|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexual relations and "otherness"
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It's been almost two years since the last thread I started on homosexuality and time to see if I've recovered enough to start another one.
On the Vicky Beeching thread, Starlight quoted Robert Gagnon, regarded apparently as the best exegete of the conservative view on homosexuality, saying this of Beeching: quote:
Her error lies in thinking that she can rectify any deficit in her feminine self by absorbing in another woman what she perceives to be lacking in herself.
DISCLAIMER: in an effort to pre-empt the bile that usually follows the mention of Gagnon's name here, I'm not seeking to defend him (and certainly not that personal attack). I'd never heard of him before plumbing the depths of DH. But it seems to me he is probably the best exponent of the kind of views prevalent in the wider sea I'm swimming in.
Starlight describes Gagnon's statement as "psychobabble"; it certainly isn't exegesis. But it does sort of resonate with a concern I have (had?) intuitively, as expressed by me (responding to orfeo on the incest thread) thus: quote:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that there are studies indicating that same-sex couples get on better with each other in a number of respects and this is probably because they are more similar to each other, it's hard to see why one would prefer difference (...)
I don't know about 'preferring', but I think 'otherness' is an important ingredient, and one that biology goes at least some way - I do not say the only way - to providing, out of the box as it were.
Again, Gagnon was not exegeting in that quote. "Otherness" is not mentioned in it explicitly, but I get the feeling that he might be arguing with "otherness" in mind.
Could it be that in the beginning, we are presented with Adam and Eve to embody "otherness" (as well as similarity) in relationships? Is "otherness" important? And if it is important, how important is biological gender in contributing to it?
I'm honestly trying to think things through here (with your help), not defend a position. I can no longer content myself with being "homosexually agnostic"; this issue is coming to find me, I am certain of it.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think there is far more variation of persons within each gender than there is between them. My skills do, in many ways, complement my wife's. The differences do not, however, run along the lines of stereotype - my wife is better with tools, DIY, electronics, while I'm better at cooking. On the other hand I deal with money and my wife does the bulk of the laundry. Our complementarity doesn't really have a lot to do with gender, beyond the fact that I'm only attracted to women (my wife has a broader interest), it has to do with our individual traits and characteristics.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes, differences and complementarity do not fall exclusively or perhaps even predominantly along gender lines. Some straight couples are destructively fusional.
Nevertheless, there in Genesis as in life, we have Adam and Eve, the two different genders, leaving, cleaving, all that. Assuming we think the text has something to say to us today, what might it be saying?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Eutychus,
The teaching of genesis is God creating the universe. Parable, not science. If one sticks to the literal, then incest is the Bible's preferred method of procreation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Eutychus,
I've seen some quite reasonable people (eg Alistair) struggle over the years with this idea. Some people hold to a sort of "complementarian" theology, where the woman and man are both thought to add something essential to the relationship by virtue of their masculinity and femininity, with the two together being complementary. The reaction of such theology to the existence of same-sex relationships is to take the view that the relationship is going to be "missing out" on either masculinity or femininity by having two lots of the same thing and none of the other. This is often expressed as the idea that it's like marrying the "self" (ie the same gender) rather than the "other" (ie the other gender).
And that all sounds reasonable to a lot of people. The thing is though, once you actually look at empirical reality, you realize that same-sex relationships work just fine. Studies seem to consistently find that gay couples are happier than straight couples. They report being more satisfied, not less satisfied, with their relationships than straight couples on average.
And if you ask psychologists who study relationships they will tell you that this is not surprising, because one of the best predictors of successful relationships is similarity. The more similar two people are, the better they can empathize with each other - the better they understand the other person's point of view, the better they realize what the other person is feeling, the better they understand what the other person is going through and what they really want. And empathy turns out to be key to success in relationships, because it leads to better resolutions of disputes and less disputes in general. For this reason it's generally best to marry someone (gay or straight) whom you have a lot in common with, not simply to give you more activities to do together, but because you'll get on better and have a more successful relationship. Also the sex tends to be better in same-sex relationships (especially for women) because women know what women like and guys know what guys like.
There's a famous book whose title has become a proverb (in English at least) titled "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". This proverb refers to the fact that the differences between how men and women think are commonly a source of strife in relationships due to miscommunication and problems with empathy. A common stereotypical example that is often used to depict miscommunication between the sexes in straight relationships is when woman gets upset by something the man does that is inconsiderate, the man after some time eventually notices she's upset and asks her what's wrong, and she replies "well if you can't work it out, I'm not going to tell you" and stalks off in a huff leaving the man scratching his head before rolling his eyes and muttering "women" in a disgusted tone.
So the whole idea of masculinity and femininity being complimentary and necessary in relationships is just wrong in practice. As a result, psychologists who deal with scientific realities don't bother to use words like "otherness" etc, because all these ideas don't actually correspond to anything true or real. That's why I labelled it "pscyhobabble" - it's an attempt to do psychoanalysis in a way that is not based on evidence.
The whole notion of "otherness" I find to be more than a bit silly anyway, because if I as a guy have a relationship with another guy then he is "the other". He is not me, and to me I am the self and he is the other. By marrying a guy and not a girl I am still marrying another person, I am definitely not marrying myself. So to be told that there is no "otherness" in my relationship would make me roll my eyes, of course there is plenty of otherness. Also, in practice, some girls are quite masculine and some guys are quite effeminate, and people's interests and hobbies don't often perfectly align with stereotypical gender roles - there is much more difference within the genders than between them - marrying someone of the same sex doesn't necessarily mean you're marrying someone similar to you and marrying someone of the opposite sex doesn't necessarily mean marrying someone very different to you.
From a purely theological point of view, I don't at all accept the notion that anything in the creation account is meant to deliberately imply that "otherness" is important. God's motivation for making Eve female is obvious (he wanted them to have children to populate the world) and is not portrayed as psychological (nowhere does it suggest God was thinking 'now I better make Eve female because psychologically Adam will need to have 'otherness' in his relationship). I would in fact tend to read it strongly in the opposite manner of implying the importance of similarity. Adam meets each and every animal but finds none of the adequate to be his mate, presumably since none of them are sufficiently similar to him given that God's subsequently successful solution to the problem is to clone Adam's rib into another human. I would say there are two lessons from that story, both of which favour same-sex unions:
1) Eve's validity as a mate for Adam rests in her being more similar to him than the rest of the animals are. Nothing in the story suggests that any differences she might have from Adam have any fundamental role in qualifying her to be his mate.
2) God seems to have been happy for Adam to choose his own mate by searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable. God's only concern was that "it is not good for the man to be alone". That seems to reasonably suggest that God's will is that gay people shouldn't be alone and that they can search to find a mate that satisfies them.
tl;dr: The notion of needing sexually complementary "otherness" in relationships is just plain nonsense.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Eutychus, as I've said before (I'm not sure whether it was to you or not), the story of the creation of Eve emphasises her similarity to Adam, not her difference. The very point of her creation is that she is 'flesh of his flesh', and like him in a way that the animals were not. This makes her a suitable companion when the animals were not.
I simply don't see how it's possible to get a theology of otherness out of a narrative that actually emphasises the exact opposite.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The teaching of genesis is God creating the universe. Parable, not science. If one sticks to the literal, then incest is the Bible's preferred method of procreation.
I would certainly tend to see it as more of a parable than science, but either way, I think details matter (we just may not agree on which details and how they matter!).
Even on a literalist reading, the Bible skips lightly over where Cain got his wife, whereas it highlights the "male and female" aspect more than once.
To me (and especially if we read this more metaphorically or 'parabolically') that suggests the latter is there for a reason, whereas the implicit incest is more of a 'plot inconsistency' as it were. It's tangential to what the narrative is saying.
I'd say this is borne out by how Jesus uses this passage. He never says anything like "as it is written, Cain bonked Eve (or a sister) to produce descendants". He does say "male and female he created them".
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
So the whole idea of masculinity and femininity being complimentary and necessary in relationships is just wrong in practice.
But masculinity and femininity are not the same as biological gender, which is what I asked about. Indeed, above I conceded that quote:
differences and complementarity do not fall exclusively or perhaps even predominantly along gender lines
and the reason you offered for male and female in Genesis isn't about masculinity and femininity, either - it's about biological gender, too: quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
God's motivation for making Eve female is obvious (he wanted them to have children to populate the world)
Indeed - and I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
Even if complementarity, masculinity, femininity and even some aspects of gender do not fall solely along the lines of male and female, there is a difference at the level of biological gender, and it's a difference that is still with us.
Orfeo, it may well have been you who originally pointed out to me the emphasis on "similarity" in Genesis 2; it's a powerful point, and you and Starlight are right that it is certainly there.
