Jump to content
Jesusismyticket

LGBQT debate thing

Recommended Posts

You can marry peanut butter and still be friends with jelly.

 

Not really how the metaphor works.

 

Being married to Jane is a lot better than being friends with Jane. Same goes for Susan. Therefore, married-Susan + married-Jane ought to result in a greater value than married-Susan + friend-Jane, since friend-Jane < married-Jane.

 

But that's not the case. Marriage brings with it expectations of exclusivity that force (at times) agonizing decisions between several attractive options. Sometimes this brings with it attendant temptations. Perhaps I want to have the state married-Susan + illicit-lover-Jane. In this case, Susan is liable to get really, really angry if she finds out.

 

Again, why? Mum doesn't get mad when she finds out that I love my sister as much as I love her.

 

You just can't explain the rage of the cuckold with castrated notions of "true love."

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look

 

Jane and Susan, you love them both, however, one will be a better partner for you to pursue a God-like life with.

Let's say... Jane's major flaw is cussing. She cusses like a truck driver, and has a difficult time controlling it.

Susan's major flaw is her temper. When she gets mad, all hell breaks lose and people get hurt.

Now, a difference in character is shown.

Jane prays every day for God to help her stop cussing so much, because she knows he is not pleased by it. She asks you to help her as well. She is making an effort to be a better person, and including you in it.

Susan does not care about her temper one bit. She says those people deserved it, and she doesn't care what God or you thinks.

 

The choice would be Jane, because she willingly is trying to live a Godly life, even with a flaw she has, and wants to work on these things with you. But you still care about Susan nonetheless, but in God's eyes the person you marry is your forever partner. Would you want to be 'forever' with a girl who could almost kill you and not care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternative situation:

 

Susan and Jane are both simultaneously perfect women who are living saints perfectly in communion with God and all His commandments. They're both head over heels in love with me, and they both have won several nobel prizes and a couple Pullitzers each. Jane won a Hugo for her fantasy novel, but Susan won a Nebula for short fiction. One's blonde, the other's a red-head, and they both have bodies :naughty:

 

[/shameless fantasy]

 

I still only get to marry one, even though I'd really, really like to be forever partners with both.

 

I'm giving up a lot of happiness by putting up with this "one and only one" nonsense. That's weird if we don't have a social or psychological way to justify monogamy. It's hard to so justify without talking about sex.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you see Chris.

No one in life is truly perfect. Even here there can be the situation of "compromise" and such. For instance Susan is a little sloppy around the house and you need her to try and clean up, but she doesn't want to.

Jane is the same way, but when you clean, she gets up and assists, unlike Susan.

There is little things to every person.

 

I will give you a personal experience example in a momento. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so let's put it here.

 

I was in love with two people once. Both were very FLAWED individuals. One had a tendency to lie about things due to a mental illness she had, and other problems came with it. Her flaws really weren't 100% her fault.

The second person had extremely low self-esteem and a self harm problem.

 

Now, there was a complete difference in the two among character.

The girl told me the things she lied about, she was sorry, and explained why she did what she did. She promised to never do it again, and wanted me to give her a code word when I saw her starting again. We also made efforts to help some of the secondary problems that came with her issues and she slowly became a better person.

The second person never boosted his self esteem. He constantly complained about all the tihngs he despised about himself, and continued to self harm. Despite me giving advice, telling him it was not so, and him actually going to therapy, he made no effort to change or be a better person.

 

Now I love them both dearly, and they were both as said as flawed as you are syaing the other two girls are saintly. But in this case the better person would be the first person because she does care. She's care enough about you to listen, and try to fix the issues. The other person does not care about you near as much, because he is not willing to work on his issue with you or compromise or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You only get one true friend, Chris."

 

What? Why?

 

"Imagine you have two people. One of them picks her nose, but she's working on it. The other one shows up late to all your dates, and she doesn't care. Choose the nose-picker to be your friend."

 

Why can't I just be friends with both...?

