See, I Told You So
The Poet Omar on Apr 07 2007 at 4:24 am | Filed under: Culture, Religion and theology, The Poet Omar's Page, social science
I think that this story and the conclusions it references can be filed under the category of, “see, I told you so.” Or perhaps, “tell me something else that I already knew.”
Let’s look at what took the APA such a great amount of time and resources to “objectively determine,”: the media and advertisers massively contribute to the sexual objectification of women, especially young girls. Um, duh. It seems that everyone on the planet except feminists and APA researchers already figured this one out about twenty or thirty years ago. The behavior being discussed here is an aspect of behavioral psychology (specifically Albert Bandura’s social learning theory) known as modeling. Modeling stipulates that human beings (especially children) will tend to alter their behavior patterns to adapt to the behaviors demonstrated by models that they identify with and respect. To put this into technical (though fairly simple terms) the subject sees a model that he or she respects or identifies with (say a 12 year old girl watching Paris Hilton); the model engages in certain behavior (say Paris Hilton making a sex tape with her boyfriend); the model’s behavior is reinforced by consequences (Paris becomes a star and is mobbed and adored by the media and invited to every trendy party in existence); the subject wants to experience the same type of consequences (reinforcers) so they engage in the behavior that the model demonstrated. ABC theory (Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence). Or to put this in terms a six year old can understand: monkey see, monkey do.
While I applaud the APA for researching and formally commenting on this subject, it’s hardly new territory for the religious. As indicated in the article, the Catholic Church (and most other Christian sects) have been preaching and teaching about the sexualization of women for literally centuries. Orthodox and more right-leaning Masorti Jews and, of course, Muslims, have also been at the forefront of preaching about the dangers of this kind of behavior. Feminists claim that only by embracing the supposed sexual “freedom” that men enjoy can a woman “liberate” herself. I support exactly the opposite conclusion. Only by refusing to be seen as a sexual object can a woman liberate herself. Modesty for both sexes is critical and a key to not only Islamic beliefs, but also to orthodox Catholic and conservative Protestant and Jewish beliefs as well. Many atheists and liberal religious thinkers reject many of the cautions and prohibitions in scriptures (Qu’ran, Gospels, Torah, etc.) as the products of their societies and surely not meant for today’s modern, rational, and much more sophisticated audiences.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but, “Baloney.” God, in His infinite wisdom, gave us rules to live by. These rules were codified and transmitted to mankind by holy prophets: Moses (PBUH), Jesus (PBUH), and Muhammed (SAW). These were not mere suggestions, nor were they meant as sociologically acceptable rules meant to operate only within certain time frames and geographic regions (i.e. the Middle East, circa 3000 BCE to 1000 CE). They are rules that are meant to protect us from the worst aspects of ourselves. Feminists and some atheists cry, “oppression!” I disagree. The rules are liberating, not oppressing. In the context of modesty v. blatant sexuality, consider who is the better in the long run: the modest man or woman who defines himself by his character and his achievements as a person (be they career, intellectual, religious, etc.) or the person who defines himself by his body and his sexual conquests. Even the vaunted APA agrees at this point that modesty is the best policy. Oversexualization as pushed on children and adults (especially females, but men, too) can only lead to a destructive cycle of depression, remorse, guilt, low self-esteem, possible eating disorders, substance abuse, and, ultimately, perhaps suicide. God was wise enough and loving enough to give us a set of rules to protect ourselves from these things. Although they differ slightly from religion to religion, the basic concept is the same. What better person to take advice from than the creator Himself? Put a different way, would you rather take a stock tip from Peter Lynch or the burger flipper at your local McDonald’s?
Sphere: Related Content23 Responses to “See, I Told You So”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
For some reason sex has been the bogeyman of the religions based on the God of Abraham. Other religions don’t seem to have the same problem with sexuality. Hindu practitioners of the Tantric tradition are a good example. They celebrate sex as a good pleasurable act. It seems much of the psychological problem in the West can be translated into the rejection of a natural physical act.
