Monday, October 05, 2009

Mixed-Orientation Marriages

The comment thread of the previous post turned into quite the discussion about mixed-orientation marriages. That wasn't really the topic of the post, so I'm going to use one of my comments in that threat to kick off a more well-rounded discussion about the subject. It's interesting, it's raw, and it's very personal, so I think we should all do our best to be sensitive about this issue. I know I'm a 21-year-old single guy who knows nothing about marriage -- mixed-orientation or not -- so everything I say can certainly be taken with that grain of salt.

For clarification, I'm going to say that "mixed-orientation marriage" refers to a marriage in which one spouse is heterosexual and the other spouse is not (and is gay or bisexual). Just because the non-heterosexual spouse doesn't refer to himself or herself as homosexual or bisexual doesn't mean that he or she isn't one. So even married Exodus people like Alan Chambers -- who still admit to having homosexual thoughts even though they've been "freed from homosexuality" -- are also included in this. Calling oneself "completely heterosexual" (which Chambers has done before) doesn't mean that one is, and saying that one is heterosexual and then admitting that one still likes men is just insulting to all intelligent people involved in the discussion. So mixed-orientation marriage it is!

I understand what the caution-givers in the comment thread were saying, although I am somewhat curious. How is a mixed-orientation marriage different from, say, a man whose wife undergoes physical changes (gains weight, loses figure through childbirth) and who loses attraction towards her? Certainly there are heterosexual marriages where sexual attraction decreases or almost stops completely, and yet due to the Christian faith they persevere.

I don't think the gay/SSA/put-your-term-of-choice-here people I know who are married are doing this to be "normal." Some of them are part of Exodus ministries so I do question their motivations (unfortunately). Others, however, have views about as anti-Exodus as I do. They hate seeing their marriages used as "signs of hope" by their churches and communities. They are very honest about the struggles, and many of them are just like what you said -- struggling with healthy heterosexual intimacy, and suppressing gay urges. I'm not saying it's not exhausting, but these are people who love their spouses and love the Lord and have to deal with some special challenges.

But doesn't every couple have to deal with special challenges? Whether it's illness or in-law drama or the loss of a child or inability to conceive or a child with disabilities or busy work schedules or decrease in sexual desire -- every couple has major things to deal with.

Although I don't see marriage as my own personal path, I don't have a problem with people with these orientations seeking it. So long as they are extremely honest with each other, and don't show their wedding rings as a sign of some kind of orientation change, and don't allow themselves to be shown as more holy or healthy or balanced than godly singles. I know around Exodus you won't find many (if any) couples like that. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some mixed-orientation marriages that do work, and we may caution folks about the difficulties that go along with such a path, but we don't have a right to tell them whether or not to seek it.

93 comments:

The Muser (aka Beautiful Mama) said...

I would never tell someone they +absolutely+ shouldn't enter into marriage w/someone they're not attracted to, but I would really wonder why on earth they're doing it (whether mixed orientation or heterosexual--if you're not attracted, it's going to fail on some level). The difference in terms of struggles is that in a marriage where there is real attraction, even if something happens to change that (weight gain, etc.), there is still the possibility of regaining attraction. And I think the couple has a moral obligation to do that, whether it's weight loss or making more time for sex and romance, or what have you (this is something both my husband and I take seriously--staying sexually desirable to one another). In a mixed orientation marriage, there is not even that possibility, and so you rob both spouses (esp. the straight one) of one of the main purposes of marriage--true sexual joy and intimacy, which is what sets marriage apart from any other relationship. Sure every couple has major things to deal with, but given than the unique thing about marriage IS the sexual relationship, if you don't have any real possibility of creating that in a meaningful way, I think you're being unfair in marrying your spouse...Perhaps you have some insight into why people do this, but my experience has been that most people do this bcs they have idealized heterosexual marriage as what God wants rather than bcs it's something that's good for them, their spouse, their children, or their relationship with God.

Daemon said...

Jay,

Great insight,contrast and comparison to other issues that any marriage, of any flavor, may face.

It is good to see someone holding up the idea of "singlehood" (if that's a word?) as an ideal for a healthy Christian guy.

All too often people (well meaning or not) equate the opposite of SSA/Gay as being hetero and involved in a marriage.

My dad and I talked tonight on the phone about this exact topic in my life. The opposite of my sin is righteousness, striving to live a God centered life. It is not sleeping with a female and entering into a marriage.

There might just be a few examples of strong Christian single men in the Bible as well?

I, for my life, choose being single. It may not be what my body craves, but it is what my spirit yearns for.

The Muser (aka Beautiful Mama) said...

And perhaps you can be more clear on what you mean by "that do work." In my opinion, if your sexual relationship is dysfunctional to the point where you really don't bring one another sexual joy or intimacy, your marriage is in a big way NOT working...you might as well be in a celibate friendship and share life together and raise kids together instead of get married...

freelancer said...

I feel like we just talked about this. Haha.

I will say that I can't imagine entering into marriage at this point in life, or really ever. I think if you are doing it for the right reasons than maybe you should go for it, but what really are the "right" reasons? I've been in a situation where I was close seriously considering marrying a girl (who knew about my "struggles") but it would have been a giant mistake.

Marriage is difficult enough without giving yourself such a major obstacle from the outset. While I personally am not aware of any successful mixed orientation marriages from my personal experience (the three couples I know ended up divorcing), I won't say that they can't happen. However, it really depends on the people involved and how much sexual intercourse and the physical relationship matter. I know couples who almost never have sex, but are still happy with their relationship. But, mutual choosing or liking "no-sex" marriages is different than it being forced upon you.

I do also take some issue with your comparison to a MOM (weird acronym, haha) being like a man whose wife gains weight or otherwise becomes sexually unattractive. First off, I doubt any guy really stays attractive while his wife get ugly. I'm quite certain that they both get less attractive. However, I understand what you were trying to illustrate so I won't charge "sexism". Haha. I think having a sexual attraction in the first place is important, but the sexual flame does (in most cases) fade, especially without a lot of work. I don't think that only Christian couples can work through this. There are marriages of all religions where man and wife are not necessarily attracted to each other, but they stay married. Don't count culture out.

The end.

Jay said...

The Muser: I understand what you are saying, but how important is sex to a marriage? For example, there are many times in which due to an illness or other physical problem, a couple will have to go without sex for awhile. I know some personal instances in which -- after a very difficult pregnancy and a botched C-section -- a woman wasn't really able to be intimate with her husband for about a year. Was their marriage "not working" for that year? I'm sure it was difficult, but I think it was working. There are far more important things to a successful marriage than sex, I think (which isn't to say that sex isn't important).

Freelancer: I only used a male example because I'm mainly talking about males in the post, and most of the comments in the previous posts came from males. I wasn't trying to be sexist.

The Muser (aka Beautiful Mama) said...

Hey Jay, I think sex is essential to a marriage, and given that you go to the Bible for so much of your understanding about how to live life, it surprises me that you don't as Paul tells couples not to deprive one another of sex except for a short period of time. Of course, occasionally medical, emotional, and other things get in the way--sure--but having to take a year off from sex is way different from never having the possibility of a meaningful sexual relationship. If you read my above comment again, I didn't say that marriage doesn't work if you're having to take a break from sex, I said marriage is not working if there's not any possibility of meaningful sexual intimacy and joy as that is one of the things that sets marriage apart from other relationships. I think there are plenty of things that are as impt to marriage to sex, but I wouldn't say that are things that are far more impt. I just don't think marriage can be healthy as a marriage if sex is not a big part of it. You might still have a pleasant and loving relationship, but given that sexual love is a main part of the reason for marriage, I gotta say that if you don't have that at ALL, I don't think your marriage is working...you might have a friendship or a business partnership, but can you really claim that you're married if you're not loving one another sexually as well as emotionally? (For the record, I would also say that if you're having sex but it's devoid of emotional and spiritual connection--and thus real love and intimacy--your marriage is not working). My (hetero) parents managed to stay together and raise kids together and have sex, but their relationship was so devoid of sexual joy and real intimacy and love that I would say that weren't married in any meaningful way...

The Muser (aka Beautiful Mama) said...

P.S. as a mom I also know of many women who have had to abstain from intercourse for a sustained period (as I did) after having a baby. But intercourse is not the only way to be sexually intimate, and many couples find ways to be sexually intimate w/o intercourse when that's necessary...so your example is not really analogous to a mixed orientation marriage where the lack of attraction really means that the possibility of true sexual love is not an option. I think in the healthiest marriages spouses find creative ways to meet one another's sexual and emotional needs as much as possible even if abstaining from intercourse for awhile is necessary. Of course, in some mixed-orientation marriages sexual love and intimacy is a real possibility because one spouse is bi and the other straight, as in my case. But if one spouse genuinely is fully gay and is not sexually attracted to his/her spouse, then, yeah, I'd say that marriage is in a lot of trouble...esp. as the gay spouse is generally going to have to engage in gay fantasy in order to be able to sexually perform, and the emotional havoc that wreaks on the straight spouse can be awful--they can really end up feeling violated and ugly and unloved rather than loved and known. It's also awful for the gay spouse who feels guilty about having to engage gay fantasy in order to have sex but who also feels like s/he needs to love his or her spouse in that way...they end up btwn a rock and a hard place--do I sin by pretending I'm having sex with a man instead of my wife so I can perform or do I sin by depriving my spouse of sexual intimacy? Ugh. Of course, if the couple is able to genuinely find enough attraction to really love and know each other that way then it's a different story.

Jay said...

Of course, if the couple is able to genuinely find enough attraction to really love and know each other that way then it's a different story.

And that's what I've been saying. I'm not talking about a man having to resort to gay fantasy to perform. I think you make sexuality a little too narrow if you think that a gay man can't have good sex with a woman. If there is patience, and perhaps a little creativity, and if the couple loves each other, then arousal and functioning and emotional intimacy can certainly take place. It might not be like a heterosexual man who is turned on by his wife's feminine figure alone, but that doesn't mean there can't be arousal.