I would venture to suggest, however, that so is difference, at this fundamental level of biological gender.
In Genesis 2:23, as I understand it the Hebrew says Adam (the human) declares "she will be called Ish-a (female) because she was taken from Ish (male, i.e. "person of the male sex"). In Gen 2 God didn't make an asexual, non-differentiated "Adam 2", or another Ish; he made Ish-a. quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
1) Eve's validity as a mate for Adam rests in her being more similar to him than the rest of the animals are.
You argued earlier that God's motivation in making Eve was that he wanted this first couple to have children. Given that God didn't make us capable of asexual reproduction, Eve's validity as a partner resided in her biological difference, too. quote:
2) God seems to have been happy for Adam to choose his own mate by searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable
Taking the narrative at this level, do you think there was any doubt as to the final outcome? I think it's just a little piece of theatre to highlight the archetypal suitability of the final outcome - someone the same, yet different. quote:
God's only concern was that "it is not good for the man to be alone". That seems to reasonably suggest that God's will is that gay people shouldn't be alone and that they can search to find a mate that satisfies them.
You can't argue (as you did earlier) that God's intent in setting this whole thing up was for Adam and Eve to procreate, and simultaneously argue that the same text demonstrates it is God's will for gay people to find a satisfactory mate.
(I'm not saying that is not God's will in any circumstances, just that I don't think you can argue it very convincingly from Genesis).
[ 23. August 2014, 07:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In Genesis 2:23, as I understand it the Hebrew says Adam (the human) declares "she will be called Ish-a (female) because she was taken from Ish (male, i.e. "person of the male sex"). In Gen 2 God didn't make an asexual, non-differentiated "Adam 2", or another Ish; he made Ish-a.
You don't appear to realise that the etymology lesson supports my thesis, not yours. You're so focused on the addition of one letter, you haven't noticed that the point is to give a similar name because of the connection, instead of a totally separate name with no connection.
Would you say that an actor and an actress are completely different things? An aviator and an aviatrix? English has actually lost most of its gender-based words, as we've come to the conclusion that it's the acting that matters, not the gender of person doing the acting.
I'm relearning German at the moment, and it still has -in as a gendered ending for many words (or at least, the source I'm using is telling me that's how it is). But the course I'm using makes sure I realise that both "Lehrer" and "Lehrerin" are valid translations for "teacher".
But you seem to be determined to say "look! look! There's an 'a' on the end! She's completely different". No, if she was completely different she wouldn't have got a name that emphasises her Ish-ness. A name that deliberately emphasises her similarity and minimises the importance of her difference down to a single letter.
[ 23. August 2014, 07:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But you seem to be determined to say "look! look! There's an 'a' on the end! She's completely different". No, if she was completely different she wouldn't have got a name that emphasises her Ish-ness. A name that deliberately emphasises her similarity and minimises the importance of her difference down to a single letter.
I don't think the number of letters is the point, orfeo. And I've never denied her similarity.
What I am disputing is the minimal importance of her difference, for reasons outlined above.
I take your point about similarity. But it's not true to say, or imply, that difference is absent from the text.
Back in a minute for a tangent on the "carnival of the animals".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd say this is borne out by how Jesus uses this passage. He never says anything like "as it is written, Cain bonked Eve (or a sister) to produce descendants". He does say "male and female he created them".
Jesus cites the passage to argue against divorce, his emphasis being on the "become one flesh" part, to not break what God has joined. He quotes the entire verse about leaving one's father and mother of course, but no one thinks that leaving one's father and mother is essential in marriage, despite the fact that Jesus quotes it, because it's not what he was talking about. The man and wife bit is also quoted, but again, not what Jesus was talking about.
Also rather importantly, the vast majority of churches allow divorce in some way, shape or form. (does yours?) Appealing to Jesus' Mark 10:7-8 quotation of the creation account in Jesus' argument against divorce seems rather hypocritical if done by someone who ignores precisely that teaching of Jesus. Telling gay people that they absolutely have to follow that teaching of Jesus which is not actually about homosexuality but only very incidentally touches on it, is a rather hypocritical double-standard if straight people are ignoring that very same verse's teaching against divorce which is actually the main point of the passage:
"We blatantly ignore Jesus' explicit teachings against divorce, but in the very passage that we're ignoring there happens to be a indirect reference to something that can be possibly interpreted as being against homosexuality, so you would be totally wrong to ever ignore that! You'd be ignoring Jesus! Jesus said it, you can't ignore Jesus!"
quote:
I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
Okay. What on earth does it matter?
As a matter of basic observable fact, gay couples around the world are getting happily married, happily having sex together, happily and successfully raising kids together. So you've managed to identify a difference between gay and straight couples... okay... but that difference doesn't actually matter a single iota. To be relevant to anything, you'd have to find some way that difference was important.
Also I would note that various scientists are working on artificial reproductive techniques that would let two gay people have biological children together. I'd say maybe in 10 years this might be feasible. Does that solve the problem? Or is your focus only on being able to have children together through sex with each other? And if so, isn't that a rather unjustifiable focus on sex? What does it matter where the children come from? And what about infertile heterosexual couples, such as couples who marry when they are old?
quote:
You can't argue (as you did earlier) that God's intent in setting this whole thing up was for Adam and Eve to procreate, and simultaneously argue that the same text demonstrates it is God's will for gay people to find a satisfactory mate.
Presumably if Adam had found a mate that could not biologically have led to reproduction, God could have acted to alter their biology to allow reproduction if that were God's desire.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
2) God seems to have been happy for Adam to choose his own mate by searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable.
I just wanted to come back to this in a sort of meta-tangent.
meta-tangent/
Starlight, I don't expect this was your intention, but your gloss on the "parade of animals" text could give an unfortunate impression of 'cruising'.
It also reminded me of the argument of some LGBT people that sexuality is a free choice to be exercised and/or experimented with, not an orientation to be endured or enjoyed.
[The latter stance is, however, the overwhelming impression I'm getting from the Homosexuality and Christianity thread (I'm half way through, long past the point where people are saying "nobody can be expected to read all 22 pages of it"). On it, the gay consensus seems to be "made that way" as Joan the Outlaw-Dwarf puts it, neatly but perhaps usefully sidestepping the nature/nurture debate to make the point that she doesn't feel she can or should change her orientation].
I think one of the conservatives' concerns (and this is perhaps again behind Gagnon's unfortunate turn of phrase quoted in the OP) is that the "free choice" argument is likely to lead to a consumerist approach to sexuality and relationships; at a certain age, one gets to enter a sort of supermarket of sexual partners and orientations and choose from a smorgasbord of what I think is right for me... without any consideration of the other.
I think this scenario is a long way from christianity, and plenty of arguments are marshalled against contemporary views of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular along these sorts of lines.
But this is not at all what the Genesis 2 parade of animals is trying to say (and I don't really think you are either).
It's not about Adam looking at a lineup and picking the best (I don't think God would have been happy if Adam had plumped for the giraffe, or the aardvark, half way down the line, especially given God was - as you say - aiming for procreation).
It's highlighting (I would say humourously) the fact that none of the options were the right one: that's the whole point.
The "supermarket of sexuality" stance is certainly not the overwhelming impression I get from gay posters here, who for the most part appear to be arguing for acceptance of committed, monogamous relationships, but it's certainly out there, and probably not helping in the search for common ground.
/meta-tangent
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Jesus cites the passage to argue against divorce, his emphasis being on the "become one flesh" part, to not break what God has joined.
Yes indeed. And at the same time, he notes the possibility of divorce under Mosaic law and doesn't rule it out. quote:
Also rather importantly, the vast majority of churches allow divorce in some way, shape or form. (does yours?)
Yes. quote:
Telling gay people that they absolutely have to follow that teaching of Jesus which is not actually about homosexuality but only very incidentally touches on it
I for one have never said that (which exact "teaching" did you have in mind, anyway?), any more than I say to divorcees that they are beyond the reach of the church or cannot remarry.
quote:
quote:
I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
Okay. What on earth does it matter?
I'm not sure I can articulate clearly why I might think it matters, but I think it's important to concede it is a difference, and it's one which is, by your own admission, present in how you understand the Genesis 2 narrative. quote:
So you've managed to identify a difference between gay and straight couples... okay... but that difference doesn't actually matter a single iota. To be relevant to anything, you'd have to find some way that difference was important.
I'll need to get back to you on this - feel free to prod me if I forget - but as things stand there is at least one significant difference in the French Civil Code, post-gay marriage. quote:
Also I would note that various scientists are working on artificial reproductive techniques that would let two gay people have biological children together. I'd say maybe in 10 years this might be feasible. Does that solve the problem?