Feminists claim that only by embracing the supposed sexual “freedom†that men enjoy can a woman “liberate†herself. I support exactly the opposite conclusion. Only by refusing to be seen as a sexual object can a woman liberate herself.
Frankly, you’re both wrong — though you’re also both partially right.Where feminists go astray is their assumption that liberation comes only through making one’s sexuality merely an appetite to be satisfied cheaply and indiscriminately.
Where you (and the patriarchal Abrahamic religions, as James mentions) go astray is in assuming that liberation comes only through denying one’s sexuality.
Both spring from the same flawed basic concept — that a woman is either a whore or a virgin — with feminists holding up the whore as the desired end state and the Abrahamics the virgin.
In reality, women are sexual beings, but that is not all we are.
True liberation comes in accepting your sexuality as an important part of yourself, but recognizing that it is not your sole or defining characteristic.All religions address sexuality, it’s too fundamental a part of human nature to ignore.
Some, like the Tantric Hinduism James mentions and my own Wicca, view it as a natural and wonderful thing.
It’s not sinful, nor is it merely a casual biological itch to be scratched with whomever’s handy, it’s spiritual.
Some religions view it as a means of control, especially of women, arrogating to the church(/synagogue/mosque) the sole authority to sanctify it.
ack! Where’d my paragraph breaks go?
James and Achillea, your objections are along similar lines, so I hope that you will forgive me for addressing them together in one reply instead of two separate ones.
While I certainly cannot argue with your depictions of the approach to human sexuality taken by Hinduism and Wicca/paganism, your characterizations of the "Abrahamic religions" approach to sexuality are badly biased and critically flawed. Too much is made in the US of the fundamentalist Christian view of sexuality. That is a uniquely Protestant, and primarily Evangelical or Pentacostal Protestant, view which is not shared by Muslims, Jews, or Catholics. To cite but a few references to support my position:
1. Jews absolutely promote sex (within the context of marriage) as a wonderful, indeed necessary thing. Mishna Ketubot 5:6 specifies that if a man deprives his wife of sex past two weeks, she may divorce him. Numerous sources cite the preference of wives for having a fulfilling sex life over wanting money or riches (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 62B and Mishna Sotah 3:4). In fact, Mishna Ketubot 5:6 actually goes further and assigns a minimum amount of sex that a man may give to his wife based on his profession (manual laborers were required to have sex with their wives at least twice a week, while businessmen [white collar workers] were required to have sex with their wives every day). Lastly, Babylonian Talmud Niddah 31b actually bluntly states that men who satisfy their wives sexually ("…restrain themselves during intercourse to enable their wives to have orgasms first…"), shall produce male children (highly valued). Jews have always had a positive approach to sex within marriage and procreation; look at the size of many Orthodox Jewish families (5+ children would be quite common).
2. Muslims are equally joyful about sex. Other than openly discussing your sexual acts in public, "The Prophet (SAW) said,’Do you know what those who do this are like? Those who do this are like a male and female devil who meet each other on the road and satisfy their desire while the people look on.’" (Abu Hurairah), husbands and wives were free to engage in virtually anything within the privacy of their own homes, barring only two things : anal intercourse and sex during menstruation. (Qu’ran 2:222 and 2:223). In addition, Muhammad (SAW) himself said that there was to be no "monkery" in Islam. Also, note that such authorities on Islam as al-Ghazali and al-Maliki have given quite frank and very positive instructions on sexuality. Indeed, in al-Makhal, al-Maliki specifically instructs men to practice what we would today call foreplay and then to make sure that the wife is pleased before he himself is pleased.
3. Catholicism: nobody, I mean nobody cranks out kids like Catholics, God bless them! Although Catholics are often quite ignorantly derided as being sexual prudes or having various psychological hang-ups regarding sex, nothing could be further from the truth. While insistent on the concept of sex being right only within a marriage of man and woman (identical to Jewish, Muslim, and for that matter Hindu and Taoist doctrine), Catholics place very few obstacles in the way of having a healthy sex life. Although Evangelicals and Pentecostals (and some other conservative Protestants) labor under the weight of Pauline celibacy (I Corinthians 7: 1-2, 8-9), Catholics essentially accept this as mere suggestion by Paul, which, IMHO, it is. Paul was merely pointing out that HE preferred celibacy, not that the Church, Jesus (PBUH), or any other guiding agency demanded it. Besides that, Paul actually recommends marriage for those who are "hot to trot," so to speak, "… if they cannot control themselves, they should marry." It is a myth that the Catholic Church teaches that sex is only for procreation. I chalk this up to deliberate misunderstandings by those hostile to the Church and overreliance on Paul and Augustine. This view is clearly contradicted by our late Pope, John Paul II (The Love within families, page 234). The Pope stated that if one’s only purpose in having sex is to procreate, then one is in danger of merely using one’s spouse as a tool, a means to an end. The Catholic view, I find, is essentially what goes on in the bedroom, as long as it is done in a loving manner between husband and wife, stays in the bedroom. To be sure, there is an incredible amount of nuance and subtlety to the above statement of position and such issues as oral sex are debated quite fervently, but the gist of the teachings is that sex is fun and desirable within marriage, and neither husband nor wife should feel guilty about engaging in it.
I find none of the above approaches to be "denying" one’s sexuality nor particularly psychologically damaging. On the contrary, and as demonstrated by APA research, publicly embracing one’s sexuality and making it a source of ego-boosting (or, more frequently, using it as a crutch for poor self-esteem) is damaging and dangerous. Consider that those who profit from oversexualization of women (and men, to a lesser extent), neither care nor have to pay for the consequences of their media blitzes. If you don’t belive me, try sending Hugh Hefner the bill for any of your friends/spouses/kids/cousins/etc. therapy sessions. I would advise not holding my breath waiting for a response.
Some religions view it as a means of control, especially of women, arrogating to the church(/synagogue/mosque) the sole authority to sanctify it.
In modern times, however, leadership positions within the most sexually conservative churches (Pentecostal, Evangelical Protestant) are increasingly held by women. How can you reconcile the desire to control women or women’s sexuality with the fact that women are increasingly in charge of these sects? There are numerous female preachers and bishops out there. Why have they not radically altered their church’s positions on sexuality?
Again, I pose that the problem is feminism and atheism, not religion.
In "Mere Christianity" (a superb discussion of the Christian religion), C.S. Lewis also discusses the issue of sex. The key, as The Poet Omar points out, is that it is to be practiced - and thoroughly enjoyed - between a husband and his wife.
There’s no doubt that a good number of Americans (especially Evangelical Protestants) have a hang up about sex. I suggest that this is a reaction to an oversexualized culture that really does provide women with a stark choice in how they present themselves: whore or virgin. For men, the choice is even more strict: stud or fairy. On Sundays, Christians are told that sexual immorality is the quick path to hell. The other six days of the week, they’re told that, "If it feels good, do it." Is it any wonder that people are confused and guilt-ridden?
A final note about women’s lib and sexuality. I read an article many years ago (in Playboy, of all places) that I thought addressed this issue very well. Women’s lib and the "Sexual Revolution" of the ’60s did massive damage to traditional code of expected sexual behavior. Women were told that being chaste and modest somehow imprisoned them; they were then told that being sexually free liberated them. Men, of course, were thrilled. It suddenly became not only possible but even likely to "score" without all the rigomarole of courting; love ‘em and leave ‘em was not only possible, but acceptable.
Women suddenly discovered that they’d created a monster. Men didn’t respect them as "liberated"; they increasingly saw them as sexual objects, good for a roll in the hay and nothing else. Commitment? Marriage? Family? No way!