 

You're telling me how to choose one wife, Jazzy. I'm asking why I have to make a choice in the first place. That's what's hard to explain without making reference to marriage as a sexual covenant.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You only get one true friend, Chris."

 

What? Why?

 

"Imagine you have two people. One of them picks her nose, but she's working on it. The other one shows up late to all your dates, and she doesn't care. Choose the nose-picker to be your friend."

 

Why can't I just be friends with both...?

 

You're telling me how to choose one wife, Jazzy. I'm asking why I have to make a choice in the first place. That's what's hard to explain without making reference to marriage as a sexual covenant.

okay the nose picking is funny sorry XD

 

You have to make the choice because God meant marriage to be a covenant between two people and Him. Kind of shown by Adam and Eve. God put them together and they were the first considerable 'soul mates.'

Nonetheless, God didn't say Adam couldn't love Michael or Eve couldn't love Sandra. It was jsut noted they were both created by Him for each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to make the choice because God meant marriage to be a covenant between two people and Him. Kind of shown by Adam and Eve. God put them together and they were the first considerable 'soul mates.'

 

This explains why people should be monogamous but not why people want to be monogamous. What it fails explain is why Sally the atheistic Buddhist is devastated when her husband has sex with the redhead next door. For this, a religious explanation won't do. We need a social or psychological explanation.

 

I'm telling you. That explanation's gonna involve sexual biology somewhere along the line D: Marriage is a thing because people are sexual creatures and society at some point decided to regulate sex for reasons. Now marriage is entrenched in people's understanding of their sexual worth/success.

 

Nonetheless, God didn't say Adam couldn't love Michael or Eve couldn't love Sandra. It was jsut noted they were both created by Him for each other.

 

 

Right now I'm not arguing with gay marriage so much as I am arguing against a sexless notion of true love. Or at least, I'm arguing against the notion that marriage is constituted/justified by true love.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This explains why people should be monogamous but not why people want to be monogamous. What it fails explain is why Sally the atheistic Buddhist is devastated when her husband has sex with the redhead next door. For this, a religious explanation won't do. We need a social or psychological explanation.

 

I'm telling you. That explanation's gonna involve sexual biology somewhere along the line D: Marriage is a thing because people are sexual creatures and society at some point decided to regulate sex for reasons.

 

 

Right now I'm not arguing with gay marriage so much as I am arguing against a sexless notion of true love. Or at least, I'm arguing against the notion that marriage is constituted/justified by true love.

True love though is not defined by sex, it is defined by mentioned so.

God meant for this act to be shared among partners, not among the girl down the street as well as your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God meant for this act to be shared among partners, not among the girl down the street as well as your wife.

 

Name anything that isn't sex, and I guarantee I can share it with someone other than my wife.

 

I can...

Give my life for my friends.

Be completely devoted to my son.

Talk into the late hours of the night with my sister, sharing my deepest insecurities.

Treat my finances as though they're my father's finances.

 

Sex is pretty much the only thing we're really non-negotiably exclusive about.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name anything that isn't sex, and I guarantee I can share it with someone other than my wife.

 

I can...

Give my life for my friends.

Be completely devoted to my son.

Talk into the late hours of the night with my sister, sharing my deepest insecurities.

Treat my finances as though they're my father's finances.

 

Sex is pretty much the only thing we're really non-negotiably exclusive about.

Kissing on the lips. XD

Many take that in the same romantic context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kissing on the lips. XD

Many take that in the same romantic context.

 

Because kissing is sexual foreplay.

 

Unless it isn't, in which case it isn't exclusive. For example, I know a mother who kisses her daughter on the lips. She isn't being disloyal to her husband, since it isn't kissing-itself that's disloyal but the sexual attraction that kissing signifies that violates the marriage bond.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because kissing is sexual foreplay.

