The Purpose of Marriage

[josh987654321]

Already did.

My apologies

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

It consummates the marriage, it’s the full self giving of oneself to the other, where they share in such intimacy.

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

Your right, I mean is there any circumstance you can think of, where sex outside of marriage is not considered sinful?

We’ve been round this before.

My apologies

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69218000/jpg/_69218201_ginger.jpg
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.

I absolutely agree

Every man and woman should be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of skin colour or sexual orientation etc etc.

It’s got nothing to do with sexual orientation, it has everything to do with the sexual acts they desire and want embraced by society (which is done through the notion of same sex marriage).

So why would I be against a gay pride parade?

Ever heard of the Mardi Gras parade they put on in sydney every year?

I could have my point layed out quite easily and clearly with one picture, however such a picture shown here would probably get me banned because of the nudity and graphic content in it. Such a parade involves flaunting their sexuality in public in order to have their sexuality embraced as a moral and advocated varient of sexuality for society.

How do you publicly showcase sexuality? If there was a heterosexual pride parade showcasing peoples heterosexuality in public, I would also be against it, so I find it gravely immoral and inappropriate when homosexuals put on such a parade to showcase their sexuality (sexual immorality) for the public.

I think it comes down to exactly what Pope Francis said, the problem is people lobbying by this orientation.

All the evidence is we can’t change our orientation.

I absolutely agree. The question is, does the morality of the act change simply because of our desire for it? I believe there isn’t one person who doesn’t suffer from an immoral desire, even me as a heterosexual, should we all just give into our every desire and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

Do you see heterosexuality as a subjective state of mind or an objective physical reality? Homosexual orientation is the same.

Both, it is the sexual acts of homosexuality that we believe to be immoral.

So I guess it comes down to, does the act play into your view? do you believe the sexual acts of homosexuality (e.g. sodomy) to be immoral? or do you believe it should be an embraced and moral varient of sexuality for society?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Irrefutable!

Thanks tonyrey

 

[inocente]

My apologies

No need to apologize.

Your right, I mean is there any circumstance you can think of, where sex outside of marriage is not considered sinful?

Well, back in the new testament everyone got married by religious marriage, and sex outside marriage was a sin. But then civil marriage was invented, and as it is secular, not performed before God, we have to ask whether it changes anything as regards sin.

To take two extreme examples, a drunken drive-thru wedding in Las Vagas can’t be the same in God’s eyes as a full church wedding; nor can two strangers on a one-night stand be the same as a long-term monogamous unmarried couple.

So I think these days the morality must depend more on a couple’s conduct and commitment toward each another.

*Ever heard of the Mardi Gras parade they put on in sydney every year?

I could have my point layed out quite easily and clearly with one picture, however such a picture shown here would probably get me banned because of the nudity and graphic content in it. Such a parade involves flaunting their sexuality in public in order to have their sexuality embraced as a moral and advocated varient of sexuality for society.

How do you publicly showcase sexuality? If there was a heterosexual pride parade showcasing peoples heterosexuality in public, I would also be against it, so I find it gravely immoral and inappropriate when homosexuals put on such a parade to showcase their sexuality (sexual immorality) for the public.*

In our local town at carnaval the gay men will camp it up dancing to Beyonce or some other diva, and they’re followed by a troop of straight men doing much the same thing in the same costumes but wearing hobnailed boots. So everyone has a laugh.

But then Southern Europe isn’t cursed with what I’d call Puritan prudery.

I think it comes down to exactly what Pope Francis said, the problem is people lobbying by this orientation.

My impression is he was fed up of people lobbying against it as well as for it.

I absolutely agree. The question is, does the morality of the act change simply because of our desire for it? I believe there isn’t one person who doesn’t suffer from an immoral desire, even me as a heterosexual, should we all just give into our every desire and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

Heterosexuals are responsible for far, far more sexual immorality then homosexuals, simple by sheer force of numbers. Sorry but to assume heterosexuals are innocent until proven guilty while homosexuals are guilty until proven innocent is prejudice by definition.

*Both, it is the sexual acts of homosexuality that we believe to be immoral.

So I guess it comes down to, does the act play into your view? do you believe the sexual acts of homosexuality (e.g. sodomy) to be immoral? or do you believe it should be an embraced and moral varient of sexuality for society?*

I’m not about to embrace it myself as I’ve never leaned that way, but realize that in our local town most of the women get their and their daughters’ hair done by a married gay couple. They’re good hairdressers and nice guys. Model citizens.

 

[mek42]

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.

Why should sex be ordered toward procreation and unity?

