The Purpose of Marriage

[josh987654321]

Tell your friends you want “to have and to hold” them and see what happens.

haha, that’s not what I meant.

I mean to ask, do you think sexual intimacy has anything to do with the purpose of marriage?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

• Anyone who thinks marriage is not intended by God solely for a man and a woman is certainly not a genuine Christian, Jew or Muslim.*

I’m referring to their **beliefs **- given that the topic is the Purpose of Marriage. It is not a question of doctrines but the statements of Jesus that even a normal child can understand.

 

[inocente]

I mean to ask, do you think sexual intimacy has anything to do with the purpose of marriage?

I think “to have and to hold” speaks of intimacy on all levels, not merely sexual, intimacy you can only arrive at by the commitment expressed in the rest of the vows.

 

[josh987654321]

I’m referring to their **beliefs **- given that the topic is the Purpose of Marriage. It is not a question of doctrines but the statements of Jesus that even a normal child can understand.

So the question is, why do they refuse to see it?

Why do you think they support same sex marriage?

I don’t think it’s because they want to lead their homosexual brothers and sisters into sexual immorality (sin).

I think it comes down to the bit in the catechism that say’s “Homosexuals have a difficult cross to bear.” Who wants to bring such news to their homosexual brothers and sisters? I know I don’t.

However I believe that by encouraging homosexuals to take the path of least resistance and embrace their immoral desires, it will simply increase the weight of their crosses. That’s why I sometimes find it frustrating to see people advocate sexual immorality.

It might make them feel better to support same sex marriage and encourage homosexuals to embrace such desires, it might make homosexuals feel better to hear it in order to reinforce themselves of the lie they want to hear, but in the end, I think this will only increase the weight of their crosses as the reality of those desires they are embracing will become more evident the more they persue them.

As hard as this is for some people to read or accept, I’m sorry but I believe encouraging homosexuals to give into the sexual acts of homosexuality (embrace such desires) is not the answer for homosexuals.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think “to have and to hold” speaks of intimacy on all levels, not merely sexual, intimacy you can only arrive at by the commitment expressed in the rest of the vows.

I’m not sure I understand, is there another way you could explain the purpose of marriage to me please?

May I ask, what do you think when you support same sex marriage, what do you believe you are doing?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure I understand, is there another way you could explain the purpose of marriage to me please?

Sexually intimacy doesn’t require marriage. There is a greater intimacy which can only be shared when two people commit wholeheartedly to each other. That we call marriage.

May I ask, what do you think when you support same sex marriage, what do you believe you are doing?

Freeing the slaves. Stopping prejudice. Dancing on injustice.

Sorry, two songs in one day, but it’s the weekend and I’m off out now.

*Did you feel the mountains tremble?
Did you hear the oceans roar?
When the people rose to sing of
Jesus Christ the risen one

Open up the doors and let the music play
Let the streets resound with singing
Songs that bring your hope
Songs that bring your peace
Dancers who dance upon injustice

Delirious - Did You Feel The Mountains Tremble? (live)*

 

[josh987654321]

Sexually intimacy doesn’t require marriage.

Would you agree that sexual intimacy is a part of marrige?

There is a greater intimacy which can only be shared when two people commit wholeheartedly to each other. That we call marriage.

Which would include sexual intimacy wouldn’t it?

I’m not sure what Baptist believe, do you also believe that sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful?

Freeing the slaves. Stopping prejudice. Dancing on injustice.

Sorry, two songs in one day, but it’s the weekend and I’m off out now.

*Did you feel the mountains tremble?
Did you hear the oceans roar?
When the people rose to sing of
Jesus Christ the risen one

Open up the doors and let the music play
Let the streets resound with singing
Songs that bring your hope
Songs that bring your peace
Dancers who dance upon injustice*

Delirious - Did You Feel The Mountains Tremble? (live)

Could you please explain to me why it is you feel this way about same sex marriage? as in, what is it about opposing same sex marriage that you see as an injustice? does the sexual acts of homosexuality that are an advocated and embraced varient of sexuality through same sex marriage play into this view as well?

Do you see homosexuality as a subjective state of mind? or an objective physical reality?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

So the question is, why do they refuse to see it?

Why do you think they support same sex marriage?

Because they believe they’re entitled to precisely the same privileges as heterosexuals even though their sexual relationship is infertile and cannot have their own children.