 

Unless it isn't, in which case it isn't exclusive. For example, I know a mother who kisses her daughter on the lips. She isn't being disloyal to her husband, since it isn't kissing-itself that's disloyal but the sexual attraction that kissing signifies that violates the marriage bond.

but there is a difference still in the act.

When he has sex or kisses his wife on the lips, it is LOVE. When he has sex with the other girl, or kisses her, it is LUST. and ADULTERY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Ethan and I were discussing the importance of context, and I think it's relevant to this discussion. 

 

Within, for example, the Roman Catholic context, it is very difficult to find a position that allows for homosexual sexual intimacy and marriage. Marriage and sexuality are inherently tied with procreation, as is the consistency of Catholic sexual ethics. As an Anglican, there are less definitive understandings of sexuality which allows me to reconcile Christianity with homosexuality. Biblical interpretation is less rigid; understandings of tradition are different. So it goes. 

 

The context in which you understand marriage, therefore, is really important. That expands beyond religious understanding to political and social understanding, directed by our experience. How we understand marriage is what directs us to our beliefs on who we think should have the "right" to marriage. At the end of the day, there is a requirement for us to come to that conclusion on the criteria that qualify as marriage, from both a secular and a religious point of view. We have to legislate on what marriage is, both in politics and in the Church. 

 

There are criteria for the individual and criteria for the couple. We ask questions like, is someone old enough to get married? Are they mentally competent enough? Do they understand what it means to get married? Are they being forced into it? Do they, as a couple, qualify to be married in the eyes of the law or in the eyes of the Church? 

 

Love doesn't actually come into it. Two people, as long as they fulfil the legal requirements and are not doing it for fraudulent reasons, can get married whether they like each other or not. From a historical perspective, for hundreds of years, widows of "good reputation" would remarry for "companionship". Marriages were for security, for money, for diplomatic reasons (hello, Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves), for all kinds of reasons other than love. The emphasis on love being the driving reason for marriage is very much a Western, twentieth-century evolving phenomenon. It's a new context for marriage and it comes with problems. 

 

In the UK, for example, same-sex marriage would never have been even discussed before the decriminalisation of homosexuality. Once homosexuality became legal, once it became much more accepted and normalised in society, then came the discussion about whether homosexual marriage was possible. When the legislation was passed a few years ago, it relied upon the context of the British public, on the whole, wanting it to be legal. Go back thirty years and that wouldn't have been the case. Context plays as big a role in the secular definition of marriage as it does the religious. 

 

For the purpose of law-making in the secular sense, there's certainly an argument for decontextualising marriage from a particular religious or political bent (i.e. not allowing one position to dominate). Biblically, you'd be hard pressed to find verses explicitly condemning child marriage in the Bible, but there are men and women across the globe fighting to end the practice because of the repercussions it has, especially on child brides who become mothers too early. The law should ultimately protect its citizens, and so it's easy to find justification for banning child marriage from the context of seeing it as damaging. Same sex marriage does not have such a clear cut context.  

 

Effectively, the important questions to ask are:

  • When can an individual get married? (age, mental state, parental consent etc.)
  • What allows a couple to get married? (sexes and sexuality, class, employment, race?) 
  • Is there a difference between secular and religious marriage? 
  • Can marriages be dissolved? What are the criteria for divorce? 

Answering those questions will probably give a much better overall definition of marriage than trying to work at it from the other direction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adultery is what occurs when you lust after someone who isn't your wife.

Lust is a sexual act.

Therefore, the only way to commit adultery is to perform a sexual act.

If adultery is the only way to defile a marriage that is unique to marriage, then it follows that sexual acts are the only kinds of acts that uniquely defile marriage.

Actually, Jesus said that even looking at another person lustfully is adultery because you have done it in your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Jesus said that even looking at another person lustfully is adultery because you have done it in your heart.

 

Looking at someone lustfully is a sexual act. Unless it's just an automatic response, in which case I don't think that's what Jesus meant, but that's for an entirely different thread.

 

--

 

Effectively, the important questions to ask are:

  • When can an individual get married? (age, mental state, parental consent etc.)
  • What allows a couple to get married? (sexes and sexuality, class, employment, race?) 
  • Is there a difference between secular and religious marriage? 
  • Can marriages be dissolved? What are the criteria for divorce?

 

I agree with Katy for the most part o/

 

That said, it's impossible to know when someone can get married without knowing what "being married (within the relevant context)" entails. What marriage entails tends in some way to reduce back to the sexual, psychological, and economic facts that precipitated marriage as an institution in the first place.

 

For this reason, I don't think her approach obviates the need for a sociological explanation of marriage with a psycho-biological framework at its base.

Edited by Yves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anywho

since the two who I made the thread for have not appeared, let me discuss. XD

 

As many may already know, I do not think being in a gay relationship is a sin. I talked to God about it, I spoke to my pastor about it, and overall saw no reason to even FEEL a guilt over such acts.

I believe many of the Bible verses that discussed acts (the Leviticus one is used the most) did not so much speak of gay as a sin, but LUST, as a sin. Persay, you are so desirable for sexual pleasure that you will perform the act with anyone to receive the pleasure. Lust in any form is a sin. But I do not believe two men being in TRUE LOVE living a Godly life is sinful, or sentencing them to hell.

 

I am here xD And thank you for the thread.

 

Obviously I do believe that being LGBQT is sinfull and that there are multiple verses to back it up. However to be LGBQT is to be human and all human sin is equal and is equally deserving of grace and forgivness: being LGBQT is no different than any other sin. Being LGBQT does NOT sentence anyone to hell: being human, born into sin and seperated from a holy God and unable to enter his presense is hell. Thus the LGBQT community is as equally covered by Jesus on the cross as every other person. I consider the LGBQT community to be no differnet than myself or anyone else who is straight. That being said, I will start at the beginning, with verses.

 

Genisis 1:27-28 & 31a

"So God created mandkind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature ... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good..."

Genisis 2: 18, 22-25

"The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him...Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

 

One of the first things God did is make man and woman in his image and say that it was good. He made man and woman not only to reproduce and fill the earth, but he established a coveneant and relathinship between them and made them to complement and help each other. This is how God intended it to be, otherwise he would have made it different. This was the first 'marriage' ceremony as it was intended to be. A unification of man and woman's bodies and souls. God made man and woman different but equal, created to complement and help each other. This is a forshadowing of of the 'marriage ceremony' between Christ and the Church, ie, Christ laying his life down for all man kind so that we could bind ourselves back to God. The relathionship between Christ and the Church (God and us) Is the strongest in the universe and shows us who God is. The marriage between a man and a woman is ment to symbolize that. Trying to mimic that relationship in anyway other than it was suppose to be not only degrades the genderes from what they were ment to be (perfectly created by a holy God for a specific purpose) but it degrades God's character because it rebels against his law and character.

 

Skipping ahead to Ephesians 5:21-33

"Submiit to one another out of reverence for christ. Wives, submit youselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to mae her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way, husbands ought to lvoe theri wives as their own bodies. He who lvoes his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church--for we are all members of his body. 

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery--but I am talking about christ and the church. However, each one of you must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wive must respect her husband."

 

Again, we see that God set up the relationship, covenent and marriage of a man and woman to reflect the marriage of Christ and the Church. In this marriage the wife (church) and husband (christ) are given different but equaly important roles. The wife is to submit herself to her husband and the husband is to sacrifice his needs for his wife's, dieing for her daily by giving himself up for her. Now before you go all feminist on me I would like to say that these are equal roles. For a wife to submit herself to her husband does not mean that the husband controlls her (mentally, physcally, sexually, emotionally or otherwise) and for a husband to die to his wife does not mean that the wife gets to boss the husband around or always get her way. To submit yourself to your husband is also to die for him, and to die for your wife is to submit to her. In marriage, how God intened it to be, should not be a power struggle. It should be the husband and the wife equally ceeding controll to each other in a cycle. This ceeding of controll looks different for each gender because the genders are different, but equal and equally imporant. Again, this relationship is to relfect the relationship of Christ and the Church and it is to BENEFIT us all by showing us how God intended our relationship with him to be. Now of course, we are human and sinfull and imperfect so our marriages will never be perfect. That is why God tells us to look to his love for us by Christ dieing for the Church and the Church submiting herself to him. Again, it is a cycle.

 

Now that I have disscussed how God intended marriage to be lets look at how he did not intend it:

 

1 Timothy 1:8-11

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for the slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to thesound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me."

 

Pretty self explanitory. God consideres homosexuality to be a sin, against his law and contrary to the sound doctirne that conforms to the gospel.

 

Romans 1: 18-31

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness, since what may be known about God is plan to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood froom what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged teh glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefor God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with on another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with woman and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with otehr men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their error.

furthermore, just s they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become willed with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. The7 are full of envy, murder, strife, deciet and malace. They are gossips, slanderes, god-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent was of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God's righteious decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." 

 

Here we see that not only are all sins equally sinful, but God names homosexuality between men and women as sin. (And Jazzy, the verse specificly names homosexual acts to be a sin, not just lust).

 

These are all just a few examples.

 

Another question arises: why is the church tratitionally so hating toward LGBQT and why do so many christians feel that LGBQT is not sinfull and is accepted by God? 

 

As I said above, the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman is ment to relfect the relationship of Christ and the Church (God and us) and what Christ did on the cross for us. This is the most powerfull image in the universe because what Christ did binds us back to God and defets sin. Because it is the number one important gospel truth and image, Satan, who hates God and us, loves do distort it and attack us. He distorts the truth by making some christians hate on LGBQT when we need to be loving and graceful toward them, as we do to all people. He distorts the truth by making others believe that love is love and it is ok to distort the laws and image God as laid down for us. It attacks they very character and nature of God and makes us think we are good when in reality it hurts us.

 

Ok, sorry for the long windedness. Last but not least I want to say that while the verses are directly quoted from the bible (niv) my blurbs in between are based on what I believe is going on and is not directly quoted by God. This is based on my personal beliefs and experiences, but of course I think it is what God ment to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Cam first a verification here, do you think that even if a gay performs his actions, but is faithful to God, they will still enter Heaven? Just before I write anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutly. Like I said LBGQT is no different than any other sin, and all people sin. Jesus' graces covers all. But, as with any sin, that doesn't mean you should just do what you want. A christian should be so overjoyed, overwhelmed, loving and submitting toward God that they try and turn their back on any sin. Of course the Holy Spirit helps with convicting and changing us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Cam first a verification here, do you think that even if a gay performs his actions, but is faithful to God, they will still enter Heaven? Just before I write anything.

Let's see, according to Cam "gay actions" are sinful. So then:

Gay actions = sin.

Sin = unfaithful to God.

Therefore, "even if a gay is unfaithful to God, but is faithful to God, they will still enter heaven?"

Do you see the problem? For anyone who believes homosexuality is sinful, remaining engaged in gay activity is unrepentant sin. And unrepentant sin is the precise opposite of faithfulness to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG
But I do not believe two men being in TRUE LOVE living a Godly life is sinful, or sentencing them to hell.

 

 

Well that's a contradiction if one was ever devised.

 

How can men engaging in perverse acts condemned by God be living a godly lifestyle?

 

I totally get politically being all, "gay marriage yay" - but the moment you bring it into the church you're pushing heretical doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a contradiction if one was ever devised.

 

How can men engaging in perverse acts condemned by God be living a godly lifestyle?

 

I totally get politically being all, "gay marriage yay" - but the moment you bring it into the church you're pushing heretical doctrine.

It's not a heresy without a formal pronouncement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JAG

It's not a heresy without a formal pronouncement.

 

Heresy: "belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×