Perhaps I am [3], a natural law nut after all*. Intuitively, I'd say this takes humanity places it shouldn't go. quote:
And what about infertile heterosexual couples, such as couples who marry when they are old?
At least until your scientific scenario comes to pass, and choosing my words carefully, I'd say that while it is not a necessary or sufficient reason for marriage, the potential for procreation is at least part of most marriages. quote:
Presumably if Adam had found a mate that could not biologically have led to reproduction, God could have acted to alter their biology to allow reproduction if that were God's desire.
See my previous post about the parade of animals. This sounds like rather a desperate argument to me.
A final thought for now. Quoting the Matthew passage has actually made me open my Bible. I note that in this passage (Mt 19:8) Jesus says of divorce "but it was not this way from the beginning".
As far as I'm concerned, this debate, like many others, is all about dealing with a situation that "was not that way from the beginning" in such a way as to accept and rejoice in people as they are made - whilst also acknowledging how things "were in the beginning" and not losing sight of what they might be telling us in the broader scheme of things.
*I almost called this thread simply "[3]" but resisted the temptation in the light of my own pleading for intelligible thread titles.
[ 23. August 2014, 09:00: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*? If homosexuality wasn't there from the beginning, the Levitical priests wouldn't feel the need to make a law against it, would they? And that's dated a few centuries before Christ.
* And I know the stuff about small remnant needing to procreate and homosexuality was a problem in that situation.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Eutychus,
quote:
the gay consensus seems to be "made that way"
Scientific surveys asking gay people how much choice they felt they had in their sexuality tend to find about 9 in 10 gay people report feeling they had little or no conscious choice in their sexual orientation. Straight people tend to report the same thing. It's worth thinking about this question yourself - at what age did you make the decision to be attracted to girls and not guys, or did you simply find yourself liking women and never bothered to question that too hard?
For the vast majority of people, who we find attractive and who we don't find attractive isn't something we have any choice over. Rather we simply see someone and think "he/she looks hot". Nor is there any known successful way to reliably change which gender we find attractive, and most psychological associations around the world caution against such attempts as they almost never work and are commonly psychologically damaging.
quote:
at a certain age, one gets to enter a sort of supermarket of sexual partners and orientations and choose from a smorgasbord of what I think is right for me... without any consideration of the other.
Um, yes, it's called "dating"? I am not sure what "the other" is referring to here.
quote:
(I don't think God would have been happy if Adam had plumped for the giraffe
Well that is speculative... the text doesn't really say that. God certainly appears to validly offer Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate. There's no suggestion that God is trying to trick Adam into sinning by choosing a mate that God disapproves of. (Such very snake-like behaviour comes in the next chapter, and isn't God doing it) I would accept a reading, however, that said God offers Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate in the sure knowledge that Adam's not going to take that option, and God makes this offer as a means of teaching Adam about the animals and leading Adam on a journey of self-discovery to learn what's right for Adam (ie God knows the giraffe isn't right as a mate for Adam, but Adam needs to learn this himself). But I struggle with a reading that says that if Adam had really genuinely accepted the giraffe as a mate then this would have been in some way sinful, since God seems to have really made the offer and it would not be transgressing a command of God so how can it be a sin?
quote:
The "supermarket of sexuality" stance is certainly not the overwhelming impression I get from gay posters here, who for the most part appear to be arguing for acceptance of committed, monogamous relationships, but it's certainly out there, and probably not helping in the search for common ground.
The vast majority of gay people, in my observation, would just like to live "normal" lives in the sense that they want to find someone to share their life with and do so. Although many of those in the age range 16-28 would like to have sex with as many people as possible as often as possible, exactly like their straight peers in the same age group!
However, when the dominant Christian culture rejected gay peoples rights in the mid 20th century and drove openly gay people into their own little subculture, those gay people were told by Christians that marriage was not for them and some of them took that lesson to heart, reasoning that if they were to be denied committed relationships then they would seek to find themselves alternate sorts of relationships to those Christian ones they were being denied. As a result a subculture of sexual promiscuity got promoted among some gay groups as 'better' than the monogamous Christian model. This subculture of promiscuity still has a significant influence, though it is waning significantly as gay rights make progress, since the progress has resulted in a massive influx of 'normal' gay people. So in my view, the irony of it is that Christians have gotten upset at the subculture they themselves are responsible for creating, but which is now a subculture that is declining due to the rise of the equal rights that the Christians opposed.
quote:
I'm not sure I can articulate clearly why I might think it matters, but I think it's important to concede it is a difference,
I do indeed concede there is a difference between gay and straight couples. Gay couples have two people of the same sex, whereas straight couples have one of each! That's the only difference that's really relevant to anything, and it's not relevant to much!
When it comes to the issue of children, gay and straight couples have different options (which depend on age also), and it is always a personal decision for any couple what they want to do about having or not having children or how many they want to have or whether they want to adopt or whether they want to seek medical assistance. It's not our place to tell other people what decisions they ought to make concerning having children. When the Prop 8 cases (trying to ban gay marriage) were going through the courts in California a few years back, it was noted by the judges that an estimated 30,000 children under 18 were being raised by same-sex couples in California at the time. So gay couples are very definitely raising children on a regular basis! (The judges noted in their rulings, after reading expert testimony from many medical and scientific organisations, that denying the parents of these children the right of marriage has a negative impact on the children as they benefit from married parents)
quote:
quote:
Also I would note that various scientists are working on artificial reproductive techniques that would let two gay people have biological children together. I'd say maybe in 10 years this might be feasible. Does that solve the problem?
Intuitively, I'd say this takes humanity places it shouldn't go.
Medical professionals intervene regularly to help infertile couples have children, by playing around with eggs and sperm in test-tubes. When a couple who has been trying and failing to have children for years gets successful treatment and a pregnancy results, it's a cause for celebration.
There's nothing particularly dodgy from a scientific standpoint about same-sex couples having biological children: Their DNA combined makes a perfectly legitimate child just like the combined DNA of a straight couple. There would be nothing biologically unusual about the child itself in any way, shape, or form, and completely no way to tell by studying the child that it's parents were of the same gender. It could be argued that this sort of thing already happens naturally in cases where one of the parents is intersex and has some sort of unusual condition where their body's sexual organs don't match their genetic gender properly. (Although I note that combining the DNA of two lesbians could never result in a male child as they have no Y chromosome between them, so lesbians would only ever get biological female children, unless they could/did splice in a Y chromosome from a 3rd-party male donor. And two gay men would get male biological children with 2/3rds probability and female ones with only 1/3rd probability.)
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
That the first record we have for setting standards for sexual relationships has provisions for both divorce and homosexuality. (Well, there's also not committing adultery in Exodus, in the Ten Commandments.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
There are two accounts of the creation of humans. In Genesis 1, we read, quote:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
Then in Genesis 2, we have the differing account of God musing, "It is not good that the man should be alone", and his making of a suitable partner for Adam out of his own side. The interesting thing is that Genesis 2 does not once mention procreation. In this account, the point of creating men and women is companionship, and mutual help, and physical and spiritual union - becoming "one flesh". None of these seem impossible for same-sex relationships.
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women. In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it. The point is that both male and female are made in the image of God, and not the male only; the point is that both male and female are human. The 'otherness' here is humanity's otherness to God, and not to each other - and even our otherness to God is flattened by how we bear the image of God. Sameness and difference are alike built into all our relationships, it seems.
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate' by conflating the two accounts and making both say something that neither said. The procreation passage barely mentions maleness and femaleness, and makes no substantive difference between them. The passage that does stress their otherness (alongside their sameness) does not mention procreation at all. The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
quote:
the gay consensus seems to be "made that way"
Scientific surveys asking gay people how much choice they felt they had in their sexuality tend to find about 9 in 10 gay people report feeling they had little or no conscious choice in their sexual orientation.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'm very happy to go along with that, because whatever I think about homosexual relations, I don't think I can stretch my christian ethics to cater for a smorgasbord "my choice" approach to sexual orientation right now.
Bear in mind, though, that even if I can come to a mutually acceptable position on same sex couples that take this view, that would on the basis of your figures still leave a constituency of 10% of individuals, a significant minority, that will feel outcast and discriminated against if they don't get equal treatment. I hope you can see this might be a problem, albeit a minority one. quote:
quote:
at a certain age, one gets to enter a sort of supermarket of sexual partners and orientations and choose from a smorgasbord of what I think is right for me... without any consideration of the other.
Um, yes, it's called "dating"? I am not sure what "the other" is referring to here.