I don’t think it’s because they want to lead their homosexual brothers and sisters into sexual immorality (sin).

They don’t believe anal sex is sinful.

I think it comes down to the bit in the catechism that say’s “Homosexuals have a difficult cross to bear.” Who wants to bring such news to their homosexual brothers and sisters? I know I don’t.

The truth doesn’t always fit in with our desires.

However I believe that by encouraging homosexuals to take the path of least resistance and embrace their immoral desires, it will simply increase the weight of their crosses. That’s why I sometimes find it frustrating to see people advocate sexual immorality.

I agree. As well as the risk of contracting a serious infection they are undermining the sanctity of marriage and the stability of family life.

As hard as this is for some people to read or accept, I’m sorry but I believe encouraging homosexuals to give into the sexual acts of homosexuality (embrace such desires) is not the answer for homosexuals.

The answer is to follow the example of Jesus and take up our cross, whatever it may be. Sooner or later we all have to accept hardship even if we don’t choose it. Taking the easy way out is a sign of weakness and lack of faith.

 

[mek42]

Yea, I agree with that.

So to care and raise Children? (as you said mek, not saying it’s the only purpose of marriage as there are some who don’t have children) and do you think it makes a difference whether it’s done by biological parents or not?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I believe caring, loving and interested biological parents are highly likely to have a greater attachment to their biological children than good adoptive parents. This belief, though, is tempered by the concurrent belief that an adoptive parent of even low interest, love and care is far superior to a situation where even only one of a pair of biological parents is abusive. (These two sentences should be taken as a concurrent linked pair.)

What are your thoughts on this position?

Would people agree with me that another part of the purpose of marriage would be compatibility and complementarity? such as the compatiblity and complementarity on an emotional (mental) level (whether these people gel so to speak) that leads onto an emotionally physical level (such as sexual intimacy)?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

I do not know if I would go so far as to say “purpose”, but these qualities certainly are good in a marriage. I know that when I was living with the lady who ultimately has become my wife, part of the reason I had for moving on to formal marriage (besides the health insurance) was that we had different strengths and made a good team at life. At the same time, much of our core principles seemed at least similar - in the same book if not on the same page. Having said this, I am certain that we will rapidly begin to disagree should we begin formalizing a definition for “compatible” and “complementary” in context of marriage.

Lastly, Josh, though we are likely not quite orthogonal to each other in many matters of belief, from what I have seen in this limited interaction of text, you seem to have a true and humble spirit - I have a great deal of respect for this, for you, even though we will likely need to agree to disagree on many things.

 

[PRmerger]

Lastly, Josh, though we are likely not quite orthogonal to each other in many matters of belief, from what I have seen in this limited interaction of text, you seem to have a true and humble spirit - I have a great deal of respect for this, for you, even though we will likely need to agree to disagree on many things.

Agree completely.

 

[josh987654321]

I believe caring, loving and interested biological parents are highly likely to have a greater attachment to their biological children than good adoptive parents. This belief, though, is tempered by the concurrent belief that an adoptive parent of even low interest, love and care is far superior to a situation where even only one of a pair of biological parents is abusive. (These two sentences should be taken as a concurrent linked pair.)

What are your thoughts on this position?

I absolutely agree with it.

I think when it comes to raising children, I believe the only time it’s not a degree of child abuse to remove biological parents from a childs life, is when it is done in order to benefit the child.

When it comes to the adoptive side of things, I know there isn’t a “one size fits all” as there are far too many varibales, thus whatever they do, I believe it should always be for the benefit of the Child and that to make it unlawful (discrimination) to take into account the lack of a father or mother, I think would be wrong (but to what degree? I don’t know).

However my primary fear when it comes to same sex marriage (advocating that lifestyle for homosexuals) is when it comes to homosexual couples trying to have half biological children, it requires the use of a third party in which they intentionally bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father, not to benefit the child, but to benefit themselves and this I believe is a degree of child abuse and is what I fear most.

I do not know if I would go so far as to say “purpose”, but these qualities certainly are good in a marriage. I know that when I was living with the lady who ultimately has become my wife, part of the reason I had for moving on to formal marriage (besides the health insurance) was that we had different strengths and made a good team at life. At the same time, much of our core principles seemed at least similar - in the same book if not on the same page.