My (hetero) parents managed to stay together and raise kids together and have sex, but their relationship was so devoid of sexual joy and real intimacy and love that I would say that weren't married in any meaningful way...

They were to God. Just because a marriage isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not a marriage. Certainly couples should try to overcome their flaws, but if you think that having big setbacks or problems makes them less married, I think you're operating from a pretty non-Biblical standard.

larkspur said...

Jay,

I know that you asked me (directly) a question on the previous post. But, The Muser has answered it far better than I ever could. (Thanks!)

Right now, it is merely heresay when one needs to take the word of others of "does it work or doesn't it?" The only way that you (or anyone else) will ever know if it works *for you* is if you enter into an intimate relationship with someone. Which my understanding is, you have not.

Perhaps some of us are coming across a bit cynically when talking about the failure rate of MOMs. It need only take a visit to a support group such as Yahoo's ex-gay men's (*not* an Exodus group) to see the weekly and daily challenges that the participants face. It made me think a little bit of the old adage of "the blind leading the blind" as I talked with others who weren't victorious, either.

Anyway, thanks for letting me post on your blog. You have a great deal of courage and tenacity to post on these topics and follow through with them.

The Muser (aka Beautiful Mama) said...

I would be interested in what the (purely) gay men who have been involved in mixed-orientation marriages who have been commenting might say about the possibility of enough arousal without gay fantasy to sustain a sex life over a long period of time. I personally haven't met anyone who's been able to do that (unless they're bi in some way) without resorting to gay fantasy, porn, or some other means.

Also, what's your "biblical" view of marriage? My parents were really abusive to one another and, as a result, to us, and so I'd say they probably weren't married in God's eyes either. I don't think the biblical view of marriage is people who destroy one another and their kids but somehow manage not to get legally divorced...And no marriage is perfect, of course, but marriages that do harm to kids and spouses...well, that's a different story.

Jay said...

Larkspur: I guess I don't think the presence of weekly or daily challenges is a bad thing. Life is a daily challenge, at least the Christian life is.

The Muser: I am sorry to hear that your parents were abusive. I suppose in your original comment, you made it sound like they just didn't have a lot of passion. There's quite a difference in just being kind of settled and not "on fire" about a marriage and being abusive. I was referring to the first, not the second. Obviously, when someone is trying to destroy another person, wedding vows have been violated, and for the sake of one's life the relationship should end.

And perhaps the people who are in mixed-orientation marriages are bisexual to some degree. I think it's very complicated to sort issues like that out. Sexuality is a lot more fluid than one would think.

Jeff S. said...

Jay et. al.

I posted the following on my blog in a post back on August 5 which seems germane to your post. I have been in a "mixed orientation marriage" (as you call it) for 17 years.

"Do I recommend dating and marriage, if they desire it, for any men who struggle with homosexuality? Only if they have a real desire to marry and have children, only if they (and their spouse-to-be) face it with the realism that attraction to men may possibly continue or resurface to some degree, only if they do not see marriage as being better in God’s eyes than being single, only if they have shared about their struggle with same-sex attraction in detail with their potential future spouse, and only if they have a strong expectant faith that in God all things are possible. Even then, it is a major decision to make, but as Jones and Yarhouse point out in their findings, change in some form is possible for some people. I am one of those people.

May others continue to still find that possibility in their lives in spite of today’s declaration by the APA about reparative therapy. I exist and so do others I know who have made similar decisions. But may we as a church also stop treating gays and lesbians with scorn if they do not seek "change" in their own life in regard to their homosexual orientation, and may we also stop making people who struggle with homosexuality feel like they are settling for second best if they decide to live a single life of celibacy as their way of reconciling their faith with their sexuality."

I will come back and read the others' comments when I have more time, but thought I would post this to contribute to your discussion.

Jay said...

This article might give a little insight into a conservative Christian idea of what sexual pleasure and intimacy should be. Although the author is talking about heterosexual couples here, I think the application extends to all.

ScottyG said...

It may be helpful to remember that, from a reformed Christian's understanding of scripture, marriage is a covenant relationship that was created to reflect the relationship that Christ has with his Church. His love for her. His service for her. The intimacy of marriage, while expressed in part in the marriage bed, does not have the marriage bed as its center. Rather, marital intimacy flows from the husband and wife's relationship with Christ. The husband loves and serves Christ in many ways. Because of this, he loves and serves his wife in many ways.

As communicated in the article that Jay linked to above, the sexual act of marriage is one of those acts of service on behalf of the other. No crudeness intended, but the pleasure of serving your spouse in the marriage bed is intended to be the highest pleasure of sex, not one's own orgasm or other sexual satisfaction. Instead, that satisfaction should be found in serving the other (not to reduce one's own sexual pleasure, but certainly to downplay its importance).

When understood from this perspective, it does not seem nearly as radical for an SSA guy (like me) to enter into a marriage relationship (like me).

As noted above, openness, honesty, and transparency are very important in these relationships, but these traits are just as important in straight marriages.

If God leads an SSA person into a marriage relationship, he may need to ask God in faith for arousal. He may need to seek forgiveness if he does slip into relying on fantasies for sexual pleasure. But if he understands marriage as a lifelong journey of service and love on behalf of his wife (and together, as a missional picture of Christ's love for his people), then his marriage can be as strong as any straight man's, and certainly as pleasing to God.

Note: I am implying neither a superiority of marriage nor inferiority of singleness for SSA guys. God calls each believer to either marriage or singleness; to distinguish whom he has called, for what reason he has called him, or at what point he may call him, is beyond the scope of our task as believers.

Brandon said...

Great post, Jay. I think you bring up a lot of really good points.

donsands said...

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6:9-11

hey Jay, what do think the Scripture means when it says: "And such were some of you."?

I know it must mean that there is "something" different for the sinner, who lived a sinful lifestyle, whatever it might have been, and the way he lives now.
And it;s not because the sinner has turned over a new leaf on life.
It is the Holy Spirit who now takes up residence in the believer, who is now righteous.

There's more I could say, but I'd like to know what your sense of Paul's teaching is. This is a deep subject for sure, and the Scripture here is clear and simple in one sense, but it is also quite deep as well.

Just trying to learn and grow in my knowledge of God's heart.

Jay said...

Well, I would say that because of the Holy Spirit, the sinner is no longer bound to the flesh. Where he or she would once choose to steal or get drunk or practice sexual immorality, due to the presence of the Holy Spirit and the desire to please God, he or she would choose righteousness, even if the desires to sin were still present (as they would be due to our fallen nature).

So while men who practice homosexuality can get to a place where they no longer practice homosexuality, I don't think they necessarily get to a place where they no longer feel homosexual desires. At the very least, I haven't heard many testimonies where someone claimed to have been completely reoriented (and most of the ones I have heard like that seem to come from Pentecostal Christians whom I somewhat doubt).

Scott said...

I would say I definitely agree with ScottyG and Jeff. I too am someone who struggles with SSA, but have a deep desire to get married someday. Perhaps that isn't God's plan for my life, but I don't think that just because I'm homosexual means that I should simply write that desire off. I have even tried dating a girl within the past year and it actually worked out pretty well. When we started getting serious I told her about my struggles and basically gave her a way out. She was willing to work through it. We dated for several more months, but I realized I just wasn't ready for that kind of step in my life (because it is a huge step whether you struggle with this or not) and ended the relationship. She was super understanding and we're still friends (and who knows, maybe when I feel ready we may try dating again). The thing, each individual couple is going to be unique.

And to address TheMuser... I think you're putting WAY too much importance on sex in marriage. Granted it is an important part, but just because you're not supposed to do it prior to getting married, doesn't make it the end all factor of marriage. And like what ScottyG said, who's to say that they can't have a fulfilling sex life just because one or the other may be homosexually oriented?

donsands said...

I pretty much agree with that Jay.

So even a "pedophile" will have desires for children. Or could the Lord deliver such a sinner from such a desire?

I think the Lord does deliver hearts and minds from sinful desires, and then again He some times doesn't.

I agree that the truth of the Word needs to rule over our desires. And as Satan comes to tempt us, may the Lord rebuke him, as we resist him.

The Tempter is subtle and is still the god of this world. But we are not ignorant of his schemes.

"..so that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs." 2 Cor. 2:11

The hope we have in one day living with Jesus Christ in His kingdom, the New Earth and New Heaven, where righteousness reigns, and there is no sin whatsoever, is something we need to meditate upon daily I think.
We will have uninhibited love for Christ and for God; and for one another.
And sin: pride, lust, selfishness--will be nonexistent.

All because Christ lived a perfect life, and gave His life to be crucified for our sin; to become a curse for us who were under God's curse.
Thanks You Lord Jesus.

U.T. said...

Jeff and ScottG have given one of the more honest "ex-gay" testimonies I've seen. So there really is a minority of people with SSA that do get into a successful marriage, however small it is.

Nonetheless I am still inclined to think that God's will for most people with SSAs is ,still, that they stay celibate, and it probably isn't a bad thing. There are straight celibate Christians who lead happy and fulfilling lives, and we are just like them, I guess? And when we do according to God's will, He should provide for all our needs, including our need for intimacy.

"And such were some of you" will refer to people like us, whether celibate or married, who are free from sexual sin. We may never be free from SSA (at least for many of us), but we can definitely be free from homosexual sins and walk worthy.

MR said...

Jay,

Do you think our friend Pam (http://willfulgrace.blogspot.com/)would want to comment on this post?

Jay said...

I suppose I should ask her. Although I do know that her ex-husband didn't tell her about his struggle before they married. That's quite a different situation. The hypothetical situations I'm talking about are marriages where the couple is completely open and honest about the others' issues.