The exact way you summarised the Gen 2 account was quote:
searching through all the living beings looking for one that Adam personally found to be suitable
The animals are not portrayed in the slightest as having a say in the matter in the narrative, and your summary thus necessarily focuses on Adam: it's all about his personal fulfillment, with no consideration of whether his partner - the "other" - might similarly be fulfilled by the relationship with him.
Unfortunately such an egocentric attitude may well characterise dating in general, but I don't think it's a good one, neither do I think it can be justified on the basis of this narrative. quote:
I would accept a reading, however, that said God offers Adam the giraffe as an option for a mate in the sure knowledge that Adam's not going to take that option
In which case, the giraffe was never really a viable option, was it? quote:
But I struggle with a reading that says that if Adam had really genuinely accepted the giraffe as a mate then this would have been in some way sinful, since God seems to have really made the offer and it would not be transgressing a command of God so how can it be a sin?
I think we are getting way off the point here. I haven't said anything about "sinfulness" or otherwise.
You yourself said quote:
God's motivation for making Eve female is obvious (he wanted them to have children to populate the world)
To suggest, in the face of this assertion, that had Adam chosen the giraffe God would somehow have re-engineered the giraffe to allow for procreation (the Vquex springs to mind), is to my mind desperate special pleading and completely missing the point of the narrative.
quote:
Gay couples have two people of the same sex, whereas straight couples have one of each! That's the only difference that's really relevant to anything, and it's not relevant to much!
When it comes to the issue of children
The issue of children (nice unintentional pun!) and the available options for producing them is where there is a difference. It's one that comes right down, for now at least, to where I started this: that of biological gender. And even if one day that is no longer a prerequisite, that is "how it was in the beginning".
(Please note I'm not trying to make a moral judgement in any of this, I'm asserting what I see as a fact, irrespective of whether you think it's an important one or not). quote:
There's nothing particularly dodgy from a scientific standpoint about same-sex couples having biological children: Their DNA combined makes a perfectly legitimate child just like the combined DNA of a straight couple. There would be nothing biologically unusual about the child itself in any way, shape, or form, and completely no way to tell by studying the child that it's parents were of the same gender.
I think the issue here is not what is scientifically possible but what is desirable and ethical (irrespective of the orientation or gender of the parents), and I'm not convinced that this can be settled on an all-or-nothing basis for all forms of medically assisted procreation. quote:
It could be argued that this sort of thing already happens naturally in cases where one of the parents is intersex and has some sort of unusual condition where their body's sexual organs don't match their genetic gender properly...
Perhaps (I am completely unqualified to tell), but can we agree that these and the other instances you cite are extreme, exceptional scenarios?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eutychus, if homosexuality hasn't been there since the beginning, why the proscription in Leviticus*?
Leviticus was rather a long time after the beginning - as evidenced by its provisions for divorce, too. I don't understand your point.
That the first record we have for setting standards for sexual relationships has provisions for both divorce and homosexuality. (Well, there's also not committing adultery in Exodus, in the Ten Commandments.)
I still don't see your point. Do you think homosexuality was there in the beginning, or do you think it was "male and female" in the Garden?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
There are two accounts of the creation of humans. In Genesis 1, we read, quote:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
Then in Genesis 2, we have the differing account of God musing, "It is not good that the man should be alone", and his making of a suitable partner for Adam out of his own side. The interesting thing is that Genesis 2 does not once mention procreation. In this account, the point of creating men and women is companionship, and mutual help, and physical and spiritual union - becoming "one flesh". None of these seem impossible for same-sex relationships.
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women. In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it. The point is that both male and female are made in the image of God, and not the male only; the point is that both male and female are human. The 'otherness' here is humanity's otherness to God, and not to each other - and even our otherness to God is flattened by how we bear the image of God. Sameness and difference are alike built into all our relationships, it seems.
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate' by conflating the two accounts and making both say something that neither said. The procreation passage barely mentions maleness and femaleness, and makes no substantive difference between them. The passage that does stress their otherness (alongside their sameness) does not mention procreation at all. The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I have, on another one of the recent threads on this topic (one can never keep track of exactly which thread in this hamster-wheel experience one has written one's best thoughts), I have happily conceded that heterosexual couples have the edge when it comes to procreating.
I just can't understand why anyone treats procreation as the be-all and end-all of being a couple. Especially when no-one ever seems to raise the slightest objection to the existence of heterosexual couples that either don't have children, do not intend to have children, or are physically incapable of having children.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
What I was trying to respond to, obviously unsuccessfully, was this point
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned, this debate, like many others, is all about dealing with a situation that "was not that way from the beginning" in such a way as to accept and rejoice in people as they are made - whilst also acknowledging how things "were in the beginning" and not losing sight of what they might be telling us in the broader scheme of things.
The books of the Pentateuch are dated to more or less the same time, whichever way you look at the dating*, so I'm not sure how you decide which books are "in the beginning" for this argument, particularly when you acknowledge that Genesis is parable and story to tell the way life came about, rather than inerrant fact. So why can't we use other books of the Torah to tell us how thing are in the "broader scheme of things"? Isn't this looking at other sources from the same time?
* written by Moses in 12th century BCE or 5th Century BCE Yehud Medinata
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
Eutychus,
I don't really have anything further to add, but I do just want to clarify that I don't think a "my choice" approach to sexual orientation has ever actually existed as a real thing - as in I don't personally believe (from reading the scientific literature) that there are any substantial number of people for whom sexual orientation is a conscious choice.
There are, of course, bisexual people (who definitely exist!) who find themselves sexually attracted to both male and female people, and they have a conscious choice in the sense of which of those attractions to pursue in terms of relationships. However they have no conscious choice about who they find to be sexually attractive.
Bisexual people can often get confused by survey questions and answer in ways not intended by the person asking the question. Past experience shows that if someone declares that they've experienced sexual orientation to be a "choice", what they almost always mean is that they are bisexual and have experienced attractions to both males and females, and have had to choose which of the people they are attracted to to have relationships with (ie choose a 'gay' or a 'straight' relationship). So I personally think that the 10% of gay people who claim, when filling out surveys, that they have had a high degree of conscious choice in their sexual orientation are just misunderstanding the question and are bisexual (this usually becomes apparent in follow-up interviews). So I wasn't trying to ask you to stretch your ethics to that final 10% who "chooses" homosexuality, because I think that final 10% is just an error in the survey data and doesn't actually exist. The point I was trying to make was simply that the vast majority of all people, gay people included, do not experience sexual attraction as a conscious choice, they simply live their lives and find themselves attracted to some people and not to others.
Although all that said, clearly bisexual people do exist, and if your position with regard to them is that you are okay with gay people having gay relationships because they didn't have a choice, but that you aren't okay with bisexual people choosing to pursue gay relationships rather than straight ones given that straight ones are actually a serious option for bisexual people... then I guess that makes a certain degree of logical sense as a position, though it's not something I've seen widely espoused before. I guess people would ask: If it's okay for gay people to be gay, and it's okay for straight people to be straight, why isn't it okay for bisexual people to choose which one they want?
[ 23. August 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Starlight ]
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is some research looking at fluidity in sexual orientation, which particularly seems to apply to women - all the research I found was looking at women as they seem to have a more fluid sexuality.
Bisexuality was discussed here
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just can't understand why anyone treats procreation as the be-all and end-all of being a couple. Especially when no-one ever seems to raise the slightest objection to the existence of heterosexual couples that either don't have children, do not intend to have children, or are physically incapable of having children.
Actually, from what I understand, in many parts of Bible-belt America, procreation is actually really really heavily emphasized and couples that don't or can't have children are quite seriously ostracized. I get the impression that for a lot of the (fairly poor, fairly uneducated) people in that general region, having children is considered by them as the greatest achievement of their lives. And they really view having manged to have children as a seriously great achievement that they can pat themselves on the back for, or think they deserve some sort of medal for managing to have a child. Hence their response to gay couples not being able to have biological children is contempt and scornful laughter. Because to them having children really is that important.
In other parts of the world, where "oh, I'm pregnant" is more likely to be followed by the word "opps", gay people not being able to have biological children is not seen as a significant problem, and is often seen as coming with the built-in bonus of a permanent infallible contraceptive device, which large numbers of straight couples are envious of and would pay large amounts of money for if it could be commercialized.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women (...) The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
You yourself said, emphasis mine quote:
In Genesis 1, we read, quote:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
If that's not a "link made by the text", I don't know what is. It's the very next verse! quote:
In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it.
I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind". quote:
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate'
I'm not trying to "get there". For now, I'm observing that that is how it is portrayed in the beginning - although it's not the whole story. quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I have happily conceded that heterosexual couples have the edge when it comes to procreating.
