SEX IS NOT THE SAME AS LOVE; LOVE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEX

I was young once. I was certainly a bit more ignorant. So I listened as another young man told me about his experience with sex. Since I had yet to experience sexual intercourse, I was curious. Since I had no wish to admit my inexperience, I was also silent.

What did he have to say? Well, young men have a tendency to brag about such things, but he did not. We were friends, and there was no one else to hear. His experience disappointed him. He had found sex unpleasantly messy.

We make jokes about bodily fluids, but during sex we share them. This sharing is quite contrary to our upbringing. In our modern, clean, antiseptic world, we sanitize our living spaces and confine bodily fluids to trash cans, toilets, and biomedical waste containers. We know sharing bodily fluids with another is just a way to spread disease. Yet my friend had discovered that sharing bodily fluids is a large part of the sexual experience.

Since I have five brothers and sisters, I knew there is more to sex than just sharing bodily fluids. If sex was so unpleasant, what inspired my parents to have so many children? What had my friend done wrong? I did not know. It was many years before I began to understand.

My friend’s confusion — my own — was nothing new. Today our ignorance seems quite commonplace. Therefore, to inform the ignorant, I would like to share this dialogue.

‘You don’t get to make up your own Jesus’

By Everett Piper – – Sunday, January 7, 2018
ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Facebook Post of the Week:

Piper: It’s not about gay or straight, it’s about the definition of what it means to be human. Even Gore Vidal said, “there is no more such a thing as a homosexual person than there is a heterosexual person, these are behavioral adjectives.” We are not defined by our desires. It’s about our behavior. It’s not about our being.

Allen: This is moronic. Jesus and God could care not about who loves who — of this I am sure. Loving the same sex is not a sin I will pray for your bigoted, hypocritical and misguided soul.

(continued here)

What had my friend done wrong? He had had sexual intercourse with a young woman he did not love. Instead of sharing himself — instead of appreciating the gift that young woman was giving him — both he and that young woman had engaged in a purely animal act. Since we are not animals, he had discovered what that young woman was sharing with him was repugnant. He could see only the bodily fluids. He did not see someone with whom he wanted to share life.

What is love?

John 15:13 New King James Version (NKJV)

13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.

If we are not prepared to lay down our life for another, we most certainly do not have a great love for them. If we are not ready sacrifice for another person, we don’t love them. We can negotiate a deal — we can make a material exchange — but we cannot share what is in our hearts. Thus, sex without love is just an exchange of bodily fluids. Yet love, even without sex, is glorious. God is love.

70 thoughts on “SEX IS NOT THE SAME AS LOVE; LOVE IS NOT THE SAME AS SEX

  1. I completely agree with this. Sex is a connection where as love is something that dosen’t always need sex either. I have always felt like intamacy can even be intellectual. But for every person the definition of love changes. I was thinking about this yesterday, as I am shocked about how modern couples behave in a way that dosen’t always seem respectful. But isen’t everything with a partern a higher spiritual connection? Even a simple talk can be the same. I feel like more people should expand their image of what love means. It always comes from the heart and mind first. The body is just a vessel to transfer these emotions. Check out my poem on this same topic. I used the idea of fire from a lava lamp to express how love dosen’t need to be sexual but rather just a simple look much like a lava lamp can change perspectives, https://caelidotblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/10/lava-lamp/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your comment.

      Interesting. Thanks for the link too.

      Just a thought.

      I feel like more people should expand their image of what love means.

      Image of what love means? What does love mean?

      Here is a difficult idea to explain. Are you talking about what love means or how we express love. Is the “image of what love means our expectation of how to give and receive love?

      It may be difficult to express what love means, but I doubt you actually think we need to expand our image of what love means. I suspect what you intended to say is that we need to expand the ways we express love and accept being loved. There have been more than a few books written about that.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. No i believe alot of people don’t know what love means. They think it means a distanced perspective of now allowing connection, and they wouldn’t try to come from a different perspective. I think alot of people don’t know love.

        Like

      2. people don’t value love for the respect that it should be in mutual understandings of connection all ideas are connected to expressing but first we must consider our ideals in order to come to a clearer way of expressing.