Also, given that someone engages in premarital sex, especially when young, wouldn’t it be better, from a protection of children standpoint, for said premarital sex to be homosexual in order to not bring a child into the world outside of a marital relationship between the parents?

 

[josh987654321]

Well, back in the new testament everyone got married by religious marriage, and sex outside marriage was a sin. But then civil marriage was invented, and as it is secular, not performed before God, we have to ask whether it changes anything as regards sin.

To take two extreme examples, a drunken drive-thru wedding in Las Vagas can’t be the same in God’s eyes as a full church wedding; nor can two strangers on a one-night stand be the same as a long-term monogamous unmarried couple.

So I think these days the morality must depend more on a couple’s conduct and commitment toward each another.

You made it more complicated than I thought it would be, but I see your point.

In regards to the Catholic Church, they simply don’t recognise some things as valid marriages. How do Baptists recognise marriage? do they have any explicit teaching on it?

In our local town at carnaval the gay men will camp it up dancing to Beyonce or some other diva, and they’re followed by a troop of straight men doing much the same thing in the same costumes but wearing hobnailed boots. So everyone has a laugh.

But then Southern Europe isn’t cursed with what I’d call Puritan prudery.

I don’t have a problem with any parade or anything when it comes to accepting people with homosexual orientation, I have a problem with the parades when it comes to lobbying the sexual acts of homosexuality for homosexuals and for others to embrace such sexual immorality as a moral variant of sexuality.

My impression is he was fed up of people lobbying against it as well as for it.

Maybe that too. I’ll read it again.

Heterosexuals are responsible for far, far more sexual immorality then homosexuals, simple by sheer force of numbers.

True.

Sorry but to assume heterosexuals are innocent until proven guilty while homosexuals are guilty until proven innocent is prejudice by definition.

The reason is because, in marriage, heterosexuals are capable of the moral sexual act ordered toward procreation (if heterosexuals act as sexually immoral than I believe it is no different, however because they are capable of sharing moral sexual intimacy, people are not opposed to heterosexual marriage), where as in a homosexual union, the only sexual intimacy they can share I believe is immoral, if homosexuals were capable of the appropriate sexual act, than none would be against same sex marriage.

I’m not about to embrace it myself as I’ve never leaned that way, but realize that in our local town most of the women get their and their daughters’ hair done by a married gay couple. They’re good hairdressers and nice guys. Model citizens.

Id just like to repeat a few of my other posts about how I feel about it. I apologise for the length.

 

[josh987654321]

Id just like to repeat a few of my other posts about how I feel about it. I apologise for the length.

The first thing that comes to mind with the existence of God, is that God must have created us male and female (as we didn’t evolve from nothing) and as Genesis states.

I also refer to Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus was teaching about divorce, I believe he also affirmed it.

**Matthew 19:4-6

4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”

Mark 10:6-9

6 But in the beginning God made a man and a woman. 7 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. 8 He becomes like one person with his wife. Then they are no longer two people, but one. 9 And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”**

To me, this makes absolute and perfect sense and I don’t know how marriage could be viewed any other way. So I believe that Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9 perfectly sum up “The Purpose of Marriage.”

So thus I believe that the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful along with the CC because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

I also feel that when it comes to advocating this kind of sexual immorality for our homosexual brothers and sisters with same sex marriage, if I know it to be sinful, I wouldn’t be loving my homosexual brothers and sisters by advocating that kind of sexual immorality for them.

I also believe that because homosexuality is a consensual act, this is why it is not criminalised and I wouldn’t argue for it to be made illegal. I also believe that same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, It publicly recognises a homosexual union as equivalent and equal to a heterosexual one, which would mean to ignore the differences between a man and a woman, their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another, the human anatomy.

When it comes to the sexual acts of homosexuality, I believe this verse is what best sums up my views on it.

**John 8:3-11

3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.

Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.” **

I view the sexual acts of homosexuality likewise.

I believe Homosexuals are no different to any one of us, I believe not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire and I believe the morality of the act doesn’t change simply because of our desire for it, because I think that would be like giving into our every desire and saying “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it.”

**Galatians 3:26-29

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. **

There is also neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

And finally as Pope Francis said, the CCC explains it well.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. [They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.] This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.**

I Hope this helps

Other than this, I don’t know what else to say.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[inocente]

Why should sex be ordered toward procreation and unity?

Also, given that someone engages in premarital sex, especially when young, wouldn’t it be better, from a protection of children standpoint, for said premarital sex to be homosexual in order to not bring a child into the world outside of a marital relationship between the parents?