I just can't understand why anyone treats procreation as the be-all and end-all of being a couple.
Sure, I'm reading you loud and clear on that, orfeo. And for the record, if you ever have the good fortune to get married, I would be honoured to attend (although you'd probably be happier off without me being there and it would most probably be impracticably far to travel!).
Two points in response:
- firstly, I think the "edge" that you acknowledge comes down to a difference. Where I've got to on this is not that this makes hetero couples procreating inherently morally superior, but simply that there is a difference - a difference which I think at least some SSM proponents would like to gloss over - and that it might matter.
On the same point, it sounds to me as though Starlight would like to see (or at least envisages the possiblity of) gay couples using technology to replicate, as nearly as possible, heterosexual reproduction. That sounds like he is very keen to eliminate this "edge" as though the issue of procreating was an important one. Which is not what I hear you saying.
- Secondly, no, procreation isn't the be-all and end-all. But if children appear on the scene, by any means, it becomes an important factor; and the secular law in my country certainly makes provision for children in any marriage ceremony, irrespective of the age (or, now, gender) of the couple. And procreation remains the only natural outworking of how things were in the beginning (again, observation, not implied moral superiority). quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The books of the Pentateuch are dated to more or less the same time, whichever way you look at the dating*, so I'm not sure how you decide which books are "in the beginning" for this argument
Even assuming the narratives were all written at the same time, they clearly show circumstances in the beginning which then changed over the internal timeline of the narrative.
I think part of this conversation which we haven't had yet is to do with whether those circumstances "in the beginning" have anything to say to us which is important to apply, or at least bear in mind, today. Our opinions may differ on that. quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
If it's okay for gay people to be gay, and it's okay for straight people to be straight, why isn't it okay for bisexual people to choose which one they want?
Assuming that they stick to their choice (see my assumption below) I think the answer to that one depends on whether the situation as it was "at the beginning" has anything to say to us about which is preferable. quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There is some research looking at fluidity in sexual orientation, which particularly seems to apply to women - all the research I found was looking at women as they seem to have a more fluid sexuality.
I'm not sure if that's a blessing or a curse!
For the purposes of this discussion (and now that Starlight has 'explained away' the remaining 10% ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) I'm assuming an aspiration to same sex marriage envisaged as a lifelong, monogamous commitment. If anyone wants to mount a defence of alternative relationship lifestyles, with or without reference to Scripture, or debate the "made/choice" aspects of sexual orientation, can I plead for it to go on another thread, unless you can persuade me it's relevant here? Thank you.
[ 23. August 2014, 12:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I've got to on this is not that this makes hetero couples procreating inherently morally superior, but simply that there is a difference - a difference which I think at least some SSM proponents would like to gloss over - and that it might matter.
Whether it matters depends on the goal.
The difference matters for precisely ONE purpose: procreation. Multiplying. That's what Cottontail is saying to you.
Well, actually it might matter for some other purposes. We segregate the sexes for sport because we recognise the fact that men and women, on average, have some different physical capabilities. But in the sphere of relationships, the difference matters for procreation. As far as I can see it fails to matter for any other relational purpose.
What's the alternative? Are you really proposing some sort of chromosomally-linked relational capacities such that male-male interactions, male-female interactions and female-female interactions are so inherently different that only male-female couples are capable of living together and committing to one another? Or is it that you think that sexual intercourse so fundamentally changes the nature of human relationships that THEN people of the same sex are suddenly incapable of relating to each other in the correct fashion?
The whole of anti-discrimination law is pretty much built on the notion of declaring in which situations a difference is relevant and in which situations a difference is not. I should know, I did my honours thesis on this. Sex discrimination law doesn't suddenly turn men into women or vice versa, it says that in a whole variety of situations - employment for example - the difference isn't relevant. Race discrimination law doesn't change the colour of a person's skin, it says that in a lot of situations the colour of a person's skin doesn't matter.
It's obvious that a same-sex couple is different from an opposite-sex couple. That in itself is no kind of evidence that the difference matters. There is precisely one situation in the which the difference clearly does matter, and that's when it comes to trying to conceive children. If you want to convince me that the differences between men and women matter for any other purpose, you're going to have come up with some evidence - and you're probably going to have to tear down a considerable amount of feminism and sex discrimination law to do it.
[ 23. August 2014, 12:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where I've got to on this is not that this makes hetero couples procreating inherently morally superior, but simply that there is a difference - a difference which I think at least some SSM proponents would like to gloss over - and that it might matter.
Whether it matters depends on the goal.
The difference matters for precisely ONE purpose: procreation. Multiplying. That's what Cottontail is saying to you.
Whoah. I think that the difference (biological gender) allows procreation. As to whether that's the only reason it matters, I'm not sure. I need to clarify my thinking a bit more. And get out of here for a while.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Meanwhile, in Genesis 1, which does mention procreation, there is even less emphasis on any difference between men and women (...) The link between male-and-female couplings and procreation may be a natural one, but it is not a link made by the text.
You yourself said, emphasis mine quote:
In Genesis 1, we read, quote:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
Immediately after this, we have the command, "Be fruitful and multiply".
If that's not a "link made by the text", I don't know what is. It's the very next verse!
What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one. There is a big difference between saying that God created humans as male and female so that they are able to procreate, and saying that the whole point of God creating males and females is so that they can procreate. Human beings are more than their procreative abilities, and those who do not procreate have not somehow failed to fulfil their purpose. Maybe God just made us male and female because he loves men and he loves women, and glories in both their existence.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
In fact, you wouldn't know from the account that there is any substantive difference at all: God has made humankind, not two separate entities called 'men' and 'women'. When the account finally gets to 'otherness' - "male and female he created them" - the effect is not a highlighting of their difference, but a flattening of it.
I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind".
I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
Which gives rise to another worry. Not that I am saying this is your intention, but those who emphasise the 'otherness' between male and female very frequently go on in the very next move to define what that difference is. And lo and behold, the difference is that women are weaker than and subordinate to men! So forgive my edginess when a man starts talking about the 'otherness' of men and women. I know you are not coming from that position, but it's there, and I can see it, and you need to be aware of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
So it seems to me that you can only get to the 'marriage is for one man and one woman because only they can procreate'.
I'm not trying to "get there". For now, I'm observing that that is how it is portrayed in the beginning - although it's not the whole story.
That it is 'not the whole story' is in fact the whole point.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
And that all sounds reasonable to a lot of people. The thing is though, once you actually look at empirical reality, you realize that same-sex relationships work just fine. Studies seem to consistently find that gay couples are happier than straight couples. They report being more satisfied, not less satisfied, with their relationships than straight couples on average.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I think happiness is not actually the point. One of the Eastern Orthodox on the ship (I believe Josephine) said somewhere that marriage is in Eastern Orthodox terms a podvig: a spiritual discipline. Part of the point of marriage is that one occasionally struggles to accommodate one's wishes to one's partner's. (James Joyce voiced a similar thought when he said he couldn't admire Jesus unreservedly since Jesus had never gone through the discipline of being married to a woman.) To that extent, too much similarity is a bad thing in a marriage.
There are other reasons for thinking that happiness is not the only criteria for a successful relationship. (For example, would you prefer not to grieve over your partner when they're gone?)
Of course, abandoning the devil's advocate pose, nothing in the above requires that any difficulty arises out of the two people being different sexes.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
To me (and especially if we read this more metaphorically or 'parabolically') that suggests the latter is there for a reason, whereas the implicit incest is more of a 'plot inconsistency' as it were. It's tangential to what the narrative is saying.
can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
It chooses a bit actually there as irrelevant. Yet a bit which must be inferred is vital?
quote:
Indeed - and I cannot get around the observation that this is an incontrovertible difference between gay and straight sexual relations. The set of "couplings which can produce babies" is exclusively a subset of "heterosexual couplings".
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute? And if we should, does this not also condemn the infertile? The celibate?
And, to the general argument, why the fuck are we discussing Adam and Eve? If that part of the bible is parable, then an over reliance on inference is irresponsible.
If one believes the bible to be a science text, then we have a different argument entirely.
Back to the parable. We tell stories to illustrate points all the time. But we most often tell them within the context of our cultures. The skeleton (words) of the story might be the same in Mogadishu, Paris, London and New York; but the flesh (context) which fills it in will create a different creature.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
And that all sounds reasonable to a lot of people. The thing is though, once you actually look at empirical reality, you realize that same-sex relationships work just fine. Studies seem to consistently find that gay couples are happier than straight couples. They report being more satisfied, not less satisfied, with their relationships than straight couples on average.
Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I think happiness is not actually the point. One of the Eastern Orthodox on the ship (I believe Josephine) said somewhere that marriage is in Eastern Orthodox terms a podvig: a spiritual discipline. Part of the point of marriage is that one occasionally struggles to accommodate one's wishes to one's partner's. (James Joyce voiced a similar thought when he said he couldn't admire Jesus unreservedly since Jesus had never gone through the discipline of being married to a woman.) To that extent, too much similarity is a bad thing in a marriage.
There are other reasons for thinking that happiness is not the only criteria for a successful relationship. (For example, would you prefer not to grieve over your partner when they're gone?)
Of course, abandoning the devil's advocate pose, nothing in the above requires that any difficulty arises out of the two people being different sexes.
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
I've never quite understood how that reasoning works, although I recognise it's been a widely held view in some parts of Christian history. I suspect it's partly derived from Job - although of course Job doesn't really say that God wants Job to suffer, only that God allows it.
It's a fascinating line of thought, though, the proposition that God forbade same-sex relationships because he foresaw how well they'd work.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'll take these one at a time as time allows. quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one.
I'm sorry, but I can't find any objective support for "played down" or "strangely muted". As far as I can see, difference is simply there, and multiplying is the very next sentence. quote:
There is a big difference between saying that God created humans as male and female so that they are able to procreate, and saying that the whole point of God creating males and females is so that they can procreate.
I agree there is a big difference, and I've never made the latter assertion. quote:
I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
So am I, but you can hardly say that it was inserted retrospectively to counter what the Church Fathers taught! Still less if you want to argue simultaneously that they based their arguments on this very same part of the Bible! quote:
those who emphasise the 'otherness' between male and female very frequently go on in the very next move to define what that difference is. And lo and behold, the difference is that women are weaker than and subordinate to men!
I see your edginess. I for one am not trying to turn complementarian on you.
However, I don't think disagreeing with what the complementarians and their like have done by abusing this text is sufficient grounds to claim that no biological gender difference exists or that if it does, it's devoid of significance.
I think I've agreed more than once here that 'otherness' does not break down uniquely, or even necessarily, in terms of gender.
Nevertheless I harbour a suspicion that "male and female" might be an important symbol (I do not say "a condition" or "a pre-requisite") of 'otherness', and that this might somehow be tied up with the fact (I do not say "moral advantage") that it takes a male and female to procreate.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
It chooses a bit actually there as irrelevant. Yet a bit which must be inferred is vital?
I don't follow you. What I was trying to say was that male and female were explicitly part of the Genesis account, whereas the incest is implicit. This means that it's not very convincing for me to claim incest as "the Bible's preferred method of procreation". If it were, it would be explicit. Does that make any more sense? quote:
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
I haven't said that anywhere.
quote:
Back to the parable. We tell stories to illustrate points all the time. But we most often tell them within the context of our cultures. The skeleton (words) of the story might be the same in Mogadishu, Paris, London and New York; but the flesh (context) which fills it in will create a different creature.
I think that what you highlight here is the thorny issue of the extent to which we see these "stories" as foundational and enshrining values that transcend history and culture, and the connected issue of where the dividing line is between this transcendent content and the secondary context.
We will certainly differ on our answers; where I have got to on this can be summarised as follows:
- firstly, I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context (but remember, I have not drawn any moral conclusions or made any binding universal applications following this observation)
- secondly, if one should wish to reject the "male/female" distinction made in the narrative on the grounds of it being irrelevant, superseded context, then I think many of the other values which at least some people here see as foundational (such as lifelong monogamous committed relationships) are up for grabs too.
[ 23. August 2014, 17:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This means that it's not very convincing for me to claim incest as "the Bible's preferred method of procreation".
Sorry, found this not clear on re-reading. I meant:
'I don't find it very convincing when you claim incest as "the Bible's preferred method of procreation".'
[ 23. August 2014, 17:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
can you not see the inconsistency of this reasoning?
It chooses a bit actually there as irrelevant. Yet a bit which must be inferred is vital?
I don't follow you. What I was trying to say was that male and female were explicitly part of the Genesis account, whereas the incest is implicit.
Male and female are explicitly part, but why does this meant nothing else is allowed? Genesis doesn't say God created anyone but Adam and Eve, so therefore incest happened to fill in the population. Creation is supposed to be the focus here, so why omit these details? Could it be that this thing so many get hung up on is not the focus of the allegory?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
I haven't said that anywhere.
No, but this is the only purpose of limiting gender relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QB]
and the connected issue of where the dividing line is between this transcendent content and the secondary context.
And determining what is primary and secondary, one should look at the overall context. And for Christians this leans heavily towards Jesus. Who tends heavily towards inclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- firstly, I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context
Why? People framed in the way they understood.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- secondly, if one should wish to reject the "male/female" distinction made in the narrative on the grounds of it being irrelevant, superseded context, then I think many of the other values which at least some people here see as foundational (such as lifelong monogamous committed relationships) are up for grabs too.
Why?
First, polygamists have strong support in the Bible. Second, committed relationships are of positive benefit. Whilst limiting gender relations hurts significant chunk of the population.
[ 23. August 2014, 18:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'll take these one at a time as time allows. quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What I am saying is that where procreation is mentioned, just at the point where one might expect the text to highlight the difference between male and female, it does in fact play the difference down. Male and female is a true distinction, but here it is a strangely muted one.
I'm sorry, but I can't find any objective support for "played down" or "strangely muted". As far as I can see, difference is simply there, and multiplying is the very next sentence.
Yes and no. You agree that the difference is not highlighted. It is not announced with a fanfare, but merely stated as a fact. This is precisely what I mean by 'muted'. But the factualness of the announcement is what is so revolutionary, because the moral point being made here is that men and woman are created equal. Fact. Procreation is the second idea the writer turns to: it is a follow-on, and not the primary point. The writer is talking in fairly general, sweeping, whole-of-humanity terms here, and does not make any kind of comment on the one-man-one-woman paradigm. That comment is made in Genesis 2, but not here.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
I submit that there is a very big point indeed in mentioning it. Given the historically inferior status of women in ancient society, as documented throughout the Bible and continuing into our own time (not helped by the traditional translation of humankind' as 'man' or 'mankind'); and given the Church Fathers' frequent documented assertions – based on this same part of the Bible – that women are an inferior copy of men and to the extent of not being made in the image of God at all – given all that, I can see a very big point indeed in emphasising that "God created humankind in his image … male and female he created them." I am very very glad the text includes that.
So am I, but you can hardly say that it was inserted retrospectively to counter what the Church Fathers taught!
That is silly – I said nothing of the sort. My point is that the text of Genesis 1 has from the start countered the assumption of women's inferiority – an assumption that has survived to this day. The ancient redactors did not have to be inspired to see in front of their own eyes how the whole male-female thing was playing out. Though they may have been inspired to see how it would continue to play out in the future. quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think disagreeing with what the complementarians and their like have done by abusing this text is sufficient grounds to claim that no biological gender difference exists or that if it does, it's devoid of significance.
I have claimed neither. I actually see an importance in 'otherness' – the 'I' and 'Thou' that exists first between us and God, and then between me and you. I can also see that gender may even be one of the primary 'Othernesses' we experience, hence its frequent employment in the Bible as an image of the relationship between God and us.
Where I draw back is from absolutising the metaphor, because that seems to me to be working the wrong way round. Jesus and the Church as Groom and Bride, for example: it is a good metaphor, a blessed metaphor, a worthy metaphor. It helps us understand what the relationship between Jesus and the Church is, by comparing it on key points to the marriage of a man and a woman. Check out Luther's theology of the 'wonderful exchange', for example, where all that God has is ours, and all that we have is God's.
But the metaphor is not the thing. It is culturally conditioned, for starters, where the 'bride' represents the weaker, sinful partner. Absolutise the metaphor – take it too far, reverse the direction of meaning, and make the parallels absolute - and you have just applied it directly to the young couple standing in front of you. Christlike Groom, sinful weaker Bride. (And many have done this in Christian history.)
A metaphor is by definition both similar and different to the thing it is representing. Its meaning shifts about, is hard to pin down. So yes, I would agree that male-and-femaleness is an important symbol of our sameness to and otherness from God. And yes, procreation is another aspect of the image of God that we bear, where we too are 'creators' of a sort, of life and of art. I see no harm whatsoever in using that symbol, and there is much we can continue to learn from it. It works, and it is blessed.
