of racism, does nothing for the debate.  It's attempting to win the argument using the merits of another argument which has completely different grounds.


Stephen.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


330 posted 07-24-2004 10:15 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And those who say it is pre-programmed, offer nothing scientifically evidential to support that idea.

Just as those who say it is not genetically determined are unable to offer any scientific evidence, Stephen?

It shouldn't be that hard, either. You don't have to find an elusive gene after all, you just have to show a determining moment when a man's sexual attraction to a woman is acquired. When you convince me that a heterosexual male isn't hardwired to prefer women, then I'll be willing to concede that a homosexual male might not be hardwired to prefer men.

Lacking conclusive proof either way, however, I have to weigh what evidence is available and decide on that basis what to believe. Frankly, even if such evidence didn't already strongly point to genetic determination, I suspect I would give the benefit of doubt to the side least likely to cause harm. I'm not willing to curtail someone's pursuit of happiness based only on fear and speculation.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


331 posted 07-25-2004 11:20 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

"Sexual preference, whether it is in the form of pederasty, homosexuality , or just plain adultery, is NOT an inborn feature in people ... it is aquired.  And those who say it is pre-programmed, offer nothing scientifically evidential to support that idea."

Have to partially disagree with you Stephanos. Pederasty-- an adult act toward a child, that requires acquiring a childís trust or the manipulation of a child, Yes, I have to agree.

Adultery-- I think itís more feasible to express how humans try to resist the temptations, because we are pre-programmed to pro-create. To pro-create there has to be a sex drive. Whether it goes into over-drive or not does depend on the human. Regardless, science is very busy trying to help us alter the pro-creation part.

But homosexuality? It doesnít matter what my beliefs are, letís look at the wee periods of a childís development.

There are young boys that exhibit effeminate characteristics, and young girls that exhibit masculine characteristics at a very early age. Ever held one while they cried, because the other kids picked on them or rejected them? Their differences are identifiable by other children, why not science? There are many children that do not completely fit into the gender skin they were born in. And they come from very normal families. Things get really twisted up as they mature. Effeminate males and masculine females are rarely accepted by either peer, let alone potential mates. What are they to do? Iíve seen these children grow and mature into extraordinary adults, loving, kind, goal oriented, hard working, with all the values any human can have, and be completely rejected. And I do want to clarify that not all effeminate males/masculine females are destined to be homosexuals. They are treated as if they are, or most people suspect them to be. Most people suspect me to be straight. Is it anyoneís business? But I was accused once of being a Dyke in highschool, simply because I excelled in sports. I didnít even know how cruel that word was, but it did give me a pretty good idea of how society wanted to box me in, figure me out, and label me.

I also want to clarify that I do not feel all those who prefer same sex start out this way. Iím only referring to those few that I know for a fact did.

As a mother, care giver, teacher, aunt, neighbor, friend, Iíve come to recognize the children and adults that Iíve developed bonds with as gifts to me. They teach me valuable lessons about who they are, and what I am to them, or what I need to be. I donít know everything. Iíll not feel foolish for caring for them and respecting them either way. No matter what science says. I donít trust science, I trust my heart on this one.

And if homosexuality is something that is ďcorrectableĒ within a person, then wouldnít everyone be encouraged to send their child off to some ďcorrectional straight campĒ during the wee periods of self-discovery and normal curiosity toward same-sex? Government funded, mandated? Or would it just be for the elite who can afford to straighten their kids out?

What about hermaphrodites? Babies that are born, having both sex organs. Parents have to choose which they want, boy or girl? Are doctors just doing away with the unwanted organ identifier? There are many adults who still have both, intact. How do they fit in or out of the box?

We, who sit here and have minimal problems with our social belonging, are so lucky.

Which brings me to these questions and thoughts about the legal, philosophical, and spiritual aspects of marriage/same sex marriage issues within this thread:

Has our modern philosophy-religious-laws institutionalized something that canít really be defined for any one person, such as love?

Are all the marriages that took place before marriage certificates not really marriages, but some other kind of joint venture?

Which is more righteous: To walk alone for your entire life, because society or your religious beliefs do not support same sex marriage, or to live a complete lie with someone of the opposite sex, for the sake of God and humanity?

