Homosexual Marriage and Views on Marriage

[_CaliforniaKid]

Assuming that you are referring to extra-marital sex or homosexual acts, I would say that if you agreed with this notion, there goes St. Paul down the toilet, along with Moses, the author of Proverbs, Ezekiel and others. Not to mention Jesus Christ himself.

Good thing we still have Joshua (2:1), Judges (16:1), Ruth (3:7), and Song of Solomon!

But in all seriousness, the Bible is not nearly as clear in its condemnation of pre-marital sex as some like to pretend. Certainly it mostly frowns on rape (though rape with compensation is allowed in certain circumstances, as in Deut. 21:10-14), but the specific condemnation of pre-marital sex relies on inference from Gen. 2:24 and on a somewhat dubious translation of the Greek word porneia (which refers to sexual immorality in general, including adultery, pederasty, and incest) as "fornication". Modern evangelicals' and Mormons' preoccupation with the sin of pre-marital sex is more a Victorian preoccupation than a biblical one.

Best,

-Chris

[_rcrocket]

But in all seriousness, the Bible is not nearly as clear in its condemnation of pre-marital sex as some like to pretend. Certainly it mostly frowns on rape (though rape with compensation is allowed in certain circumstances, as in Deut. 21:10-14), but the specific condemnation of pre-marital sex relies on inference from Gen. 2:24 and on a somewhat dubious translation of the Greek word porneia (which refers to sexual immorality in general, including adultery, pederasty, and incest) as "fornication". Modern evangelicals' and Mormons' preoccupation with the sin of pre-marital sex is more a Victorian preoccupation than a biblical one.

You and I have had this discussion elsewhere in the context of homosexuality. Your argument ignores context -- the commentary of a couple of hundred years of the anteNicean fathers who would disagree with your interpretation and agree with mine. Not only was the Bible (St. Paul, in particular) "preoccupied" with extra-marital sex, but so were most of the ANF church fathers who followed him and whose writings survived.




*

[Guest]

Well, you're one that seems fairly uptight about pre-marital sex. We've discussed this before even with adults. You wanted people to wait until marriage, If I recall correctly.

I'm not sure I've ever said that?? I do believe that there is danger of emotional issues for anybody who is overly promiscuous. I believe that humans are wired in such a way that they have a very hard time separating sex from emotion and commitment. I know I do.

Aha! We've been fussing so much I think we didn't realize how much we viewed some things in the same way. I, too, think that especially the younger someone is that there can be problems with developing healthy emotional growth when there is a lot of promiscous sex (I see promiscous sex as sex without any sort of emotional bonding).

I agree that minors need to make wise choices, yet, I just don't view abstinence only sex education as something effective or realistic. I think people need to be smart about sex and sometimes we need to be smart by acknowledging most people are going to have pre-marital sex and make certain we teach them how to be careful and not take any risks.

I agree with you wholeheartedly about teaching safe sex practices to our children. I don't agree with an abstinence only outlook. But I don't believe that you should abandon any teachings of chastity just because "they're going to do it anyways". I believe that parents should try and teach that abstinence is the best course of action with basically zero risk of pregnancy or STD's. However, should they choose to engage in sex, they should understand the risks -- because there are very real and very substantial risks which could last a lifetime -- and how to minimize those risks. And make sure they know that even minimized risks are not gone. You can still get pregnant with birth control. You can still get an STD with protection. Although difficult, I believe a parent should try and explain the emotional trauma that could occur with underage sex.

I agree in some ways. I think sex is something that when you make the step to engage in it you should know all the facts and be careful in protecting yourself.

I also think that people that decide to wait until marriage should be applauded and NOT shamed either, which all too often happens in our soceity, as well. Yet, the choice should be theirs and they should have all the information available to make the right choice for them.

I don't want my girls to have sex as teenagers. Will they? Maybe. I hope not... Yet, when they are adults and they may decide to have a boyfriend and engage in sexual relations with him I want them to be wise with their choices.

I agree that teaching sex as a sin is wrong. It is too hard to a lot of women to suddenly flip the switch from sex being a vile, disgusting sin to a beautiful act between a loving couple.

That's what I've heard.

[_Moniker]

I actually have posited a theory recently on this board that the exact opposite is going on - that TBMs and other religious folks who are so against gay marriage are against it because it it would, in a sense, legitimize gay sex (between spouses). These people cannot accept that gay sex can ever be legitimate, and therefore there cannot be gay marriage. This is because if there were gay marriage and yet gay sex between spouses were still not legitimate, it would undermine the view that marriage legitimizes sex in general.

So, in order to maintain sexual control of heterosexuals within the religious paradigm, without recognizing the legitimacy of gay sex in any circumstance, they must oppose gay marriage.

I'm not sure I could prove that, but I think it's an interesting hypothesis.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[_Moniker]

Your issue is with Christian mores and ethics, as well as ethical systems based upon evolutionary biology. Since no ethical system constrains you, why bother here?

Ahh yes, the ol' "I don't believe in God or Biblical morals, therefore I must have no morals."

Did I not just explain that human nature seems to favor monogamous relationships? So, while I don't see extra marital sex as a sin, I do believe promiscuous sex can be dangerous. I also agree with what Schmo said. Anybody who enters marriage without being intimate is an idiot!! You HAVE to see if you are sexually compatible.

You can enter a commitment long before marriage, in which case I think sex is fine.