Yea I’m not sure I should say ‘purpose’ either, it’s more asking if people would agree with me that sexual intimacy is a part of marriage? that generally such intimacy is shared in (reserved for) marriage. (As any sexual act outside of marriage for Catholics is sinful).

Having said this, I am certain that we will rapidly begin to disagree should we begin formalizing a definition for “compatible” and “complementary” in context of marriage.

That’s fine. Id just like to understand the other side of the same sex marriage debate.

Lastly, Josh, though we are likely not quite orthogonal to each other in many matters of belief, from what I have seen in this limited interaction of text, you seem to have a true and humble spirit - I have a great deal of respect for this, for you, even though we will likely need to agree to disagree on many things.

Agree completely.

I’m not sure what to say.

Thank you and I feel likewise towards you guys aswell

God Bless you

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[mek42]

…

However my primary fear when it comes to same sex marriage (advocating that lifestyle for homosexuals) is when it comes to homosexual couples trying to have half biological children, it requires the use of a third party in which they intentionally bring a child into this world with the absolute intention of depriving that child of their biological mother or father, not to benefit the child, but to benefit themselves and this I believe is a degree of child abuse and is what I fear most.

…

I can understand your point here. I’m not sure I fully agree in general, but I do have a specific quibble. Heterosexual couples have been doing this exact thing for years. While I do believe that the Catholic Church has been against this sort of activity since they proved they could do in vitro for animals in the lab, the level of response against in vitro, surrogation and other such heroic efforts to spawn children in general is almost nothing compared to the level of response against SSM. Thus, for me, were you to use your point as an argument against SSM, your argument would have much less value than it otherwise might due to me perceiving a discrimination effect.

 

[josh987654321]

I can understand your point here. I’m not sure I fully agree in general, but I do have a specific quibble. Heterosexual couples have been doing this exact thing for years. While I do believe that the Catholic Church has been against this sort of activity since they proved they could do in vitro for animals in the lab, the level of response against in vitro, surrogation and other such heroic efforts to spawn children in general is almost nothing compared to the level of response against SSM. Thus, for me, were you to use your point as an argument against SSM, your argument would have much less value than it otherwise might due to me perceiving a discrimination effect.

Yea, it probably wont make much difference whether same sex marriage is legalised or not, IVF for homosexuals (using a thrid party to concieve) is still legal and permissable for homosexual couples. I just think once same sex marriage gets through, it will be another step in advocating and embracing that lifestyle (such acts) for homosexuals.

The other question I have is, what does an adolecent say to themselves about acting on their sexual desires, about sexual morality, when the sexual acts of homosexuality are an embraced and percieved as a moral varient of sexuality?

I also believe that fornication and promiscuity are advocated through the same reasoning that the sexual acts of homosexuality are (same sex marriage), which is “If it’s not hurting anyone else than what’s wrong with it?” and thus I believe the truth is turned upside down and rejected and sexual immorality (lust) is embraced.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[mek42]

Why is extramarital sex wrong?

Why is homosexual sex wrong?

Has the Church formulated an answer to these questions aside from they are displeasing to God? If so, could a concise summary be provided?

Josh, I’m not sure if you noticed part of my point is that IVF is already practiced by heterosexual married couples where a third party is involved. From a biological parent attachments perspective, this is not different than a same sex couple doing the same.

Should all sin have temporal consequences?

 

[PRmerger]

Why is extramarital sex wrong?

Why is homosexual sex wrong?

Has the Church formulated an answer to these questions aside from they are displeasing to God? If so, could a concise summary be provided?

They are both wrong for the same reason: they are not ordered towards procreation and union.

Sex outside of marriage is a lie. It speaks with the body: I give myself completely to you. But without the lifelong commitment of marriage, you are unable to give yourself completely to the other.

 

[josh987654321]

Why is extramarital sex wrong?

I believe it’s giving yourself to one another physically, while holding back mentally/emotionally. Therefore it prevents the fulfilment and whole self giving of oneself to the other which usually occurs after mariage when a couple consummates their union. I believe if people embrace pre-marital sex, it can turn into a “try before you buy” kind of thing, which isn’t fully giving oneself to the other in the loving way it was intended for.

The other reason for me is, I wouldn’t like to find out my future wife (whoever she turns out to be) had slept with other guys before she met me, so therefore it would be wrong of me to do it to her.

