Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > Gay Pastor Ordained This Weekend

Forum Quick Jump

65 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/21/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6)

Icon:

That's interesting about what you say God considers marriage. I don't believe that is taught in the Bible. You've got many references to prostitutes in the old and new testament- and God never considered a man to be "married" to a prostitute after he slept w/ her.

And boy what a polygamous society we would have then in America- who of the many partners most people have would be considered the spouse?

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 6:16 AM (GMT -6)

I think it is appropriate to say that Iconoclast is being true to his name in the irreverant manner he treats Christian tradition regarding marriage.

Yes, gay couples may function like married couples, and only be lacking the legal sanction and benefits provided to heterosexual married couples.

But I don't think it is a good idea for homosexuals to become one in the way a husband and wife become one. This falls under the homosexual acts that I still consider as being described as sin in the Bible as interpreted within Christian tradition.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/21/2003 6:29 AM (GMT -6)

Christian wrote: Do you believe that homosexual sexual activity falls into the category of sexual immorality? Your beliefs on this are the crux to the forming of your opinions on homosexuality.

I agree that this is the fundamental issue, and why the homosexuality thread became so huge and frought with arguing. This question isn't as easily answered for me as it may be for some. I am tending to see it as an individual thing---some have chosen it, some not. Some are unfaithful and perverted, some not.

I have a close friend who recently confided to me that she is a lesbian. She said she was attracted to females from the time she entered puberty. She has GREAT relationship with her dad, and as a child she loved to hang out with her grandpa on the farm. Her family is very close and relational, there was no abuse of any kind. She isn't a man-hater, or a "butch" she is as feminine in motion and appearance as any other woman. She is not militant, or angry or anti-church, in fact, she has a strong spiritual bent and love for people----she fits none of the stereotypes.

She tried to deny her orientation and was married for 5 years. It was a horrible experience for her. The sexual intimacy felt disgusting and unnatural to her. She never emotionally connected with her husband and ultimately grew depressed. She felt her individuality and ability to make decisions was threatened and controlled by him, so she left.

She has been in a monogamous, covenantal relationship with a woman for the past three years. She is obviously confident and fulfilled and has a much better relationship with her partner than A LOT of married couples I know.

This, coupled with some research I have done on sexuality in fetal development (see my comments on homosexuality and natural law) give me reason to pause, and consider what it would be like if a person WERE actully born this way. (My friend lost her uterus to cancer, which is a common occurance in someone with the syndrome I described) If that was the case, it would not only be unloving, but cruel for me to enforce celibacy.

I am still pondering, and I don't want to be found making hasty decisions or dramatic statements...but this is part of where I am coming from.

S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/21/2003 6:48 AM (GMT -6)

SBG

quote:

(My friend lost her uterus to cancer, which is a common occurance in someone with the syndrome I described)

I'm missing the syndrome part. Was it on another post?

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

That's interesting about what you say God considers marriage. I don't believe that is taught in the Bible. You've got many references to prostitutes in the old and new testament- and God never considered a man to be "married" to a prostitute after he slept w/ her.

Iconoclast

1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two shall become one flesh."

Matthew 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

I don't read anything here about how they need to hold hands and jump over a stick in front of a priest or a government official in order to be considered "one flesh" (married). It seems pretty clear to me that becoming "one body", "one flesh" is a function of having sex. No wonder this is considered such a serious issue in the bible. We willy, nilly go around becoming "one body", "one flesh" with someone without fully making a lifelong commitment to that person. This is the height of unfaithfulness, which is what the real underlying problem is. It is quite simply being very unloving to the other person.

ReasonableDoubt

And boy what a polygamous society we would have then in America- who of the many partners most people have would be considered the spouse?

Iconoclast

Bingo!

This is why Jesus calls divorce and remarriage the sin of adultery. Because one is STILL married to their first spouse. "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."

This is also why we should all really, really want mercy and NOT justice.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6)

might-be-don

Hey! Everybody knows that they should actually pass UNDER the stick.

Iconoclast

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/21/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6)

Icon: the verses you quoted don't say that the two people automatically are married in God's eyes just by having sex. There's some OT stories about men visiting prostitutes and they were NEVER considered by God to be married to them. Neither were concubinage, which was a common practice in the OT. Concubines were basically the harem that were there for sex but didn't have all the rights of the legal wife or wives.
Additionally, the legal Jewish definition of "adultery" in OT times was a man sleeping with another man's wife. It did not mean a man cheating on his own wife. A man could sleep with prostitutes, with concubines, or heck a single woman who didn't have a family to "protect and keep her pure". That was legit.
So I can't see how God would be considering all these sexual activities to be creating a marriage.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 7:15 AM (GMT -6)

DLW

I think it is appropriate to say that Iconoclast is being true to his name in the irreverant manner he treats Christian tradition regarding marriage.