Daniel M said...

OK, time for a SSA married guy to speak. The popular term is "MOM". :p

1. If 1 spouse got hurt and could no long perform or enjoy sex, is their marriage doomed. Is it impossible to remain in love?
Jay, you brought up another example of having times when sex is just not possible. But we can't use that as an excuse to stop loving our spouse. ScottyG also brought us a great point about true love in marriage.

2. When a person touches a mans penis and stimulates it, it gets enlarged and will eventually ejaculate...bring with it a very special feeling. Sex is not hard to enjoy...with time. The problem with mix-orientation marriages is that finding a way into the "bedroom" can be much more difficult. Why? Not for lack of physical pleasure, but because of all the other stuff. It's probably a bit different for each of us, but for me. It's the following: fear of rejection, making the "effort" to get my wife in the mood (remember, I'm the ssa one), it doesn't come natural to pursue her, sometimes we get stuck in "roommate" mode, sense of inadequacy...I'm sure there are more, but nothing else is coming to mind right now.
To summarize this point. Having sex for the first few times with your spouse can be scary, awkward, difficult, but those things pass in time. What I've found that doesn't pass are the things I listed above. Sex isn't the problem...it's getting sex to happen that's the problem (I'm not blaming my wife, I'm saying it's mainly my inadequacy's that cause this problem.)

3. I agree with Muser. If you can have sex, it's pretty huge in having a healthy marriage. To settle for a non-sexual marriage, normally means 1 spouse is satisfying their sexual desire somewhere else (not necessarily with an affair). For me, it's been as simple as settling for masturbation for periods of time, instead of putting in the effort to have sex with my wife.

Sex seemed to be the main topic of discussion in this thread, but if there's other questions related to my experience feel free to ask.

If you have time and want a lot more of my story, check out my blog. Start at the beginning, may be.

larkspur said...

Jay,

My choice of the word "challenges" was probably an inaccurate one. I should have used the term "failures", instead. Which I think just about anyone (Christian) would use to label infidelities.

Cass said...

I met a guy online. He was beautiful and we had a great connection. We had sex several times but he lived 50 miles away so it was tough to get together often.

After sex he would always talk about religion and how he felt guilty and felt like he needed to be with a woman and get married. He was seeing a woman at the time and was thinking about marriage though he only had attraction for guys.

After about the 5th time of being together for sex, he stayed afterwards instead of taking off. It was a hot spring night and we laid in bed after having sex and I asked him if I could hold him for a while. He liked that and we spooned with my arm around his waste and my hand over his heart. We talked softly to each other and it felt really nice. Then it got real quiet and the silence seemed very sweet. There was something else happening. We were connecting at the heart. I tapped him on the chest and said "this is what it's really all about, feeling the love, the connection, the sweetness of having a man hold you in his arms and be with you". He said "yeah". I hugged him closer and he started to cry, deeply. He rolled over kissed me and thanked me. He kept crying while I held him close.

I moved away right after that last time together and we didn't see each other again as I moved over 1000 miles away. We knew it was better not to keep contact as things could have gone deeper, which would not have worked being so far away.

A few years later I was calling a friend of mine with the same name, on my cell phone. But I accidentally called, him, instead, and got him on the line. He was ecstatic, as was I, to hear each others voices again. He told me he had found a great guy and settled down. I was really happy for him. It's been 5 years now and they are still together happy as ever. He told me later that I had helped him to not make the biggest mistake of his life by marrying a woman he was not sexually attracted to. He was thankful he did not put her through that kind of pain, and himself also. He said he had put religion into perspective and was having that and love in his life. He said he and his life partner go to church together and when things get heavy about religion and gays from the pulpit, they hold each others hand very tight, knowing their love is what is truly real.

I think back and saw he realized in that moment of holding each other in sweet silence, that loving was what God was all about, not religious "have-tos" that can foul the mind and make no sense. I was happy I could show him that God's love is two hearts joining, and that it is more than just sex and confusion. Whether gay or straight, he had realized he deserved to love and be loved intimately with another human being he felt attracted to on all levels, just like what most of us truly want. Pretty "normal" I think.

I will always have the fondest memories of our intimate moments together. The sex was one thing, but the honestly of the love and sharing we did, will always be the high point I will cherish the most.

My take for those considering "straight" marriage or "MOM" and are not bi, but gay, I'd let this ring in your ears clearly before you take such a plunge; "to thine own self be true". Sow some wild oats and test the sexual waters first with a same sex attracted person with some ounce of love in the mix. If the heart says yes to "MOM" and the sex says 'well, maybe, well I don't know, well gee umm, well' . . . I surely suggest full refrain. If you go into marriage you may find yourself stuck in the "well", of despair. Str8/gay puppy love with sexual orientation opposition does not a happy marriage make. Marriage is designed to connect fully head to toe. All this porn stuff and fast sex or whatever, is just a haze for what could truly await you in a full body/heart and soul relationship.

To those who are going to do "MOM" anyway without testing the truth of your sexuality with another well, the best words that come to mind are; "buyer beware" as it could and will most likely be, a very bumpy, and unnecessary ride.

Jay said...

Cass, pretty story. Unfortunately, everything that you've said here flies in the face of everything that every Bible-believing Christian would believe in. Read that Piper article, and read comments from people like Jeff S. and ScottyG. Sex and marriage are so not about what you think they're about.

Neo said...

I'm curious if anyone has any insight into the issues I'm likely to face as a bisexually attracted guy. I would like to marry a woman eventually (though I'm not currently even dating) and would technically be in a mixed-orientation marriage as we are defining it.

I don't foresee sex as being a problem. Frankly, even the thought of having sex with a woman is arousing for me, so being married and in a situation where I could actually have sex would be even more so. I don't know if I could even be around my future wife with her naked and not be aroused. (I haven't used porn at all, so I actually can't comment on that.) I already deal with lust towards women to a degree that only the straight guys I know match or exceed. If I was just pretending or trying to be normal, I wouldn't get into masturbating to heterosexual fantasies, as can happen when I am thinking or even reading about heterosexual sex. It even happened the other night after reading this thread right before going to bed, and then not controlling my thoughts well. That doesn't normally happen when I'm reading or thinking about homosexual stuff, actually. So I think the sexual dimension of my feelings is mostly OSA. Then again, when I am around lots of people, I tend to notice the guys first, and have the most desire for second glances or even staring. I am just as likely (if not more likely) to have my thoughts captivated by an attractive guy as an attractive woman. So I wouldn't jump to calling myself "straight," as I don't think that would be honest, either.

The one issue that could be difficult is that I do need close (but not romantic or sexual) relationships with other guys. I have found these kind of relationships to be very fulfilling and helpful in dealing with SSA. My wife would need to learn to trust me having close guy friends, which might be difficult knowing I have SSA. My usual technique is to have such relationships with straight guys, and to set my limits at what they are comfortable with. With guys who don't deal with SSA, I'm not afraid of the relationship turning into something sexual or romantic, and as a married man I would be less afraid of it becoming adulterous. This has worked well for me in avoiding sin, and I don't see why it would get harder when I got married. But in marriage I would need my wife to understand what I am going through, and we would need to be able to trust each other.

Of course, a lot of this is hypothetical, since I'm completely single. I would be interested to hear from someone who has actually been in that situation.

Daniel M said...

@Cass
I also agree with Jay. Nice story, but doesn't align with my understanding of God's Word.
And the other thing, any gay/ssa-non-bisexual guy who would try and have sex with a women before getting married would never work. For all the reasons I described in my 1st comment. We wouldn't even know how to "seduce" her let alone want to. We'd be to focus on using her for some experiment and feel guilty and might even tell her at some point.
Plus, I don't think sex outside of a marriage relationship can ever be a good thing. We need that commitment to allow sex to become a good thing. The majority of my friends who've done that have paid for it. And many of them keep doing it over and over! It can be painful to watch.

If I would have followed your advice, I would never have gotten married. Even if we don't think about the sex outside of marriage and just focus on the argument "it's not fair to the spouse" it's bull shit...and it's completely true. Getting married is never a "fair" thing. All of the vows and all the other promises get broken at some point. If not physically, at least in our minds. Why? Because we are broken sinful people. We are incapable to continuous unselfish love. Luckily we do experience moments of unselfishness (not only for Christians).

Just to make sure everyone understands me...I'm not advocating gay/ssa people go for a straight marriage. I'm just saying it is possible. It takes a crap load of work...especially at the beginning. because like a few divorced ssa-straight married guys said...the spouse never knows what they are getting into. Never! Nor does the ssa spouse. Nor does a straight couple. Marriage is one of those crazy things I guess. But for the most part, I'd say, it is what you make of it. Straight marriage, mix-orientation marriage and gay marriage.

Ok, enough of my thoughts. Time for bed.

kurt_t said...

Jay, I think you need to read what you just wrote to Cass and ask yourself "Is this how I want to engage with the world? Is this how I want to present my belief system to others? Is this how I want to share my perspective with someone whose perspective differs from my own? Or can I do better than this?"

Jay said...

Kurt, I think it's exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you for your concern, but Cass has been around here awhile, and knows the deal.

Cass said...

Jay,

I think Piper's post is a good one however, it deals strictly with heterosexual marriage. Your post is not about heterosexual marriage, it is about gay and str8 mixing in marriage of which the Bible has no input. If one inserts two gay people in the Corinthians verse, we would have a beautiful model for gay people also, and I urge some to do just this, as we dramatically lack role models. Maybe you might try it and see how it works for you.

If one is gay and desirous of fitting that mold, newly coined "MOM'"s, then that is of course their choice and that's cool. We all learn from all our relationships. Look at you. You learned you never wanted to have one again. That is a big teaching.

In my experience with gay Bible believers to the point of no err, their journey becomes popularly known as "the struggle". It think it is wise to take into consideration that the Bible is nowhere written from a positive gay point of view, and therefore there are no healthy guidelines for gay relationships. I don't think God had anything to do with portraying us negatively in the Bible, or judging us for that matter. Therefore, that leaves it up to our God given intelligence to help with that situation. Hence instead of living in "struggle" many gay people have found love, with sex, to be the answer. A love for God and a love for each other sexually and emotionally at the heart level, just like true str8 marriages. Hence happy healthy gay couples. Good for them. They deserve the prize for giving good role models for guidance.

For every "pretty" story there are multitudes of ugly non-biblical MOM ones of distraught, self contempt and misery for both parties. ScottyG. and Jeff S. are an illusive oddity to most Christian gay guys' experience. Though I respect their relationships, for some to hold them as the flagship with which to hopefully ascend to, well it is only a minute fraction of many possibilities that create happiness in relationships.

You said you have had one gay relationship where you felt you were "narcissistic". I don't know how that played out and I will not try to second guess. But telling me I "so don't know what sex and marriage is all about" is a bit naive on your part, as my experience of love sex and relationships outdoes yours by light years. I know exactly what it takes to make a marriage work, and I know what doesn't work, and you will only experience that if you have one, legal or otherwise. I know more because "experience is the greatest teacher". Part of a good marriage is knowing exactly what you can give and what you can't, and being honest about it. A gay male cannot give a str8 woman a full fledged sexual relationship like a str8 guy can, and sex is a big part of marriage. I know this from my own experience as I did a "MOM" relationship for 2 years. It ended in a painful breakup. I finally realized that my attraction to women was from social conditioning, where I was not the director of my play, but a puppet to directors like str8 relationships, the church, my parents, my friends ideas of how I thought they needed to see me etc. I was allowing them to run my show. We are not a dumb species, and we can run our own lives, with the help of grace and full knowledge, which is greatly lacking in the Bible for gays.

Cass said...

Many gay guys do run the str8 marriage course, sometimes for many many years, always knowing they are gay. Then at some point many jump ship when they feel they have run societies programs and now want "to thine own selves be true" without contempt. i think my story illustrates how one can cut down the timing, and the pain, by getting knowledgeable about oneself sooner rather than later, save hurting a woman and in some cases children, in the process. If this flies in your face and makes you angry, then you may want to look at the anger of the Christian woman whose gay husband has just left her fully shattered in scattered pieces on the ground, to go have a full relationship with another man. it's horrifying. Such is not a "pretty" story.

I do like your post and comments however, I think it is mandatory save a painful life, that one opens their eyes to a plethora of happy full relationship possibilities without pigeon holing a typecast chosen few.

Neo --- I was in your position when I was in my 20's. There is a core feeling I felt when I had sex with a guy that wasn't present when I had sex with a girl, hence I decided to be on the gay side of my sexuality as I did not want to hurt a woman by wanting for a man. I did know that when I was with a man, I did not want a woman. But when with a woman, I wanted a man. But that was only gotten through experience, I know no other way to discern which is more important sexually than simply having sex with both and finding out. Of course there are many factors to take into consideration before choosing a str8 or gay life when bisexual. Some of my bi male friends through life, did both. Interestingly, they ended up in gay relationships in the end with the woman unfortunately holding the bag. I know that is not true for everyone bi, but the ones I saw were in that category.

Dannybrou said...

No matter how you look at it. I do not think it is fair to the one who does not 'struggle'. It isn't about sex. It is about intimacy. Sex is just a mere portion or that intimacy that is needed in a relationship. The one who struggles doesn't have the capacity to do that. I mean...don't get me wrong, if a someone wants to get into a relationship that is their choice, but there will always be a problem with intimacy and that is an issue. Especially if the one who does not struggle is female.

Jay said...

Cass, I think the Bible isn't written from a positive gay point of view because the Bible is very clear about active homosexual relationships. They are sinful. Sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful, whether it's fornication or homosexual behavior. You seem to base what is good or bad on feelings. I base it off Scripture. We come from two completely different presuppositions. Don't you understand that, from my point of view, it doesn't matter how nice and affectionate and loving two gay men are in a relationship? If it is a sexual relationship, it is sinful.

You may know a lot about secular marriage and relationships, but people like myself and Jeff and Scott and Daniel are seeking a higher calling, and that is how marriage is laid out in the Bible. To tell Neo, a Christian, that he should have sex with both guys and girls to find out which he likes more is insulting, because you're completely ignoring the fact that he, like myself, is a Bible-believing Christian who puts that as the highest authority in his life.

Unless you can start engaging with the fact that we are trying to live our lives through a Biblical lens, you aren't going to have much to add here.

Dannybrou said...

Jay - I would have to disagree. the bible isn't clear. That is where the problem unfolds. That is your thought based on what you interpret the bible to say. Not necessarily what it does say. A gay christian..one who wants to find a monogamous relationship with a guy can also put God as the highest authority in his life.

Jay said...

Dannybrou, point taken, although I will certainly disagree with their interpretation of the Bible. However, I think Cass advocated not only homosexual behavior but fornication, or simple sex just to experiment and see what feels good, and I don't think anyone with a Biblical worldview could say such things.

Dannybrou said...

True... I do disagree with him on that point.

donsands said...

"That is your thought based on what you interpret the bible to say. Not necessarily what it does say."-Danny

But the truth of the Bible isn't two truths, or whatever truth we want it to be.
There's only one way God sees His truth. There's one truth of how God sees sexual activity.
I think the Bible is very clear indeed on fornication. The Bible is very clear on many things, especially the essential things: Christ, sin, grace, God, salvation, faith, etc.
The Bible is also very deep and difficult with other truths, which I believe God allows for: baptism mode, the Lord's Supper, eschatology, spiritual gifts, etc.

I have been reading the comments, and Jay, you have really done a fine job dialoging here.
Good stuff to think about and share with others.

Cass said...

Dannybrou, you are absolutely correct, and those Christed non-sinful relationships exist everywhere.

Jay, I disagree . . . as I do have a Biblical viewpoint, but I also realize that sexuality is not it's strong point and has caused much ado, like right now.

First off I did not tell Neo to do anything, which brings your take on things into suspect territory.

Second, I do not advocate or not advocate gay sex or fornication. It is what it is and I have no judgment one way or the other as long as two adults are consenting. Judgment is an emotional illness, not necessary but desired by many.

With the divorce rate out the window, trying to make sense of some of these sexual "laws" became for me unnecessary since I have a very good head on my shoulders.

Sex is what sex is. If you're gay you have sex with the same sex, that's human nature and just the way it is. To brag off otherwise is an err in discernment.

This issue of bisexuality and confusion is not one to be taken lightly. Neo is not alone. I like his bouyancy and would love to see him stay well afloat and not get dragged down by confusion.

If you want to get hired as a teacher, you have to study and experiment, take tests and prove your worth. If you want to be worthy of a true marriage, you had better know what sexuality you are more attracted to, so to make a wise choice in relationship. Why in the world would you take that confusion study course out on a woman? Is she supposed to be sex 101, then you graduate when you finally figure out your truly gay years later? That sounds rather passive aggressive to me.

These tactics I take are not "insulting" to the rational mind, they are educational and preventative measures for a potentially explosive biblicaly based situation regarding MOM, the emotions of which you seem to not even notice.

Do you even have emotions Jay? Or Feelings? Do you care about these women who get hurt with gay men trying to figure themselves out all over their lives? You seem to toss emotions and feelings overboard for books and mental meandering.

If we had it your way, you would say go with the heart God and the Holy Writ and lets hope it all works out in the sex area, even with full honest disclosure.

This is where you err. Marriage is not supposed to be some sexual science experiment just because there's a love present. Marriage is much more sacred than that.

My views are realistic. I find, and please try to stay objective, that your reason you are seeking a "higher" plane of some sort because you are gay and "supposed" to be celibate, ineffective to your root cause, of which you are well aware but not looking at.

I think, and this is strictly opinion, you are here with this blog to resolve your shame around your sexuality, and you want company to do it or not do it and agree with your position, whatever that may be. I think this is why you are getting annoyed when another point of view comes on here, it shakes your very shaky shame game as you try desperately to make sense of your sexuality and the Bible. Short of a writing venue, that's about it.

Now that is not a bad thing, really. I applaud that if that is partially the underlying motivation. I want you to resolve your sexual shame. I want everyone to resolve their sexual shame. But it will never get resolved by hardcore polarizing.

Lets make no mistake, sex is sex, love is love and marriage is marriage. And how we all deal with it may not fit into your current tightly woven box of low vibe negative emotions based on a sexual belief you chose after much research, to fit into the model of a life you personally designed. Cont . . .

Cass said...

Instead of making this scenario about your frustration, can you find it in your heart to simply open up to differing views without altercation? And honor them without judgment condemnation and finger pointing, much like karen K (a total peach) does with her guests on her blog? You say you agree to disagree quite well, I am not seeing this here.

Or would you rather separate yourself out polarizing and restrict this blog to extremists only?

I am giving my very personal story and angle, of which I find you are totally dishonoring.

Jay said...

Cass, it's just very clear that you honor your own mind, feelings, and opinions over the Bible. You say your views are "realistic" but you also say that you have a Biblical viewpoint. That doesn't make sense. You think it's okay to sexually experiment yet the Bible makes it clear that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Which is it? Do you honor your own mind, or do you honor the Bible?

And in terms of judging and finger-pointing, you seem quite able to do it yourself with your psychoanalysis of me, which I have warned you about before. This is your last warning about such things. One more comment like that and I will ask you to leave. I am more than open to having comments from people with different opinions. In fact, pretty much everyone here disagrees with me about something.

I don't think I ever said I agree to disagree quite well. I said I disagree quite well, meaning I try to be respectful and non-threatening when I disagree with someone. I don't just let issues die, though. If someone brings up something that I think is totally wrong, I'm going to say so. If you don't want to argue, don't comment. I don't mean to disrespect you, but that's simply how I do things around here.

Neo said...

Cass,

As Jay noted, with my beliefs, sexual experimentation is not an option. I believe that sexuality itself is sacred, and is only to be expressed within heterosexual marriage. I don't think that sexually experimenting would be fair to the people I would be experimenting with, let alone myself or God. If I find out after getting married that having sex isn't totally fulfilling because I want another guy, that would be something I have to deal with, but not grounds for divorce or infidelity. That would be unfair to my wife.

I don't want to get married as a "sexual science experiment" to find out whether I like it or not. I want to get married because I have the desire, which I believe is God-given, to be a husband so that I can serve a woman and be her life partner. And yes, I certainly want the sexual aspect of that kind of relationship as well, within the bounds I believe God has defined. If God wants to call me to celibacy instead, I'm totally OK with that - I don't believe celibacy is in any way inferior to marriage, if it is used to serve God. However, I don't feel that is His call for my life personally.

I mostly asked about personal experiences because, for any aspect of the Christian life, it can be helpful to hear from those who have gone before. This has been helpful in dealing with SSA, as well as with other issues I've dealt with in my life such as doubt.

Dannybrou said...

Don - You are correct. The truth ISNT two truths or whatever truth we want it to be. But many people do interpret the bible differently. Just because you think the bible says one thing doesn't necessary make that truth. I agree...the bible is very clear on fornication. But the bible is not clear on a monogamous homosexual relationship.

Cass - I didn't say that non-sinful relationships do not exist. Not what I said at all. But just what I mentioned above..the bible is clear on some things and not particularly clear on others. No disrespect Cass, but you can't compare being hired as a teacher to Marriage. I do agree with you on a lot of issues though. Marriage can not be a sexual experiment. It is sacred and I refer back to my comment earlier. Full intimacy with ones partner is more than just sex. A man who is gay can not give the full intimacy that a women deserves or NEEDS. That would be like telling a straight guy to go fullfill the needs of his straight best friend in marriage. Good luck with that.

Neo - I feel for you. I really do. It is a hard road and I have been there. Married for almost 8 years with a son. If you do choose to get married to a woman. It is a tough road. And unless God changes that internal orientation it will be difficult to give full intimacy to a woman. But you have it a little easier than a full fledge gay guy. You mentioned that you are aroused by women, so that is good. Each individual..each relationship has to take it on a case by case basis.

If I find out after getting married that having sex isn't totally fulfilling because I want another guy, that would be something I have to deal with, but not grounds for divorce or infidelity. That would be unfair to my wife.

larkspur said...

The course of this conversation has taken some interesting perspectives, but it seems that it all comes down to each person making that choice -- on a MOM relationship for him or her self with whatever follows.

I admit to a bit of curiousity about the faithfullness that the gay guys in MOMs have or haven't have. IOW have the gay guys who are married never had sexual contact with another man since their marriages? Or is it a question of slipping, falling, and repenting?

My sense from Exodus was that as long as one called oneself "ssa" (as opposed to gay), one's behaviour was given less scrutiny than one might think - IOW everyone fails or sins some way in life. Cheating on one's spouse was just another sin -- which I guess, theoretically it is. Emotionally, for the defrauded spouse, it is another matter, usually.

This conversation could go on forever: It works; it doesn't work. But it does highlight *why* so many turn to Exodus: If one wants to be in a heterosexual marriage, they do offer some kind of change that would make straight relationships viable. Whether that change occurs is of course a topic elsewhere.

Cass said...

Jay,

If you reread my post you will find the answer to your question.

To clarify the Bible and sex: Stats have it that some sexual laws do not work, and you know what they are. Not only do they not work, they are painful to people personally, society and "God" as a whole. Jesus Christ is my focus, not ideals that cause extensive damage to people's lives, regardless of where some ideals may originate.
I regard all sexual acts between two consenting responsible adults with mutual respect and love, sinless, gay or str8, married or not, even MOMs. I only regard sex as a sin if someone has been defiled in the process.
When I see a dangerous and potentially harmful situation like MOM afoot, I think it is the duty of all Christians to give sound advice, with hard stat facts, so as to make such a decision more real and focused at the onset. Some force it to work with much angst, a minute few don't. I now find it unrealistic as my experience, though very painful, has served me well. You can either judge it, ignore it, or glean something of assistance from it, that's anyone's choice.

My intent here is not to judge or make anyone right or wrong, but to share my experience of a very complex and difficult subject.
Marriage is not something one must force themselves to endure, it's something to cherish and adore, and works when the best sane choices are made PRIOR to diving in. For some that means testing the waters first with caring and honesty as the focus. That in my mind, is not a sin, that is being smart for the good of everyone involved to save pain later down the line.

Dannybrou,

The teacher comparison was a metaphor for studying self prior to getting married. If one doesn't know themselves completely on the sexual side, I don't think it is wise to engage in MOM. I do think some sexual connections are sinful, but only if they cause pain in the process to the ones doing it.

I have no resonance nor do I give credence to outside negative judgmental forces exerting pressure to try to fit everyone into one set sexual theorem. It's a waste of precious time as it lacks forethought reason and integrity.
But then there are those who think they are so fraught with sin at birth, they deserve, consciously or un, a lonely and struggling life. Now that is a whole different subject worthy of a post by itself, so I won't delve into that here.

I see from the pain I see in Christian "values" that if we can't all make our choices without fear of being banned judged or sinned at, we have lost the game before it even starts as our choices are innately tainted. Hence it just becomes a game of whose perfect and whose not, with judgment via shame as the primary hook. I don't find that a good basis with which to run my life.

I think the bottom line here is not who you have sex with, but the shame about who you have sex with. That shame via a judgmental sexual law is the culprit to most all gay sexual dysfunction, and str8 for that matter. What I see are too many people judging because of their shame, instead of actually doing the grueling work of resolving their sexual shame and the core belief that caused it, so they no longer need to live in the world of judgment and can live happy healthy lives, yoke removed.

Thanks for your comment, I liked what you said. Cont . . .

Cass said...

Neo,

I respect your decisions with what ever you do. I have my decisions to work with as well and find sharing experiences is always a way to be interesting and helpful. Mine have served me well.

In our society, bi's are pretty much screwed when it comes to completing both sides of ones sexuality, at least at the same time in a relationship sense. But there are the chosen few who actually make it work, but they must truly be grounded in themselves I would think.

I saw this program once where in a str8 marriage, the guy was bi, and his wife gave freely, an eve to himself each week to be with his BF or just go out by himself. That marriage stayed together and all were happy. Beats sneaking off for porn/fast sex and lies.
I found that set up to be very integrous as these people dealt lovingly and honestly with sexual reality. Pretty interesting but wow, that's gotta be rare.

Thanks for commenting on your experiences and views as they mirror mine from the past.

Good luck with your future, you will do well I'm sure.

donsands said...

"But the bible is not clear on a monogamous homosexual relationship." Danny

Do you mean two men togther for life with complete celibacy?

Neo said...

I actually don't see why marriage would necessarily be any tougher for me than for most guys. I mentioned the possibility that sex with a woman could be less fulfilling than I expect as a hypothetical, not as something I think will happen. I've never had sex with anyone of either gender, so I can't speak from experience there. Nonetheless, the thought of intimacy (both emotional and sexual) with a woman appeals to me greatly.

With guys I am actually quite OK with the sort of relationship that isn't exclusive or sexual like a marriage relationship should be. I need a degree of authenticity that could probably be called "intimate" in a sense with at least some people, but I wouldn't call it "romance." I don't see any of them, or want them to see me, as their "special someone." It's the sort of thing that totally straight guys are OK with and reciprocate. It's just that I'm still attracted to lots of guys in general.

Anyway, hopefully that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Jay said...

To clarify the Bible and sex: Stats have it that some sexual laws do not work, and you know what they are. Not only do they not work, they are painful to people personally, society and "God" as a whole. Jesus Christ is my focus, not ideals that cause extensive damage to people's lives, regardless of where some ideals may originate.

So you think statistics have more authority than the Bible, yet you also say to focus on Jesus Christ? I'm sorry, but that's simply ridiculous. Either believe in the Bible or don't, or at least admit that you cherry pick what you want to believe and don't want to believe. You obviously think that you are wiser than God about this issue, though.

Your definition of sin is totally not Biblical, so don't pretend that it is. And if you don't believe in the Bible, just say so. I'm fine with you having different views. What I'm not fine with is you saying that you're a Bible-believing, Christ-focused Christian and then saying things that are anti-Bible and heretical.

And that situation about the bisexual guy who got married is called adultery, pure and simple. If a man has sex with someone outside of his wife, no matter how fine she is with it, that's a sin.

Dannybrou said...

don - that is correct.

donsands said...

Thanks.
Have a Lord glorifying weekend.

Cass said...

I am a Bible believing Christian in that I believe in the 10 Commandments and myriad of other "beliefs" the Bible advocates. Adultery is "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife". That I do believe is a sin as there is malicious intent, deception and foul play afoot. Sin is generally coupled with some sort of fearful act. That is how I decipher "sin". This is because I'd have to call "lefties" sinners, and that exceeds rediculous.

Such is not the case with the couple and the bisexual husband and therefore in my synthesis, "sin" does not apply. Not because I'm cherry picking, but because it makes good sense to them as a couple and it was a loving gesture. If any party were hurt in the process then that would be another story. The wife loved and understood her husband so completely, she gave him something he truly wanted and needed as part of his nature, and it did not ruin their marriage, it strengthened it. When love is strengthened in any matter, I am all for it. That action was a loving act, the opposite of a "sinful" act.

Now an extremist Christian, which I am not, would take that as foul, and probably head directly for divorce court if the wife felt violated hence ruin their marriage. Rightly so if there was sin of deception involved. I'd hand her a divorce decree in a second, but only after 90 days of couples counseling.

"Sin" like "hell" have had two different definitions over the centuries. That is partially why the Bible is called a "living, breathing document" as it changes over time. Up until approx. 600AD, sin meant "missing the mark", a rather benign guilt message. It then took on the hell-fire damnation definition, turning sin into a lethal weapon.

Hell was interpreted as "the grave" until fire and brimstone was added at a later time due to cremation entering the fold. Changing such foundational definitions is not so "Godly" as I feel "God" should be constant, but change it did.

Now lets talk about "cherry picking". In Leviticus, gay male sex is an abomination as is being left handed.

So Jay, I will speak for you and say you don't believe lefties are a sinful abomination and you can correct me if I'm wrong. But you do believe gay sex is a sinful abomination. I believe neither is a sinful abomination.

Who here is "cherry picking" in this case?

Jay said...

Exactly where is there a verse about left-handedness being a sin in the Bible?

Cass said...

It's in Leviticus, along with Shellfish and an assortment of other sins.

Jay said...

I know. You said that. Where is it exactly?

Daniel M said...

I just did a search for "left hand" in the bible and nothing of relevance came up.
Cass, do you have a reference.
I know Leviticus does have some crazy "rules" though...thank Jesus none of them are needed to "become" pure anymore! I'm all about claiming Jesus' righteousness as my own.

U.T. said...

You forgot several other passages in the Bible, (Romans, 1 Corinthians etc.) that condemns the sin of homosexuality very clearly. I know pro-gay Christians will say that we have interpreted every single one of these phrase wrongly, that God isn't against homosexuality; that Romans 1:26-27 is about cultic homosexual behaviour, that non-cultic monogamous homosexual behaviour is ok. Isn't that really going overboard, like severely twisting the interpretation to suit their agenda? I find it hard to believe the people who think homosexuality is ok and use the Bible to argue for it, are being truly honest with themselves. It's almost as if their thoughts are "I think homosexuality is ok because I don't think it hurts anyone.. But the Bible says it isn't. But maybe the Bible says wrongly. So what does the Bible really mean? Let me think... etc. etc. Ah... that must be what it means." I'm sorry I know this is stereotyping but I really can't help but feel that's what all pro-gays think.

The Bible is clear that homosexual acts are a sin, and has mentioned it several times, even in the New Testament. And I'm not a homophobe, I have SSA myself, and struggle like crazy. Oh how I wish the Bible consents monogamous homosexual behaviour because it just feels so right. But unfortunately my conscience cannot make me buy the arguments of all the pro-gay people, they're just not convincing enough. It's almost like the JW making a New World Translation of the Bible to suit their own beliefs. It's like how before I was a Christian I would think if anyone is sincere in doing good works he would enter heaven, God wouldn't be so evil to disallow them in heaven.

Just because homosexual sex reinforces the "love" between the couple doesn't mean that it may be right. You can say the same for adultery, and if you say that actually harms the other spouse so it's wrong, how about pre-marital sex, other forms of sexual behaviour, that feels so right and makes you feel loved, and has no malicious intent. That doesn't make all these right in the sight of God. I don't know, I mean I'm not judging I'm not being self-righteous, remember I have SSA, but, seriously, sin is not what we see it to be. We can't say something is not a sin because ,well, it seems correct to us. That's relativism. Sin is what God perceives it to be. It is not just something done with evil intent. Whether you call it a lethal weapon, or "missing the mark". And for this reason I'm inclined to take the safer side. On a side note, I'm ok with you believing gay sex is fine, but I don't know why you are perpetually around here posting comments like this. It shipwrecks the faith of some who genuinely want to change, and causes nothing but trouble. You should just go to some pro-gay websites and argue with them.

Cass said...

My mistake about the placement and "abomination" as Lefties are not mentioned in Leviticus however the following examples of how lefties have been considered "abominations" by Christians are evident and are derived from other areas of the Bible i.e. listed below.

I have heard the term abomination used with the shellfish argument comparing homosexuals to "lefties" and eating shellfish via Leviticus/abomination, which is a thin if not ridiculous reference.

The title of this post may sound metaphorically familiar:

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/are-you-tired-of-the-left-handed-community-pushing-their-agenda-down-your-throat/question-456567/

More:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977234688

So Jay, I would replace lefties in my question to you partially with shellfish being an abomination in Leviticus.

Also sassing parents (an L sin) was "punishable by death" a punishment we don't do now. There are a myriad of other sins in Leviticus we do not currently consider "sin" regarding sexual condemnation of str8s and their sexual practices in L-times.

With all the things in Leviticus that are "sins" now dismissed as ridiculous, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to point out homosexual sex is currently held over as a "sin" while excluding other sins now that were present in L then.

With me not regarding any of these L bygone sins as current sins "punishable by death", including homosexual sex which you do hold dear as a current sin; who of the two of us is "cherry picking" certain ancient L-sins into present time, disregarding the others?

Jay said...

My basis of considering has nothing to do with Leviticus. Have you even read the Bible all the way through? If you did, you'd understand why we are no longer bound by the old ritual laws of Leviticus.

You also wouldn't have put your foot in your mouth about how there is a verse condemning left-handedness. There isn't one. And the verses that you say have to do with left-handedness have nothing to do with lefties, whereas the verses about homosexuality (not just in Leviticus, but in Romans and I Corinthians) literally say that the act of sleeping with someone of the same sex is outside of God's plan.

It's pretty clear that you basically have been basing your arguments on what you've read about the Bible, not the Bible itself. This is why I consider you a troll. You're not welcome to comment here again.

Cass said...

Jay,

Peace.

Cass

larkspur said...

Wow, I knew this discussion was getting heated, but is this the way discussions go? It seems that there are commentors such as Danny and Mark and possibly me who may have a different interpretation of Scripture and we are thus far welcome here. I wonder when we cross the line...

I'm not a blogger, myself, and therefore don't understand the enthusiasm behind it which it must take to keep a blog going (which I respect), but it seems that this is more about a defense of the Bible than anything else. And that's O.K., it's just not why I've been commenting. I've been more interested in sharing about life experiences and how different folks walk out their faith as they have come to understand it.

It's also a bit interesting that when I asked the two married posters if they have ever cheated on their wives in a physical relationship with another man, I received no response. I understand that is a personal question and as such need not be answered. But then, there were many questions I asked Exodus that I didn't get a response to, either.

Jay, I wish you well. You seem like a very intelligent, focused young guy, and I wish you nothing but the best in your studies and career. And as far as the economy: This, too, will pass.

Jay said...

I know the two married posters personally. They haven't cheated. Just because someone doesn't reply doesn't mean they're avoiding the question. They just might not check back regularly.

larkspur said...

Okay...thanks, Jay. I still think it's a little bit weird that you are answering for them...but whatever.

The Best,

L

donsands said...

"..but it seems that this is more about a defense of the Bible than anything else."

Doesn't seem that way at all to me.

Surely the Word of God has been, and shall always be an essential portion of any Christian's walk with Christ his Lord. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and He leads us to His truth.

Sharing our hearts is essential as well.

I always see a fine balanced thread here at Jay's blog; though I'm a very doctrinal kind of guy. I love the Bible. There's nothing given to us as powerful as the Word of God.

Paul said: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the POWER of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”"

Have a blessed evening and Lord's day. Jesus has risen indeed! And He will return one day to make all things new.

Daniel M said...

@Larkspur
Sorry for missing that question. I have been checking back regularly, but must have missed that question.
I'm not sure about the other guys, but for me...I've never cheated on my wife with anyone. But I have cheated on her with porn/fantasy/masturbation. Still technically adultery.

Anonymous said...

I thoroughly enjoy this blog and am very thankful for it. I don't comment often but appreciate the strong defense of the Bible. It is something I believe any true believer would do. As I struggle with the same struggle as many of you, I know it is Christ my Lord who gives me strength, faith, and the grace to stand and persevere in Him.

Jay, I am constantly impressed with your unwavering stand for Christ and His word. I appreciate it and it encourages me much. You have far more appreciation and support than you know.

In Christ,
Steve

larkspur said...

Daniel,

Thanks for your candor and honesty - it is much appreciated and respected.

I realize that a new thread is about to take this one's place, but I want to say that I have learned yet again how differently different people view the Bible.

My not being raised in an Evangelical home nor being comfortable in Evangelical churches probably has my antenna up as far as phrases which sound odd or uncomfortable to me. It seems that so many spins or interpretations are given on this book, that it would be impossible to keep track of. And honestly, if a book was enough, I believe that God would have dropped books out of Heaven (which He easily could have done) instead of sending Jesus to die.

I'll end with this: I heard a well respected and well liked Bible teacher comment on a particular passage of Scripture -- actually a story or account in the life of David. As he commented, he said, "And if such and such were the case or needed to be mentioned, the Bible would have said it." Meaning, if whatever, we think might have been important was that important or necessary it would have been there.

I know there must be some kind of history to this type of logic being employed, but honestly, I find the remark not based on any logic other than a presupposed idea of the Bible that his group (the Evangelicals) has.

So this is why when people say to show a gay relationship in the Bible (as *proof* that they are O.K.), I find the argument to be superfluous. There were no women pastors and preachers (as there are today in the most conservative groups now), no lack of slavery back then, no *lots* of things.

I'm not Evangelical. I don't claim to be. I don't want to be. And I don't think that Evangelicals have all the answers to all the mysteries of life with the Bible. So, if in the words of Sarah Palin, that makes me a "rogue", so be it. ;-)

V.C. said...

Jay,

Your treatment of the debate with Cass was disturbing to me. Though his views were different and stretched limits, he was very knowledgeable with his stance.

Though I did not agree with all he said, I felt he was sincerely here to help the MOM mess. It's about helping out, not about you being right. How is that going to help if you make it all about you?

Cass was not challenging your cherry picking of animal ritual sacrificial rights in Leviticus dropped in the NT of which you referred. He was challenging your cherry picking of L sexual and food purity laws that were never dropped in the NT, or this cultural mess might be much less dramatic.

It would seem you not only tried to confuse people in this forum with inapplicable information about animal ritual, you lost your cool, got angry and resorted to name calling, the ultimate in immature action. Did you not pass 3rd grade? I do not find that at all "standing up for Christ". I find it unsupportive of Christ's mission in any form, and some of us are trying to clear up the gay culture war with clarity and insight. You are definitely making that more difficult with your stubborn tactics.

After careful study Cass is right, you do as many I now see do, "cherry pick" the homosexual law in Leviticus into "current time" and leave the rest behind. Or we'd be stoning men for having sex with their wives while having their period, amongst many other silly things.

From my view, Cass told you a little more about your true self then you were willing to admit, so you snapped and bolted in an ugly way. He busted your nut and you couldn't handle it. Plain and simple. Bravado doesn't win debates, brains do.

If I were in your shoes, I'd thank him for enlightening you, apologize, and wipe the egg off your face. He obviously won this "debate" or whatever term you want to call it. You might also ask God for forgiveness.

For one that speaks up, there are many who won't that feel the same as I.

Your treatment of Cass and this discussion, though I don't think he was angry or gaming like you were, lost me.

Jay said...

VC, no one here mentioned animal ritual, so I don't know what you're talking about. And my ideas about homosexual behavior don't come from Leviticus, but from Romans and Corinthians. I mentioned this to Cass and he didn't have anything to say. Obviously, I don't care if someone has dissenting views about homosexual behavior (I didn't say anything rude to Larkspur or The Muser or Dannybrou, did I?)

Cass also didn't defend his assertion that left-handedness was a sin in the Bible (because there are no such verses), thus showing that he really didn't know much about this subject and was merely trolling. A troll doesn't have good things to offer, and Cass has shown himself to be one, not just on this blog in previous threads, but on several blogs. This wasn't the first time he's pulled stuff like this, but it will be the last. I have very clear comment policies and I gave him plenty of warnings in weeks past, but he crossed a line.

donsands said...

"If I were in your shoes, I'd thank him for enlightening you, apologize, and wipe the egg off your face. He obviously won this "debate" or whatever term you want to call it. You might also ask God for forgiveness." -VC

Dear VC,
I think this quote of yours is a good one for yourself, and an apology to Jay would be very appropriate.

BanBam said...

So I'm confused Jay, could you answer a couple questions?

1) What "old ritual rights" in Leviticus were cut out in the NT?

2) You have said you believe and / or agree that "men who lie with men as with a woman are an abomination" in other places in your blog, (tho I'd be hard pressed to find it anytime quickly)yet you say you don't draw from that L verse. Most conservatives find that to be their foundational verse yet it seems like you are saying two things. Why do not draw from that verse in L? Do you believe it is the spoken word of God or not?

3) What exactly did Cass say that was not Ok here with your policy, as I saw him as helpful.
Right now I'm a bit on eggshells and I've never even commented her before.

Jay said...

BanBam: 1. Christ fulfilled the Law. This does not mean that the Law no longer applies, though. Ritual laws such as what foods one should eat or how to perform sacrifices are done away with (as is specifically mentioned in the NT). Moral laws still apply (no one ever seems to argue with the Leviticus laws against incest or murder, for example), but the consequences of those laws (execution) have been lifted because of Christ. Still, Christ was a great defender of the Law. I'm no scholar, but this is how I see things.

2. I believe it's the spoken word of God, and like I said I think the spirit of the moral laws of Leviticus still apply. I'm merely saying that even if the Leviticus verse wasn't there, there are still plenty of places in the NT that condemn homosexual behavior.

3. Cass has been very disrespectful on numerous occasions over the past few weeks, to me and other guests, which violates Comment Policy #7. I have warned him about this and he has continued to make inflammatory statements. Don't worry. I don't think most people would say some of the things he's said. As a general rule, though, when on a blog don't try to psychoanalyze the admin or the other guests.

larkspur said...

Jay,

I'm glad that you have the courage to post what V.C. and BanBam have said, and the fact that they both see gay sex as sin (if I understand them correctly), shows that there are probably quite a few of us who find your responses to Cass disturbing regardless of how we view gay relationships (or are unsure about).

No, I did not agree with everything Cass said, either, and I did find some of it non sensible. But, it seems that Christians feel that they are almost required to take an adversarial stance with any disagreement. Elsewise they are not orthodox or true Christians if they don't.

This is kind of a Catch-22; yes, it is your blog, absolutely. And yes, you have a right to delete or not publish any post you so choose. Which might leave only those in full agreement with you posting. Again, it's your call.

What I *can* tell you is that when you leave academia, you will be required to get along with many different kinds of people. And many of them will be superiors. This freedom that you now experience (and many of us did) in undergraduate academia does not so much exist outside the Ivory Tower. I salute your courage in tackling these tough issues at your age, but I can guarantee you that you will come upon a variety of "Casses" out there with whom you will need to better get along. How do I know this? I learned it the hard way.

So much (if not all) of this discussion seems to focus around how the Bible is interpreted and ultimately by whom. I was just thinking this morning that Evangelicals and Charismatics (both considered to be orthodox conservatives) can take identical Scriptures and come to very different life applications (tongues, healing, etc...). Who is right? Who is wrong? And I keep bringing up the issue of women preachers and pastors (which I really don't have an opinion about) and how the Scripture of women not having authority over men has seemingly been superseded by culture. And these are women in churches that oppose gay relationships. A little bit odd and inconsistent at least as I look at it.

BanBam said...

Larkspur,

I agree with you, we need to hold our cool even in times of disagreement.

There are other ways than over- reacting with which to treat a situation.

Jay,

My Dad's sister got divorced from her bi, now turned fully gay husband. The whole family was wrecked over it probably more because they have 2 little girls.

Then my dad stopped pushing me to go out with girls. He now thinks after doing his own research, that the Bible is misunderstood via too many translations, or was deliberately tampered with by
str8 men regarding gays. Considering the Middle East stance on gays, he has a really good point.

Either way he now wants me "married" and settled down with in his terms, "a tiger
of the same stripes", which is a gay guy like me. Thank God for that. I was tired of going out on fake dates with girls only to be attracted to guys.

I'm going to take my Dad's advice as it is really from his heart. I also know he's right. I feel better than I've ever felt with the pressure lifted. Str8
guys have support automatically. I just think we deserve the same. Glad i got my approval through default, but nonetheless, it's pretty terrific.

I don't think gay sex is a sin. Now my dad doesn't either, which whew, finally he got it together.

That I think, is where the problem lies for most Christians in struggling positions, str8 or gay.

It'll be a non issue soon tho, it's just a matter of time.

Jay said...

Larkspur: For the last time, it wasn't that Cass was disagreeing, it was how he was disagreeing. He has tried to psychoanalyze and personally attack me and other people who comment on this blog before. That's why he was banned. I certainly respect and enjoy to talk to people with different opinions, but Cass crossed some very clear lines.

Try administrating a blog where you get over 50 comments per post and the vast majority are disagreements. It gets exhausting sometimes, and I don't always have the time or energy to finesse things. Sometimes I simply have to put my foot down and ask someone to leave.

BanBam: I am happy you have a good relationship with your family. I would challenge your assertion that straight people have support automatically. In a Christian environment, straight guys are called to the same kind of purity gay guys are called to. I know several guys who have gotten disapproval for living with and sleeping with their girlfriends prior to marriage, or for dating girls who weren't Christians.

But disapproval doesn't mean a lack of support. My parents support me, but they don't really approve of my conservative religious views or my celibacy. Like your parents, they encourage me to find a guy to settle down with. They still love me, though, just like I know yours would still love you even if they didn't approve of gay sex.

Dannybrou said...

But Jay - the disapproval that straight guys get from the Christian side is NOTHING compared to the disapproval that homosexual guys get. You can not compare the two.

Jay said...

Oh, of course they don't compare. Homosexuals are disproportionately disapproved and mistreated. I think I've made that clear on my blog numerous times. I'm just saying that disapproval in and of itself is not a sign of something being hateful.

BanBam said...

I don't believe str8 guys and gay guys are called to the same level of "purity". Str8 guys are asked to put their sexual nature on hold until marriage. That's fine. I can understand that. Gay guys are called to do away with their sex drive all together. I think that's destructive and pathological. That's not fine and i don't support that.

One is called to live, the other is called to die. One can cause a severe case of blue balls while the other can cause that and severe mental disorder.

I have to side with my dad in that the Bible was misunderstood through translation, or gay-tampered with by a str8 faction in an attempt to suppress.

I accept God as my authority. I just don't believe he ever did or said anything bad to or about homosexuals to scriptural writers.

I have a basic foundation in common sense and refuse to live an entire lifetime of sexual struggle. I can't love God and be in struggle all the time. It's hard enough just being human much less believe negatively towards something as fundamental as sex, that doesn't make sense.

Please don't get mad. I don't mean to step on any toes. It's just my take and foundation for a happy gay life of which I have worked hard to aquire and feel I fully deserve. I think it's our nature to be happy sexually and otherwise.

Thanks Joe! (that's my dad) :)

donsands said...

"Str8 guys are asked to put their sexual nature on hold until marriage. That's fine. I can understand that."

Me to.

God made them male and female in His image.

The SSA is not God's design. He surely has grace for those who are captured by this, or who have this powerful feeling within their hearts.

Christ became sin, and a curse for us; fornicators, blasphemers, and all other sinners, of which I feel like I am chief, though the Apostle Paul said he was chief. I suppose we all are chief in our own sins. But God forgives us. Amazing grace truly.
That is compassion unheard of.