That reminds me of an influential paper on sexual orientation which I first saw in an American high school psychology coursebook:
These preferences lead children to feel different from opposite- or same-sex peers – to perceive them as dissimilar, unfamiliar, and exotic. This, in turn, produces heightened nonspecific autonomic arousal that subsequently gets eroticized to that same class of dissimilar peers: Exotic becomes erotic. - Exotic Becomes Erotic, Bern, Psychological Review 1996 (pdf)
The hypothesis is partly based on a piece of very counter-intuitive evidence, about the Sambian culture in New Guinea who encourage homosexual practices in their youths and yet have a very low number of adult homosexuals. That part is definitely not for the faint hearted, even though it was included in the schoolbook.

 

[PRmerger]

Why should sex be ordered toward procreation and unity?

What do you think sex is ordered towards?

Also, given that someone engages in premarital sex, especially when young, wouldn’t it be better, from a protection of children standpoint, for said premarital sex to be homosexual in order to not bring a child into the world outside of a marital relationship between the parents?

 

[inocente]

In regards to the Catholic Church, they simply don’t recognise some things as valid marriages. How do Baptists recognise marriage? do they have any explicit teaching on it?

We like church weddings.

*I don’t have a problem with any parade or anything when it comes to accepting people with homosexual orientation, I have a problem with the parades when it comes to lobbying the sexual acts of homosexuality for homosexuals and for others to embrace such sexual immorality as a moral variant of sexuality. *

A small price to pay given the violence of a lot of other special interest groups, such as pro-life extremists: “The Army of God, an underground terrorist organization active in the United States, has been responsible for a substantial amount of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

Opponents of equal marriage also get violent: “About 200 young people, many of them masked, pelted police lines with bottles, stones, fireworks and flares. The crowd – led bizarrely at one stage by a lone bagpiper – chased and beat up TV crews and press photographers. Police and gendarmes responded with tear gas and baton charges.” - independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-huge-gay-marriage-protest-turns-violent-in-paris-8632878.html

Whereas gay people have generally been peaceful and good natured, as our prime minister pointed out when equal marriage was made law here: *“To the homosexuals that have personally tolerated the abuse and insults for many years, I ask that you add to the courage you have demonstrated in your struggle for civil rights, an example of generosity and joy with respect to all the beliefs.” - José Zapatero
*

*The reason is because, in marriage, heterosexuals are capable of the moral sexual act ordered toward procreation (if heterosexuals act as sexually immoral than I believe it is no different, however because they are capable of sharing moral sexual intimacy, people are not opposed to heterosexual marriage), where as in a homosexual union, the only sexual intimacy they can share I believe is immoral, if homosexuals were capable of the appropriate sexual act, than none would be against same sex marriage.
*

I’ll never understand why sex is the be all and end all.

Id just like to repeat a few of my other posts about how I feel about it. I apologise for the length.

Fine but remember we already debated interpretations of scripture in detail.

 

[mek42]

What do you think sex is ordered towards?

I was not making an argument. I am asking a simple question. Why does God desire what we do sexually be ordered to procreation and unity?

I’m not certain what your smiley icon means.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not certain what your smiley icon means.

Mouse over it (if you have a device that uses a mouse or other similar pointing device). The ALT text for the “smiley” is “Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)”

 

[PRmerger]

I was not making an argument. I am asking a simple question. Why does God desire what we do sexually be ordered to procreation and unity?

I’m not certain what your smiley icon means.

Before I answer I need to know where you are coming from and what you believe God intended to be the purpose of sex.

 

[PRmerger]

Also, given that someone engages in premarital sex, especially when young, wouldn’t it be better, from a protection of children standpoint, for said premarital sex to be homosexual in order to not bring a child into the world outside of a marital relationship between the parents?

An analogy: let’s say your school age child tells you, “Is it wrong for me to steal the candy you hid in your closet for Christmas? You know that I hate surprises, and in anticipation of that, I ate the candy so I wouldn’t have to suffer being surprised by getting that on Christmas day.”

Isn’t it better, from a protection of her nerves standpoint, for her to steal the candy in order to not suffer the horrible consequences of being surprised and anxious?

 

[mek42]

Before I answer I need to know where you are coming from and what you believe God intended to be the purpose of sex.

My impulse is to give a sarcastic rejoinder that moral relativism is correct and I am the cause.

