another argument for gay marriage

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is easy to pen your words, but because you do not have to abstain, I think it is far easier for you to opine that others can live fulfilled lives than to know it.

I ignored this comment the first time you made it, but since you doubled-down, I'll simply respond by saying: you know nothing about me or my situation, so stop already with the personalization of your argument.

Originally Posted by Archaea

I submit, you may or may not be willing to do it, if the situation were upon you, which I hope it does not come upon you, but this theoretical pontification is far from easy or light.

Which I agreed with.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Losing passion loses an essence of life. Of course, I cannot begin to comprehend homosexual passion and don't really care to know much about it, but analogizing it to heterosexual passion, to be condemned to a life without it, would be a burden I would not wish upon anybody.

And, I actually thank you for your ability to say it without laughing, but deferring to the authority card, "it's a commandment" is of small consolation. There really is no equal value comparison to not sharing one's physical joy with another. It is natural, instinctive and necessary for the species, and for relationships. Drawing an analogy to anything else is unfair and mocks the conjugal act's value and worth.

"Yes you are commanded to have a miserable life."

"But I thought it was so I might have joy?"

"Well for others but not for you."

"Sigh."

I brought up the fact that it was a commandment not to play a "card", but to underscore that the same God who said "man is that he might have joy" also said "thou shalt not commit adultery." That's significant. It means they work in tandem.

Your premise is apparently that the joy Lehi referred to is inextricably tied to sex. You may even think of it as an automatic byproduct. That doesn't square with the gospel, in my opinion. Clearly it is taught that pre-marital, extra-marital, or homosexual sex is wickedness. It is sin. And one cannot commit sin, and feel joy.

I repeat: a forever-single person will experience more joy in abstinence than in physically satisfying but spiritually empty violations of chastity.

That it is "natural and instinctive" is a nonsense argument. We are to put off the natural man and deny ourselves of ungodliness.

PS. This argument does not change regardless of whether we're talking heterosexual or homosexual.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Your premise is apparently that the joy Lehi referred to is inextricably tied to sex. You may even think of it as an automatic byproduct. That doesn't square with the gospel, in my opinion. Clearly it is taught that pre-marital, extra-marital, or homosexual sex is wickedness. It is sin. And one cannot commit sin, and feel joy.

I repeat: a forever-single person will experience more joy in abstinence than in physically satisfying but spiritually empty violations of chastity.

That it is "natural and instinctive" is a nonsense argument. We are to put off the natural man and deny ourselves of ungodliness.

PS. This argument does not change regardless of whether we're talking heterosexual or homosexual.

You have misunderstood my premise.

Joy in this life is premised upon several factors.

For me this is a fully joyful existence, and the deletion of any of these factors reduces my joy.

Physical health, mental health, having an active mind and body, having a sense of purpose, having a loving companion with whom I share the fullness of loving affections and expressions, family and friends, and objectives to be accomplished, and subjects to be learned.

If you delete the ability or the option of having a loving companion, I would always be incomplete and lack a significant aspect of joy.

It is odd how you are unwilling to personalize any argument. It is almost as if you are incomplete.

And I reject this conclusory statement:

a forever-single person will experience more joy in abstinence than in physically satisfying but spiritually empty violations of chastity.

Firstly, I am uncertain to make the judgment that two heterosexual companions cannot feel joy in their physical union, even if they are not lawfully wedded.

Secondly, once you have partaken of the fruit of relations, a forever-single will experience no joy in the act or process of abstinence just denial which one imposes upon oneself hoping for some intangible reward in the hereafter.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have misunderstood my premise.

Joy in this life is premised upon several factors.

For me this is a fully joyful existence, and the deletion of any of these factors reduces my joy.

Physical health, mental health, having an active mind and body, having a sense of purpose, having a loving companion with whom I share the fullness of loving affections and expressions, family and friends, and objectives to be accomplished, and subjects to be learned.

If you delete the ability or the option of having a loving companion, I would always be incomplete and lack a significant aspect of joy.

That's a oddly antiseptic approach to joy, as though you're deducing it from a mathematical equation or distilling it in a laboratory test tube.

There are any number of wholly righteous desires that are denied by the Father in the course of mortality. Ask just about any living human. Joy in mortality is best achieved via the pursuit of becoming like the Savior Jesus Christ, in spite of temporal shortcomings.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Firstly, I am uncertain to make the judgment that two heterosexual companions cannot feel joy in their physical union, even if they are not lawfully wedded.

My statement is founded in the scriptures which teach us to eschew sin and seek righteousness. I can't speak to every hypothetical exception; that's God's job. I'm speaking of the rule.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Secondly, once you have partaken of the fruit of relations, a forever-single will experience no joy in the act or process of abstinence just denial which one imposes upon oneself hoping for some intangible reward in the hereafter.

Unless it's the joy of being obedient.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

That's a oddly antiseptic approach to joy, as though you're deducing it from a mathematical equation or distilling it in a laboratory test tube.

My statement is founded in the scriptures which teach us to eschew sin and seek righteousness. I can't speak to every hypothetical exception; that's God's job. I'm speaking of the rule.

I am certainly aware of the scriptures, but that doesn't mean I find them to be last word, only the starting point. My quibble with scriptures is they don't tell us enough and they are told from a human perspective as humans write them.

Originally Posted by Tex

Unless it's the joy of being obedient.

Oh joy. I can imagine Kim Il Jong's followers relish in being obedient. Leaders want obedience, followers need compassion and understanding.

[Levin]

Archaea and Tex, this has been a very nice exchange, and you have both represented your sides well.


The idea of "joy" being the purpose of life is fairly modern concept -- at least in the Christian world. For centuries, "joy" was to bear the cross -- joy was to suffer for Christ. Indulgence of fleshly passions was pleasurable, but antithetical to joy.

Lehi's statement is a challenge to a long line of western Christian thought, depending on how it's interpreted.

There are several vexing questions for those who adhere to the hard line that breaking the commandments inexorably leads to unhappiness:

(1) the mother who is miserable b/c she stays at home v. the mother who is joyful b/c she works

(2) the 40-year old virgin who is tormented by his sexual urges v. the 40-year old who has sex in a loving, committed relationship outside the bonds of marriage

(3) the homosexual man who is tormented by his sexual urges v. the homosexual man who has gay sex in a loving, committed relationship

It's not so simple to break it down into an either or, but in order to find any sense in the "joy = righteousness" and "misery = sin" pairings, you have to define joy to equal "the joy that comes from obedience; joy is to suffer for Christ." How else to account for the Savior's startling comment to the Nephites that it is better to bear one's cross (said in the context of a sermon on sexual sin) than to be thrust down to hell.

One other requirement for these pairings to work: you have to believe! If the 40-year old virgin believes, then breaking the law of chastity -- while giving a moment of indescribably intense pleasure -- will cause heartbreaking spiritual pain (at least the first few times he does it until he gets "past feeling"). But for those who don't believe, sex outside the bonds of marriage can be a source of intense pleasure and intense joy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

One other requirement for these pairings to work: you have to believe! If the 40-year old virgin believes, then breaking the law of chastity -- while giving a moment of indescribably intense pleasure -- will cause heartbreaking spiritual pain (at least the first few times he does it until he gets "past feeling"). But for those who don't believe, sex outside the bonds of marriage can be a source of intense pleasure and intense joy.

So is the "past feeling" actually culturally acquired guilt, whereas the non-accepting who experiences joy and pleasure an evolved creature?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Levin

But for those who don't believe, sex outside the bonds of marriage can be a source of intense pleasure and intense joy.

What about this conundrum, a believer is who tortured by complying with the LoC, but relieved, pardon the pun, by entering into a loving relationship which does not conform to the prototypical accepted relationship?

How does one explain the believer who feels the joy of the Spirit, yet experiences joy in what is supposed to be a sinful relationship?

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So is the "past feeling" actually culturally acquired guilt, whereas the non-accepting who experiences joy and pleasure an evolved creature?

Here's a question: do you feel a pain of conscience the first time even if you don't believe in the law of chastity? You're a secular teenager in France, and you have sex as a 16-year old. Do you feel spiritual anguish?

Surely the most intense spiritual pain is felt by those who most intensely believe. I don't really care whether it's culturally acquired: point is you believed something, but you acted contrarily, and now you feel the emotional aftershocks of that decision.

But even if you believe, you can get past that initial emotional pain: by doing it over and over. The "past feeling" reference is to the description of Laman and Lemual who no longer recognize the Spirit b/c they are past feeling. The first time someone sins against their conscience, then the pain can be acute. But the more you sin, the less acute the pain, until you no longer feel it anymore.

I suspect that the same is true of sexual sin.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What about this conundrum, a believer is who tortured by complying with the LoC, but relieved, pardon the pun, by entering into a loving relationship which does not conform to the prototypical accepted relationship?

How does one explain the believer who feels the joy of the Spirit, yet experiences joy in what is supposed to be a sinful relationship?

Kind and loving companionship has its own rewards, even if that physical companionship is outside the bonds of marriage.

And obedience likewise has its own rewards for the believer -- rewards of conscience, and companionship of the Spirit.

The question is which rewards are more valuable. The traditional Christian would say the rewards of the Spirit, and anyway, this life is for suffering; await your eternal reward ("better to bear your cross than to be thrust down to hell").

To those who don't believe, it's an easy, easy choice.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am certainly aware of the scriptures, but that doesn't mean I find them to be last word, only the starting point. My quibble with scriptures is they don't tell us enough and they are told from a human perspective as humans write them.

The law of chastity isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Oh joy. I can imagine Kim Il Jong's followers relish in being obedient. Leaders want obedience, followers need compassion and understanding.

God wants both.