I don't think evolution has created us to seek monogamous relationships. This is a case of understanding that sometimes just because something is completely natural that it doesn't mean we should just go with the whims. We understand that men will more than likely want to spread the seed about. Women may also seek competitors to impregnate them and maybe someone else to father that child... Yet, just because we understand what is innate in us does not mean we just go with it. Understanding that monogamous relationships are optimal for society and children means we can make choices to resist our urges.

[_CaliforniaKid]

You and I have had this discussion elsewhere in the context of homosexuality. Your argument ignores context -- the commentary of a couple of hundred years of the anteNicean fathers who would disagree with your interpretation and agree with mine. Not only was the Bible (St. Paul, in particular) "preoccupied" with extra-marital sex, but so were most of the ANF church fathers who followed him and whose writings survived.

I don't deny that in the heavily Hellenized New Testament church (which tended, by the way, to consider sex in general-- not just premarital sex-- a lesser way) pre-marital sex was probably considered sinful. I think the assumption that Paul would have had a problem with it is a fair one. The text itself, however, contains no clear denunciation of it, and so its condemnation must be inferred. The case against pre-marital sex is even weaker when arguing from the Old Testament, which is relatively free of Hellenistic influences.

If I had to guess at where the moral prohibitions against pre-marital sex came from, I'd say that they are probably rooted in ancient conceptions of gender and marriage. Males are very competitive and provincial, and tend not to want someone else's leavings. Virginity therefore became something of a commodity, and a "spoiled" woman was less marketable as a marriage partner. For her to lose her virginity is therefore a robbery of her family, which might have benefited from marrying her to a wealthy husband. It is also an offense against the honor of her father and future husband. There was no sense in the ancient world that a woman's body was her own or that she had the right to consent or to refrain from consenting in sexual and marital relationships. Rather, her body belonged to the males of her family and she was expected to guard it appropriately. Over time, and particularly when tied to negative Hellenistic attitudes toward passion and matter, the social and monetary value of virginity became moral value. Women who were not chaste and virtuous were characterized as temptresses and Jezebels.

In the modern world, in which a woman's body is understood to be as much her own as a man's and in which matter and passion are no longer considered the antitheses of virtue, Christians and Mormons might do well to re-examine the bases of the prohibition. That's all I'm saying.

Best,

-Chris

[_CaliforniaKid]

It is too hard to a lot of women to suddenly flip the switch from sex being a vile, disgusting sin to a beautiful act between a loving couple.

It can be hard for men, too. I remember in high school experiencing real anxiety at the thought of getting married someday and having to engage in sexual intercourse.

[_Moniker]

I posted this link on the board a while ago and thought I'd post it again:

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/hi ... woman.html

To contemplate the loss of one's purity brought tears and hysteria to young women. This made it a little difficult, and certainly a bit confusing, to contemplate one's marriage, for in popular literature, the marriage night was advertised as the greatest night in a woman's life, the night when she bestowed upon her husband her greatest treasure, her virginity. From thence onward, she was dependent upon him, an empty vessel without legal or emotional existence of her own. A woman must guard her treasure with her life. Despite any male attempt to assault her, she must remain pure and chaste. She must not give in, must not give her treasure into the wrong hands. The following is advice on how to protect oneself and one's treasure given by Mrs. Eliza Farrar, author of The Young Woman's Friend: "sit not with another in a place that is too narrow; read not out of the same book; let not your eagerness to see anything induce you to place your head close to another person's."

To ignore such advice was to court disaster. The consequences could be terrible--usually, in popular literature, a woman who allowed herself to be seduced by a man attoned for her sin by dying, most often in poverty, depravity, or intemperance. There were numerous stories about unwed mothers punished by God for their sin by losing their babies and going mad.

3) Sexual feelings were strong in men, but absent in women (certainly in ladies). Actually was conflicted opinion about female sexuality--passion in women was feared, because the demands it would make on men were insatiable and like a vampire, it was feared she would drain him of his life force). Men were seen in continual struggle with their passions. In the interests of their own health, they must control them--but not expected always to succeed.

by the way, my spelling is atrocious! I don't know if I even spelled that correctly, atrocious, that is. I usually use a spell checker and am on a different browser. Now everyone will know what a terrible speller I am!

[_Ray A]

I'm an advocate of Bonobo sex - make love, not war.



(truth is I haven't had sex in ages)

[_rcrocket]

I don't deny that in the heavily Hellenized New Testament church (which tended, by the way, to consider sex in general-- not just premarital sex-- a lesser way) pre-marital sex was probably considered sinful.

You completely sidestepped my point. Your original argument was that the Bible couldn't be really trusted to have condemned extramarital sex due to nuances in translation. I then pointed out the two hundred years of anteNicean father commentary disagreed with you completely and without exception. You respond by mushing together Platonic thought with Christian doctrine to claim that Platonic minimization of the importance of the physical means that sex was considered sinful. Huh?

My original premise remains. The fathers denounced for two hundred years extramarital sex and did not even come close to the position you now think Christians should adopt. See, in particular, the entry "Fornication" in Metzger, The Oxford Companion to the Bible," pointing out that grounds for divorce could include both pre-marital and extra-marital sex. St. Ambrose's writings plainly demonstrate the view -- and non-Greek I might add -- of the penalties for pre-marital sex. See Johnson, A History of Christianity, 108-10.

Your view is what I would call a "new age" view of Christianity; Jesus feeding his lambs; accepting all people; love and peace for all, including adulterers and homosexuals, abortionists, infanticidists.