But absolutise that metaphor – make otherness and procreation a central and non-negotiable aspect of our Godlikeness – and suddenly those who do not procreate no longer bear that image. Suddenly those who do not 'pair up', or who pair with a person of the same sex, are only half human. Suddenly, every chimpanzee and stick insect bears more of the image of God than they do, because they too are male and female (most of them!), and they too procreate. Yes, that latter is an ad absurbum: but that's where you ultimately end up if you confuse metaphor with divine reality, rather than simply letting it offer its own little insights into God.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Male and female are explicitly part, but why does this meant nothing else is allowed? Genesis doesn't say God created anyone but Adam and Eve, so therefore incest happened to fill in the population. Creation is supposed to be the focus here, so why omit these details?
I still get the feeling we're talking past each other here. As far as I can see the fact that male and female are "explicitly part" means there's something more important there compared to incest, and indeed, that that is why incest - and who knows what else - was omitted. I haven't said "nothing else is allowed". quote:
And determining what is primary and secondary, one should look at the overall context.
I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2, and a universal constant, while incest is not even explicitly mentioned in this passage. quote:
And for Christians this leans heavily towards Jesus. Who tends heavily towards inclusion.
Amen. But however inclusive we are, there will always be a subset of opposite-sex relations that will never be a subset of same-sex relations, which is the subset of couplings that produce babies.
(Also, tangentially, I think it's going to be much more difficult for most churches to be as "inclusive" of, say, promiscuous individuals who exercise what they see as their ability to choose, and change, their sexual orientation as they wish, as of, say, same-sex individuals committed to a monagmous relationship. Inclusiveness is going to run up against limits at some point). quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- firstly, I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context
Why? People framed in the way they understood.
If it's contextual only, how do you think the narrative should be reframed now? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- secondly, if one should wish to reject the "male/female" distinction made in the narrative on the grounds of it being irrelevant, superseded context, then I think many of the other values which at least some people here see as foundational (such as lifelong monogamous committed relationships) are up for grabs too.
Why?
First, polygamists have strong support in the Bible.
Again, I don't understand the point you're trying to make and I'm not sure you've understood mine.
If everything can be dismissed as "context", then I don't think it's worth looking at the Bible for any idea of what relationships should be like at all. quote:
Whilst limiting gender relations hurts significant chunk of the population.
How, precisely, do you see me "limiting gender relations" here?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Also the sex tends to be better in same-sex relationships (especially for women) because women know what women like and guys know what guys like.
This would seem to imply that heterosexual couples are incapable learning what each other like. They start off not intuitively knowing what the other likes, and stay there. Like they never talk about sex, not even to say "wait, less of that" or "yes, that's nice." It also strongly suggests that the difference in sexes of the partners is the only, or at least the chief, consideration in learning what the other person likes. Two guys automatically know everything there is to know about each other's sexual turn-ons. Downplaying or totally eliminating the fact that we are individuals and not just interchangeable representatives of our sexes.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think the number of letters is the point, orfeo. And I've never denied her similarity.
What I am disputing is the minimal importance of her difference, for reasons outlined above.
Because Hebrew is a language with feminine word endings. If it weren't, this passage wouldn't be included. It's rather a "just-so story" to explain the difference between two words. Hanging a lot of theology -- and you are hanging a LOT of theology -- on one of these Biblical etymology things, many of which are more puns than serious etymology, is not a responsible use of the text.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At least until your scientific scenario comes to pass, and choosing my words carefully, I'd say that while it is not a necessary or sufficient reason for marriage, the potential for procreation is at least part of most marriages.
If it's not necessary, it can't be used to rule out SSM. (my emphasis)
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I submit that if that were true, there would be no point mentioning it at all. The text could just stop at "God has made humankind".
There are other points that could be being made. For instance "women are made in God's image just as much as men are." (which might be an important lesson for Dominionists!). Not saying this or any one other thing is the exact point. But that there could be other points.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
I don't see how that's implied. It takes for granted that it is difficult to lay down one's life for another. If that's never a problem for you, if you have reached spiritual perfection in this life, then you are a Boddhisattva, and thank you for gracing us with your presence. But I don't think that's what you're saying. Why is it so bizarre to acknowledge that this is difficult, and that marriage gives us a theatre in which to practice learning to overcome selfishness and learn to love others?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Be fruitful and multiply, our species has proven very obedient here. So why does this imply that each and every one of us must contribute?
I haven't said that anywhere.
Then why does fertility make any difference at all in the question of SSM?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the universal constant throughout human history and culture that it takes a male and a female to reproduce is good evidence that "male and female" aspect of the narrative is content, not context (but remember, I have not drawn any moral conclusions or made any binding universal applications following this observation)
But it only applies to, well, ability to reproduce, which you have conceded is not a necessary part of marriage. So on the question of SSM, it's irrelevant.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Cottontail, I think we're pretty close to agreement in almost all you posted there ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (plus, I'm tiring!)
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
But absolutise that metaphor – make otherness and procreation a central and non-negotiable aspect of our Godlikeness – and suddenly those who do not procreate no longer bear that image.
I hear what you're saying (and perhaps what you're not saying, for instance about singleness).
The bits of your statement here that I don't identify with are focus around "absolutise", "non-negotiable" and tagging on "procreation" as part of the package.
I think "otherness" is an important part of relationships in general, all the more so long-term sexual relationships. As to the role of biological gender and Adam and Eve in that, I can't get any further for now than my self-quote in the OP: quote:
I think 'otherness' is an important ingredient, and one that biology goes at least some way - I do not say the only way - to providing, out of the box as it were.
[ 23. August 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2,
Once again, there is no mention of producing babies in Genesis 2. None whatsoever.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hebrew is a language with feminine word endings. If it weren't, this passage wouldn't be included. It's rather a "just-so story" to explain the difference between two words.
It's not about the difference between two words but between two bodies. If you insist on seeing it as a "just-so story", the title is, I would suggest, not "how men and women came to be named differently" but "how men and women are both similar and different". Or, perhaps more provocatively, "how otherness first came about". quote:
If it's not necessary, it can't be used to rule out SSM.
I never said it could. I'm beginning to lose count of the number of people on this thread who seem to assume I'm trying to argue it can. quote:
Then why does fertility make any difference at all in the question of SSM?
Because "fertility" is a subset of hetero sexual relations and not of same-sex relations. That's a fact. I don't quite know for sure what I think about its implications, but what I do perceive is that it's an unwelcome fact for many SSM proponents.
quote:
But it only applies to, well, ability to reproduce, which you have conceded is not a necessary part of marriage. So on the question of SSM, it's irrelevant.
An official circular on the oh-so-secular French Civil Code, post gay-marriage, doesn't think it's irrelevant, but I must plead lack of time and brain energy to produce the evidence for now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can only reiterate my observations that gender-different relations producing babies appear to be present in Gen 2,
Once again, there is no mention of producing babies in Genesis 2. None whatsoever.
I stand corrected.
To put this in context, Lilbuddha was arguing that incest was just as "foundational" by my reasoning as male and female. My response argued that multiplication, which we read as commencing with Adam and Eve, and "male" and "female", and "leaving and cleaving" and all that, are explicit in (being more careful here) the early chapters of Genesis in a way that incest emphatically isn't. I hope that's clearer.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Starlight
Shipmate
# 12651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
it sounds to me as though Starlight would like to see (or at least envisages the possiblity of) gay couples using technology to replicate, as nearly as possible, heterosexual reproduction. That sounds like he is very keen to eliminate this "edge" as though the issue of procreating was an important one.
I am sympathetic towards all couples who would like to have biological children but cannot. This includes infertile straight couples, and includes those gay couples that would choose biological kids were it an option*. Child-bearing can be a very personal and meaningful issue for couples, and so I welcome any technology which allows otherwise infertile couples to get their wish of having biological children. It's a really important issue for those couples to whom it is really important, and it's not at all important to those couples that don't want kids or who are happy to adopt.
It is also an issue that gets repeatedly brought up to argue against same sex relationships, so I am keen to "shoot it down" as you say because letting arguments against same sex relationships stand hurts a loooooot of people.
* The other option for same-sex couples to have biological children, which I've always thought was likely to be my own preferred route to take should I choose to have children in the future, is for an opposite sex sibling of one of the same-sex couple to donate either sperm or egg (as appropriate). eg if my sister agreed to have my husband's child. The resulting child will share genetic material with both same-sex parents (50% with him, 25% with me, and the remaining 25% will be DNA from my family that is shared by my sister and my parents), and the child would then be the full genetic grandchild of both my parents and my husband's parents in the standard way. The only genetic difference between it and a standard biological child would be that it would only share 25% of its DNA with me rather than the usual 50%, however another 25% of it's DNA would be from my immediate family anyway and I personally feel like that counts. So when people say that same-sex couples can't have biological children I roll my eyes, because should I decide to have children in future with my same-sex husband my preferred option would indeed be for them to be our biological children and for them to share DNA with both of us, and this is quite satisfactorily achievable in the present day. (assuming the cooperation of at least one of our sisters) But it looks set to become even more easily achievable in the foreseeable future due to scientific developments.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This would seem to imply that heterosexual couples are incapable learning what each other like. They start off not intuitively knowing what the other likes, and stay there. Like they never talk about sex, not even to say "wait, less of that" or "yes, that's nice."
Yeah it does. Which is sad. I would like to think that over the long term all couples should be able to learn what each other like. But unfortunately evidence suggests that over the short term at least, guys on average are terrible at knowing what women like and women are reluctant to tell their man that they're doing it wrong in the bedroom. And unfortunately a lot of women probably have good reason to not tell the guy he's doing it wrong because a lot of guys don't take criticism in that department very well. Also the women themselves may not realize that there is a better way to do things if they are as inexperienced as their partner is. Instead women often seem to just end up faking orgasms to make the men feel happy about their own performance. (Here (youtube) is a couple of people discussing this study's results and sharing their own opinions of why the think that women in straight relationships end up often having such unenjoyable sex)
It's sad. It's also why I strongly support detailed and extensive sex education at the high-school level. Because if people can be taught to have better sex lives, to communicate more freely with their partners about what they like and don't like, then people will have better happier relationships that last longer and are more fulfilling.
quote:
It also strongly suggests that the difference in sexes of the partners is the only, or at least the chief, consideration in learning what the other person likes. Two guys automatically know everything there is to know about each other's sexual turn-ons. Downplaying or totally eliminating the fact that we are individuals and not just interchangeable representatives of our sexes.
The differences between the sexes probably is the chief consideration as to what the other person likes - in the sense that the particular good spots and good ways of touching them will feel largely the same to all guys and to all girls. Individual differences are likely to be minor compared to that, but I imagine same-sex couples are more likely to share their own thoughts on what feels good during sex due to them assuming that it will feel good for their partner also, and thus by offering such information they probably feel like they're doing their partner a favour rather than offering criticism.
Posts: 745 | From: NZ | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Also, tangentially, I think it's going to be much more difficult for most churches to be as "inclusive" of, say, promiscuous individuals who exercise what they see as their ability to choose, and change, their sexual orientation as they wish, as of, say, same-sex individuals committed to a monagmous relationship. Inclusiveness is going to run up against limits at some point).
There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
I don't see how that's implied. It takes for granted that it is difficult to lay down one's life for another. If that's never a problem for you, if you have reached spiritual perfection in this life, then you are a Boddhisattva, and thank you for gracing us with your presence. But I don't think that's what you're saying. Why is it so bizarre to acknowledge that this is difficult, and that marriage gives us a theatre in which to practice learning to overcome selfishness and learn to love others?
It isn't at all bizarre to acknowledge that it's difficult. Nor is it bizarre to suggest that marriage provides an opportunity to work on our relational skills to a degree that we couldn't elsewhere.
What I wouldn't accept is any kind of reasoning that therefore, the more difficult the marriage is the better it suits God's purpose. That if we marry someone who is harder work for us, this is somehow better, spiritually, than marrying someone who we only argue with occasionally and who we understand better in the beginning.
That was the direction that Dafyd's 'devil's advocacy' reasoning was heading. That having greater differences was better. I certainly don't think it's implied merely by the proposition that marriage involves work. Dafyd was deliberately making an unnecessary further extension of that - that more work means a better marriage - to play devil's advocate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I wouldn't accept is any kind of reasoning that therefore, the more difficult the marriage is the better it suits God's purpose. That if we marry someone who is harder work for us, this is somehow better, spiritually, than marrying someone who we only argue with occasionally and who we understand better in the beginning.
Fairy nuff. Marriage in general is a podvig. So is monasticism. So is having a roommate. So is having a boss, or coworkers. (There are other podvigs; I am giving examples in the "getting along with other people" range. And of course one can have more than one podvig; it's not a single thing like having "a cross." Indeed perhaps mistaking it with "a cross" is why some people (present company accepted) think of it as a hardship that should be as rigorous as possible.)
I assume that some podvigs suit some people better than others. Maybe it's better to say not that God wants you to have a hard podvig, or as hard a podvig as possible, but rather that God wants you to have a podvig (or podvigs) that will allow you to work on your idiosyncratic set of besetting sins.
But this seems to me to come dangerously close to the idea that God has a perfect route for your life, including where you work and live and whom you marry and so on, and if you deviate from it ever so slightly then you are thwarting (or at least thumbing your nose at) God.
Maybe it's just safest to say that God wants you to become more like Her, and marriage is one thing that can help you get closer to that goal, and leave it at that.
[ 23. August 2014, 22:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That devil's advocacy appears to be the same reasoning that says, in life in general, God requires that we must suffer. it is his will. That if everything is going well, somehow that is a bad thing and God will come along and rectify it as soon as possible.
Mousethief can explain the theology of podvig better than I can. I was thinking it's closer to saying that it's more rewarding to overcome a challenge than to just be given things on a plate.
Though I think from what mousethief says, it's more that we need opportunities to learn charity, and it is harder to learn charity if the closest people we need to learn charity for are people with whom we have fewer disagreements.
(But as I said earlier, using it as an argument against same-sex relationships would require thinking that all differences other than sexual difference are spiritually insignificant, which doesn't seem to be the case.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I still get the feeling we're talking past each other here.
We might well be.
Let me take this to the fundamental issue I have here.
Reading the Bible, regardless of any position I have seen demonstrated, requires interpretation at many points. Context is used and explicit instruction is ignored by everyone. So why is your interpretation, one that is harmful to many people, the right or moral one?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
Or indeed for equate it with anything that implies any number of partners. Bisexual people can be celibate, chaste or faithfully monogamous just like anyone else. My wife is bi.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Child-bearing (...) is also an issue that gets repeatedly brought up to argue against same sex relationships, so I am keen to "shoot it down" as you say because letting arguments against same sex relationships stand hurts a loooooot of people.
I'm not bringing it up to argue against same sex relationships, but to point out that there will always be an option for child-bearing (natural reproduction) that is unavailable to same-sex couples, and that this constitutes a difference. Natural reproduction will forever be a subset of heterosexual couplings and never of homosexual couplings.
I keep insisting on this partly because I myself think that lurking in that fact somewhere there might be something important (which I can't articulate yet). In addition, this intuition is fuelled by my observation that this fact appears to be a singularly unwelcome one for SSM proponents, to the point of trying to bury it.
Starlight, on my first thread, referenced in the OP, the gaping holes in the bog-standard "gays can't have children so SSM must be wrong" argument became abundantly clear to me (and they never were before). I can see how frustrating it must be to hear badly thought-through arguments like this, against one's intimate convictions and aspirations, bandied about as gospel and feel powerless to correct them.
Many opponents of SSM have certainly hurt SSM proponents by failure to engage seriously with them on such an important subject, and to the extent that I've ever done so in the past, I apologise for what it's worth.
That said, and if you are to offer me the same courtesy in return, I have to pull you up on statements like this: quote:
The other option for same-sex couples to have biological children
I see what you mean, and I can see lots of advantages to the plan you outline, it could be a great idea - but by describing this in terms of "same-sex couples having biological children" you are making it sound identical, in terms of process, to something (natural reproduction) which is a physical impossibility. It could be described as a best approximation (would you be happy with that description, by the way?), but it is not the same, not least because you are involving another human being in the process.
I'm not saying you personally are doing this deliberately, but that linguistic shortcut to describe processes that are so different appears dubious to me, and unhelpful. More could be said - but not now!
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is absolutely no reason to equate bisexuality with promiscuity rather than serial monogamy.
You are right and I apologise for this shortcut of my own.
To clarify this little tangent, what I had in mind in the context was an aspiration to a lifelong, committed monogamous relationship (which I believe is something you yourself aspire to).
If someone of any orientation does not have this aspiration to a lifelong commitment, or indeed actively aspires to other choices, then I think full inclusion by a church (at least in terms of recognition of any marriage) is going to present greater challenges.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So why is your interpretation, one that is harmful to many people, the right or moral one?
I'm sorry lilBuddha, but I'm still not sure what you think my interpretation is.
Earlier on, I asked you quote:
How, precisely, do you see me "limiting gender relations" here?
I think I'd have a better idea of where you're coming from if you could answer that.
[x-post with arethosemyfeet. I hope my clarification to orfeo addresses your point too]
[ 24. August 2014, 06:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
