pwmartin
The Fly
You've got a good point, there, Irvine511, about infertile couples and post-menopausal women. What could be said about that? Should they not get married if they can't procreate?
First of all, there is always the hope of children. People of faith can't completely rule that out, even though it is doubtful it would ever happen that a 99 year old would bear children. However, it is worth noting that in the Bible, some of the most prominent matriarchs and patriarchs are those who were thought to be barren or well beyond childbearing years.
Furthermore, said couples may also serve as models for faithfulness and love in marriage for those couples who are, in fact, able to have children. I think the whole community always benefits when two people decide to pledge their commitment and fidelity to each other, especially in light of the transient, self-serving nature of relationships in our world today.
In this last case, I think that homosexual unions (I'm sorry, Irvine511 if the quotes are bothersome. I'll take them out for now, but realize that the jury is far from out as to what homosexual unions really are supposed to be or look like) may serve this purpose, because two people of any sex may pledge fidelity to each other and serve as a stable model for other couples.
However, my main problem is with the issue of orientation. I just don't know if we should base what's right on what feels right for me. Just because people feel attracted a certain sexual way to others may not mean it is necessarily right...even IF it is proven that orientation is determined genetically. We already know that plenty of questionable behaviors, predispositions, etc are determined by genetics; should they, then be right, purely because of that?
My deep-seated feeling is that our culture is so unbelievably saturated in sexuality that we have reached the conclusion (without realizing it) that a person is not truly and fully human unless they are "expressing their sexuality" as fully as they see fit. Images, song lyrics, references, TV shows, movies...everything that surrounds us in our culture exudes sexuality, and people have become unable to form their identity without thinking about how often they are using their sexual organs. And so the question becomes: "are you having sex? Is it good? Fulfilling? Because if you're not and it isn't, then, geez, you sure are missing out. You're not fully living yet!"
This puts pressure on everyone to answer these questions...if it's not working with the opposite sex, then maybe it will work with the same sex...maybe with both...maybe...maybe...and the list goes on. Wouldn't it be great--truly freeing--if we weren't so obsessed with sex all the time? (And I'm not saying that I'm any more obsessed than anyone else, but I am a product and victim of our Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, 50-cent, Sports illustrated swimsuit issue culture as anyone else).
Being fully human and living life to the fullest should not (and in my opinion DOES not) involve sexual union with anyone. It's nice if it occurs, but it's not necessary.
First of all, there is always the hope of children. People of faith can't completely rule that out, even though it is doubtful it would ever happen that a 99 year old would bear children. However, it is worth noting that in the Bible, some of the most prominent matriarchs and patriarchs are those who were thought to be barren or well beyond childbearing years.
Furthermore, said couples may also serve as models for faithfulness and love in marriage for those couples who are, in fact, able to have children. I think the whole community always benefits when two people decide to pledge their commitment and fidelity to each other, especially in light of the transient, self-serving nature of relationships in our world today.
In this last case, I think that homosexual unions (I'm sorry, Irvine511 if the quotes are bothersome. I'll take them out for now, but realize that the jury is far from out as to what homosexual unions really are supposed to be or look like) may serve this purpose, because two people of any sex may pledge fidelity to each other and serve as a stable model for other couples.
However, my main problem is with the issue of orientation. I just don't know if we should base what's right on what feels right for me. Just because people feel attracted a certain sexual way to others may not mean it is necessarily right...even IF it is proven that orientation is determined genetically. We already know that plenty of questionable behaviors, predispositions, etc are determined by genetics; should they, then be right, purely because of that?
My deep-seated feeling is that our culture is so unbelievably saturated in sexuality that we have reached the conclusion (without realizing it) that a person is not truly and fully human unless they are "expressing their sexuality" as fully as they see fit. Images, song lyrics, references, TV shows, movies...everything that surrounds us in our culture exudes sexuality, and people have become unable to form their identity without thinking about how often they are using their sexual organs. And so the question becomes: "are you having sex? Is it good? Fulfilling? Because if you're not and it isn't, then, geez, you sure are missing out. You're not fully living yet!"
This puts pressure on everyone to answer these questions...if it's not working with the opposite sex, then maybe it will work with the same sex...maybe with both...maybe...maybe...and the list goes on. Wouldn't it be great--truly freeing--if we weren't so obsessed with sex all the time? (And I'm not saying that I'm any more obsessed than anyone else, but I am a product and victim of our Britney Spears, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, 50-cent, Sports illustrated swimsuit issue culture as anyone else).
Being fully human and living life to the fullest should not (and in my opinion DOES not) involve sexual union with anyone. It's nice if it occurs, but it's not necessary.