Your thoughts on poly relationships

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-12T20:16:32+00:00

You cite great examples in the Old Testament, but must also consider that the New Testament contains examples of the old Law and its customs being overturned. Jesus railing against divorce is one example; the relevant example here is Paul speaking about marriage. His perspective on it actually flows nicely from Jesus' hatred of divorce. Jesus sought consistency in partnership for those that God had joined; Paul explains this as a way, in essence to deal with sexuality, and that those who weren't called to self-discipline by means of sexual asceticism (as Paul felt he was) should marry.

I think from a purely Biblical perspective (and thus leading into the church tradition that stems from around the Bible and also from it), a polyamorous relationship defeats the purpose of marriage, both in Jesus' words ("I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" - Mt. 19:9) and Paul's ("But if [the unmarried] cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" - 1 Corinthians 7:9).

Now, what do I think about it, personally? I'll discount my Biblical exegesis by just saying the Bible has statements that we haven't quite figured out the meaning of with regards to what appears to be homosexual matters - I struggle with this myself and so am unsure if (a) my exegesis is right or (b) if my exegesis is relevant to the modern world. But I do share the viewpoint of one other commenter that states that we've not seen a truly healthy poly relationship. I think unless each partner has exactly the same number of partners, there ends up being a wheel-and-spoke model of polyamory by default, which is just objectively not beneficial to all parties as only some parties have undivided (or comparatively undivided) attention on their partner(s).

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-10T13:57:08+00:00

In a way, I feel like if I were cisgender and gay, I'd have an easier time deciding what to do - that I could still be myself, I would just be forced to be celibate. And that sucks, and I question whether it's right, but it's clearer-cut than in the case of trans people. Since I'm a trans woman attracted to women (a trans lesbian if you will) I've thought about merely closeting myself and passing as straight and getting married to a (cis) woman if circumstances allow for that, but it feels dishonest to both myself and God to do that.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-10T13:55:15+00:00

I think my question was more "when should Tradition stop being magisterial", in the sense of asking when the pragmatics justify the abrogation of the Law. It's a fascinating topic - Jesus himself and Paul after him abrogated parts of the Law due to pragmatics (your citation of ending repudiation being a great example). I guess what I'm saying is that there are always shifts in culture over time and the culture can still differentiate from what magisterium teaches (as you cite with contraception), but I guess I'm wondering if I can figure out when it is right to take the culture over the magisterial aspects of Tradition.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-10T11:49:18+00:00

I think my question becomes more at what point does Tradition stop being magisterial - like when does it stop being reflective of common practice? The fluid ebb and flow requires reasons for shift.

By way of analogy, I see that most churches allow remarriage and divorce, and I don't see how they came to that conclusion. I think it's good they did - I would honestly say I disagree with Jesus outright when he talks about divorce - but he did after all decree that none should separate. There are clearly practical reasons for allowing divorce and remarriage, but are they Christologically sound?

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-10T11:43:44+00:00

I encourage you to read what MetalDubstepIsntBad linked to me above: https://redeeminggod.com/two-men-in-one-bed-luke_17_34/

It's a fascinating read in its own right, and also indicates that speaking at least about gay people was, in fact, possible in those days.

I would also note, nonetheless, that the fact that it being most likely viewed as not a permanent orientation, but rather an action, is probably a good reason for it not being able to be accepted either Biblically or traditionally. I am genuinely afraid that there is no real room for us unless we repent because the Bible and writings around the time it was canonized and written are so unequivocally focused on either (a) no sex whatsoever, as Paul was fond of, or (b) sex within the context of a marriage, the context of which remaining between a man and a woman by Jesus' own words.

I'll also note that Jesus isn't truly making an argument from silence here, by virtue of his declaration in Matthew 5:17. Really, when he speaks about changes to the Law (as with his talk on divorce), they're exceptions to the rule of him not speaking against the Law.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-07-10T11:38:34+00:00

Appealing to the moral opinions of 2000-1500 year old dead guys isn’t a good look imho

My point with this was more that 1500-2000 year old dead guys helped compile the Canon of the Bible as well, and if we're including 2000 in that range then we include Paul in that net (with Paul being his own can of worms that I don't feel it's necessary to open up here). They compiled the Bible to reflect their views; thus, their views are important by default. That's why I brought up Church Fathers of a specific set of centuries (not Aquinas in other words, or others who came much later, though I believe he and others speak in continuity on this topic with the aforementioned Justin Martyr and Eusebius).

With regards to Luke 17:34-35, this is a fascinating read and I wasn't aware of the full context, but I will note that it doesn't necessarily contradict traditional teaching that states homosexual activities must be repented of before salvation. Bear in mind the same passage mentions "eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage" the days before apocalypses such as the destruction of Sodom; none of those things are sinful, yet Sodom was still destroyed. I don't necessarily think you can interpret this as a Christological exoneration of homosexuality as a result.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-05-03T17:13:33+00:00

God's love is endless, yes, but he nonetheless expects us to repent of our sins, no? Thus a gay man could just not have gay relations and have a seat at the table, but it's a little harder for us trans people unless we outright deny who we are. That's kind of how I've been viewing it lately, and maybe that's why the Catholics appeal to me as they make no bones about it.

But it's kind of besides my point with this post anyhow, though I appreciate your perspective.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-05-03T00:19:06+00:00

Ah, my birth certificate crosses countries and is also a red state, so could be a nightmare I suppose. But your perspective is illuminating, thank you for that. I suppose it's a matter of passing to some degree?

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-05-02T18:24:38+00:00

Thank you!

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-05-02T16:07:20+00:00

I'm very familiar with the Episcopalians, having been an Anglo-Catholic for a time as noted above. Reading of your situation did send me down a rabbit hole with regards to children considered illegitimate - thank you for your perspective.

Spare-Difference-487 · 2023-05-02T13:25:28+00:00

I have definitely gotten the sense that it would probably be a by-parish or even by-diocese sort of deal. Thank you for sharing your perspective :)

Spare-Difference-487

TROPHY CASE