As a substitute for the discarded rituals of courtship ("Both feet on the floor at all times, please!") which provided at least some brake on male lusts, women evolved sexual harrassment laws as a way to keep men from pawing at them. If society wouldn’t tell men that "Gentlemen don’t treat a lady like that", then the courts would. I’m reminded of my freshman year in college, when our dorm director (a woman) showed up to explain the rules of the dorm to us. Here we had an attractive twenty-something woman in a white t-shirt sans bra lecturing a group of eighteen year-old men about how they should watch their language and behave with decorum in the halls! I wonder if it ever occurred to her that none of us heard a word she said…
Long and short: if a woman wants to be treated like a lady, she must act like it, and part of that is dressing and comporting herself with dignity and class, and not like Bourbon Street crib.
Each of the religion based on the God of Abraham only allow sex in the context of marriage. Even then certain acts are considered sinful. This stigmatizes a joyful act that does not, in these days of contraception, require a lifetime commitment. Nations in which premarital sex is accepted seem to have fewer problems.
This stigmatizes a joyful act that does not, in these days of contraception, require a lifetime commitment.
So is it really sex that is the issue here or marriage? I’m confused by your statement. Are you implying, or outright declaring that marriage is of no value?
Also, check the contraception effectiveness rates. Nothing. Not one thing is 100% except abstinence. Look at this recent CDC study. 49% of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. Compare that with the fact that only 7.4% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy were NOT using contraception.
Also, let me understand you properly: sex is not meant to be within the confines of a loving committed relationship, but rather a fleeting, physical satisfaction meant to be had with whomever, whenever and psychological and emotional needs be damned.
If I am in anyway misunderstanding your position here, James, please correct me. I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
Nations in which premarital sex is accepted seem to have fewer problems.
Except declining fertility and marriage rates (not independent of each other by the way). Couples would get together for a good time, as a rule, do not plan to have offspring. While I certainly have no difficulty admitting that a single person can raise a child, I also suggest that few people would prefer to raise a child alone. With no motivation to get married (hey we love each other and sleep together), couples (and I use the term loosely) are simply not producing families (children). If for no other reason, the harsh practical fact of demograpics must, at some point, compel nations and their citizens to rethink the idea that you have stated above.
Careful, James! I daresay (hope!) that you and other normal people would agree with stigmatizing some of those acts. After all, I’m sure that a pederast finds buggering a young boy to be quite joyful; is this something we shouldn’t stigmatize?
As to whether or not it is good for society to stigmatize premarital sex… Is our American society happier now than it was fifty or a hundred years ago? The divorce rate is discouragingly high, and with it the number of children in broken homes who call more than one man "daddy" or more than one woman "mommy". I can’t say whether or not these things are directly correlated with our modern preoccupation with pre-marital (and extra-marital) sex, but I suspect that they are. By cheapening sex into a mere source of quick pleasure while at the same time elevating its importance over such things as commitment, love, children, and family, I think we’ve done real harm to our society.
Yes, I know that there are good reasons for divorce, but I’ve known people who got divorced for what seemed to me very trivial reasons. Usually, it’s some variation of "I don’t like him / her anymore" or "He / she isn’t the person I dated". I’m always tempted to ask, "Well, why the hell did you get married???" but the answer is usually obvious: the couple was shacking up and mistook the pleasures of lust (and they ARE quite tempting) for love. When sex got old or the pleasure they got from it couldn’t offset the anger and pain from life’s various trials, they had nothing else to sustain their relationship.
I don’t wish to sound like a prude; I think it’s absolutely proper (even romantic) for a married couple to be in lust with each other and to enjoy making passionate monkey love. But who’s the richer man: the man who, even after ten or twenty or thirty years of marriage, looks at his wife and thinks, "She’s the only woman for me", or the man who’s had a string of "lovers" and can hardly remember some of their names?
Are you implying, or outright declaring that marriage is of no value?
No, I believe that is an individual choice. For most it has at least economic value, others spiritual value and some no value at all. As Santa Claus says in his ‘missionary position’ "to each his own bag."
I’m sure that a pederast finds buggering a young boy to be quite joyful; is this something we shouldn’t stigmatize?
While I have no case for pederasty, it should be noted pederasty in Classical Greek society did not involve penetration. Homosexuality and pederasty did not destroy the Greek Civilization.
Our society has decided certain forms of sexual relations are harmful and should be outlawed. The specific prohibitions change as society changes. At one time only sex between married couples in the missionary position was legal. Should we go beck to that standard? I think not.
As society develop it seems a decline in marriage and birthrates follows. When you need a children to work around the farm, or in the factory, you produce as many as you need. When a herd of rug rats are not needed, they are not produced. Marriage evolved from a contractual agreement in which the father ‘gives’ his daughter to another man in exchange for something of value. It was a transfer of chattel. Today women are no longer regarded as property, so marriage has evolved into a spiritual ceremony which can be easily voided.
You could argue that society was less happy fifty or a hundred years ago. Couples were stuck in loveless marriages with no way out. Women virtually had no rights, domestic violence was often the norm. "Keep them barefoot and pregnant" was the way to keep women in their place.
A married couple in ‘lust’ with each other is romantic, as is an unmarried couple in ‘lust’ with each other. Neither should be ostracized because of ‘lust’, a dirty word in our prudish society.
I can’t say whether or not these things are directly correlated with our modern preoccupation with pre-marital (and extra-marital) sex, but I suspect that they are.
Premarital and extra marital sex is nothing new. They have existed as long as man. The Christian Bible is full of examples. Some societies have been more open about it than others, but it has always existed. During Victorian England the official policy was one of extreme prudishness but just about everybody was having illicit sex. The rich in venues like "The Hellfire Club", the poor in the streets.
In a ‘free’ society sexual decisions should be made by the participants. it should be up to those involved, as long as they are old enough, and don’t do it in the streets where it might scare horses and small children.
"…making passionate monkey love."
Let me be the first to exclaim my surprise at the fact that the phrase above was actually used on our site. Let me also be the first to speculate on the amount of potential google listings that we are about to be included in thanks to the above phrase. I can only begin to imagine.
Second,
"In a ‘free’ society sexual decisions should be made by the participants. it should be up to those involved, as long as they are old enough, and don’t do it in the streets where it might scare horses and small children."
Lol! Although I appreciate the humor here, I have to respectfully disagree. I understand that the laws of most nations are written to reflect what you have just said, but consider that there has been a general decline in marriage, psychological and emotional health, and a rise in sexual violence and divorce since, let’s use 1970 as a good turning point (probably too late, but I think a marked change can be noticed at least in US society between 1970 and, say 1960). What the philosophy that you are championing is leading to is a society of absolute self-involved BS artists. No offence. Generation X (my lot, as well as Michael’s, Lance’s [although, God help him, he might be on the tail end of the boomers], and Keith’s) is already overly intoxicated with nihilism, selfishness, and self-doubt. Now we want to encourage self-gratification and self-absorbtion, too? And just how long do you expect our society to last if we continue down this path? 50 years, maybe a hundred before absolute collapse?
I don’t try to argue that religion is the answer to everything. It isn’t, nor is it intended to be. I also don’t advocate grabbing atheists by their collective collars and dragging them kicking and screaming to God. If a person has no desire for religion, then so be it. There is no compulsion in religion. On the other hand, I think a reasonable argument can be made that in these times and facing the dangerously weak generation that is about to assume power (Gen X) once the boomers move on, a strong driving force is called for. While some would argue for a political ideology (Marxism [or its many variants], Liberalism, Nationalism, etc.), I believe that those ideologies will only result in further advances and accumulations of governmental power (always, always, always a BAD THING). Religion, on the other hand, provides a stable, time-tested set of beliefs which have been proven to add character to a man’s life. Religion, if truly followed with real faith, will make a man a better person. If a man truly follows Islam, then he will be a better person. If a man truly follows Taoism (more a philosophy, but just go with it for a moment), then he will be a better person. None of these religious systems encourage the kind of live and let live attitude toward sex and relationships that you have advocated and I think for good reason. Let us not let tomorrow’s leaders become mere shallow vessels interested only in self-satisfaction. Let us hope and work towards them becoming the ideals of the world’s great religions. Otherwise, life here in the good old US of A may not be worth living come next century.
Let me suggest that ‘good reason’ is control. Religion is one method used to control the populace. The major difference between sex today and in the past is, today things are more out in the open. While less hypocritical, if is disturbing to many, thus the admonition not to do it in the streets.
As a Libertarian I believe what people do in the privacy of their homes, is nobodies business, especially the Governments. That is the basis of "A Government of the people, by the people and for the people." To argue otherwise is the basis of "A people of the Government, by the Government and for the Government", not a society I would wish to live in.
There is nothing wrong with the philosophies of most religions."Do onto others as you would have them do on to you" is a good rule. In a free society everyone should have a choice to believe in a religion, any religion or no religion. Even Alister Crowley’s Satanic "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" should be acceptable as long as it does no harm to the wider society.
As for the future, I believe we are in the ‘decline’ phase of the American Empire. Don’t worry, all empires go through phases or rise, plateau, decline and fall. We are no different than the Roman Empire or the British Empire, as time passes Empires just have shorter half-lives. Compare Gibbon’s "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and you will find little difference between Rome and America, during the decline phase.
Compare Gibbon’s "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and you will find little difference between Rome and America, during the decline phase.
Yes, I’ve seen that analogy used many times. I ask the same question that I ask everyone who uses it: who are the barbarians at the gates? Also, nature abhors a vacuum. If and when the so called American Empire (which is both a biased and highly loaded term) implodes, whom do you believe will step in to take over? Plus the, perhaps too obvious, question: shouldn’t we learn the lessons of history and attempt to reverse the slow decline of our "empire." Or are we merely slaves to a cyclical pattern of history (which is potentially in line with Marxist thought)?
I agree absolutely with you that the government has no business whatsoever snooping around people’s bedrooms. I would love to see marriage handled strictly within the province of organized religion with no governmental involvement at all, but that seems highly unlikely in today’s America.
"Paul was merely pointing out that HE preferred celibacy" and the Catholic Church picked up the football and ran with it. "‘Every sperm is useful, every sperm is great, If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." Monty Python, Life of Brian. It was Paul’s writings that formed the basis for celibacy in the Priesthood, and the erroneous believe that Mary Madeleine was a reformed prostitute. Analysis of Paul’ writings depict him as a man with deep psychological problems that formed much of the Church’s doctrine concerning sexuality.
Yes, I’ve seen that analogy used many times. I ask the same question that I ask everyone who uses it: who are the barbarians at the gates?
Today most would answer Islam. I am not sure about that. Maybe we are the barbarians at the gate As that Great Philosopher Pogo said "We have met the enemy and it is us."
I would love to see marriage handled strictly within the province of organized religion with no governmental involvement at all, but that seems highly unlikely in today’s America.
I believe, given the Constitutions separation of Church and State, the best solution would be for the state to issue a civil contract. Those who wish to have their union blessed by a Religious Ceremony could seek out a Church to preform it. That would take care of objections to union of same sex couples.
It was Paul’s writings that formed the basis for celibacy in the Priesthood, and the erroneous believe that Mary Madeleine was a reformed prostitute. Analysis of Paul’ writings depict him as a man with deep psychological problems that formed much of the Church’s doctrine concerning sexuality.
Paul’s writings were one part of the reason for a celibate priesthood. A second part would be that Jesus (PBUH) did not marry (some research has been done indicating that he may have been an Essene; Essenes were early examples of monks [they took vows of celibacy and poverty]). A third would be the concept of the priest being the vicar of Christ (PBUH) on Earth (and thus compelled to follow the celibacy practiced by Jesus [PBUH]). A fourth would be the idea that the priest is the "bride of Christ (PBUH);" as such he is already "married" and committed to a certain role in life which would preclude another marriage, unless the Church starts allowing polygamy.
Not sure what your point was about Mary Magdalene. The Gospels that reference her point out that she was a prostitute and that she did seek forgiveness and mended her ways.
Paul may well have been a man with some serious psycho-sexual hangups. I believe, and I certainly could be wrong, that his influence is much more heavily felt amongst Protestants (mainly Evangelical and Pentecostal) than by Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians (both of whom have a much wider and deeper intellectual tradition).
Today most would answer Islam.
I don’t necessarily believe that, unless we are discussing specific deviant sects (Salafism and radical Shiism). Of course, there is always room for speculation. Some might posit that the waves of immigration from Mexico and the Central American nations represent the barbarians at the gate (quite literally). Others might fear the Chinese. Everyone has their own answers.
I believe, given the Constitutions separation of Church and State, the best solution would be for the state to issue a civil contract. Those who wish to have their union blessed by a Religious Ceremony could seek out a Church to preform it. That would take care of objections to union of same sex couples.
It would certainly solve the same sex unions problem, but create a whole host of other problems. Why have the government involved at all?
A fourth would be the idea that the priest is the "bride of Christ (PBUH);" as such he is already "married" and committed to a certain role in life which would preclude another marriage, unless the Church starts allowing polygamy
Taken to reductio ad absurdum, this would seem to indicate approval of homosexual unions.
Mary Magdalene. The Gospels that reference her point out that she was a prostitute and that she did seek forgiveness and mended her ways.
I believe modern biblical studies show Mary Madeleine was confused with another woman who was a prostitute. The speculation is the Church accepted the prostitute interpretation because it could not accept one of the apostles, passably the one closest to Jesus, was a woman.
This really is not an issue I have studied. The above is taken from a number of programs about the Bible from the History Channel
It would certainly solve the same sex unions problem, but create a whole host of other problems. Why have the government involved at all?
Government involvement would be no more than in any other legal contract.
THE BARBARIANS AT THE GATE
The term Barbarian was coined by the Greeks who though the language of non Greek speech sounded like bar-bar, thus the term Barbarians. Using that definition I would nominate the Klingons as the next Barbarians. Klingonese certainly fits the bill.
Sorry about the "monkey" comment. Hope it doesn’t attract the wrong sort of traffic.
I think there is some blurring of the line between what is "legal" and what is "moral". I personally think that, for the most part, what two or more consenting adults do in private should be between them.
However, just because I think that various activities ought to be legal (or, perhaps more accurately, should not be illegal), this doesn’t mean that I think such acts are moral or good for the individual or the society. For example, I would support legalized prostitution. First of all, I don’t see that it’s the government’s business to outlaw this sort of thing (though it should be regulated like any other business). Second of all, I think that decriminalizing it would also remove at least some of the exploitation that makes prostitution such a degrading "profession". That being said, I do not think that it is right for women to sell their bodies nor for men to consort with such soiled doves. Ditto "gentlemans clubs"; shouldn’t be illegal, but not the sort of place where I’d want to see my sister working or my brother frequenting.
James E. Fish wrote (post 14):
Analysis of Paul’ writings depict him as a man with deep psychological problems that formed much of the Church’s doctrine concerning sexuality.
I’ve read this sort of thing before. Consider a couple of points. First, St. Paul had been a Pharisee (IIRC), and as such was deeply concerned with matters of The Law. No doubt this colored his perception of the world and moral matters. More importantly, however, there is an implicit statement that Paul’s decision to be celibate and to encourage sexual "morality" (monogamy, marriage, etc) was somehow strange. We all have internal standards of right / wrong, normal / abnormal, but I submit that, in strictly relativistic terms, Paul’s sexual mores were no more strange than a man who decides to chase everything in sight. Finally, if one accepts the idea that Paul had some sort of psychosexual problem, then his writings also show that he was struggling very hard to force his baser, "animal" self to submit to his moral self. I think that this struggle is very much the point of the various religious creeds: man, by himself, is an absolutely selfish and hedonistic creature who has must have some sort of brake on his lusts and passions. Religions and some philosophical belief systems provide an internal brake in the form of that little voice that says, "Dude, what you’re doing is wrong. Stop it." When the internal brake fails, then there is the external brake of the law.
More importantly, however, there is an implicit statement that Paul’s decision to be celibate and to encourage sexual "morality" (monogamy, marriage, etc) was somehow strange.
It is my understanding that Paul’s position was sex itself was. if not ‘immoral’, at least a venial sin. You should not engage in it under any circumstances. For those who could not resist the temptation, the only acceptable way was through marriage.
Religions and some philosophical belief systems provide an internal brake in the form of that little voice that says, "Dude, what you’re doing is wrong. Stop it."
That little voice may well be genetic. I recently heard of work being done with primates that seems to show some species, but not all, may have a conscience. They exhibit moral behavior akin to that in humans.
I was just joking about the monkey love thing, doc. No worries. :)
"Taken to reductio ad absurdum, this would seem to indicate approval of homosexual unions."
I may have phrased that badly. The Church is, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "bride of Christ" (PBUH). The priest is merely the local representative of the Church. In these terms, I don’t believe that any physical or sexual union or even gender role is meant to be implied. It’s merely a convenient way of expressing the absolute commitment between Church (and clergy) and God (Christ [PBUH]).
Government involvement would be no more than in any other legal contract.
See that’s my point, though. Why does marriage have to be a legal contract? Why are we allowing secular law into what is, essentially and for all non-cynics, a spiritual/religious issue? As soon as government is allowed into the matter, we are giving our approval to the idea of government defining religious beliefs or what a religion may or may not do. Separation of Church and State works both ways, which there is sometimes a very double standard on in the US.
"First, St. Paul had been a Pharisee (IIRC), and as such was deeply concerned with matters of The Law."
Absolutely. Paul was considered very orthodox and unwavering even for a Pharisee. He allowed none of the heretical ideas expressed by the Sadducees to influence him and this partially explains his early, intense persecution of Christians. They were heretics in his eyes.
"I think that this struggle is very much the point of the various religious creeds: man, by himself, is an absolutely selfish and hedonistic creature who has must have some sort of brake on his lusts and passions."
Oh, I agree completely. If you want to see absolute barbarity look at a baby or a very young child who has never been exposed to any religious or philosophical teachings regarding morality. They will torture animals (or insects), inflict pain on others for failing to do what they want, and understand only one thing : their own selfish needs. By the time kids are 5,6,7 or so they have some exposure (hopefully) to the concepts of right and wrong and are no longer the little monsters that they once were.
"It is my understanding that Paul’s position was sex itself was. if not ‘immoral’, at least a venial sin. "
Each Christian sect interprets that somewhat differently, although Paul frequently uses the word skolops which can be translated as thorns or maybe mass of thorns. It is speculated that his personal thorn in the side was sexual temptation. This is the only point that Paul can be said to have been unorthodox on (compared to most Pharisees) : he was celibate. Pharisees, like most Orthodox Jews, would have promoted marriage and lots and lots of procreation. Whether this is indicative that Paul had a psychological issue with sex or whether it was due to a physical illness which made sex difficult or impossible, we’ll probably never know. Regarding the physical problems, Paul frequently mentions in his Epistles that he is unwell or weak and some modern scholars have speculated that he may have suffered from any number of the following: migraines, neuralgia, opthalmia, epilepsy, malaria, or erysipelas. All of those could potentially produce sexual hangups especially regarding performance. It may simply be that he was a normal man who was attracted to women and viewed that as an unhealthy temptation which he used his faith to overcome.
Why does marriage have to be a legal contract?
A legal contract is necessary for the protection of those involved. It would determine inheritances, custody, property rights, provisions for desolation and a host of legal issues. It also provides a venue for those who do not wish a Religious Marriage. Essentially the State would issue a co-habitation contract to anyone wishing one. Those who wish the Religious Sacrament of Marriage would have the option to seek out a Cleric to preform the Ceremony. This solves the separation of Church and State issue, provides a legal framework for this litigious society, and provided a venue for the faithful.
This is the only point that Paul can be said to have been unorthodox on (compared to most Pharisees) : he was celibate
We have now gone well past my level of expertise on this matter. I am no longer qualified to comment. -30-