Gay virginity?

[dsdrane]

As I've read about the Equity Riders and the various posts about the moral and ethical aspects of what they are trying to do, I've noticed a reoccurring theme between those defending the right of the religious schools to their policies and the rights of GLBT people to be treated equally.

Those defending the schools say that GLBT students are being treated no differently than the straight students in being asked to abstain from sin. Sin is sin, whether its sex out of wedlock, homosexual "behavior", cheating, stealing, etc. Groups like Soulforce counter rightly that GLBT students are not allowed to marry and, therefore, can never expect to express their love sexually...which, of course, means they are being singled out for punishment, not to mention psychological abuse.

This started me thinking. Considering the wide range of past experiences and current belief structures reflected in our group, I was wondering how people would approach pre-marital sex if GLBT people were allowed to marry.

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?

Discuss.

[BruceChris]

Most straight people have premarital or extra-marital sex, and this has been going on quite commonly, in all times and cultures that we are aware of. And most modern sex educators are far more concerned about pregnancy, STD's, and other damage that can result, than they are about the sin part.

"Abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy that there is, and abstinence education, the least" (I forget who said that)

And when the CC's found out about Bill and Monica, they absolutely went ballistic. A B.J. is an impeachable offense, but killing hundreds of thousands of people, and wasting 3 trillion dollars apparently is not.

Many CC's seem to consider sin as if it were a stain that cannot be washed out, a poison for which there is no cure, proof positive of Evil inherent in a person.

More progressive Christians tend to see sin more as a matter of being imperfect, of making a mistake, of not being as perfect as God. I look at "Original sin" as simply meaning that when we are born, we don't know anything, and we will never learn it all.

Note: To a strict Biblical literalist, if you are a virgin, you cannot be gay, since to him, being gay is not who you are, it is only defined by what you do, and then only after you do it.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[BenL]

Sex is one of the most basic drives in the complexity called a human being. Controlling sexual activity for the good of society has been an elusive goal since way before Christianity or the modern era.

Traditionally sin has been any activity that separates a person from God. The problem becomes, who gets to decide what separates a person from God? Progressive thought distinguishes between activities that are hurtful to self or others and those that don't harm self or others. Traditional thought relies on a pre-existing code of behavior.

Intimate relationships between human beings are among the noblest of human activities when two people are united body and soul and achieve a spiritual, beyond-physcial union. The term soulmates comes to mind, although that kind of relationship need not include sexual activity.

Sexual relations that don't live up to that noble standard seem less acceptable. Two people copulating who aren't hurting each other or anyone else (like a third person who is a partner/spouse) but who aren't in love may be sinning in some sense, but to me it's not as grievous as taking someone's life or exploiting people who can't defend themselves.

Somehow, in 20th century and now 21st century America, sex has become the worst sin in the book, whether that book is the Bible or the law books. To me that is a warped view of human relationships. Marriage itself, while noble in concept, can be far less so in reality. People who abuse their spouses, physically or emotionally, are engaging in far worse behavior than unmarried people who have sex which at least satisfies some need.

So, to answer your question, I think the nature of the sexual relationship -- not the specific acts but the motivation -- is more important than whether a person is married. (Disclaimer: I'm not talking about children here, but consenting adults.) As BC said, a BJ is far less culpable than war and subjugation of a captive people. BTW, I'm not advocating for sexual impropriety in high places, just trying to put them in context.

I think these are the kinds of standards we should hold all people to, gay or straight.

[andrewlittle]

Caroline Osiek has had a lot to say on the fascination of the church with sex and virginity. She believes it stems from misunderstanding and misconstruing significant parts of Paul's and other New Testament writings.

She has pointed out the increasing use, in simile and metaphor, of marriage to signify the church in Ephesians and later deutero-Pauline works. What began as simile, the husband/wife relationship is like the Christ/church relationship, developed into a metaphor where males became associated with Christ, by virtue of having the same gender as Jesus, and females became designees for the church. Furthermore, by integrating metaphors from elsewhere in Paul’s writing, the authors of Colossians 1 and Ephesians 4 developed the marriage metaphor into a notion of Christ, and therefore man, as the archetypal head or principal component of the body and the church, and consequently woman, as the body of Christ.

This later development gave rise to the conditions prompting Henriette Visser T’Hooft to write in a letter to Karl Barth concerning the latter’s use of “St. Paul’s theology” in his debasement of women in ecclesiastical roles, “I hope you understand: I am only opposed to the decapitation [of the woman] and the disembodiment [of the man].” Through this deformation of both genders, Visser T’Hooft claimed as early as 1934 that men had elevated themselves to a position of truly human, while at the same time relegating women to an inferior position, thereby completing the transformation of the actual church to a patriarchal system and depriving both genders of their “true, God-given identity.”

The metaphor of marital relations for the Christ/church relationship would break down on another basis, unless men could have envisioned themselves as a “higher” order than women. Largely because of Rev 18:23, a metaphor developed where Christ was likened to the bridegroom and the church to the bride. Men and women were members of the church and, as such, made up “the bride” of Christ. Ancient archetypes of the “pure bride” speak of the value of unsoiled virginity in the female marriage partner that was not required, perhaps even negatively viewed, in the male partner.

Osiek quoted Margaret McDonald as writing that the “union with a pure female body has symbolic importance in expressing the nature of the separation from a past way of life. As a reflection of the holy and unblemished church, the pure bride stands in contrast to the evil world outside.” The church became identified with the biological functions of womanhood: wives became mothers who produced and raised children, provided services for those around them, etc.

But by personifying the church as female, complete with the imperfect temporal stain of menstruation with which women in a male-dominated record of history have been denegrated, this required the more Christ-like men be set apart from the worldly church, in the same manner as Jesus Christ is over and above the church. Men would not view themselves in these distinctly feminine terms. Combining these thoughts with Paul’s discourse on the parts of the body in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12, reinforced the view that men were the ‘head’ and women the ‘body’.

With the change in social and ecclesiastical structures brought on by reducing the inequities experienced by women, men (most notably conservative men) have begun to fear losing their "specially ordained" status as head of church and being inherently more "worthwhile" than women. Another group of people became necessary with which to accomplish the chest-beating, pontificating claim to superiority.

In my mind, this is the function of GLBT folks. They are not considered fully endowed humans, because they are needed to feed some men's need to feel superior - to be the "head of the church" and "Christ-like". Since women are more and more dismissing the male hegemony that these men have sought to impose, GLBT become the "replacement". Someone has got to be inherently and, by their very nature, sinful so men can feel truly human and superior - if women can no longer be relied upon to fulfil this lowly position, GLBT unwillingly become the scapegoat with which "men" can ignore their own sins.

The value of virginity or purity then, is a traditional construct of the male need to engage with purity that befits their special status as God's special class of humans. Amazing the power of the penis, isn't it? The one with the special place, or the true male penis, doesn't need to be "holy", but regains "holiness" by despoiling the virgin, and retains holiness by damning sexual sinners other than themselves.

Seems like a lot of work to me. If I felt this way, perhaps I should do as Origen did and make sure I was never tempted to sin with lowly women, or now lowly GLBT. Of course, I can't see a lot of conservative men standing in line for voluntary castrations.

[tdogg]

Our sexuality is a gift, sex is a gift. And as with any good gift, we are best when using responsibility in enjoying it. The level of responsibility would appropriately be put upon the receiver of the gift. In other words, what we do with our sexuality and sexual selves is pretty much between us, our sexual partners and who, if any, we consider our God.

I personally do not believe it's a sin to have sex outside marriage - define marriage. For me, having sexual encounters apart from my relationship when in a commited relationship is not something I would consider, and I would hope not to fall prey to temptations in that regard. In other words, I'm currently in a commited relationship with my partner and I wouldn't dream - well, ok possibly dream but not act on it - of having a sexual encounter with anyone else but my partner. I made that commitment to myself when I determined I would like to spend a very long time with her. I would not hold anyone else to my personal standard.

Even when we finally obtain the equality and ability to be considered married as any hetero couple has, I would say if I were not in a commited relationship I would be open to having sexual encounters and wouldn't necessarily consider it to be a sin. What is sin? Ok, I have my opinion (rules placed upon us by humans who want to control how everyone else behaves, according to their own personal standards - that they don't necessarily uphold for themselvess), but it's only my opinion and definitely nothing that my God informed me should be followed by others.

So, sure, have some sex and enjoy the heck out of it, hopefully you'll be responsible and use some common sense. But gosh, why would we be created with such strong sexual urges and desires if we were expected to possibly endure a lifetime without enjoying fulfillment. That makes no sense to me.

[Alecto]

For starters, I'm agnostic personally, so to me, there is no such thing as "sin". There's immoral behavior, and while I don't have specific beliefs on any deity, I do think that the universe tends to balance out immoral behavior. That said, I don't think that pre-marital sex (hetero or otherwise) is immoral simply by virtue of it's pre-marital nature. If there's deception involved, dubious or lack of consent etc., obviously that's a different story, but I don't think that marriage, or monogamy play into sexual morality UNLESS you're with a partner for whom those things DO matter (that's where the deception etc. is involved).

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?

If?

IF?

Oh ye of little faith! How about when?

When we start getting married (and divorced ) like opposite-sex couples in these United States, having sex before marriage won't be a sin any more than it is now for the vast majority of straight folks.

Besides, I'm of the opinion that lovemaking is a skill, not a destination or a measure of status, which is how the whole no-sex-before-marriage thing strikes me. How this has anything whatsoever to do with one's own sexual happiness or the ability to make another person happy sexually is beyond me. Oh....but we're not supposed to think about that, are we? Just lie there and think of England my dear!

And let's get real here, shall we?

How is it possible to bring another person sexual and spiritual bliss when one isn't even allowed - or so it seems- to pleasure one's self? That's the party line, is it not?

Don't touch yourself! It's sinful! That's the message. It's dirty down there until you get married. Stop that right now you pervert!

No wonder people are so unhappy. Pill popping. Overeating. Diet crashing. Sex obsessed.

But teach people that their body is a temple and a thing of wonder- and a thing to be nurtured and enjoyed with another person in an ethical way? Well. That's another matter entirely.

The no-sex-before-marriage stance does create one thing. And that's drama.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

So, if GLBT folks were allowed to marry, would you consider it a sin to engage in pre-marital sex?

Discuss.

David, my young man,

What are we going to do with you? You are starting to sound like a Catholic. We Catholics have to make sure that we get everything classified as sin or not. Couldn't inadvertantly miss one, you know. (We then proceed to ignore those findings altogether, but that is a different subject entirely.)

Since you asked, I will give one of my usual confusing, illogical replies. I believe that sin lies more in motives than in actions. There are many instances in the Bible where regulations were kept but in empty, ritualistic ways or for selfish reasons. I believe that God is not happy with that kind of obedience. There are also many instances where the letter of a law might be broken, but God commends the person for the intentions of her/his heart.

I feel that, though the ideal is for sex to be within marriage, (and I consider two committed same-sex partners as a marriage before God,) God considers the person's motives and attitudes more than actions. I believe that loving sexual intimacy outside of marriage is not necessarily a grevious sin, nor are all sexual relations within marriage wholesome and God-pleasing. I believe that it is the selfless love shown to one's partner that is the key.

Also it is not my place to judge the motives of others. If God would condemn us for our sins, I know that I for sure would be lost. No one lives up to the perfect ideal. That makes the love that God has shown us through the life, death and resurrection of His Son so amazing. He loves us, every one, without limit.

Tu Amigo, Pablo


P.S. Is that an confusing enough reply. I was going to use the word "convaluted" but wasn't sure how to spell it. (People have no mercy on teachers who mispel words.)

[scott snedeker]

Pagans connect to God with sex. Well, not just any sex, Good sex with sharing of spiritual energy.
It is his design for us not a sin! Life is supposed to be fun!
It is a part of being a good pagan by Honoring our primal natural Heart of innocence !
And I try to do my best to be good!!

Guess we're just lucky that way!

[dsdrane]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

David, my young man,

What are we going to do with you? You are starting to sound like a Catholic.

Oh, Pablo...you're the best.

Firstly, you gotta check out my profile, Kids. I just turned 40.

Secondly, I'm with y'all on the whole not-sinfullness thing, but I just know there must be some forum-mates out there who do think this way, and I was hoping to hear from a few.

Speaking of our more conservative brethren/[sisthren??...], have you guys checked out GCN? They seem to have loads of 'em. And then there's the old "Side B" thing...talk about Gay Virginity!

Loving you all!

[u-dog]

As a Christian living under grace rather than law I try not to think much in terms of "Sin" but rather in terms of what actions best convey and embody the gratitude that I feel toward God for all that God has done for me.

As a son of the Reformed tradition I recognize that the thing which characterizes God's relationship to humanity throughout history is the concept of "Covenant" God makes and keeps covenant with humanity over and over in spite of human inability to keep faith with God. The ultimate manifestation of that Covenant making nature of God is the New Covenant sealed in Christ's blood.

Therefore, as I choose the actions that I believe are most pleasing to God in order to express my gratitude for the goodness of God, I try to choose relationships which are "Covenantal" in nature. Marriage is such a "covenantal relationship". This is one of the reasons why my wife and I didn't run right out and hire a divorce attorney as soon as I came out to her as gay. We beleive that to honor God we must honor our covenant together. That doesn't mean that we won't decide to end our marriage, but simply that we will not do so lightly or quickly without exploring the possibilities for staying together as well as the costs of doing so.

SO... I believe that for glbt people, marriage before God (regardless of the law) is the choice that best honors and "thanks" God. The fact that society tries to prevent GLBT people from exercising this choice is not only unconstitutional and un-American ... it dishonors God (and is therefore blasphemous).

A loving sexual relationship outside of "marriage" honors God less well.

a sexual relationship that objectifies the other and uses them, pleases God not at all

An act of sexual brutality or rape is "Sin" in its deepest sense.

Dave

[BruceChris]

Let's keep in mind, that for the vast majority of human history, even if we only go back as far as Biblical times, the vast majority of "marriages" pretty much came into being as a common law process. Anybody who wanted to would just move in together. In other words, marriage was the same thing as shacking up. Only those with property or power had formal marriage ceremonies, and that was for the purpose of preserving and consolidating the power or property.

I read somewhere that within one "primitive" group, a marriage was only allowed after the woman became pregnant. (Sociologists repeatedly tell us that ALL societies are primitive.)

In another, living somewhere in the Amazon basin, as I recall, the tribal understanding was that the available area would only support a limited population. So the rule was that after a woman had birthed a child, for the next four years, her husband was only allowed to come to the marriage bed and make love via sodomy.

When missionaries came along and pointed out that God had told them that this was a no-no, predictably within a short time, a population boom and bust occurred.

So when someone uses words like male, female, homo or heterosexual, marriage or many other words, understand these things. These words are not exact, meanings vary, not everyone agrees on what they mean, and most of all, It Hasn't Always Been This Way

And Freedom of Religion? Somebodies religion prohibits seme sex marriage, while mine considers it a sacrament. We ought to have freedom of religion, but not under this Supreme Court. (And I can hear some Mormons, panting in the background)

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Britt.]

"A loving sexual relationship outside of "marriage" honors God less well.

a sexual relationship that objectifies the other and uses them, pleases God not at all

An act of sexual brutality or rape is "Sin" in its deepest sense."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[jerespoon]

Okay...I'll throw in another perspective.

I tend to agree with Pablo about sin: that it has more to do with motive than actions.

One only needs to understand cultures from around the world to know that American Christians define sin differently than their brothers and sisters in other parts of the world.

A few examples of this are in Papua New Guinea it is acceptable for women in some language groups to go topless to church. But it is considered a 'sin' for those women to wear pants or sit in a church service next to their husbands. (Yes...topless women wearing skirts are fine in the eyes of "God" as long as they sit on their side of the church.)

Drinking is another issue. In most churches in America it is viewed as sin to drink alcohol. However, in many European countries drinking wine or beer at a church gathering is standard practice and to refuse a drink would be considered 'sin' or at least just plain rude.

I read a book by Ron Mehl called "The Tender Commandments." In this book he suggests that God has given us commandments to keep us from harm....that the consequences of breaking God's laws are what hurt us. God gave us 'rules' to make sure that we had God' best in life. But breaking these rules doesn't mean that God doesn't love us.

When I read this book I really resonated with this perspective.

I believe VERY STRONGLY that God sent Jesus to save mankind as God knew that we would not be able to keep his laws. Through Jesus we are loved unconditionally by God. On the cross, Jesus paid the price for all of mankind's 'sins' and if we would believe that Jesus is our Savior, we get all the blessings of God. We live in a fallen world so we are going to have to deal with all the shit here on earth. But what does God require of us? But to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)

Add to that verse in which Jesus' reply to the Sadducees, when asked what the greatest commandment is: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, and then love your neighbor as yourself.

These two verses guide me.

Plus, my own experience with Jesus.

As a teenager (I am 49 years old) I was sexually active and at 15 had a baby, which I gave up for adoption. Because of the way my legalistic Christian parents handled that whole situation, I determined that I would do things different with my children.

So when my 20 year old daughter took me out to dinner to tell me that she and her boyfriend were sexually active, I rejoiced in the fact that she had already gone to the doctor, and she was on birthcontrol pills. But most importantly that she told me something very intimate about herself.

My decision to do things different with my kids worked and while I wanted God's best for my children, I believe that my daughter has not 'sinned' to be damned by God. She doesn't feel damned and in fact feels accepted by God because my husband and I have accepted her.

We all want to be accepted. People who judge and condemn others because they don't believe the same way are not acting justly or loving or merciful...nor are they loving others as they love themselves. But then they probably respond that way because they really don't love themselves.

What is sin? I believe that sin is whatever keeps us from having a relationship with God. Because of Jesus, God loves us unconditionally.

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Firstly, you gotta check out my profile, Kids. I just turned 40.

David,

No way you can be 40 years old, and I have conclusive evidence to prove it.

1. On March 3 you posted you were 39 11/12 years old. According to my calculations today is not 1/12 away from that date it is only 26/365. Anyone that close to the big 40 would have had that horrific date down more precisely.

2. Also those of us 40+ grew up in schools where we would get slapped across the knuckles with a yardstick if we had made such an gross error in estimation. Plus also a spanking and sitting in the corner in a dunce cap. The old phrase from dad, "You get a spanking at school, you get one at home." would have instilled further terror. All this would make such mathematical errors impoossible.

3. Those of us 40+ would have grown up using King James English for all religious matters and thou would'st revert unto that manner of speech whensoever a matter of the scriptures was't brought therefore into the forefront of converation.

4. Plus look at the picture in your profile. I say 25 at most. And it's not just an old picture. (All my old pictures of that age were in black and white on tintypes.)

5. Also those of us over 40 write long rambling posts, repeat things, forget names. David, does any of that happen to you?

6. Also those of us over 40 forget that we have said things and write long rambling posts forgetting names. Doug, does that ever happen to you?

I rest my case! Rock solid, conclusive evidence, young man!

Tu Amigo, Pablo

P.S. Seriously, happy birthday, my friend, (whatever your age.)

[dsdrane]

marry me.

[tdogg]

David

HAPPY BIRTHDAY - AND WELCOME TO THE FAB 40 CLUB!!! YOU'LL BE A MEMBER FOR 10 MORE YEARS!! WELL...MINUS 1 DAY OF COURSE!

It's great being 40.

Enjoy your day.

Tdogg

[dsdrane]

Thanks, t!!!

[runningFREAK]

I was wondering what everyones thoughts were about this.. I know in the christian faith obstaining from premarital sex is a big thing, I agree with it too. BUt you find in the homosexual community that there is just about no one that believes that. I think partially is becasue there is no option to marry but and there isnt a strong faith base in the community. So i was wondering what evryones thoughts both personaly and biblically where on that.

[keltic63]

moderator note: I merged RunningFreak's thread with this one, since they are essentially the same topic.