Assuming that you too are asking a simple question, though I cannot imagine why your question necessarily predicates answering mine, I can’t rightly say that I believe God intended a divine purpose for sex. Maybe after igniting through the primordial chaos of small molecules and starting the oldest archaeobacteria He rested and watched His work unfold. Maybe that which the Bible identifies as ONE God is one of many as the pleural in parts of Genesis alludes to, in which case, one wonders if God has a creation myth regarding His own kind. The theology I can say I believe is not as developed as the creeds I grew up with. Exploring the spiritual heritage I have, though, seems as good a place as any to start walking the journey though, so here I am.

 

[PRmerger]

My impulse is to give a sarcastic rejoinder that moral relativism is correct and I am the cause.

Assuming that you too are asking a simple question, though I cannot imagine why your question necessarily predicates answering mine, I can’t rightly say that I believe God intended a divine purpose for sex.

I think it’s a prudent way to dialogue with others. Knowing where they come from, what they already believe, assists us in excluding superfluous arguments and knowing where to direct the arguments.

For example, if I know that I am in dialogue with a Christian who rejects all the writings of St. Paul, I, of course, wouldn’t appeal to the epistles of St. Paul in providing apologia for my position.

If I am in dialogue with an atheist, I never say, “But we know that God exists because the Bible says [fill in the blank]!”

That seems wise, don’t you think?

It’s a strange conclusion that you’re making to say that since I wouldn’t use the Bible to argue for God’s existence with an atheist that this is an appeal to moral relativism.

Indeed, I think that anyone who tries to use the Bible with an atheist, as apologia for the existence of God, is just a dum dum.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t rightly say that I believe God intended a divine purpose for sex.

Fair enough.

So to answer your question, as directed by the above paradigm, “Why should sex be ordered towards procreation and unity?”

the Catholic answer is: because sex is the source of life. It is the normative way that the human person is created. And therefore it is, by necessity, ordered towards procreation. And it is wise that it is ordered towards union of man and woman…because in the entire history of human civilization, there is no better way that’s been tried and executed to raise a child, than with a man and woman bonded together for life. No. Better. Way.

 

[mek42]

I think it’s a prudent way to dialogue with others. Knowing where they come from, what they already believe, assists us in excluding superfluous arguments and knowing where to direct the arguments.

For example, if I know that I am in dialogue with a Christian who rejects all the writings of St. Paul, I, of course, wouldn’t appeal to the epistles of St. Paul in providing apologia for my position.

If I am in dialogue with an atheist, I never say, “But we know that God exists because the Bible says [fill in the blank]!”

That seems wise, don’t you think?

It’s a strange conclusion that you’re making to say that since I wouldn’t use the Bible to argue for God’s existence with an atheist that this is an appeal to moral relativism.

Indeed, I think that anyone who tries to use the Bible with an atheist, as apologia for the existence of God, is just a dum dum.

I guess I am confused as to why you would have to be trying to argue instead of providing a simple answer of your own position. I, for one, have enjoyed this thread, and learned more from it, when folks, especially Josh, were not arguing, but were, rather, simply putting forth their ideas.

My question of why does God desire sex to be ordered toward procreation and unity remains unanswered. Perhaps another will jump in. I’m not seeking to have whatever position I have on the issue swayed, I am simply seeking to have discussion.

 

[mek42]

Fair enough.

So to answer your question, as directed by the above paradigm, “Why should sex be ordered towards procreation and unity?”

the Catholic answer is: because sex is the source of life. It is the normative way that the human person is created. And therefore it is, by necessity, ordered towards procreation. And it is wise that it is ordered towards union of man and woman…because in the entire history of human civilization, there is no better way that’s been tried and executed to raise a child, than with a man and woman bonded together for life. No. Better. Way.

I guess I am confused as to why you would have to be trying to argue instead of providing a simple answer of your own position. I, for one, have enjoyed this thread, and learned more from it, when folks, especially Josh, were not arguing, but were, rather, simply putting forth their ideas.

My question of why does God desire sex to be ordered toward procreation and unity remains unanswered. Perhaps another will jump in. I’m not seeking to have whatever position I have on the issue swayed, I am simply seeking to have discussion.

Looks like we were posting at the same time, LOL!

 

[PRmerger]

I guess I am confused as to why you would have to be trying to argue instead of providing a simple answer of your own position.

Are you aware that this is the Philosophy forum?

Do you know what “argument” is in Philosophy?

It appears that you do not.

Please see here:

iep.utm.edu/argument/

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t rightly say that I believe God intended a divine purpose for sex.

This seems to be an incoherent position that defies logic.

Sex is the source of life. On that we are agreed, yes?

You believe that God, the Creator of the Universe, the Author of Life, has no will attached to this most magnificent act which changes the universe forever?

Really?