Iconoclast

I honestly see the church's typical stance toward marriage as trying to control what is not their's to control. To me it is no different than the legislature trying to innapropriately control the judicial branch or the state trying to control religion or the church trying to control the state.

Neither should the state seek to control labor, nor labor the state and so on. The four mandates are independent entities that have their own fundamental sanction directly from God. For one to seek to usurp the other is to lose its own mandate.

And no, I must admit as my name suggests that I am not big on Christian "tradition". To me "tradition" is like trying to cut successive pieces of wood using the last piece cut as the measuring stick. Error compounded upon error. The most effective way to cut 100 pieces of wood all the same length is to always use the same measuring stick you used to cut the first piece. The most effective way to stay true to Jesus' teaching is to go back directly to His teaching.

Ever hear the one about the woman who was cooking a roast at Christmas? Her daughter was watching and asked why she cut the ends off of the roast. She said it was because her mother always did that. Well her mother happened to be there and said that she always cut the ends off because HER mother did it. Fortunately the woman's grandmother was there also and when asked said that she always cut the ends off the roast because her pan was too small to fit the whole roast in.

And THAT is what I think of "tradition".

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 7:22 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Icon: the verses you quoted don't say that the two people automatically are married in God's eyes just by having sex. There's some OT stories about men visiting prostitutes and they were NEVER considered by God to be married to them. Neither were concubinage, which was a common practice in the OT. Concubines were basically the harem that were there for sex but didn't have all the rights of the legal wife or wives.
Additionally, the legal Jewish definition of "adultery" in OT times was a man sleeping with another man's wife. It did not mean a man cheating on his own wife. A man could sleep with prostitutes, with concubines, or heck a single woman who didn't have a family to "protect and keep her pure". That was legit.
So I can't see how God would be considering all these sexual activities to be creating a marriage.

Yes, but all of this was part of God's perfect plan that he had set out from the very beginning.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 7:29 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

DLW

I think it is appropriate to say that Iconoclast is being true to his name in the irreverant manner he treats Christian tradition regarding marriage.

Iconoclast

I honestly see the church's typical stance toward marriage as trying to control what is not their's to control. To me it is no different than the legislature trying to innapropriately control the judicial branch or the state trying to control religion or the church trying to control the state.

Neither should the state seek to control labor, nor labor the state and so on. The four mandates are independent entities that have their own fundamental sanction directly from God. For one to seek to usurp the other is to lose its own mandate.

And no, I must admit as my name suggests that I am not big on Christian "tradition". To me "tradition" is like trying to cut successive pieces of wood using the last piece cut as the measuring stick. Error compounded upon error. The most effective way to cut 100 pieces of wood all the same length is to always use the same measuring stick you used to cut the first piece. The most effective way to stay true to Jesus' teaching is to go back directly to His teaching.

Ever hear the one about the woman who was cooking a roast at Christmas? Her daughter was watching and asked why she cut the ends off of the roast. She said it was because her mother always did that. Well her mother happened to be there and said that she always cut the ends off because HER mother did it. Fortunately the woman's grandmother was there also and when asked said that she always cut the ends off the roast because her pan was too small to fit the whole roast in.

And THAT is what I think of "tradition".

And my point is that like most Protestants we tend to conflate our traditions/interpretations with Scripture.

I think we must respect our received traditions, since God has not been silent or absent from Church throughout its history this past two thousand years. As such, it seems unlikely that it would have missed the mark by that much. It is often because of the reality of innovation, us learning more about the development of human sexuality, that our past answers are now inappropriate and require critical evaluation and adaptation.

If you reject tradition then you will find yourself gasping at straws or conflating your own personal views with "the Center". This tends to cause more heat than light, in my humble opinion.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/21/2003 7:30 AM (GMT -6)

Just a quick question: Is there anyone here who promotes celibacy, who is practicing it?

It's somewhat ineffective to recommend/advocate it while you yourself are happliy enjoying sexual fulfilment.

Laika, the syndrome is called androgen insensitivty syndrome..I'll post info on it later.

S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 7:31 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

So I can't see how God would be considering all these sexual activities to be creating a marriage.

Iconoclast

You are confusing human "tradition" and human definitions of "marriage" with God's definition. God allowed divorce in the old testament because of the hardness of our hearts and yet Jesus tells us explicitly that divorce and remarriage is the sin of ADULTERY. Why does He say it is the sin of adultery? Because the two are still "one flesh". "One flesh" is God's definition of marriage. It clearly comes about from having sex. Paul makes this very clear in 1 Corinthians quoted above. It is WHY going to a prostitute is a problem to begin with - BECAUSE you are "joining with" the prostitute - you are falling into God's definition of marriage ("one flesh", "one body") without a lifelong commitment.

Marriage is NOT fundamentally a legal phenomenon. Yes the government gives it a "legal" status and seeks to control it inappropriately but please do not confuse this human thing with how God views it.

Jesus makes this crystal clear when he says, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Again "joined together" is paired in the text with "one flesh". "For this reason they shall become one flesh." This text is referring to marriage from God's point of view - again "one flesh", "joined together".

Yes, God allows all sorts of things that are not his IDEAL. He allowed concubines, He allowed divorce by simply handing the woman a writ of divorce, He allows us to wear clothes to hide our shame (in fact, He actually made us clothes to begin with). But this is all God making accomodations for us because we fell. He lovingly allows us to totally mess up His ideal and wreak havoc with His definitions and His ways of doing things. But this does not mean that a single jot or tittle of His law shall pass away. God's IDEAL doesn't change. It only means that God is a God of mercy who totally loves us right here and right now.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/21/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

SBG

quote:

Just a quick question: Is there anyone here who promotes celibacy, who is practicing it?

It's somewhat ineffective to recommend/advocate it while you yourself are happliy enjoying sexual fulfilment.

Well I advocate it to my children but I know this is not what you meant ;@)

quote:

Laika, the syndrome is called androgen insensitivty syndrome..I'll post info on it later.

thanx

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

DLW

I think we must respect our received traditions, since God has not been silent or absent from Church throughout its history this past two thousand years. As such, it seems unlikely that it would have missed the mark by that much.

Iconoclast

How long did God work with the Jewish church? And just how far did the Jewish church leaders (that would be the Pharisees) miss the mark by?

I rest my case.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/21/2003 7:33 AM (GMT -6)

All I'm saying is it would have been news to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc., that sleeping with their concubines created a marriage. Since God spoke to them regularly if he meant that wouldn't he have told them?

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/21/2003 7:37 AM (GMT -6)

I've never understood why God never condemned polygamy or concubinage in the Old Testament. NOnetheless, that's the case. However , most christians today believe those practices are wrong. The OT also includes prohibitions against homosexual activity. However conveniently decide to follow that OT law though. If we're being consistent why would we not also allow the other sexual practices that God allowed in the OT?

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 7:47 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

DLW

I think we must respect our received traditions, since God has not been silent or absent from Church throughout its history this past two thousand years. As such, it seems unlikely that it would have missed the mark by that much.

Iconoclast

How long did God work with the Jewish church? And just how far did the Jewish church leaders (that would be the Pharisees) miss the mark by?

DLW
What is the sign/sound for lip thwipping?

Biblical scholarship shows that we really don't know how many of the Jewish leaders of Jesus' time/Pharisees were really in on his persecution.

I don't see how you can judge the extent to which they missed the mark. It seems to me that the Christian Church was missing the mark on a lot of important points to a greater extent than the Jewish Synagogues(Please do not call them a Church, they would be quite offended by that.).

So my response would be non sequitur. Jews do have relationships with God, despite their aversion to Yeshua thanks to the very long history of anti-semitism in the Church.

Yet, if we claim we can just dispense with tradition/interpretation and the ecclesiastical problems of order by focusing on what is most loving or the center then we are going to be disappointed since the latter terms are defined through interaction among the community of believers and when we dismiss with traditions, we dismiss the opportunity to find insights in the answers given in the past.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Edited by - DLW on 05/21/2003 12:50:38 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 7:48 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

I've never understood why God never condemned polygamy or concubinage in the Old Testament. NOnetheless, that's the case. However , most christians today believe those practices are wrong. The OT also includes prohibitions against homosexual activity. However conveniently decide to follow that OT law though. If we're being consistent why would we not also allow the other sexual practices that God allowed in the OT?

The root problem is that we are conceiving of Theology in ahistorical terms when God's revelation to us of what is right conduct is more evolutionary. I.e., there is much we can learn from the OT, but we interpret it through the NT and our tradtions that have been developed over an extended period of time.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

S.B.G.
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 143

Posted 5/21/2003 9:29 AM (GMT -6)

For Laika:
Androgen insensitivity syndrome
Definition :
A syndrome found in a person who has X,Y chromosomes, but who is resistant to androgens (male hormones). As a result, the individual has some or all of the physical characteristics of a female.
The syndrome is divided into two main categories: complete and incomplete. Complete testicular feminization results in someone who looks outwardly female. In the incomplete forms of testicular feminization syndrome, the degree of sexual ambiguity runs the gamut.
Causes, Incidence, and Risk Factors
The syndrome is caused by various genetic mutations on the X chromosome. The mutations make a developing male baby unable to respond to androgens. (Androgens are responsible for male physical characteristics.)
If the androgen insensitivity is complete, this prevents the development of the penis and other male body parts. The child is born appearing to be a girl. The complete form occurs in as many as 1 in 20,000 live births.
Different degrees of androgen resistance can result in a wide variety of clinical outcomes. Incomplete testicular feminization can include other disorders, such as Reifenstein's syndrome (also known as Gilbert-Dreyfus syndrome or Lubs syndrome), which is associated with hypospadias, gynecomastia, and cryptorchidism. Also included in the broad category of incomplete testicular feminization is infertile male syndrome, which is sometimes due to an androgen receptor disorder.
• lack of production of specific hormones, causing the embryo to develop with a female body type regardless of genetic sex
• lack of testosterone cellular receptors (so even if the body makes the hormones needed to develop into a physical male, the body is unable to respond to those hormones, and therefore, a female body-type is the result even if the genetic sex is male)

I'm not saying this explains everything, but it is a legitimate disorder, and I want to be sensitive to the possibility that something like this could have a bearing on homosexual orientation. I am sure there is more yet to be discovered.

"Yes, God allows all sorts of things that are not his IDEAL. He allowed concubines, He allowed divorce by simply handing the woman a writ of divorce, He allows us to wear clothes to hide our shame (in fact, He actually made us clothes to begin with). But this is all God making accomodations for us because we fell. He lovingly allows us to totally mess up His ideal and wreak havoc with His definitions and His ways of doing things. But this does not mean that a single jot or tittle of His law shall pass away. God's IDEAL doesn't change. It only means that God is a God of mercy who totally loves us right here and right now."

Just as Iconoclast says, it wasn't God's idea that anyone have birth defects, or abnormalities, or proclivaties toward certain sins, but God is merciful and works with us.

Still pondering in grace,
S.B.G.

To understand and to be understood is bliss.

Edited by - S.B.G. on 05/21/2003 2:33:13 PM

Christian
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78

Posted 5/21/2003 1:30 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell have lived together for many years. They are not Christians yet even they will tell you that they are not married nor do they desire to be. A 30 yr. old man could declare himself to be married to a 15 yr. old girl. He will be arrested. This brings to mind the Elizabeth Smart kidnapper who took her as his "wife." He believed as you do that he could declare himself married to her, consumate the relationship, and thus, it was so that they were married (in his eyes). Your comments state that government does not decree what is true or untrue, right or wrong, yet if this is so, then no laws are stable and all laws can be justifiably broken. ("it is meaningless to say that someone isn't married BECAUSE the government doesn't ALLOW them to get married" Iconoclast)

If two people who engage in sexual intercourse are thus married, ("Notice that the bible presupposes that two people who have sex are "joined together" as one flesh - they ARE married." Iconoclast) not only would men be married to prostitutes, but rape victims would be married to their rapists and fathers who committed incest to their daughters would be considered to be their husbands. The sexual but unlegally married couple (whether homosexual or heterosexual) cannot file joint tax returns, cannot get the married couple's special discount, and cannot experience other things that a married couple do. Perhaps this poses no problem to the couple, but there certainly are perks to being married the ol' fashioned way (legally) including the children able to boast "My mom and dad have been married 50 yrs" vs. "My mom and other mom have lived together 50 yrs!" Even the lovely vision of a woman in her wedding gown with a dashing husband in his suit conveys much specialness.It's interesting that you say a couple who has sex is considered married, while at the same time, a couple can be married and yet not have sex.

Edited by - Christian on 05/21/2003 6:35:24 PM

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 1:36 PM (GMT -6)

I'm sure Icon is far more "tradition-bound" than he let on in his previous posting.

Let's not read too much into it...
dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 3:23 PM (GMT -6)

DLW

I'm sure Icon is far more "tradition-bound" than he let on in his previous posting.

Iconoclast

Yes, unfortunately I think we all are to a far greater extent than is helpful.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

DLW
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457

Posted 5/21/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6)

Dude,

The only thing wrong with traditions is when we treat them as absolutes. I.e., if a certain conservative church bases itself on the premise that it must mimic the early church as much as possible then it will treat its traditions as absolutes. After all, its not like the early church's form of organization or rules it lives itself by could change.

Hence, traditions that may have made sense at one time(like requiring celibacy of the clergy in a society rife with nepotism) end up getting ossified and turned into absolutes that outlast their usefulness.

dlw

Prayer from Kenya

From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 4:37 PM (GMT -6)

I agree. Making traditions absolute - becoming tradition-BOUND is to forget the WHY behind the rule.

There is a difference between conformity and standards. Conformity is when we are BOUND by rules but do not know why. Standards are when we know the reason behind the rule. And when the reason cannot be connected back to the ONE command to love one another then we really have to look hard at the standard.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 4:40 PM (GMT -6)

Christian

It's interesting that you say a couple who has sex is considered married, while at the same time, a couple can be married and yet not have sex.

Iconoclast

A couple who is legally married yet has never had sex is what I would call an "arrangement" not a "marriage".

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

65 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:29 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual