[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I read through this five times trying to figure it out. As soon as I went to reply, I saw an edit for clarity.

Why do you think people put on that front?

Loud minority, trying to fit in with what they think the status quo is.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm trying to be a lot more careful and qualifying with my claims, but am having difficulty doing so. This doesn't really encapsulate what I'm getting at either..

"Christian views on sexuality are derived from old-fashioned concepts"

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I think it stands that a majority of people put on a front of subscribing to some rather conservatives views towards sexuality and marriage

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Loud minority, trying to fit in with what they think the status quo is.

Which groups' majorities and minorities are we talking about? Americans? Christians?

[Kerrigan]

But what about the gay marriage?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If you have a good relationship, what exactly does marriage add to it that is so special? it reminds me of a Doug Stanhope bit.

I have been with my wife now for 20 years, married for 15. Other than a few legal/tax conveniences, I can't for the LIFE of me think of what good marriage itself has done for us.

I'll answer without reading others' replies.

Some great parties : stag weekend, night before marriage, the marriage itself.

Tends to make legal issues easier. In my experience anyway.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

But what about the gay marriage?

You shut it. We're having a good discussion here.

[Kerrigan]

You need to wake up and realize that gay marriage is wrong. It is against nature.

[Chuckit]

This is probably my own neuroses talking, but I find the idea of publicly committing to someone for life to be kind of weird. The only situation in which it matters is when one (or both) of the partners wants to leave. If somebody's that unhappy in the relationship, trying to tie them down with social pressure seems cruel. I don't want someone to stay just because they signed a contract.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

"Christian views on sexuality are derived from old-fashioned concepts"

Closer. I don't think we're going to find a perfect way to say this, but what is it that you disagree with: the way I'm saying this, or what it seems that I'm actually trying to say?

[Kerrigan]

By the way does anyone know what to wear for a noon wedding?

I know the proper attire for morning weddings and for late afternoon weddings (black tie), but noon?

edit: The wedding is at the episcopal church in Palm Beach (not West Palm... puke). I'm guessing that, despite geography, this would be considered a "Northern" wedding and the attire would have to be adjusted accordingly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

By the way does anyone know what to wear for a noon wedding?

I know the proper attire for morning weddings and for late afternoon weddings (black tie), but noon?

Well, I know that it includes pants.

I thought you were Cody Dawg? Shouldn't this say black dress?

[Kerrigan]

I am Cody, but black tie is just the accepted lingo for "formal." For instance, my husband and I will frequently put "black tie" instead of "formal" on cocktail party invitations.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Hilaaaaarius!

Actually, it is very sad and depressing.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Those attitudes aren't exclusively Christian - they're not Christian at all. I'm unfamiliar with any denomination that holds those standards.

The article was written by an Anglican. But you are right, they are not based upon Biblical teachings.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Where do you think they originate from?

See above. I think they originate from people.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You can blame the Puritans for the modern cultural views on sexuality as much as you can blame the Puritans' Thanksgiving turkeys for our outbreak of Swine Flu. Sure there may be a relation but there are so many other outside influences and "mutations" of those views that you can't single out a solitary source.

Actually, you can't. Puritans were rather relaxed about sex inside of marriage. There are Puritan court cases where women charged their husbands with failure to fulfill their marital duties biblically. Puritan courts punished men who would not have sex with their wives.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wasn't trying to single out a solitary source, I mentioned what could be a source in passing. Whatever the source, I believe these ideas to be absurd and archaic - that was the point I was trying to emphasize.

They are absurd and archaic. However, they are not biblical teachings and they are not Christian based.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I can't say much about the Puritans' views on sexual activity appropriate for each gender, but I'd bet they frowned on it either way.

[See above.] The puritans viewed sex as a way to glorify God and thought that intimacy should never be withheld.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I am Cody

Pfff, Cody would know better than to ask this in a Computer forum

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Closer. I don't think we're going to find a perfect way to say this, but what is it that you disagree with: the way I'm saying this, or what it seems that I'm actually trying to say?

Neither. I'd like to go back to this:

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is your problem with your perception of modern-day Christian views on sexuality because:
A. Women and men are held to a different standards, or
B. It's unacceptable for women to sleep around?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The article was written by an Anglican. But you are right, they are not based upon Biblical teachings.

I was referring more to the idea that women must be pure but guys can sleep around all they want. I'm not aware of a denomination that condones that.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I was referring more to the idea that women must be pure but guys can sleep around all they want. I'm not aware of a denomination that condones that.

Oh, I thought you guys were referring to the gist of the article shif "translated". Here's the link if you want to read some non-biblical teaching that poses as "Christian" teaching. http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1124

Believe it or not, Rick Warren has a good book out about glorifying God in a marriage.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If you have a good relationship, what exactly does marriage add to it that is so special? it reminds me of a Doug Stanhope bit.

I have been with my wife now for 20 years, married for 15. Other than a few legal/tax conveniences, I can't for the LIFE of me think of what good marriage itself has done for us.

For me and my wife, it's the publicly declared commitment to each other. I was fine with just being together, but it was amazing how different it felt after we were formally married.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Which groups' majorities and minorities are we talking about? Americans? Christians?

Americans in general, though I imagine the minority in this case is almost exclusively Christians.

Originally Posted by Railroader 

See above. I think they originate from people.

Thanks for the 'honest' answer. Do you think these people might have had something in common, like a religion, a geographic region, a social class? Don't answer if you plan on obfuscating further.

[Kerrigan]

Historically, going all the way back to Greek and Roman times (and even before that) there have been social and legal restrictions on the mobility of women mainly due to the concern that if they are raped or cheat and don't tell the husband, all of the family's money will be passed on to a bastard.

Men have, until recently, always been concerned about legitimacy and this is why you will find that sexual promiscuity is considered more dangerous for a woman than a man. Sometimes these social concerns creep into religion, but as Laminar says, I don't know which religions actually have the double standard explicitly there in the tract.

Of course, I don't even think it is really a double standard, since men were allowed to kill other men that they found violating their wife, so certainly men risked a deadly penalty for cheating.

By the way: this is in response to Dakar and Besson3c's discussion over why women are "stop signs." And as you can see, this phenomenon has nothing to do with Puritans and everything to do with the accumulation of thousands of years of societal concerns about familial legitimacy.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Thanks for the 'honest' answer. Do you think these people might have had something in common, like a religion, a geographic region, a social class? Don't answer if you plan on obfuscating further.

I wasn't obfuscating at all. I believe those teaching have no base in anything. The only common denominator is "people". It is certainly not a biblical teaching. I don't think it is Buddhist. I know some atheists who feel that way, but I don't know where they came up with their feelings on the matter.

I was being honest, and intentionally non-verbose. No need to wade through lengthly diatribes like Shif writes.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

The only common denominator is "people". It is certainly not a biblical teaching.

Regardless, it is a teaching in some Christian sects, isn't it?

[olePigeon]

If you're a devout Christian, marriage means you get to have sex.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Regardless, it is a teaching in some Christian sects, isn't it?

I don't think it official doctrine in any recognized sect. Though even within any sect/denomination there are great variations from church to church. Some Baptist churches say you are sinning if you don't wear a suit and tie to worship service, my church says "come as you are" (modestly of course).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If you're a devout Christian, marriage means you get to have sex.

Not necessarily: By mutual consent, couples may withhold sex for a period of time, but they should not do it unless both explicitly agree. And it should only be for a short set period of time.

[turtle777]

^^^ I see what you did there.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

You need to wake up and realize that gay marriage is wrong. It is against nature.

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with nature. It's *purely* cultural.

"Nature" is full of homosexuality, not just among humans by a long shot.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with nature. It's *purely* cultural.

"Nature" is full of homosexuality, not just among humans by a long shot.

Don't bring common sense into this. If he was looking for common sense, he wouldn't be preaching the Bible.

[Railroader]

There is a lot of common sense in the Bible. To deny that is pure ignorance.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

You find one source from a commentator you easily can refute. Nice.

Actually, I've heard these arguments many times before.

Want to have sex? Get married, because sex outside of marriage is inherently sinful, while sex within the bounds of marriage is inherently okay.

This completely ignores the fact that sex inside marriage can still be perverted into a purely selfish act of self-gratification and abuse, and sex outside of marriage can be a physical union between two committed individuals.

Want to get married? You'd better plan on procreating, because God designed sex first and foremost for procreation.

This is another argument I've heard from many people (coming from many different denominations and theological backgrounds), the justification being that if you take away the procreative purpose of intercourse, there is no justifiable reason why any sex is wrong (bestiality, incest, polygamy, homosexual sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex, orgies, etc.). The problem is that many people simply shouldn't be parents, and insisting that God made sex for procreation is a poor way to go about handling the issue.

Want to make a lifelong commitment to someone? Get married!

...except that legal marriage does not necessarily mean a lifelong commitment.

Your generalizations about Christians are grossly inaccurate. You are far too prejudiced.

I'm not, but thanks for making that assumption. My "generalizations" about Christians come from spending my entire childhood and early adulthood around Christians of all backgrounds. I went to church twice a week, I attended a non-denominational Christian school from kindergarten through high school, and I didn't actually personally know any non-Christians until I was 17.

Christians are indeed obsessed with sex. They also have a rather odd view of marriage, that it's somehow a magic band-aid that will legitimize an otherwise inexplicably illegitimate relationship, and that it will unequivocally keep a relationship going. That kind of attitude is exactly why so many young Christian adults are getting married too soon and ending up in divorce five or six years later.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is your problem with your perception of modern-day Christian views on sexuality because:
A. Women and men are held to a different standards, or
B. It's unacceptable for women to sleep around?

The first part is absolutely true.

I had it bashed into my head from about the age of 13 that it was the girl's responsibility to keep a boy from stumbling. The general teaching I got from both church and school was that boys couldn't control their hormones and thoughts, so it was up to the girls to make sure they didn't do anything that triggered a boy's horniness. My school's dress code was highly sexist, and boys were allowed to get away with a lot more than girls were, because of this bullsh!t idea that girls are somehow responsible for controlling the sexuality of boys.

In health classes and Bible studies and Sunday schools, it was all about preventing lust from the boy. Nobody ever said that as a girl, you might get super horny and want to get off. No, it was all about how a boy was going to pressure you into having sex. They never talked about it being the other way around.

The general modern conservative Christian viewpoint completely ignores and devalues the sexuality of females and completely focuses on the perceived barbaric carnality of male sexuality. Women aren't allowed to show their stomachs or their cleavage or even wear pants that are too tight, but it's completely acceptable for men to walk around campus or at church retreats shirtless, because somehow a young woman isn't possibly going to be sexually aroused by his body, while he has no choice but to be aroused by hers.

It's ridiculous. Not only that, but the Christian obsession with sex has prevented discussions about all the other things that you can do to hurt yourself and your relationships and your future relationships. Nobody ever told me that getting emotionally involved with someone before either of you were ready could cause lasting scars and damage. I still hurt from some of the guys who broke my heart. The one night stands I had in college, however, didn't really affect me in the long run (or, in some cases, at all). Christians these days have put sex high on this pedestal, and all it does is set you up for failure.

One of my more pious Christian friends got married a few years ago. She and her husband remained virgins until their wedding night - and they weren't just technical virgins, either. I asked her once if she was glad she waited. All she said was, "it's hard, but I'm glad". Now, I know her pretty well, and I can tell you with almost certainty that their sex life is horrible. Why? Well, think about it - masturbation is a sin, so she's never figured out how to achieve orgasm. Sexual deviancy is a sin, so she's afraid to try anything too out of the ordinary (fetishes, etc) in order to find out what works for her. Her husband, on the other hand, has no problem achieving orgasm during sex, since a guy can get off from sticking his dick in just about anything, if he works at it enough. He doesn't know how to help her, and she doesn't know how to help herself. And, worst of all, they were both expecting sex to be this amazing, beautiful, holy, spiritual experience, when in reality it's messy, noisy, and pretty damn gross when you think about the mechanics of it. I can't imagine what kind of strain it would put on a new marriage to immediately have such sexual problems, because you were completely unprepared for what it was really like.

What I find most interesting (and infuriating) is that Christians are obsessed with sex, but afraid to talk about it directly and frankly. Education is key here - it's key to preventing a life-altering mistake; it's key to creating healthy sexual relationships; it's key to discovering what works best for you, even when you're alone in the shower at night.

The focus on male sexuality during the teenage years is doing major damage to the Christian female community. It's practically Victorian in its attitude - just close your eyes and think of England, because women are asexual and couldn't possibly gain any enjoyment from sexual activity.

I'm sorry for the rant, but this is something that frustrates the hell out of me. I agree with most conservative Christian viewpoints on life, but it's completely ridiculous and naive to continue to treat sex this way.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

For me and my wife, it's the publicly declared commitment to each other. I was fine with just being together, but it was amazing how different it felt after we were formally married.

I do have to admit that this is the biggest reason why I want to get engaged.

I want to be able to tell the world how deliriously happy we are, and that we're starting a life together.

Unfortunately, it's a little lame to go into work and be like, "guess what, everyone? I'm getting engaged in six months!"

[paul w]

I opted for the base model - with the generic 45 second city hall wedding ceremony. No registry, no presents or expensive events. We opted for the elegant simple wedding band option.

Overall excellent value. I feel we still get the same marriage much a mac mini still comes with the same OS as a quad-core macpro.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Unfortunately, it's a little lame to go into work and be like, "guess what, everyone? I'm getting engaged in six months!"

A lot of my classmates had this same problem. They wanted to get to some particular point in our degree program before "making it official," and that was pretty difficult for them. As it turns out, three have already gotten married (plus one whose fiance popped the question out of the blue-they were going to get married "someday in the future"). And planning a wedding gets to be part of the whole ritual of "becoming a married couple," so that's also a big step to take. Even if mom and dad pay for the whole thing.

[ghporter]

By the way, Judeo-Christian religions don't have a patent on marriage. Human society has been marrying people for as long as there have been human societies. In fact, a lot of current-day Christian customs come from extremely old Pagan customs-veils, "giving away" the bride, etc., all came from very old practices.

The only relatively new thing about marriage at all is "marrying for love." Up until very recently (the past 100 years, tops), ALL marriages were either economic, or sociopolitical or both. If love developed, that was nice, but it wasn't necessary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

The only relatively new thing about marriage at all is "marrying for love." Up until very recently (the past 100 years, tops), ALL marriages were either economic, or sociopolitical or both. If love developed, that was nice, but it wasn't necessary.

Slight quibble.

I think "new" would be more accurately phrased as "risen to prominence".

For those on the lowest rungs of society (IOW, those lacking money or sociopolitical status) people would marry for love. It was one of the few, umm... advantages?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with nature. It's *purely* cultural.

"Nature" is full of homosexuality, not just among humans by a long shot.

So you admit it then, gay marriage is against nature. Prove to me that you have ever seen or heard of two male animals willingly getting married.

A real, consensual act, not forced by the owner.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

So you admit it then, gay marriage is against nature. Prove to me that you have ever seen or heard of two male animals willingly getting married.

A real, consensual act, not forced by the owner.

If you weren't joking.............

[Kerrigan]

...I'm not joking, gay is against nature. Plus, why would a man want to marry a man? Why not just marry a woman?

[paul w]

Hey so many marriages end up sexless anyway. At least a guy wouldn't bitch about him getting yet another beer from the fridge...

[Tiresias]

Marriage is for couples who want to legally and symbolically formalize their commitment to spend the rest of their lives together. The motivation is both practical and romantic and, for religious folk, spiritual.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Prove to me that you have ever seen or heard of two male animals willingly getting married.

Um...since when have animals ever gotten married?

There are a lot of things that humans do that animals don't do - like complex communication, walking as bipeds, engaging in conscious thought, and everything else that makes us inherently superior to animals. Just because animals don't do it doesn't mean it's unnatural for humans - and just because animals do it doesn't mean it's natural for humans.

Dogs eat their own poo. Does that mean humans should, too? Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

...I'm not joking, gay is against nature. Plus, why would a man want to marry a man? Why not just marry a woman?

Why would a man want to marry a woman? Why would a person want to marry at all? If it's solely for procreation, then I suppose that no, gay marriage won't naturally work. But if it's for things like commitment and love, it's an entirely different story.

[Kerrigan]

It all goes back to nature. Male animals do not mate for life with each other or have elaborate wedding ceremonies, so gay humans should not either.

Plus, who cares if animals engage in same sex behavior, as some of you are alleging? All the more reason to disapprove of it--just because animals do it does NOT make it acceptable for humans. Nature is a vile place.

And then there is the whole slippery slope problem: if we allow someone like Rosie O'Donnell to get married, then what next? People will see that on TV and suddenly think, "Hey, maybe *I* should marry . . . . a whale." Where do you draw the line?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

There is a lot of common sense in the Bible. To deny that is pure ignorance.

Absolutely true. However, an awful lot of that common sense (NB: not all of it) was completely appropriate to life three thousand years ago, and has absolutely no bearing on life today.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It all goes back to nature. Male animals do not mate for life with each other or have elaborate wedding ceremonies, so gay humans should not either.

Plus, who cares if animals engage in same sex behavior, as some of you are alleging? All the more reason to disapprove of it--just because animals do it does NOT make it acceptable for humans. Nature is a vile place.

And then there is the whole slippery slope problem: if we allow someone like Rosie O'Donnell to get married, then what next? People will see that on TV and suddenly think, "Hey, maybe *I* should marry . . . . a whale." Where do you draw the line?

The mind capable of formulating an argument this stupid is not going to be amenable to even the most well-reasoned and persuasive counter-argument. It would be like arguing with a pig, and expecting something other than a grunt.

[Kerrigan]

Are you trying to change the subject to "pig play"?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

It all goes back to nature. Male animals do not mate for life with each other or have elaborate wedding ceremonies, so gay humans should not either.

You're trying very hard to make your argumentation sound reasonable, but by your logic, since, no animals have elaborate wedding ceremonies at ALL, heterosexual humans should not either.

And male animals DO mate for life. There are devoted homosexual couples in other species.

Look, you can disapprove of gay marriage all you like, but at least have the guts to say that you just plain don't like it due to personal beliefs and prejudice.

There simply is no well-reasoned, logical argumentation "from nature" that you can use to work against homosexuality. Even from an evolutionary standpoint, it has been plausibly argued that homosexuality works in favor of stable, peaceful societies. And if you don't accept evolution, then you're back at beliefs and prejudices, anyway.

[Doofy]

Not sure what all that Biblical stuff is up there, but here's how I read that (and how it fits into the traditional society):

• In the eyes of The Big Boss, if you have the canoodlings with a chick, you're married.
• Since it's perfectly legit for a bloke to have as many wives as he likes unless he's a preacher, bloke can share it around and "acquire" plenty of wives.
• Since it's not legit for a chick to have more than one hubby, any gal sharing it around is technically an adulteress (since she's essentially married to the bloke who popped her cherry).

Of course, that's just the framework. Society built some sensible details onto that framework in order to keep everything straight.

Hence, chick sharing it around is traditionally looked down on more than a bloke sowing his wilds is.

[Kerrigan]

Makes sense.

Oh and Spheric, I was pulling your leg with the gay marriage argument

[Chuckit]

Can you guys seriously not tell when you're being trolled?

[Spheric Harlot]

Not before morning coffee.

*grumble*