A
Alex337
Guest
Fair question. I’d define the love as eros, a romantic love between the two people.Alex337:
Can you please define precisely what you mean by love before I answer that?
- Status
F
Fauken
Guest
Then in a sense, no. While there should be a desire between both to have children, the type of love necessary for marriage is agape.
A
Alex337
Guest
Cool. So marriage can exist without a sexual love, but you believe sex is still necessary for marriage? That seems almost contradictory to me?Alex337:
Then in a sense, no. While there should be a desire between both to have children, the type of love necessary for marriage is agape.
F
Fauken
Guest
First of all, eros isn’t simply sexual love. Agape can have a sexual component to it, but eros is a more base form. Hence why I said in a sense, it is not required. The point of marriage is to one, assist in working towards the salvation of the other, and two, reflect the love between Christ and His bride, the Church. This kind of love, the love Christ has for the Church, is agape. Hence it is a greater requirement. The fruit of Christ’s and the Church’s marriage is her members, His children. This is reflected by the fruit of marriage: children. Us. Sex is ordered towards procreation, but the pleasure reflects a taste of the ecstasy that is to be experienced in Heaven.
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
Hmm, interesting. So if a person loves another but has no sexual desire they can’t marry?Alex337:
First of all, eros isn’t simply sexual love. Agape can have a sexual component to it, but eros is a more base form. Hence why I said in a sense, it is not required. The point of marriage is to one, assist in working towards the salvation of the other, and two, reflect the love between Christ and His bride, the Church. This kind of love, the love Christ has for the Church, is agape. Hence it is a greater requirement. The fruit of Christ’s and the Church’s marriage is her members, His children. This is reflected by the fruit of marriage: children. Us. Sex is ordered towards procreation, but the pleasure reflects a taste of the ecstasy that is to be experienced in Heaven.
F
Fauken
Guest
In what sense?
A
Alex337
Guest
Well if they have the selfless love for another, agape, but lack the sexual component that is only sometimes a part of agape.Alex337:
In what sense?
F
Fauken
Guest
I didn’t say sometimes, I said can. Two friends can feel agape for each other, but have no sexual feelings for the other.
A
Alex337
Guest
Can and sometimes amount to the same thing. So if two people feel agape for each other, and feel it to be more than a friendship, but do not have sexual feelings for each other; can they get married?Alex337:
I didn’t say sometimes, I said can. Two friends can feel agape for each other, but have no sexual feelings for the other.
F
Fauken
Guest
I disagree about the lack of distinction, personally. Can means a possibility, sometimes implies that, while it’s rare, it’s a given.
Strictly speaking, so long as the lack of sexual feelings would not inhibit them from marital relations, then no. Though it would likely be inadvisable.
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
So one doesn’t have to have sexual feelings for a person to be married, but must still have sex in order to be married. I find that a tad odd. Why is sex so all consumingly important?Alex337:
I disagree about the lack of distinction, personally. Can means a possibility, sometimes implies that, while it’s rare, it’s a given.
Strictly speaking, so long as the lack of sexual feelings would not inhibit them from marital relations, then no. Though it would likely be inadvisable.
I know someone else told me, for instance, that a man who has erectile dysfunction would not be allowed to marry, while a woman with no womb would be. What is so important about sex (penetrative vaginal/penile sex to be specific), even with no potential for procreation, that we let it define marriage?
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
These sort of unions are contrary to the definition of marriage given in Matthew and Mark. I like to use theological and scriptural approaches in my reasoning.
Last edited:
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Blessings,
The name homosexual doesn’t appear in the Bible, now that you mention it. Sodom & Gomorrah was about orgies. Men laying w men. Men laying w women. Lust for Lots male visitors. (I love this, Lot offered his virginal daughters to the crowd.)What a Father!! Then, the angels took charge.
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
So you see, it was men raping men.
For life to be that consumed w sex & tawdry behaviors is distressful.
I don’t feel that one position is all we have. There is some variety. But, no anal sex. That part has its function. It is a dirty area to remove our wastes from our body. If we follow the pattern of sensuality in the Song of Solomon, it gives us hints to shared behavior.
It matters not what I think, it is trying to find what our Creator wants.
I don’t want to get graphic here. There is only one thing that is different in hetero or homosexual relationships.
Yes, men could be in a loving relationship as Brothers=NO SEX! Yes, Gay men can be monogamous. They can have sex but not by God’s commands. That unnatural act will separate you from the love of your Father.
Definition of Happiness=to feel good doing things you want! OR to feel good living according to Gods commandments and His desire for our lives.