        Like

        1. I suppose some people don’t know what love means. The Bible expresses love this way.

          Genesis 2:23-25 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

          23 The man said,

          “This is now bone of my bones,
          And flesh of my flesh;
          She shall be called Woman,
          Because she was taken out of Man.”

          24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

          When two become one — when a man and woman — think of themselves as one — they still retain their own identities, but neither gives any thought about allowing the other to connect. Both trust, want to know, want to understand and want to please the other.

          Because men and women complement each other emotionally, the relationship between a man and woman provides a model for how we are supposed to love God, and each other. Sex is a part of the relationship, but trust and the desire to know, understand, and please each other is the crux of love. Relationships based solely on sex don’t last long, but friendships that have nothing to do with sex can last a lifetime.

          The Bible says we are also suppose to love our enemies. Trusting an enemy cannot work. Becoming one with an enemy is not possible. Yet we can still desire to know, understand, and please someone who does not like us. We just cannot help our enemies to hurt us, themselves, or others.

          Like

          1. Yes but there are many ways of love that are not quoted in the bible and what God? All people have different ideas of who is God but love is a universal language of spirituality that many have a hard time tapping into. Their relationship becomes sense and dull because they don’t know what is or how-to love

            Like

          2. God made each of us a unique individual. So I suppose we all don’t know how to love or want to be loved the same way.

            What God? I don’t think I have any special knowledge. I don’t think my experience is unusual. I have just observed what almost any other American my age could have seen.

            The Bible is the most significant book in history. It is about Jesus. Jesus was the most significant man in history (see => https://citizentom.com/2017/03/30/who-is-this-man-by-john-ortberg-part-7/). However, our public school system teaches us to disregard the Bible, and the mass media actively scoffs at its teachings. So we think we know the Bible even if we have never read it.

            What God? I believe what the Bible says about God. I am hardly a Bible scholar, but I suppose I understand Bible better than many. I think there are several explanations for that.
            • Most people don’t read the Bible. Relative to those folks it is easy to appear knowledgeable.
            • I enjoy reading history. So when I read the Bible, I can put what I read into something approaching the correct context.
            • The Bible says explains how Western Civilization was possible. Only Christians filled with the Holy Spirit would have tried to make freedom of religion work, for example. After I read the Bible the first time, that fact grabbed my attention. It helped me believe the Bible.
            • Because I believe the Bible, that provides my inspiration to know more about what it says.
            • When I was in my 50’s, I had enough experience to admit I am a sinner, and I needed to repent. That made the truth of Bible much easier to accept.

            Unless we have read the Bible, we don’t understand what the people who built America were trying to do. That’s why the fact that most Americans have never read the Bible — never carefully studied the Bible — is shocking a indictment of our education system. We end up trying run our country without ever knowing why it was set up the way it was. Lunacy like that helps me believe Satan is real. Would you put a child in a car, give him the keys, and expect him to drive without any serious instruction?

            If you have never read the Bible, start with the books you find easiest to read and enjoy. If you try to read the Bible from beginning to end, you will just get bogged down in Leviticus. Try to find and read the best parts first.

            Also keep in mind that there are many translations. Some are literal. Others update the expressions and idioms to those we use today. What I tend to do is read a more literal translation (the NKJV, for example) and then use one that is going after the meaning (The Message) as a commentary.

            Why do I read more than one translation? The Bible was inspired by God when it was written, but I have no idea how inspired the translations might be.

            Like

          3. BTW- Leviticus is a good read, but it is filled with a bunch of dietary laws and regulations on temple sacrifices that don’t make much sense without a good Bible commentary and familiarity with other parts of the Bible.

            Consider.

            Leviticus 19:18 New King James Version (NKJV)

            18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

            Like

  2. You know… there are times where a simple kiss (and not the deep throat “tonsil hockey” kind) conveys far more than bumping uglies. Does then kissing become a sin.. or do we get drawn into the same old religious “judgement” dilemma.. who decides when a kiss is sexual vs. affectionate?

    Like

    1. The early church use a kiss as a greeting (Romans 16:16). I suspect you would be surprised how many times the Bible speaks of people kissing each other with warm affection.

      Like

  3. http://basicconceptuality.blogspot.com/2016/06/when-all-that-you-need-is-love_3.html

    The above link is about all the different emotions and stages one goes through when he or she falls in love … Including the steps, you should take care of while talking to a crush and lastly it concludes with the paragraph that deals with the re-ignition of love in the relationship.

    the link below is about sex education and masturbation it concludes with the myths and real concerns about infertility in men…

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m not giving you “my” reasoning, Tom; I’m basically explaining the reasoning that the Court historically uses, that it uses for all constitutional cases involving fundamental rights, and that it used in other marriage rights cases such as Loving vs. Virginia. This is not about “me”. I’m not even gay. (Gratefully, I’m just not that interesting or aggrieved in any way).

    “we have no business forcing some people to give to other people what they don’t want to give.”

    As I said before, I understand, sympathize and acknowledge this argument. It was the same sort of argument that was made in the Loving case – people should not be forced to acknowledge interracial marriages, something that many otherwise moral and religious people in Virginia sincerely believed at the core of their being was morally wrong. They made the same argument that it would harm the children of the marriage. Did it? Perhaps. but, as in this case, Virginia simply could not substantially demonstrate that the harm caused was substantial enough or that the interracial marriage that the disapproving people of Virginia was forced to acknowledge overcame the Loving’s fundamental right to be married.

    Just as in the Loving case, these cases involve real people with real stories. I empathize with your position. Not too long ago I might have made the same arguments that you are making. Two things changed: (1) I studied the Constitution and learned constitutional reasoning; and (2) I’ve tried to understand and empathize with the sincerely held positions of people on all sides.

    Even if the other side is wrong, and the Court’s reasoning was unsound, we have to open our hearts to their sincere ignorance and understand how the Court reasons before we can mount a convincing argument in opposition.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. A few other issues you say that I have not addressed:

      1. Legal Definition of Marriage. I thought that I had. Nevertheless, you will have to first explain how your marriage has become less legally defined since gays started marrying? I’ve been married to the same woman who has tolerated me for going on 38 years. For better and for worse, it seems about the same, both legally and religiously, as it was before Bruce and Steve got to “enjoy” the same institution.

      2. Children. Legal marriage has many rights and responsibilities besides just protection of children: inheritance rights, property distribution rights, medical power of attorney rights, and many more. Besides, in case you haven’t heard, modern medicine and the law allows same sex couples to have children whose rights are still best protected through a legal marriage.

      3. Sex. As you said in your post, it’s a messy business in any event. All forms of promiscuous sex carry the risk of STDs. The best counter to STD’s is fidelity to a single partner in a committed monogamous relationship (ie. marriage). As for the types of sex that you may disapprove of and find unnatural, you do know that heterosexual couples practice all the same forms of sex that gay couples do, don’t you? Do you want to invade their bedrooms too? Nuff said about that.

      Hope that about covers it brother.

      Like

      1. @tsalmon

        1. Legal Definition of Marriage. Whoa! I did not say legal definition of marriage. Nature defines marriage, not the law. The fact this definition is in the Bible does not make it any less valid.

        Think about this.

        Genesis 1:26-30 New King James Version (NKJV)

        26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[a] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

        29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

        And it was so. Doesn’t this passage tell us more about what is than how it came to be?

        2. Children? Technology has not changed anything. The union of two people of the same sex still does not produce children. Technology just makes it easier to delude ourselves. Given the nature of the “couple”, a same-sex “couple” will be totally incompetent to model the role of either the father or the mother. So why would we want to encourage two people of the same sex to have children? Where is the need for this experiment? How does it benefit children?

        3. Sex. As Jesus pointed out, we would be better off celibate, but very few of us can do that. Because marriage is sacred, and we cannot be trusted with this gift, we would be better off refusing it.
        How sacred is marriage? The Bible uses marriage to illustrate the nature of the bond between Jesus Christ and His church. When it works, marriage is very good, but as you no doubt already know, it requires much work and sacrifice.

        Homosexuals argue that their sexual confusion is genetic. That is, they are born as homosexuals. Effectively, they justify themselves by claiming they are helpless to control their inclinations. Using this supposed fact as an assumption, even though it is the focus of their own argument, it makes no sense to call sexual union between two people the same sex a “marriage”. Because nature “designed” two people of the opposite sex to complement each other, not two people of the same sex, homosexuals have biology working against them, not for them. Whatever the reason, their so-called marriages don’t last. So it is that when society endorses same-sex relationships it is just promoting fornication and the spread of STD’s, and that’s foolishness!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. So once again, Your entire argument is peculiarly religious and semantics.

          Your biblical argument is even denominational, but even if it were not, it does not withstand the 1st Amendment’s establishment and infringement clauses.

          The semantics argument is even more frivolous as you still are unable to show how you and your marriage are substantially harmed by the expansion of the definition.

          That marriage is strictly for procreational sex defies the reality that people do get married where one or both parties are unable to procreate, and people also marry and stay married long past the age of procreation as a couple. With modern birth control, married couples may choose to have sex without procreation. Sex renews bonds of affection that affirms the marriage contract.

          Finally, you assert that gay marriages don’t last in higher numbers thaan opposite sex marriages, but you give no authoritative data. However, even if you had data, what would it prove in so short a time? If a higher incidence of divorce were the reason to not allow marriage, then straight marriages would have been banned long ago.

          This was the problem with what was presented before the Court – lots of broad assertions that were peculiarly religion based but no actual proof of substantial harm to those wanting to ban gay marriages.

          Like

          1. @tsalmon

            I suppose in your world quoting the Bible is a legalistic sin. Don’t particularly care. Genesis 1:26-30 states what is. Self-evident truths.

            Men and women are made in Gods’ image. We are thinking creatures. We know the difference between right and wrong. We are male and female. When compared with any other creature, we have dominion over the earth, and we have been fruitful and multiplied.

            Unfortunately, Genesis 1:26-30 predates the Fall. So we live in a fallen world.

            When we design something, we design it for its primary intended purpose. Do some people use the things we design for other purposes? Yes.

            Similarly, even though marriage is not our creation we use the marriage relationship when we engage in relationships that do not produce children. However, this is done out of respect for the institution, not to subvert it.

            So it is the couples who may not intend to have children marry. Because they could produce children, without marriage their relationship is seen as highly irresponsible. Even the elderly usually marry when they live together because to do otherwise would be to set a bad example for the young.

            What about same-sex couples? Are their “marriages” a sign of respect for the institution? No. If you believe that, you are kidding yourself. If a man married a dog, child, or seven women, would that be a sign of respect for the institution of marriage? At best, what any of these “marriages” would be is opportunistic. As it is, same-sex “marriage” is not a “legal reality”; it is a fantasy that is legally enforced.

            Like

        2. “That marriage is strictly for procreational sex defies the reality that people do get married where one or both parties are unable to procreate, and people also marry and stay married long past the age of procreation as a couple.”

          The fact that people who cannot produce children in every marriage does not indicate that children (and the corresponding familial connections) aren’t the primary reason for state sanction of the marriage contract. Of course it is. Per the “Love” verdict, the demographic represented in that case is a key demographic that rejects the comparison, and finds it insulting.
          I was required to get a rubella vaccine when I applied for a marriage license. Why do you think that was? Your argument would support the claim that there is no basis in anti consanguinity laws either. If a man can marry a man, why can’t he marry his brother or sister?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The courts were extremely arbitrary about defining same-sex “marriage” as a right. Suddenly, state legislature could not regulate something they had been regulating for hundreds of years just because some unelected judges decided they could not.

            Like

        3. “Suddenly, state legislature could not regulate something they had been regulating for hundreds of years just because some unelected judges decided they could not.”

          The Loving case, used as a precedent, is particularly annoying. I’m sure it’s hard to look down from the Ivory tower to see why us simple folk might take issue with: “Hey, if a white man can marry a black women…then, by golly men might as well be able to marry men too!”
          Case in point they married when she became pregnant…so whatever arguments might theoretically apply against inter-racial marriage being bad for the children are nullified when bastardy would be worse.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. @tsalmon

      First you are grateful you are not a homosexual. Then you insult blacks by comparing same-sex marriage with interracial marriages.

      Race is not a behavioral issue. It is demonstrably a genetic issue, and most would observe that the differences between individuals far exceeds the differences between the races. What has confused the matter is that culture and race usually have a high correlation. Since many people see their own culture as superior, they often see other races as inferior.

      Homosexuality is a behavioral issue. No one can demonstrate otherwise. Even if the inclination towards homosexuality could be demonstrated to have a genetic basis, because we are human beings made in God’s image, we still have a choice. We don’t have to engage in fornication, which messes people up both physically and emotionally.

      As to the Supreme Court. The courts had no legal basis for overturning existing laws. You know it, and I know it. When the courts over time and over a series of unrelated cases construct a supposedly logical chain of reasoning, they risk creating the legal equivalent of a Rube Goldberg machine. People like you may be able to see and admire the clever twists and turns, the artful devices and contraptions, but people like me just look at the Constitution. We expect decisions from the Supreme Court to square both with precedent and with the Constitution.

      Since the decision on same sex marriage does not square with the Constitution, people like me wonder why the Supreme Court saw such a crying need to endorse sodomy and such? We wonder what dung hole they pulled that decision out of?

      The Supreme Court has an obligation to uphold the spirit of the law. When the courts start using the law to engage in social engineering, that is legalism. That is what Jesus accused the Pharisees of doing. Instead of making their obedience to the Bible about the glory of God, they glorified themselves. Instead of upholding the words of the Preamble, too many judges on the Supreme Court are using the Constitution to foist their own views on the rest of the country. Instead of serving the nation, they are trying to rule it.

      Like

      1. Tom,

        You make broad assertions and accusations about constitutional law that are not based in actual knowledge of the law or its history. This seems to be based less in facts and logical legal reasoning than it is in outrage, outrage that the decision in this particular case does not conform within the closed loop of your particular religious ideology.

        You think that I don’t understand your reasoning, but I get it. The foundations of truth for me are also religious and ideological, but I don’t believe in closing the loop. An infinite God is bigger than anybody’s small circle of religious, rational or metaphysical knowledge. People have done hateful things based upon sincerely held religious dogmas. Our job is to figure out how best to fathom an infinite God’s will starting from the humility (that you have yourself argued) that perfect understanding and compliance is impossible. I think we both agree, however, that God has told us to love and all judgement must begin and end with compassion and love. Love is Infinite and true, although our small understanding of its infinite power, as well as our power to love, is finite and evolving. This is why we sin; our fallen nature causes us fail to love as perfectly as we should. This is why we all need Christ’s redemption – we cannot do this on our own.

        From a theological and metaphysical viewpoint, you have made good arguments that other authorities in these areas disagree with. Since neither you nor those authorities can claim an absolute knowledge of the infinite mind of God on this subject, it should make us humble about defaulting to absolutist outrage and condemnation. I’m am not condemning your religious position that homosexuality is always sin. I don’t claim to know for sure, but I find your arguments unconvincing.

        On the other hand, I think that we can both agree that the metaphysical origin of justice is Love, including its manifestations in mercy and compassion, and not in hate with its manifestations of condemnation and dogmatic prejudice.

        We have both made our best arguments, whether or not we each have chosen to fully understand each other’s arguments. We are now circling back to repeating the same arguments in the hope the other person will finally understand. We are therefore at an impasse. The best that we can do as loving Christians at this point is to amicably agree to disagree. Be assured, however, that I will continue to contemplate and study your position for greater enlightenment. I still have much to learn.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          Broad assertions?
          😆

          Since most of the Federal budget is spent outside what the Constitution authorizes, I think I can be forgiven for making broad assertions. Just show me where the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to spend money on health, education and welfare programs.

          Do I think you don’t understand my reasoning? No. I have said you do. Some years back I wrote this post => https://citizentom.com/2008/07/07/i-stand-corrected/. When we do something wrong, what is one of the things that make it wrong? Don’t we have to know it is wrong? Read the post.

          As James Madison observed, men are not angels. So we need a government to keep us from exploiting each other. Unfortunately, when we create a government, we also have to be careful that we don’t allow those who would exploit us to get in control of the government. What further complicates the problem is that any of us can be tempted by power. In addition, as if the preceding were not enough, each of us can be tempted to elect people who offer us other people’s money. So it is that the checks and balances in the Constitution just delayed the inevitable.

          Have I said anything you didn’t already know? I doubt it. You are at least as well educated in these matters as I, probably more so. So what is the difference? Perhaps it is the fact that when I went NASA and saw how the Space Shuttle program was being run I was heartbroken. Our government was trying to launch Socialism into space and failing miserably. So it is that when Ronald Reagan took NASA out of the business of launching commercial and military satellites I cheered. I walked away from NASA and never looked back.

          What does this have to do with same-sex marriage? What you would like to believe is that some Christians want to force their view of marriage on everyone else. As I have explained and explained and explained, that is just not true. And I believe you know it is not true.

          Same-sex “marriage” is plainly not marriage. Government does not have any good reason to license same-sex “marriage”. It does not solve any problems or protect anyone’s rights. It just puts us in the position of endorsing perverve sexual relationships, including absurdities like sodomy.

          You feel sorry for homosexuals? Well, that is your prerogative, but you really don’t have the right to force others to adopt your feelings.

          Like

  5. Lots of institutions have been around thousands of years that we don’t agree with in the US today (child brides, slavery and polygamy come to mind). But that is once again sort of besides the point. No one in the case was arguing for getting rid of marriage. They were simply arguing for recognition of marriage between same sex partners. The best arguments against this are the ones that you are making – basically religious ones. So that brings us back to the state unconstitutionally imposing one religious viewpoint.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      You are not getting rid of marriage, just trying to make it impossible to properly define.

      I have already brought up plenty of issues you have not addressed. Your basic position is that same-sex marriage is a right because YOU don’t see the harm.

      That is problem with all government-given rights. The are all defined and justified that way.

      Southerners enslaved blacks because they refused to see the harm. That’s why government-given “rights” are so wretched. Because we often don’t have the wisdom to see and acknowledge the harm, we have no business forcing some people to give to other people what they don’t want to give.

      Because the rights of children and the parental rights of their mothers and fathers deserve legal protection, our government licenses traditional marriage. You have no reason that even comes close for justifying same-sex “marriage”. In fact, you just have a bunch of twisted excuses for unconstitutionally distorting the law. That by itself should be enough to alarm a lawyer. Moreover, your best excuse for same-sex “marriage” is what’s the harm? Well, why don’t you try figuring out what homosexuality involves? What are the health concerns? What are the ethical issues? What does calling something “marriage” that clearly is not do to our language? It is a lie from the get-go.

      Like

  6. “When something has been labeled as a vice for thousands of years, there is a reason why that is so. Instead of relying on the news media, perhaps it would help if you wrote a paper on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.”

    LOL. I’ve basically just done so here.

    I don’t know about the evil media. Perhaps you should start by reading the holdings of a majority conservative Supreme Court.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think the Supreme Court has been around for thousands of years. I also think it quite obvious Framers of the Constitution would not approve of their abusive use power. The notion that there is a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” base upon what Framers wrote 200 years ago is ridiculous. If that is what you been reading, you need to do some research of your own.

      Consider is that 2000 years ago the Greeks and Romans did not label same-sex relationships as taboo. Because of the Bible the Jews thought opposed same-sex relationships, but there relatively few Jews.

      Christians opposed sex outside of marriage, and those Christians established what we now call traditional marriage. In the process of overthrowing the idols the Romans and the barbarians worshiped, they also managed to convince almost everyone that sexual relationships were proper only within the confines of traditional marriage. That in and of itself was a highly revolutionary idea. Yet because traditional marriage works relatively well, the people accepted it and supported it.

      Like

  7. @anon

    When we “legalize” any vice, whether it be gambling, adultry, no fault divorce or just plain selfish greed, to some extent we make a public declaration of some sorts. (One of the most popular forms of gambling in the country is state run lotteries).

    Howevrr, in a liberal society (and I mean that term in the classic sense), we give people the maximum freedom possible to make even the wrong choices. And in the case of no fault divorce and gay marriage, there is a good deal of disagreement as to whether each is indeed a wrong choice, disagreement even within the Christian community. I will defend your personal religious choice not to divorce or not to marry a girl, but don’t you see that, because that these are particularly religious views, we should not use the law to impose them on people who have differing religious beliefs?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ll take these two statements and answer them together:
      1)When we “legalize” any vice, whether it be gambling, adultry, no fault divorce or just plain selfish greed, to some extent we make a public declaration of some sorts.
      (snip)
      2) I will defend your personal religious choice not to divorce or not to marry a girl, but don’t you see that, because that these are particularly religious views, we should not use the law to impose them on people who have differing religious beliefs?

      To your first point, note that homosexuality is legal.
      Legalizing homosexuality did not make it a sanctioned activity.
      Long ago, our society viewed homosexual acts as a crime. Over the course of 40 years or so a lot of folks have campaigned to make it lawful. They succeeded.

      Now then campaigned to force their moral view that it is equal to hetersexual sex as a moral good on the rest of us, and it should be a sanctioned and incentivized activity. The one’s attempting to shove their morality down the throats of others are the gay activists and their allies.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is worth noting that civil unions can be formed via private contracts from the people who claim to be disadvantaged if their activity isn’t sanctioned as a public good.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. @anon

        You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I don’t agree with your assertion that you are not totally unaffected by the legitimacy that legalization gives to gay marriage. It will indeed be increasingly harder for those who disagree with same sex marriage to express their religious condemnation as legalization normalizes the institution. The problem is, even if, for the sake of argument, I completely agreed with the religious point of view that gay marriage is an abomination before God, I still have to come down on the side of allowing gay marriage. Why? Well it is a matter of balancing competing harms and liberties:

        1. On the one hand, your right to have what is essentially mostly a particular religious point of view enacted into law verses the right not to have one religious view enforced on those who differ.
        2. On the one hand, your right to freely condemn a perceived evil verses the gay person’s right to be left alone to love, have sex with and contract to marry whom he or she pleases.
        3. On the one hand, the actual rational negative effect the legalization will have an straight people and society as a whole verses the positive effect that promoting liberty has.

        Like

        1. “On the one hand, the actual rational negative effect the legalization will have an straight people and society as a whole verses the positive effect that promoting liberty has.”

          I must state again the obvious distinction between making something “legal” and sanctioning the activity and incentivizing it as a public good.
          On the one end, homosexuality might be illegal and the private activity strictly punished. In that case one might make the argument that private liberty outweighs the gains of curbing it via legislation.
          One cannot reasonably argue, on the other hand, that publicly sanctioning and incentivizing an activity (via tax advantages, et al) is in the interest of “private” liberty. This should be particularly obvious when we’re speaking of fundamentally altering a traditional institution that has been in place, and considered an integral part of society and community, for millennia.

          Like

        2. @tsalmon

          Must be wonderful to be so above it all.

          Why don’t we:

          Help addicts get their drugs? Wouldn’t that help reduce crime and prostitution?

          Allow child marriages? If the pedophiles want to go to poor nations and bring back their “spouses”, would that alleviate some of the starving in this world?

          Allow polygamy and polyandry? If that is what people want to do, where is the harm?

          Allow minors to use alcohol and pot? Then their parents can monitor them and show them how it is done.

          Allow human sacrifice? If the victims are willing, raised from birth to accept the glory of their death on alter to their god, what is the problem?

          Give equal credence to the theory the earth is flat?

          Like

    2. @tsalmon

      You are using state-run lotteries to justify same-sex “marriage”? You do realize our politicians justify this legalized vice by claiming that the profits are used to fund education. If that doesn’t tell you what those people think of public education…….

      Your idea of a Liberal society and the Founders are as far apart as the east is from the west. Don’t you grasp the difference between allowing people the freedom to make mistakes if they are willing to bear the consequences of being wrong and enabling stupidity and sinfulness?

      There is a difference be

      Like

      1. Actually, I brought up state run lotteries to show that I understand and sympathize with anon’s basic premise that substantial harm to society can and should override personal liberty, but you have to prove substantial harm first. And in the case of a fundamental rights, such as the right to marry and the right to not have someone else’s religious beliefs imposed upon you, that proof of harm must be even more substantial. The criticism of gay marriage is a peculiarly religious criticism, and also critics of gay marriage have been unable to give much rational evidence that the harm is that great.

        I wrote a paper on legalized gambling in law school for a class on the economics of the law. To my surprise, economists were in amazingly concerted agreement that legalizing gambling, especially state run lotteries, was very harmful. So ya, I’m with you. It’s a dumb way to find schools.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          When something has been labeled as a vice for thousands of years, there is a reason why that is so. Instead of relying on the news media, perhaps it would help if you wrote a paper on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

          One of the thing I have discovered as I blog is that it forces me to think about what I read.

          Like

  8. “When you bring up divorce, you are demanding that we compare apples and oranges. You are also being foolish. Since neither of us has paid child support or alimony, I suppose your lack of experience in this area is forgivable. However, since you are a lawyer I did not think I would be the one that has to point out that even as decadent as our society has become we still frown on divorce.”

    Neither one of us has been divorced, but only one of us has successfully sued a father for an increase in child support. Only one of here has actually studied and practiced marriage law. “Lack of experience” on the issue? Hardly.

    We frown on divorce and adultry so much that we elect presidents who unrepentantly, even proudly, do both. Ya, sure we do.

    Because we are talking about legal verses religious distinctions, I think divorce and adultry are apropos to any discussion of marriage, fidelity and sex. To my knowledge, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but He had quite a bit to say about divorce and adultry. And yet condemnation of gay legal marriage, rather than the legalization of adultry and no fault divorce, is the cause celeb for certain elements of the religious Right. Unlike gay marriage, divorce and adultry are actual areas where the religious person is forced to participate. The law can force you to divorce your spouse no matter what your religion says. The law also won’t allow your business to discriminate against divorced persons. Why? Because the law grants them a legal “right” to a divorce.

    Furthermore, unlike unsubstantiated claims that gay marriage substantially harms the marriage institution and society as a whole, legalized no fault divorce, as well as decriminalized adultry and premarital sex, really provably do direct harm to the marriage institution and to society as a whole.

    It seems that if we want to be in the business of legally throwing stones, we would focus our limited pile of rocks on the worst offenders. On the other hand, maybe legalized rock throwing isn’t the best way to promote a religion of love. Maybe when condemnation is particularly a religious condemnation we should err on the side of personal freedom and voluntary compliance, even if that freedom is to violate God’s will. Tom, as you have said in other posts, God gave us this freedom, and the voluntary nature of our compliance is a basic Christian principle. I heartily agree with you.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      I have been trying to figure out why you insist upon conflating divorce with homosexuality. At this point it appears you think that just because our lawmakers have made one mistake that they should make a bunch of others. Why stop at sexually stupid things? Why don’t we just fire all our policemen, shut down the courtrooms, and empty our jails?

      To my knowledge, Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, but He had quite a bit to say about divorce and adultry.

      The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus is God. At the beginning of the Gospel that bears his name, the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word. The Bible is about Jesus. Because He inspired it, Jesus is the author of the entire work, not just the words the Bible records Him speaking.

      The law can force you to divorce your spouse no matter what your religion says.

      It is not the law the causes a divorce. Divorce occurs when one spouse refuses to keep their marriage vows. Whether they are legally divorce or not, when one spouse leaves another, if the other tries to force the fleeing spouse to have sex, that is rape. Awkward to prosecute, but rape is what it is.

      Like it or not, it makes no sense to use the law to force two people to stay together. Consider.

      Matthew 19:3-12 New King James Version (NKJV)

      3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

      4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

      7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”

      8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

      10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

      Jesus Teaches on Celibacy

      11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

      When one or both of the partners in a marriage decide to divorce, there is not much the government can do about it. The problem is a hardness of heart. Government cannot make us love each other. God could, I suppose, but He doesn’t.

      Same-sex “marriage”, on the other hand, just requires the government to say: “No. That does not fit the definition of a marriage.” And you have yet to make any effort to show that it does.

      Does homosexuality harm society? Yes. Just the mere act of sodomy poses health problems, and that should be blatantly obvious to anyone. Before you start spouting more nonsense, you need to study this issue with more care.

      I wrote a series on this issue in 2010. Starts here => https://familyallianceonline.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/homosexuals-in-our-military-the-health-consequences/

      Since I have not updated the series, I expect many of the links are broken, but it is a place to start. Also, in our politically correct world, I would not be surprised if some the documents are now buried. People do that, as Al Gore would say, with inconvenient truths.

      Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

Oh Lord, It's Monday!

Understanding The Bible In A Way That Transforms You And Your World

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

The Way Online

Christian Insight Through God's Word

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

Communio

"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Professor Of Communication

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

TLP

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: