The Meaningless Marriage

Somewhere in 66 books had God wanted homosexuals to marry, He certainly would have given us instruction concerning this. He did not.

Making it legal that 2 men or 2 women can marry is thumbing one's nose at the Creator. He had reason for what He ordained.

There is a sickness that insists on having it's own way. They are following their father far better than some of us follow ours. They see themselves as gods and they insist on being given the right to act as gods.

In my heart if not stopped, this sexual addiction will cause the very wrath of God to fall upon us. If it be His will, so be it.

Grobie

It's been a while since I've read something I disagree with so much, but that it what's so great about Townhall where we get to discuss. Marriage you are correct currently does mean a man and a woman who are joined together. However to accept that this is the only acceptable defination of marriage, means that we are defined only by our gender which is a limiting defination. Also marriage is violated in many ways daily as the result of drunken response in Las Vegas, the joining of a wife beater with his victim, and by "selfish" divorces that occur daily, all hetrosexual. Having two homosexuals who want to marry, for the recongination and closeness they will recieve is marriage at it's purest. One cannot read the Bible literally, because of the passages that one cannot in good mind agree to such as the stoning of children and making slavery acceptable. The Bible is a beautiful book and is Christ inspired but is is not the literal word of God. I would be more than happy to continue the conversation with either one of you.

Thank you for your civil tone right along with your deep disagreement.

I would start by asking you what definition is NOT a “limiting definition”?

And as for our being defined by our sex or gender, that too is hard to avoid. From the day we are born (sometimes earlier) we are referred to as “him” or “her”. There are few things more fundamental than our sexuality. It colors just about everything about us, whether we engage in sexual acts or marriage or not. My contention is that couples seeking marriage when they are both of the same sex are seeking a mirage. They are acting on feelings which are themselves misplaced. There is no such thing as what they say they are seeking. Like a smoker seeking the lungs of a marathon runner, or a junk food connoisseur in search of meaningful degree.

You also point out various ways in which marriage can be violated. I certainly agree with your observations. But I don't see how that does anything for supporting a case for homosexual marriage. To say a bridge is failing or in need of repair is one thing. And hopefully repair or even replacements might be made. But to say that bridges simply should no longer be limited to spanning across two opposite river banks, but instead should come back around to the SAME river bank is a violation of the first order— to cross the river or obstacle! And certainly not bridge building at its purist.

Finally, as for the Bible being a beautiful and Christ inspired book, but not the literal Word of God. The Bible is what it is. I do believe it is the Word of God, to be taken literally, poetically, historically and with much humility. But whether you believe that or not, the Bible clearly presents men having sex with men and women having sex with women as being something which violates God’s design for human sexuality. I must add, though, that the Bible also presents ALL men and women as falling short of God’s original design. That is why the Book is ultimately all about Jesus Christ. He never falls short. And his invitation for us to follow him is completely trustworthy. And life changing.

Thank you so much for your response. My personal definition of marriage is two people who love each other and commit to living forever together. One thing that always interests me, and I look forward to your response is do you look at homosexuality as a sin or a disease? The obvious point being is it a choice or an infliction or something else? Having many gay friends and my reading of the matter (science articles/books and personal memoirs as well) is that homosexuality is not a choice but the way one naturally is. Now of course that does conflict with the Bible. I've been a "Southern" Baptist for 19 of my twenty years, (I've just joined the Catholic church), and always believed as you do in the literal word of God. But then I thought of how I dismissed the passages that support slavery and the stoning of children as historically irrelevant. I cannot have it both ways, so I truly do believe that homosexuality is natural and therefore supported by God and that the passages that prohibit it are a result of historic thought of the matter and not God's thought.

Your personal definition of marriage makes it sound as though sex has nothing to do with it. Why is that? Isn’t it true that sex is very much in the forefront of marriage? Sex is not only in the forefront of a couple’s expression of passionate love, it is in the background of the small talk, the giving of gifts and the receiving of them. The very being of a man and a woman becomes a source of joy in the discovery of life. Sex and love are so closely intertwined in marriage that there probably should be a separate word for it in English (like in the Greek).

Now if you’re talking about the highest Godlike love, agape, you are going to rule out a lot of marriages. Plus you are going to exclude a lot of single people from knowing God and following him through life. Jesus for one example. Love is surely fundamental to marriage. But that is too broad in itself to define marriage. For love is a calling to all of human life, single, married, man, woman . . . or homosexual.

This may sound like a silly question, but why is there sex in a homosexual relationship in the first place? What, in your opinion, is the purpose of sex between a man and another man? Are they first just friends and then they become sexually intimate? And then a mature love develops? Okay. But why? What is sacred about this sexual attraction, or about these particular people, which demands they bring their relationship to a consummation such as this? And how is this scenario all that different from an adulterous attraction and consummation? Seriously. Even if there is no other spouse in the picture (which often there is) what about the implication of faithfulness to one’s creator or at least to one’s chromosomes? I’m not denying that there are people who have these feelings. And strong ones at that. But I am questioning the assumption that those feelings alone validate the pursuit of happiness and such fruit.

I’m also wondering just what that fruit is. I can understand why there needs to be a bond of marriage when it comes to the formation of a family unit— the fruit of which is an environment of love in which children may be born and raised, and life may be celebrated. But if two men were to live together, why would sex between them be a “natural” thing to celebrate? What are they celebrating? Being men? Being men who act like women? Being human maybe? Wouldn’t that last one be better expressed with something more asexual? I know this is a strange line of questions and thoughts. But frankly, this whole topic is intrinsically strange.


As for homosexuality being a sin or a disease, I would say it is a symptom of the disease of sin. That goes for the individual involved but even more so for the society involved. (I also think it is something of a political movement. But that is another story.)

I don’t think anyone quite understands all that goes into the making of a person’s capacity for sexual feelings. But why should we ponder only the question of homosexual attraction? Shouldn’t the question be: Why and how do people develop their sense of sexual attraction? Period.

Just think of all the different cultures and the things they do to make themselves attractive! Sure seems to me that there’s a fair amount of learned behavior going on there, because to my eye some rituals and behaviors are not attractive at all. Yet to those people— sexy!! Are they born to have that attraction? Well, yes to some degree. But there appears to be quite a range of play. And just as some cultures have been known to push the envelope when it comes to eating practices, like cannibalism, so too I believe there are cultures which have sexual habits which go beyond what is moral. That would not be limited to homosexuality, but it would include it. I suspect the breakdown of heterosexual marriages is very much a factor in the proliferation and embrace of homosexuality in our day today.

But I also think homosexuality is actually something of an analogy for all of us, straight or gay. We all have been born into a life where we have desires which are not in keeping with God’s original design for us. We have a sin nature. And though the world tries and tries to prove that sin is not sin, or that it is natural and even good, or that there is no need to cure it or overcome it, the truth remains that each of us must accept the fact that we are sinners in need of a Savior. We even need to become new creatures in Christ, born again, with new natures in Him.


I apologize for my slow responses to your posts. Please do not interpret that as indifference on my part. Not at all. In fact, it reflects a fair amount of editing and rewriting on my part and leaving out stuff which I think goes off topic. I find these posts can get long awfully quick. (And this one is not exactly short.) But I do aim for quality over quantity. I hope the pace doesn’t bother you. It’s one thing I like about this format. Unlike so much of the rest of our world, it can be slow . . . and thoughtful.

... but that's the least of your problems.

In the UK (as per my blog) there are serious lobbying attempts to bring back 'Common Law Marriage'

At least with a homosexual union, a couple have had to make a public committment.

With 'Common Law Marriage', all you have to do is give someone your front door key, be nice to them in public, and wait a few years.

Someone can become married to you (in the eyes of the law) just for sitting on the same sofa as you.

Okay, so I'm exaggerating. Maybe a cuddle is also required, but you get my point.