TheLord be w you
Tweedlealice
The name homosexual doesn’t appear in the Bible, now that you mention it. Sodom & Gomorrah was about orgies. Men laying w men. Men laying w women. Lust for Lots male visitors. (I love this, Lot offered his virginal daughters to the crowd.)What a Father!! Then, the angels took charge.
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”
So you see, it was men raping men.
For life to be that consumed w sex & tawdry behaviors is distressful.
I don’t feel that one position is all we have. There is some variety. But, no anal sex. That part has its function. It is a dirty area to remove our wastes from our body. If we follow the pattern of sensuality in the Song of Solomon, it gives us hints to shared behavior.
It matters not what I think, it is trying to find what our Creator wants.
I don’t want to get graphic here. There is only one thing that is different in hetero or homosexual relationships.
Yes, men could be in a loving relationship as Brothers=NO SEX! Yes, Gay men can be monogamous. They can have sex but not by God’s commands. That unnatural act will separate you from the love of your Father.
Definition of Happiness=to feel good doing things you want! OR to feel good living according to Gods commandments and His desire for our lives.
TheLord be w you
Tweedlealice
A
Alex337
Guest
I don’t think it was lust really, rape is about power. And Lot was vile, what kind of monster would do that?
That sounds like rape was the issue. Were angels even men? Would it have been okay of the angels had been female and men wanted to rape them?
Not all gay men practice anal sex just so you know.
I think we’re ignoring lesbians a bit
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Hi,
That’s interesting! I feel not accurate. A ma w ERD, could marry. He’d have to get medical help to perform adequately.
They should let woman marry w no uterus. One, it’s usually an older woman. Rarely, it is younger women. They adopt. If 2 ppl get married, all parts available, they later find out one is Barren… OOPS! They go to a doctor.
2 ppl, of the same sex, living alone is fine. If sexual attraction happens, one should move. Being Chaste is our goal in a relationship w God. Sex is potent and an pull us away from God. He ordained it for procreation only.
Your agape friends would be bachelors sharing an apt. No sex. No need for marriage. Wills can be made w assets given to friends. Health care powers of Attys can be filled out between best friends. Living wills, a person can bequeath his assets to anybody they desire.
Religious and Single vocations are to be chaste. Marriage to be pure in fidelity.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
P.S. we just need to find out who we are w Christ and what His job is for us on Earth.
That’s interesting! I feel not accurate. A ma w ERD, could marry. He’d have to get medical help to perform adequately.
They should let woman marry w no uterus. One, it’s usually an older woman. Rarely, it is younger women. They adopt. If 2 ppl get married, all parts available, they later find out one is Barren… OOPS! They go to a doctor.
2 ppl, of the same sex, living alone is fine. If sexual attraction happens, one should move. Being Chaste is our goal in a relationship w God. Sex is potent and an pull us away from God. He ordained it for procreation only.
Your agape friends would be bachelors sharing an apt. No sex. No need for marriage. Wills can be made w assets given to friends. Health care powers of Attys can be filled out between best friends. Living wills, a person can bequeath his assets to anybody they desire.
Religious and Single vocations are to be chaste. Marriage to be pure in fidelity.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
P.S. we just need to find out who we are w Christ and what His job is for us on Earth.
A
Alex337
Guest
I’ve been told that if the fellow can’t become erect and ejaculate they cannot have a valid marriage.
Both of my grandmother’s were young women without uteruses. They’re allowed to marry despite being entirely infertile. But a man who can’t machine erect would not be allowed. Seems weird to me.
Code:
[quote="tweedlealice, post:734, topic:493083, full:true"]
Your agape friends would be bachelors sharing an apt. No sex. No need for marriage. Wills can be made w assets given to friends. Health care powers of Attys can be filled out between best friends. Living wills, a person can bequeath his assets to anybody they desire.Actually it’s me who decided to marry without sexual attraction. Marriage just provides far more in terms of legal protection thank those other options. For instance or ensures that my partner will be allowed to visit me in hospital, it ensure my family can’t take control of my body should I die, it makes contesting my will far more difficult, it allows our property to be joint owned with legal recourse should we decide to separate, it made purchasing a house viable for us and should we ever want to adopt it makes that easier.
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
I guess it is sinful since it is a violation of the natural law.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
How do you know that it violates natural law? How do you determine what’s natural?
S
Sipetradayni
Guest
I think you mean companionship but not marriage. Companionship maybe good for those not into sexual relationship.
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
I think there also things like Josephite marriages where the couple sacrifices the usage of the marital act. The unitive and procreative aspects of marriage are really interesting.
Last edited:
- Status