I also agree with what PRmerger said here -

Sex outside of marriage is a lie. It speaks with the body: I give myself completely to you. But without the lifelong commitment of marriage, you are unable to give yourself completely to the other.

Why is homosexual sex wrong?

I believe it’s because it means using the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for (incl. sodomy).

Has the Church formulated an answer to these questions aside from they are displeasing to God? If so, could a concise summary be provided?

Well, if we remove ‘God’ from the equation, the sexual acts of homosexuality can’t really be right/wrong along with many other things, however if we look at the design of male and female (our anatomy), their sexual compatibility and complementarity, than the sexual acts of homosexuality don’t make any sense, because even than it’s still using the bodies organs in a manner that it is clearly not supposed to be used for.

Josh, I’m not sure if you noticed part of my point is that IVF is already practiced by heterosexual married couples where a third party is involved. From a biological parent attachments perspective, this is not different than a same sex couple doing the same.

Your right, I believe any circumstance (heterosexuals or homosexuals), where biological parents are intentionaly removed from the childs life in order to benefit someone other than the child, than it is very wrong.

Our biological parents are part of who we are, there will always be a connection between a child and their biological parents and to sever or suppress this connection when it in no way benefits the child I believe is very immoral.

Should all sin have temporal consequences?

Not sure what you mean.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

They are both wrong for the same reason: they are not ordered towards procreation and union.

Sex outside of marriage is a lie. It speaks with the body: I give myself completely to you. But without the lifelong commitment of marriage, you are unable to give yourself completely to the other.

:clapping: True love has no reservations…

 

[tonyrey]

I believe it’s giving yourself to one another physically, while holding back mentally/emotionally. Therefore it prevents the fulfilment and whole self giving of oneself to the other which usually occurs after marriage when a couple consummates their union. I believe if people embrace pre-marital sex, it can turn into a “try before you buy” kind of thing, which isn’t fully giving oneself to the other in the loving way it was intended for.

The other reason for me is, I wouldn’t like to find out my future wife (whoever she turns out to be) had slept with other guys before she met me, so therefore it would be wrong of me to do it to her.

I also agree with what PRmerger said here -

I believe it’s because it means using the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for (incl. sodomy).

Well, if we remove ‘God’ from the equation, the sexual acts of homosexuality can’t really be right/wrong along with many other things, however if we look at the design of male and female (our anatomy), their sexual compatibility and complementarity, than the sexual acts of homosexuality don’t make any sense, because even than it’s still using the bodies organs in a manner that it is clearly not supposed to be used for.

Your right, I believe any circumstance (heterosexuals or homosexuals), where biological parents are intentionally removed from the child’s life in order to benefit someone other than the child, than it is very wrong.

Our biological parents are part of who we are, there will always be a connection between a child and their biological parents and to sever or suppress this connection when it in no way benefits the child I believe is very immoral.

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

Should all sin have temporal consequences?

All sin has temporal consequences because it implies that God can be ignored with impunity.

 

[inocente]

Would you agree that sexual intimacy is a part of marrige?

Already did.

Which would include sexual intimacy wouldn’t it?

Already said so. What’s so important about sex?

I’m not sure what Baptist believe, do you also believe that sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful?

That’s very broad, it includes prostitution, rape, underage, etc. Do you mean living together unmarried?

Could you please explain to me why it is you feel this way about same sex marriage? as in, what is it about opposing same sex marriage that you see as an injustice? does the sexual acts of homosexuality that are an advocated and embraced varient of sexuality through same sex marriage play into this view as well?

We’ve been round this before.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-23643831

But it just so happens there was a Ginger Pride march in Edinburgh last week, apparently redheaded people get picked on there so they decided to have some fun with ginger-phobia. In the linked article a redheaded guy who apparently is a Canadian comedian says “One day this week I was approached by a priest who came over, grabbed my shoulder said ‘I love what you’re doing with your affirmation march’ and gave me two thumbs up”.

Earlier in the article the comedian said he’s gay. Now he’s the same person whether he’s in a gay pride walk or a ginger pride walk, he has the same right not to be objectified, he’s the same law-abiding citizen with the same affirmation.

Do you see homosexuality as a subjective state of mind? or an objective physical reality?

All the evidence is we can’t change our orientation. Do you see heterosexuality as a subjective state of mind or an objective physical reality? Homosexual orientation is the same.