News-Record.com

Absolutely. Well written, well reasoned. What's your problem with it?

I think it has the potential to be dangerous -- emotionally and physically -- for the both of them. As a person of divorce I don't think people should stay together simply to stay together.

So according to the Rabbi, our faithfullness to our mate and to God are more important than our sexuality. Here's how he describes it:

"I assume you’re asking what you should do because you love him and wonder what's to become of your marriage. I say, the marriage should continue and he should remain completely faithful. He will just have to battle his urges toward men just as he would have to battle his urges toward other women if he were a heterosexual male. The fact is, human sexuality is pretty malleable, and we can direct ourselves to be attracted to the target of our choice. There is instinctual attraction and then there is habituated attraction. Let your husband work on becoming habitually attracted to you and channeling his attraction towards you. "

Demanding faithfullness was a prerequisite the Rabbi stated. If a man (in this case) puts his sexual desire for men ahead of his desire and faithfulness to her (and God), he did give her a way out. The point is we are more than sexual creatures and in marraige we are called to be unselfish.

The subject of divorce is interesting indeed. My parents were married for just over 60 years before Mom died. They provided me with a model that I've followed all my life. Many are the times I've thought of divorce, but never seriously. Why, I'm not completely sure. Something to do with loyalty to family, I think.

After mom died, my sister told me that both of our parents had been living in their second marriage, which was quite a surprise to me. I often wonder if my life would have been far different if I had been aware that my parents had both had prior marriages and that divorce was perhaps a more viable option.

Now as to this particular story... I hear of such travails quite often. Makes me wonder. But the question here might ought to be "what is the core that makes a marriage?" Is a wedding simply a societal ritual signifying the community's agreement that the wedded couple may exclusively copulate? Or is it also a matter of defining property rights and family ties?

Certainly, the sexual issue should be high up on the list. Which is why I agree that urging a couple to stay together (in the absence of info regarding children) in this situation is hardly sensible. The wife didn't mention children, but if they did have any kids, I might have a different take on the situation.

The man and woman made a vow before God and their friends that they would stay together until parted by death. I think the rabbi gives excellent advice. They're not staying together simply for the sake of staying together. They're doing so because they promised to do that.

As a man of homosexual orientation (but not "gay" -- there's a difference), yet married very happily to the world's most wonderful woman, I can speak from experience that such marrieges can be very satisfying. However, a few conditions must be met. First, it is best that both parties know and accept that the man (or woman) feels sexual inclinations toward the same gender, and fights them just as the heterosexual fights his inclination toweard women not his wife, just as Chip perceptively pointed out. For when we marry, our bodies are not our own; they are given to our mate. Second, both partners should feel free to talk openly about their feelings and frequently affirm their love for each other, as all married couples ought to do if they want their marriage to last (we are in our eleventh year). With understanding and commitment, such marriages can be a blessing for all concerned, especially if they rely on God's help.

steve,
your comment "As a man of homosexual orientation (but not "gay" -- there's a difference)" is very interesting. can i assume that the difference between a homosexual orientation and being gay is that you have not acted upon your orientation, whereas a gay person does ?

That sort of distinction shouldn't matter to a Christian. The Bible reports that Jesus said that looking on someone with desire is the same as having sex with them.

Which is, IMO, one of the many daft things Jesus is supposed to have said...

as usual eric you miss the real point. yet eric you continually use those "daft" things that Jesus said either against Christians or in your defense of your God hatredness (is that a word?). stick to the subjects that you are adept in please.

the question still stands steve if you are interested in responding, thanks.

Eric was right on point, and your inability to answer his criticism reveals your weakness. I'll spell it out for you: you propose that Steve has drawn a distinction between homosexual thoughts and actions. That Jesus declared the act and the thought, at least in the heterosexual realm, were not essentially different is irrefutable.

An honest person would take Eric's post as a question. You are not honest, either with your beliefs or your arguments to others. So I will put the question directly to you: do you think there is a difference, morally, in the homosexual act and the homosexual thought? And if so, how do you reconcile this difference with your saviour.

And by the way, I don't hate God and I will opine that neither does Eric. First, I find it hard to hate something that does not exist. Second, there is plenty of hate in the world, most of it owned and operated by people of faith. I'm not about to add to it.

Answer the question. Now.

It's the same old stuff from Buz, Lon. It's far too common a mindset these days. If someone is outside your accepted group, the feeling appears to be that such people can't possibly have valid points. Thus entire essays can be disposed of with "that's liberal hogwash" (from a LTE yesterday) or "I don't want to hear that Republican BS nonsense" (from a Lewis Black performance some years ago).

Buz sees something I say and immediately says "you hate God" as if that covers everything I might think. Saves him the time and bother of actually wondering if I might have a valid point. Frees him up for untold halleluiahs -- or something, I guess.

"As scores of evolutionary biologists have reminded us, the human male has a predisposition toward inseminating as many females as possible, thereby guaranteeing the continuity of his gene pool.

But that which is natural is not necessarily right. It’s natural, for example, to wake up at 10 o'clock in the morning. But we habituate ourselves to wake up earlier in order to be productive. It’s natural for us to shove our faces into bowls to eat. But instead we civilize ourselves by using utensils to become refined."

I would be a little hesitent about accepting anything the good rabbi says considering what he views as "natural".

"Because you and your husband have been married for 7 years, and it took him to confess he was gay and you did not see it yourself,"

I can't help but wonder what else he's keeping secret from her.

" The fact is, human sexuality is pretty malleable, and we can direct ourselves to be attracted to the target of our choice."

He also sees homosexuality as a choice. Now, is anybody seriously listening to what this man has to say?

oh ! mr. lon i hope i am writting fast enough to appease your demand "Answer the question. Now." (lol)
"shakin' it over here bossman, shakin' it over here" (from cool hand luke).......

thank you for the early morning entertainment lon !

is rattlesnake soon to join in with you pfa guys ?

for a bunch of guys who do not believe in God or His Son, you spend an inordinate amount of time and energy talking about them ? hmmmmm.........

eric i was wondering if that universal unitarian church where your pfa group meets is a tax exempt church ? if it is i was curious to know, how you benefitting from that tax free status fits in with your comments about churches robbing tax payers money - after all your pfa group helps pay the rent at the church....seems if you're intellectually honest then you would not be a recipient or partiticipte in the infrastructure you criticize.

RebelSnake, I hope you'll find it in your heart to fogive Buz. He obviously has lost contact with the thread here, and he seems to have been unable to even read your post. I looked it over and saw nothing that indicated any effort on your part to criticize Jesus or his flock.

I would have hoped that he would be able to actually converse with "our sort" in some rational manner, but perhaps that's beyond his capacity. Too bad. Watching meltdowns like the one above is of limited value to anyone.

eric, for the record i posted my comment an hour before and then left - then when i came back to look at the thread it had not posted, so i re-posted. perhaps that will explain it.
also i noticed you dodged my question about the uucg question...on thread or off thread it is a valid question , no ?!
also eric you state above that thoughts don't carry the same consequence as action , i.e. "Jesus said that looking on someone with desire is the same as having sex with them.Which is, IMO, one of the many daft things Jesus is supposed to have said..."
you recently posted that you had thought about divorcing your wife many times.....i wonder if she knows that ? and if she doesn't, let's tell her how you've felt/thought many times and see if there is a consequence ?!
it seems most of the choir is hear and i am beginning to hear the harmony !!

Don't worry Eric, People like Buz are a dime a dozen, predictable as Tax Day every year, and unworthy of any amount of concern on my part.

"also eric you state above that thoughts don't carry the same consequence as action"

Tell me Buz, how many people are in prison because of what they were thinking about?

"you recently posted that you had thought about divorcing your wife many times.....i wonder if she knows that ?"

What's your point Buz? If the truth be told, she's probably thought about tossing his sorry butt out the door more than once, am I right Eric? Bottom line Buz, a person's thoughts are his and his alone. As long as they remain unacted upon, thoughts are neither right nor wrong. BTW, my name is "RebelSnake". I would appreciate it if you would get it right next time.

"If the truth be told, she's probably thought about tossing his sorry butt out the door more than once, am I right Eric?"

Not that I know of. But being a mere husband, I've never developed that mind-reading capacity that has been expected of me. {;-)

Certainly, I would be surprised if such thoughts hadn't occured to her. But as you said, one's thoughts are not worthy of judgement until they are "out in the open."

RsNAKE,
sorry about the original misspelling must have been a freudian slip.
what is it about pedictable that you find offensive?
"Tell me Buz, how many people are in prison because of what they were thinking about?"............. this may be over your head but i'll give it a shot anyway......i've met many people who are prisoners trapped within their own minds...tormented souls who would possibly give anything to be free from thoughts of suicide, murder,rape, aliens trying to abduct them, imaginary creatures crawling on their bodies and many other unspeakable thoughts that enter the minds of those tortured by mental ilnesses. but in your limited view, only a physical prison with bars can suffice for you. you yourself are imprisoned rsnake, you cannot get beyond the confines of your intellect and knowledge, for you if your senses cannot discern it, then it cannot exist. you live in a finite existence without hope, destined to live and die with nothing more to experience. i've seen you blog concerning scriptures and give the same impression that eric does that you have a grasp of its spiritual meaning. you cannot possibly expect a true child of God to give one iota of credence to what you say concerning it, can you ?? i can't speak of your ability to speak intelligently on subjecst apart from scripture, but i have over the past year heard eric/nemo speak on a host of others topics and i have mentioned to him on numerous occassions that i believe he has much valid input on many things, but scripture is not one of them - for scripture is spiritually discerned and apparently neither you nor he have the indwelling Holy Spirit - so that automatically excludes you from giving valid input to me concerning the things of the spirit. so eric your statement " If someone is outside your accepted group, the feeling appears to be that such people can't possibly have valid points." is not true for as i've mentioned, i have given kudos to you on other subjects you've addressed. and it is glaringly obvious that you are ignoring answering my question concerning your affiliation with uucg. if the church is not tax exempt, then you are off the proverbial hook. eric i know you pride yourself on you intellect and logic and i am trying to give you the opportunity to explain the possible faux pas.

Where did I say anything about being offended? Most of the time I'm either amused or filled with pity

Let me phrase the question a little differently so you can get it right this time. How many people do you know of that are serving state or federal prison terms for the thoughts in their heads. And let's try and stay on subject this time, shall we?

rSnake,
the answer as far as i know is - perhaps many. there is this term law enforcement uses, it is called "conspiracy" :1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement . now i am no legal expert but in that description it says nothing about do the actual unlawful act. so my guess is there are people in lockup that have commited conspiracy while in fact they never perpetrated an "actual" crime ( could be wrong here though ). what's your opinion?

i believe you are saying so as long as it is in your head then no one is any worse off...is that correct ?
yet you state "Because you and your husband have been married for 7 years, and it took him to confess he was gay and you did not see it yourself,
I can't help but wonder what else he's keeping secret from her."
according to your theory whatever he is keeping secret (i.e keeping his thoughts to himself)is moot b/c it's in his head, so what are your trying to imply by him having secret thoughts (just like you say eric thoughts are secret)...why do you ask that question, it doesn't seem to follow your logic ?

"
"conspiracy" :1 a : to join in a secret agreement "

He has shared his thoughts with someone else. As long as the thoughts remained in his head, no wrong was done.

" why do you ask that question, it doesn't seem to follow your logic ? "

In a situation like this it's a natural question to ask. He has shared thoughts that have done a great deal of damage. What else is he keeping secret?

RsNAKE,
i concede your point. but was only wanting steve to explain his meaning.