We simply need to bow our hearts to the truth of His Word. The struggle and pressure will most likely remain in this age, and the exception to the rule will be those who are delivered into God's grace of what God has designed for males and females.
That's the way i see it, anyhow.

Even porno addicted "sex maniacs" can be delivered from his desire by the Lord's grace and power.
Even a pedophile can be delivered from his desires. But, even if they are not, they can still repent and bow the knee to Christ, who is the Truth, Life, and Way.
And the struggle against sin will never leave us, but we will hate sin, because of what Christ has done for us.

And, there's a day when all sin will be put away!
Hallelujah!

This is a big part of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Lord of lords.

Keep up the good work of Christ Jay.

BanBam said...

PS Jay you sound like you have really cool parents too. I also am glad for you. :)

Saul said...

Neo,

I'm not married, but I might. I'm in a relationship with a woman who knows all about me, and we're in the process of deciding whether we should get married.

Like you, I am somewhat sexually attracted to women. I'm physically aroused at the sight of (some) women. Years ago, I, unfortunately, was sexually intimate for some time with a girlfriend, and there was no problem.

On the other hand, I've never been physically aroused by men. But that's because I suppress it well. I know that this attraction is much stronger and different than the one I have for women.

Nevertheless, marriage would be a challenge. Not because intimacy would be difficult or artificial. In my case, it would be because my homosexuality leads to spiritual struggle. I would liken this to other spiritual struggles - for example Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - where we doubt God and his existence.

Such struggles are obviously not confined to those of us with ssa. I think it's good to remember this. Christianity, as ancient Christians understood very well, and as today's monastics understand well, can be a journey of struggle for various reasons. As many monastics have said, as one gets closer to Christ, his wounds become clearer and the Devil works harder.

So that's why marriage would be tough? Can my wife deal with me when I struggle, when I get depressed, etc? These are the questions to answer.

If I am not meant for marriage, that's fine. The Christian single life is of course an honoured one. And we have plenty of examples from past and present of voluntarily or unvoluntarily unmarried folks who've been great Christian witnesses.

Dannybrou said...

Don - That is what you THINK the bible says. Not actually what it says.

Jay - "Try administrating a blog where you get over 50 comments per post and the vast majority are disagreements."

wow. I won't be commenting on here or reading your blog much anymore because of this. Why comment on a blog where you get called out for disagreeing. Regardless of your view.

Jay said...

Dannybrou, please look at that sentence in context. I'm not calling people out for disagreeing. I love it when people disagree. I'm just saying that it gets exhausting for me because I try to respond to everyone thoroughly, and I can't always be as nice or nuanced in my disagreements as I'd like to be because I'm also a Senior English Literature major, applying for graduate school, working two jobs, and preparing for student teaching. I'm busy, and I can get short sometimes.

Please continue to read and comment. I appreciate your perspective. But like I said, unless someone has tried to admin a blog like I am, I don't necessarily want them commenting on how I'm not being nice enough to the 50+ dissenting views, many of which are personal attacks. It goes with the territory of trying to respond to everyone, but it's very tiring and time-consuming.

donsands said...

- "That is what you THINK the bible says. Not actually what it says."-Danny

No it's not. It's what the Bible teaches.

I'd appreciate any insight where I am wrong. I'm simply sharing the simple and pure truth of the Holy Scriptures.

There are deeper subjects where one can disagree, but the gospel, and the simple truth of Adam and Eve is crystal clear.

I do fear God, and i try to be very serious when sharing what His Word, which is truth, says.

So please expose my misinterpretation of Scripture. I would quickly listen to you if you can persuade by the Bible.
For the Scriptures are the Church's final authority; and so my final authority as well.

larkspur said...

The simple truth of Adam and Eve is not that crystal clear after the Fall.

I find that people who believe that gay relationships are always sinful, always hearken back to the Garden as proof positive.

O.K., let's look at it: God commanded Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and mulitiply". There are couples who marry who cannot do this -- *and know* before they even marry that they cannot have children. By definition, they are violating God's command of marriage by marrying.

More importantly, God gave Adam ONE wife -- uno -- He did not give extra wives, concubines, etc... One woman, one man, right?

But fast forward to the days of Abraham, David (the man after God's own heart), and other patriarchs, and polygamy is accepted. The best "reason" for this (which is flimsy at best) which I have heard is that God "tolerated" it.

God is God. He doesn't have to tolerate *anything*. And yet, God never told these men (and others) to do the "one man, one woman" plan which you say is crystal clear. Were it all crystal clear, He wouldn't have allowed polygamy after the Fall. There seems to be a New Testament reference to deacons "being the husband of one wife". That's kind of odd, too, for a "one woman, one man" crystal clear plan.

So, Don, I think you now see what gay Christians unwittingly stumble upon with a closer reading of the Bible with Adam and Eve not remaining the commandment for this era in time (post Fall).

donsands said...

"God is God. He doesn't have to tolerate *anything*. And yet, God never told these men (and others) to do the "one man, one woman" plan which you say is crystal clear."

I never said that.

What I'm saying is that God made a female for the male, and He made them male and female. That's all.


I don't really want to go over the same ground again.

It's good discussing these things with you, and Jay has been quite a good host.
Lord bless you, and may His mercy be with you.

Larkspur said...

Don,

I find it interesting when someone brings up something that is confusing or seemingly contradictory (i.e. polygamy), walls go up. Why? You asked specifically to talk Bible, and I quoted from the Bible.

Truly, I cannot understand how one can take the Adam and Eve example and say, therefore *all* that applies then applies now. If you take part of the story -- male and female, you must, to be consistent, take the entire story as truth which would include such things as childbearing and monogamy, for instance. If anything, I am being more Biblically focused by pointing out Scriptures and incidences beyond Genesis.

But, this is where people get uncomfortable, that the Bible is not as cut and dried as we have been taught or want to believe. To my mind, that does not make God less loving or trustworthy, but maybe to some folks it does.

donsands said...

".. walls go up."

I really don't have any walls going up.

I'd be glad to talk about every verse of Scripture. I love the truth of God.

Homosexual behavior is sin. That's all I'm saying. The Bible is clear.

Polygamy is granted by God for a time. He then showed us a better way through Christ. One man and one woman.
Though to have more than one wife is not fornication. To take another man's wife is, or to simply go to a prostitute would be.

I'm not sure where you're coming from really. I guess we could study the whole Bible togther, and you would see from the whole counsel of Scripture that a man and a man is condemned by God.

Here's a Scripture for you which is crystal clear for us all:

"Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." 1 Tim. 1:8-11

Have a nice day.

larkspur said...

Don,

Where I am coming from is that a major argument against homosexuality itself is not the six Scriptures alone mentioning homosexuality but the Creation story as the reason to be against it.

I am saying that if you are for the Creation Story as the pure creation intent, you should to be entirely consistent, be against polygamy and couples marrying who cannot have children.

If you believe this, the Creation story showed and maintained the better way: it was not necessary to wait for the time of Christ. God had already made His intent known in the Garden. Waiting for Christ has no bearing on the issue of monogamy or polygamy.

This discussion underscores the reality of different people interpreting the Bible differently -- and yet insisting that they have the right interpretation.

At this point I think you are right: you and I will get no place in the discussion regarding the Creation account and its intent for that place in time and its intent for now.

donsands said...

"Where I am coming from is that a major argument against homosexuality itself is not the six Scriptures alone mentioning homosexuality"

How do you interpret these truths?

Seems vividly clear.

God is holy, and He is also very gracious. He gave His most Beloved Son, whom He loved with a perfect love for sinners like us.
Homosexuals, drunkards, proud fools, fornicators, thieves, murderers, and blasphemers.

God says, "Come unto Me, all who are laden with heavy burdens, and I will give you rest for your soul.
My burden is light, and an my yoke is easy."
We need to come to Christ, and embrace His death as our own, and His resurrection as our own, by repenting and trusting in His goodness, love, and truth.

Thanks for discussing these things with me.
I'm sort of an ignorant man. I'm very unlearned, and only by God's grace can I even communicate at all. All thanks and praise to Jesus. Amen.

Chaz22 said...

Donsands,

I haven't commented here before but I do enjoy reading this blog from time to time. I have read your comments over time and want to share an observation if you don't mind.

With all the comments you have entered, I still don't know who you are. You seem to be more availing in reciting chapter and verse, which we all pretty much know, rather than being the uniqueness that you are, contributing from an angle maybe we haven't heard before.

The way you do communication, it would seem that you may be trying to hide out behind the great book, but we know that is not what is intended for.

So I am wondering, could I hear from you and just you, maybe just a little, so that I might see some of who you are?

Thanks for listening.

donsands said...

Chaz,

I have been who I am, I think.

God's Word, which is truth, is what we need to be speaking to one another, and that is all I'm doing.

You can go to my blog and see who I am I guess, if you like.

On a blog I think sharing with one another our hearts, and the truth of Scripture isn't going to reveal the depth of who we are. That only happens through mutual fellowship.

I believe the Lord brought me together with Jay a while ago, when he read an article I wrote about my brother who died from AIDS.

And I've learned much from Jay.

I suppose the way i love to share the Bible is very telling in who I am.
I'm a very doctrianl sort. I have said this beofe, and I have tried to be very open.

If you are ever in Baltiomre, send me an e-mail and let me know, and we can get together and talk. Maybe have lunch. And I believe you'll meet basically the same person who shares his thoughts here on Jay's blog, but it will also be more real, won't it.

I hope that helps.

Pianomankugie said...

I agree, every couple has special challenges. And the greatest challenge is to love each other fully and completely and unconditionally and continually and perpetually as God loves us. And we've had to forgive each other a lot too, and that's not a bad thing. Married isn't easy, and single isn't easy either. Either way, God literally carries us through.