Are Homosexual Christians simply a contradiction in terms, or males and females who believe in Christ? Feel free to cross-reference to any belief.

The same as homosexual citizens, who believe in their rights?

And does 100 years of marriage between two couples (my parents and my grandparents) make their marriages more ideal, than say, a couple thatís been together for 10 years, each a divorcee, and each deeply devoted to their new spouses. In Godís eyes, in societyís eyes?

But my grand parents canít stand each other, so one lives upstairs, and the other downstairs.
And since the young couple has already had their shot at what might have been the ideal, does that mean that no matter what they try to establish onward, itís a tainted endeavor?

If we continue to link sex to marriage, then why bother with marriage at all, since many people have sex before marriage. Whatís the point?

And am I the only one that finds social exclusivity a bit scarey? Thereís always somebody casting you out, or trying to induct you in. Somebodyís always got to be the ring leader, or somebody gets high horsed and pillages a village. Seems a little quasi-cultish in nature to me, or imprisoning, Aristocratic, Boxed orthodox, Supreme-ish, group self-righteousness, or something not quite....tolerant, Maybe I need drugs to help me overcome the social anxieties of it all.

I mean Iím all for matrimonial sanctity, but Iíll not enter into any kind of pact with society as to the hows, what, when, or wheres Iím gonna sanctify my marriage. Weíre just two names on a piece of paper...the rest is our business.

Whether same sex marriage is right or wrong seems irrelevant under attack. Their bonds will be strengthened by the human need to cling to other humans that accept them as they are. They may never get a piece of paper for that.

And love and acceptance are real factors people. No matter what laws govern us, or how much hell the world brings down on a person for loving someone, they will love them, and that much harder. The depth becomes fathomable to them then~

I think all walks of life understand that to varying degrees.

But the legalities of it all, leaves such a gay area. I donít mean that as a pun. I mean that as a plight for the pursuit of happiness.

I donít know how I can trust a law that establishes only my ideals. I donít know how I could trust a God that loves only me.

Forgive me folks. I have few days off to write, so I have to get it all in there at once.

Sincerely,
Reg


Local Parasite
Deputy Moderator 10 Tours
Member Elite
since 11-05-2001
Posts 2929
Transylconia, Winnipeg


332 posted 07-25-2004 02:03 PM       View Profile for Local Parasite   Email Local Parasite   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Local Parasite's Home Page   View IP for Local Parasite

Rwood,

What an eloquent response.  Makes me remember why I love discussing philosophy with members of a poetry website.

I would argue, though, that children do a lot of things innocently, though they be wrong, that are capable of being grown out of in their adulthood.  Some children are poorly tempered, for example, and pick on others; some have sexual attractions to the same sex, or for that matter to their cousins or siblings, even their parents.  Now it's clear to us adults that there are some things we simply come to realize are fundamentally wrong.

As soon as we raise the issue of "tolerance," and make that word seem like the letter of the law, we allow all sorts of immoralities to slip through the cracks of our justice system.  This is the reason we have associations like NAMBLA, for instance.

Children innocently sin all of the time.  A favourite image of mine comes from Augustine (I think), who described how two children feeding at different breasts will still cry when they see the other one feeding from the same mother, even though there's enough for two.

Sure, I feel sorry for them as much as you do.  The slings and arrows they have to endure in childhood sting quite a bit, I know.  But let's face it... children are naive, and we can't depend on them as evidence of what's morally right or wrong.  Have you ever seen a toddler at another toddler's birthday party, who is crying because none of the presents are for him?  Or a kid who doesn't get exactly what he wants on Christmas morning so he throws a crying tantrum at his parents who spent large sums of money trying to please him?  Children don't always know what's right, and although we can feel sorry for them, it's up to us to provide an environment for them in which to learn moral rights and wrongs.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


333 posted 07-25-2004 05:55 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
As soon as we raise the issue of "tolerance," and make that word seem like the letter of the law, we allow all sorts of immoralities to slip through the cracks of our justice system.

Immoralities SHOULD slip through the cracks of our justice system, Brian. Government's role should be to protect men from men, not men from God.

quote:
But let's face it... children are naive, and we can't depend on them as evidence of what's morally right or wrong.

Which is exactly why we *teach* our children the difference between right and wrong. However, while no one is born with a knowledge of morality, they are -- by definition -- born with a knowledge of what is natural.

Still, while I think Regina poses many interesting points, I also think her post places us in danger of confusing sexual preference with gender confusion. Being effeminate has little to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in the sense that blue eyes tend to go with blonde hair. Young children don't exhibit "signs" of sexuality, homo or otherwise.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


334 posted 07-26-2004 12:34 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Brian~ Thank you. I agree with most of what you expressed, but I donít want to assume that homosexuality is something a person will grow out of, if itís something they are born with. As Ron stated above, thereís no proof either way.

Ron~  I admit, this is all very confusing to me. Gender is a separate issue from sexual preference.

Since I was unsure about the term ďgender confusion.Ē I had to look it up. Hereís what I found.

ďDespite a smattering of research conducted around the world, Kohler and other medical experts have not pinpointed what causes people born as one gender to identify more strongly with the opposite sex.Ē

"Medically there is no explanation," Kohler says. "There are lots and lots of theories in the psychology and psychiatry worlds. It's probably much like being gay or lesbian. No one can explain it, it's just something that exists."
http://www.tgcrossroads.org/news/archive.asp?aid=493

All the info establishes gender/sex/preference as separate issues. But development in all areas is still based purely on theory upon theory. Many persons refuse to be categorized no matter what the world thinks.

ďBeing effeminate has little to do with homosexuality, except perhaps in the sense that blue eyes tend to go with blonde hair.Ē

Gender confusion may be a more proper and defining term for what I described above in the early years. But itís a little more than coincidence that each person I referred to as effeminate/masculine, grew to have same-sex partners....as pronounced on their birth certificates. Many then classify them as homosexuals. And I donít believe thatís the case for everyone considered. So gender aspects seem to have had something to do with the way they developed their sexual preference. I just donít know. Whatever term is attached to them medically or psychologically, they arenít being cured or quite defined. And it scares me to think what people would do if they could detect such things beyond a shadow of doubt.

ďYoung children don't exhibit "signs" of sexuality, homo or otherwise.Ē
I agree, thereís nothing completely identifiable or concrete about who they will be sexually attracted to in maturity. Itís just a whole lot easier on them if they mature into an accepted ideal, and naturally a whole lot easier for adults to try and define.

Sincerely,
Reg

hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


335 posted 07-26-2004 10:33 PM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

rwood-

"I donít know how I can trust a law that establishes only my ideals. I donít know how I could trust a God that loves only me."

Thanks. That's the most succinct and potent rebuttal to this ridiculous attempt at legislation that I've heard yet.
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


336 posted 07-26-2004 10:59 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

Marrage is the union
joining of man and woman
as one being thinking and doing
for each other and to share there love
for god with one another. Face it Marrage came from the jewish religian. Changing the definition opf marraige changes what marrage means. I will not argue with you all, but to change the meaning of marraige so it fits you, won't still make it marrage.


I know every one will hate me and not respond to my poetry and excetra, but heh no one does to begin with so I don't really care.

Juju

Yes I am in a bad mood.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


337 posted 07-27-2004 12:12 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
Just as those who say it is not genetically determined are unable to offer any scientific evidence, Stephen?

This is just trying to switch the "burden of proof".  But for centuries sexual misconduct (& orientation) has been seen as a moral question rather than a genetic one.  Therefore it would seem natural that science be required to actually back up the assertion of genetic predeterminism.  Especially when there are such political overtones to the whole question, and so many people WANT to believe it's genetic.


No evidence for genetic homosexuality means that as far as we know homosexuality is not genetic.  Your intuition is not sufficient to back up the allegation against traditional views of homosexuality ... that it is bigotry or discrimination or the like.
quote:
When you convince me that a heterosexual male isn't hardwired to prefer women, then I'll be willing to concede that a homosexual male might not be hardwired to prefer men.

Do you think pedophiles are "hardwired" to prefer children?  Apart from the moral consideration that would obviously affect your public policy on this one ... how can you so easily attribute one to genetics and the other not.  Or perhaps you don't.  Perhaps in your eyes child molesters can't help it, and therefore shouldn't be held morally responsible for their actions?


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


338 posted 07-27-2004 02:11 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

So what is the preference/choice/difference of homosexuality being named as wrong and sinful and against God, and unright to partake in marriage for?  To me it still looks like it is being called wrong because of the gender it involves; and therefore the argument against homosexuality still lives up to the word and the meaning of "sexism"


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


339 posted 07-27-2004 05:20 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Essorant,

sexual conduct and one's own gender are two very different things.  I can't state it any plainer than that.


Is it distally related in that homosexuality has to do with one's sexual preference?  Yes.  But that's still not "sexism" ... since sexism is discrimination of one's person based upon gender.  

Still the objection to homosexuality has to do with one's behavior, while sexism has to do with one's gender.  One has moral implications, the other doesn't.    


quote:
So what is the preference/choice/difference of homosexuality being named as wrong and sinful and against God, and unright to partake in marriage for?


I've already explained that.  If God designed male and female sexuality as normative, and deviations are not acceptable according to him, then homosex is sin.  That's what the Bible teaches.  You're free to disagree or not.  And remember scripturally speaking, God has given the institution of marriage to men, and it's definition is rooted in his teleology.    


Stephen.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


340 posted 07-27-2004 05:43 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

rwood:
quote:
Are Homosexual Christians simply a contradiction in terms, or males and females who believe in Christ?



Yes, to put it simply homosexual Christian is a contradiction in terms, just as a "Christian murderer", or "Christian adulterer", or "Christian Thief", or "Christian pedophile" are all contradictions in terms.  


Are you are asking this question from a mindset where there are presumably no moral absolutes, and where "sin" is an imaginary concept and not a stark reality?  If so, the answer given from the basic assumptions of Christianity (with moral absolutes, the dilemma of sin, the requirement of repentence and Spiritual renewal) will be quite different.  


From the framework of the Christian worldview, homosex is sin.  And Christians are those who have 1) come to recognize their own sinfulness before God, and their own plight before him as guilty and worthy of punishment.  2) come to a place of repentance where they turn from those things revealed to be sin in their lives. and 3) Believe that only through Jesus Christ, crucified for their sins and risen from the dead, can they overcome sin and it's consequences.  


Now that's the simple answer given purely in theory.  In reality, sin is not so easliy done away with.  It's better than saran wrap, it CLINGS to us, because we have all been so closely associated with it's habits.  Only those who never try to resist it, dream that they aren't sinners.  When there's no resistance, there's no awareness of a battle.  So even when someone is awakened to the necessity of overcoming sinful thoughts and behavior, a person can struggle for a long time.  The apostle Paul describes this in Romans Chapter 7, where he talks about "doing those things which I hate", and "being unable to perform that which is good".  


So a person who struggles with lustful homosexual thoughts may indeed be a Christian.  There is a process of coming out which can be difficult and arduous.  But someone who practices the homosexual lifestyle, and who is hardened against the very idea of it being sinful, by biblical standards cannot be a Christian because they have not taken the task of repentance at hand.  They have basically said to God, and their own consciences, "I disagree with you.  This behavior is not wrong ... it's the way I am."  


quote:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived:  Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And 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.Ē  (1 Corinthians 6:9)



Here is a link to a question (perhaps similar to your own) someone wrote to Randy Alcorn.  His answer is a bit more detailed than mine.  I thought it might be helpful ... for understanding, if nothing else.

http://www.epm.org/articles/gaywitness4.html


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


341 posted 07-27-2004 07:21 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephenos,
If it is not about the gender then what is that that makes the difference/preference and behavior wrong and judged as a sin and against God, and unright for marriage?   What that heterosexuals don't do as well, as or more unseldom?  What is the proof, evidence, ground that you shall bring for to show as "incriminating" or wrong of homosexuals?  Homosexuality?  Then what is that that makes homosexuality incriminating?  Unnaturalness/deviation?   What makes this unnaturalness/deviations worthy of being treated as a wrong/vice/sin/crime?  Wherein lies the wrong/unhealthiness/destructiveness/evil?
What are the things that you may bring forth that make homosexuality wrong, but not even just wrong, wrong enough to make laws against and that may affect people's life about.  
I may bring forth something like smoking and say I know there are many health risks and health hazards that I believe make smoking wrong and that should be avoided.  I think you will agree with me, even if you don't agree that is wrong as much as I do, that there is evidence that proves it is a risk to health and causes health problems.  Where is such evidence about homosexuality, and also such evidence that may not about as equally be brought up against heterosexuals behavior?
hush
Senior Member
since 05-27-2001
Posts 1693
Ohio, USA


342 posted 07-28-2004 02:48 AM       View Profile for hush   Email hush   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for hush

Juju-

'Face it Marrage came from the jewish religian'

So, um... I don't get it. Is it only the homosexuals who can't get married, or are we ruling out Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, and atheists here too?

Ah, screw it, let's just trash that whole separation of Church and state thing and implement a Judeo-Christian theocracy... woohoo! Now my life of sin shall become a life of crime!

I'm sorry, I'm crabby and I'm sick of this whole thing, but Stephen... ya know I love ya but come on... lung cancer doesn't stop smokers from smoking, and the idea of divine punishment doesn't keep sinners from sinning... at least, not the ones who really want to anyway. Look, I respect that you see it as a sin, but I romp around with my live-in boyfriend in biblically sinful ways, are you going to say cohabitation should be illegal, too? I mean, it's "bad" in all the same ways gay marriage is... bad for the kids, unstable relationship, more likely to cheat, screws up your chances of getting into heaven, etc. etc. It's like Regina said tho... same-sex marriages will exist, at least in that couples eyes, and the eyes of their friends, whether a law consecrates it or not. You can't stop it, and furthermore, there's no real good reason to stop it...

I'm beating my head against a wall, I've got to get out of here...
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


343 posted 07-28-2004 09:09 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Stephan:

One of the revolutionary ideas that came out of the Reformation was the notion that Christians are simul justus et peccator ... at the same time saint and sinner.  To suggest that "Christian homosexual" is a contradiction in terms is similar to saying that "Christian liar" or "Christian coveter" or "Christian thief" also cannot exist together.  

In truth, all Christians are at the same time just and sinner, and, yes, this is a contradiction unless you consider that we are forensically righteous, and nothing more.  It is Christ's righteousness, apart from our actual sinfulness, that is imputed to the Christian in the legal sense, just as our actual sinfulness is imputed to Christ on the Cross.  Granted, the test of the genuine faith would involve a life-long struggle with sin, but I think that if your arguing that a Christian is no longer Christian if, for example, he or she is struggling with alcoholism or obsessive gambling, your understanding of the doctines of sin and grace is flawed.

Romans 7 is a somewhat contentious passage to cite, but I think the meaning is quite clear - Paul struggled with behavior he knew was wrong, even as he wrote his letter to the Roman Christians.  The Corinthians were sliding toward antinomianism, which explains Paul's stronger language.  But I think this leaves the door wide open to the possibility that a homosexual can be a Christian while at the same time not being able to change his or her homosexual lifestyle at the present time.

I also share Amy's frustration with this thread.  A Constitutional Amendment prohibiting homosexual unions is bad law and bad for the church.  As citizens, our energies are better spent in understanding the root causes of the behavior and offering assistance to those who wish to change.  As Christians, our time is better spent evangelizing - I think Jesus and Paul would agree with that.

Jim
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


344 posted 07-29-2004 12:45 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
One of the revolutionary ideas that came out of the Reformation was the notion that Christians are simul justus et peccator ... at the same time saint and sinner.††To suggest that "Christian homosexual" is a contradiction in terms is similar to saying that "Christian liar" or "Christian coveter" or "Christian thief" also cannot exist together.††

In truth, all Christians are at the same time just and sinner, and, yes, this is a contradiction unless you consider that we are forensically righteous, and nothing more.


Jim, I think scripture adequately teaches (without too much ambiguity) that a Christian's "righteousness" which is from Christ, should manifest itself in a real and tangible way.  Therefore, regardless of reformation theology, a theology much older might suggest that Christ's righteousness is more than merely forensic. (and that's not saying that it is derived from ourselves ... only that it is required to manifest in ourselves.)  If it is just a legal sense that Christians are righteous, then where does repentance and regeneration fit in?  


It's true that we live with the conflict between flesh and spirit, which won't be completely won until our own death and resurrection.  But Romans makes clear a difference between Christians and non-Christians in this: "Sin shall not have dominion over you".  I would say that a practicing homosexual (who denies even the preliminary light which tells him that it is sinful) is in bondage to sin.  The same would go for theives, adulterers, murderers, etc ...  


That's not to say that those who struggle with sin (ie those like Paul describes in Romans 7) are not believers.  But they have definitely escaped the state of denial and non-resistance that they were previously in, and are well on their way to Romans chapter 8 in their experience.       I think you have to understand what the question really was that I answered.  Reg wasn't asking (IMO) whether Christians can struggle with homosexual temptation and still be genuine Christians (as Christians en route of exodus).  She was asking whether or not those who are settled in their homosexual lifestyle, considering themselves to be non-transgressors, can be also Christians.  But what concord hath Christ and Belial?  And that principle goes for any settled unrepentant sin.


If you're describing a middle ground, transitionary period, I agree, though the flow has to be definitely away from sin.  But I wasn't really writing in reaction to that state at all, but to the extreme of making grace a license to sin.


Stephen.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


345 posted 07-29-2004 01:17 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
If you're describing a middle ground, transitionary period, I agree, though the flow has to be definitely away from sin.

So, Jesus Christ isn't enough, Stephen? Sinners have to pass your judgment, too?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


346 posted 07-29-2004 01:42 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
So, Jesus Christ isn't enough, Stephen? Sinners have to pass your judgment, too?



Who said this is my judgement Ron?  I'm not stating anything original.  I'm asserting that that's what the Bible teaches, and can back it up if you want to take a look.  

On the other hand, if you want to make a Christian case in apologetics for Christ redeeming unrepentant sinners, I'm all ears.


Stephen.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


347 posted 07-29-2004 05:55 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

You still need to prove why it is truly wrong in  life.  Until then the bible doesn't have much weight.  Books and words don't go the length if life doesn't confirm something that is said in them.
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


348 posted 07-29-2004 07:31 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

(allow me to jump in   )

Two men and two women cannot create life. They cannot have actual sexual intercourse. This goes against all of the laws of nature. That being said, the Bible tells us that a man and a woman are husband and wife.. and from a Christian viewpoint, the biggest sin of being a practicing homo is defiance and disobedience of God. We are all born with sin, and we all have our sinful tendencys. I struggle with depression, some people struggle with lying and stealing, some people deal addiction to drugs, and some people deal with sexual issues. Next, you will be saying that it's alright for depressed people to hurt themselves because that's their right.. they were born that way, right?

I don't think that we should be forced to accept homosexual marriage. Wouldn't it be strange if the Christian church was made to accept people who don't believe in Jesus Christ as members? Sure, these people are welcome to come and attend church, but they cannot join the religion because they are in staunch defiance of the religion.

Wouldn't I be strange if I called myself a Muslim, when I don't believe that Muhommed was a prophet? I would have no connection with the thesis of the belief, so why would I claim to be a Muslim? Why should Muslim people be forced to accept that I am calling myself something that I"m not? Why should any religion or institution that doesn't believe that homosexual marriage is the will of God be forced to accept and perform such things?

Oh, make me Thine forever
And should I fainting be
Lord, let me never ever
Outlive my love for Thee
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


349 posted 07-29-2004 10:06 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I'm asserting that that's what the Bible teaches, and can back it up if you want to take a look.

Please do, Stephen. I've seen nothing in the Bible that says salvation is dependent on sinning less and less (the flow away from sin, as you put it). John 3:16, the foundation of the Gospels, says nothing at all about sin.

Repentance, which I suspect is what you really mean, is evidence of salvation, not a prerequisite for it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with secular law.

quote:
Two men and two women cannot create life.

Were I to fall in love with a woman my own age, Erica, we couldn't create life either. Would you deny me the right to marry because of that? Will you suddenly "stop" being married when you've given birth to your last child? Marriage, love, and even sex, is about a lot more than just procreation.

quote:
I don't think that we should be forced to accept homosexual marriage.

You're not. If you don't want to marry another woman, no one will force you. If you don't want to be friends with a homosexual couple, no one will force you. If you don't want to attend church with homosexuals, no one will force you.

The issue is about you trying to force others to live their lives according your own precepts.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> What exactly IS marriage anyway?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors