The definition of marriage has been seen as too restrictive and discriminatory by many. I think the definition of marriage is critical to the pursuit of diversity. Biblically speaking, diversity is a fundamental concept within marriage. This is because marriage is defined in terms of members of different communities. When one thinks about marriage you must think about what it means to have unity within diversity. What makes a marriage possible is the presence of love. This does NOT mean you are "in love" but it does mean that you are choosing to love. Love is something you choose to do whether or not you have butterflies in your stomach as do it. Love is selfless and is given whether you feel like it or not. Love serves the needs and benefits of another person whether you want to or not. In short, in order to love it can't be about you but rather it's completely about the other person. In marriage it's all about your spouse.
Your spouse is to be of the opposite sex meaning that love in marriage is directed towards someone not belonging to your own community. The love in marriage is about selflessly blessing and benefiting someone that does not belong to your in group, your own sex, but rather blessing and benefiting a member of the out group, the opposite sex. Marriage entails loving in context of diversity; it entails love towards the out group. Marriage is just a microcosm for what God wants to see holistically which is the community of men and the community of women having unity and oneness. God wants to see two different communities have unity within their diversity. As men collectively choose to deeply love women and women choose to deeply love men a mindset of valuing the other community will develop. An understanding of the beauty and goodness of the other community will come to fruition. Once the beauty and goodness of the other community is recognized a genuine desire for deep and intimate relationship with the opposite sex comes into being. The beauty and goodness seen in the opposite sex is the collective character of the opposite sex. The beauty and goodness seen in the opposite sex is the culture of the opposite sex. Desiring the deep intimate relationship with the opposite sex is desiring deep intimate relationship with another culture. Desiring deep intimate relationship with the opposite sex is being heterocultural. Being heterocultural with the opposite sex is being heterosexual. Truly desiring marriage is contingent upon being heterosexual which is contingent upon being heterocultural which in turn is contingent upon valuing cultural diversity. If one does not want to selflessly love cross culturally then one does not want marriage.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Love your neighbor as yourself
The golden rule. The second greatest commandment given by God. Often the question is asked about whom is your neighbor. Your neighbor is simply those that are not you. There are actually two tenants of this command. First, one must first love their own self. Second, just as you love yourself you must love your neighbor. You may love yourself and your neighbor for different reasons and in different ways but at the end of the day you are to love both. If you cannot love yourself you are not truly in a position to love others. Loving your neighbor and not yourself leads to an envy of the neighbor and a desire to be the neighbor since you don't recognize anything worth loving in yourself. I believe the command can be taken both individualistically and collectively and either way a necessity for valuing and pursuing cultural diversity will be of consequence.
If you take the command in an individualistic way you may be tempted to disregard culture seeing it as trivial since the individual is deemed most important. This is a common mistake individualistic Westerners can make. Culture cannot be ignored or devalued even if you are loving the individual because culture has significantly shaped each individual's character. If I claim to love an individual but dislike or trivialize their culture I am not truly loving that individual because I am not loving the part of their character that has been shaped by their culture. Part of loving individuals is loving culture.
If you take the command in a collectivist way I think the consequences are more profound. In collectivist thinking the identity is not on the individual level but on the communal level. It's the idea that "we are and therefore I am." Loving yourself is loving your community, that which is you. Loving your neighbor on the other hand is loving that which is not you, it's loving communities to which you don't belong. Obeying the second greatest command entails having a love for the out-group just as you have a love for the in-group. How and why you love the in-group may be different from how and why you love the out-group but as surely as you love your in-group you are to love the out-group.
The collectivist view of loving your neighbor as yourself needs to be understood and lived out by individualistic cultures as well. Individualistic cultures must identify what communities they identify with and love as a consequence of seeing it as "yourself." It needs to be noted how and why you are loving the communities seen as "yourself." Then one must look at how and why they would love communities seen as "other." As it is true that one has a love, appreciation and affinity towards one's in-group it also should be true that one has a love, appreciation and affinity towards the out-group. This is loving your neighbor as yourself. One's in-group is often the cultural identities of that individual and one's out-group is often all cultures not a part of the individual's identity. The consequence is that loving your neighbor as yourself implies that we must have a love, appreciation and affinity towards those cultures we don't call our own. This means we should have a desire for deep intimate relationships with those of other cultures. Loving your neighbor as yourself means we should be heterocultural.
If you take the command in an individualistic way you may be tempted to disregard culture seeing it as trivial since the individual is deemed most important. This is a common mistake individualistic Westerners can make. Culture cannot be ignored or devalued even if you are loving the individual because culture has significantly shaped each individual's character. If I claim to love an individual but dislike or trivialize their culture I am not truly loving that individual because I am not loving the part of their character that has been shaped by their culture. Part of loving individuals is loving culture.
If you take the command in a collectivist way I think the consequences are more profound. In collectivist thinking the identity is not on the individual level but on the communal level. It's the idea that "we are and therefore I am." Loving yourself is loving your community, that which is you. Loving your neighbor on the other hand is loving that which is not you, it's loving communities to which you don't belong. Obeying the second greatest command entails having a love for the out-group just as you have a love for the in-group. How and why you love the in-group may be different from how and why you love the out-group but as surely as you love your in-group you are to love the out-group.
The collectivist view of loving your neighbor as yourself needs to be understood and lived out by individualistic cultures as well. Individualistic cultures must identify what communities they identify with and love as a consequence of seeing it as "yourself." It needs to be noted how and why you are loving the communities seen as "yourself." Then one must look at how and why they would love communities seen as "other." As it is true that one has a love, appreciation and affinity towards one's in-group it also should be true that one has a love, appreciation and affinity towards the out-group. This is loving your neighbor as yourself. One's in-group is often the cultural identities of that individual and one's out-group is often all cultures not a part of the individual's identity. The consequence is that loving your neighbor as yourself implies that we must have a love, appreciation and affinity towards those cultures we don't call our own. This means we should have a desire for deep intimate relationships with those of other cultures. Loving your neighbor as yourself means we should be heterocultural.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Proof: Heterosexuality is a form of Heteroculturality
Heterosexuality is the attraction to the physicality and character of the opposite sex. Because part of being heterosexual is being attracted to the character of the opposite sex anyone who is heterosexual sees some sort of shared collective character in the opposite sex and is emotionally attracted to that character. The collective character of a community is by definition culture. Thus, heterosexuals see a culture of the opposite sex and are emotionally attracted to that culture.
The heterosexual's desire for the opposite sex is due in part to an attraction to the different culture. Therefore heterosexuals desire a deep intimate relationship with those of another culture, specifically being the opposite sex. Thus, part of being heterosexual is being heterocultural with respect to the opposite sex and therefore heterosexuality is a form of heteroculturality.
Lemma: Heterosexuals believe men and women have two different cultures
Heterosexuals desire a deep intimate relationship specifically with the opposite sex. The heterosexual must see something unique and especially good about the opposite sex to have such a desire. Physicality alone cannot be the unique and good thing leading to relationship since attraction to physicality by itself is a desire for sex and not relationship. What's drawing the heterosexual towards relationship with the opposite sex is emotional attraction to the opposite sex's character. This character is the culture of the opposite sex and is the opposite sex's unique attribute that sparks a desire for relationship. Indeed , the heterosexual believes that men and women have two different cultures.
The heterosexual's desire for the opposite sex is due in part to an attraction to the different culture. Therefore heterosexuals desire a deep intimate relationship with those of another culture, specifically being the opposite sex. Thus, part of being heterosexual is being heterocultural with respect to the opposite sex and therefore heterosexuality is a form of heteroculturality.
.
Definition: Heterocultural
Heterocultural (adjective) - that which is marked by heteroculturality
Heterocultural (noun) - a person that is marked by heteroculturality
Heterocultural (noun) - a person that is marked by heteroculturality
Definition: Heteroculturality
Heteroculturality - The desire for deep intimate relationship with those of other cultures
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Definition: Heterosexuality
Heterosexuality - an attraction to the physicality and character of the opposite sex
Most people after struggling to define heterosexuality would agree that heterosexuality is about being physically and emotionally attracted to the opposite sex. If heterosexuality was merely a physical attraction then the only thing that would draw one to the opposite sex in particular would be physical beauty. This would mean that the only value you see in the opposite sex in particular would be their ability to satisfy your physical desires. To exclusively attribute value to the opposite sex based on their ability to satisfy one's physical desires is an objectification of the opposite sex. Such an objectification would be a form of lust. Thus, if heterosexuality was merely a physical attraction to the opposite sex then heterosexuality would be a form a lust.
Heterosexuality is not merely a physical attraction and I think most people would fortunately agree. I, along with most people I've talked to, believe part of heterosexuality is being emotionally attracted to the opposite sex. When I ask people to expound on this they widely agree that being emotionally attracted to the opposite sex means that you are attracted to the apparent character seen in the opposite sex. With this added attraction heterosexuality would not be a form of lust because it involves being emotionally attracted to the character seen in the opposite sex. Thus the definition of heterosexuality being an attraction to the physicality and character of the opposite sex is consistent with the common usage of the word. More importantly this definition is consistent with Biblical teachings concerning pure sexuality.
Most people after struggling to define heterosexuality would agree that heterosexuality is about being physically and emotionally attracted to the opposite sex. If heterosexuality was merely a physical attraction then the only thing that would draw one to the opposite sex in particular would be physical beauty. This would mean that the only value you see in the opposite sex in particular would be their ability to satisfy your physical desires. To exclusively attribute value to the opposite sex based on their ability to satisfy one's physical desires is an objectification of the opposite sex. Such an objectification would be a form of lust. Thus, if heterosexuality was merely a physical attraction to the opposite sex then heterosexuality would be a form a lust.
Heterosexuality is not merely a physical attraction and I think most people would fortunately agree. I, along with most people I've talked to, believe part of heterosexuality is being emotionally attracted to the opposite sex. When I ask people to expound on this they widely agree that being emotionally attracted to the opposite sex means that you are attracted to the apparent character seen in the opposite sex. With this added attraction heterosexuality would not be a form of lust because it involves being emotionally attracted to the character seen in the opposite sex. Thus the definition of heterosexuality being an attraction to the physicality and character of the opposite sex is consistent with the common usage of the word. More importantly this definition is consistent with Biblical teachings concerning pure sexuality.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Definition: Stereotype
Stereotype - a rigid, exaggerated and irrational over-generalization of a group of people
Definition: Culture
Culture - The collective character of a community.
This is my definition of culture. This differs from most definitions of culture in that it is concise. I will attempt to show that my definition is consistent with the common usage of the word so that my definition is useful for dialog.
What Culture Is Not:
-Culture is not a stereotype
-Culture is not necessarily static
Here is a widely accepted definition of culture:
This is my definition of culture. This differs from most definitions of culture in that it is concise. I will attempt to show that my definition is consistent with the common usage of the word so that my definition is useful for dialog.
What Culture Is Not:
-Culture is not a stereotype
-Culture is not necessarily static
Here is a widely accepted definition of culture:
- Programmed beliefs and values that provide a collective reality for a community and influences the individual's reality. Are dynamic and can contain sub-cultures. Marked by common symbols, knowledge, folklore, conventions, language, rules, rituals, information-processing patterns, lifestyle, values and attributes.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Heterosexuality
I have been asking several people how they would define heterosexuality. There have been some expected and unexpected results. I have expected that people would not have thought about it before because it is deemed as normal and so most people simply overlook it. What I have not expected is that even after pondering upon what heterosexuality is they still cannot come up with a good definition. It's odd that most people consider themselves heterosexual yet they cannot define what that means. There is a strong tendency for people to say what heterosexuality is in saying how it differs from homosexuality. Again, the difficulty is knowing what heterosexuality is as opposed to what it isn't. Christians have gotten a lot of heat for their stance on homosexuality so the least we can do is defend our creed. If we say homosexuality is wrong yet we cannot define what homosexuality actually is then I think we Christians have a big problem.
People should really know the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Since people define homosexuality in terms of its deviation from heterosexuality but they cannot define heterosexuality it is safe to say that people don't really know what homosexuality is. Thus they don't really know the difference between the two and so they don't know what may be morally good about the one and morally bad about the other.
This means that people don't know why homosexuality may be a deviation from God's intent of creation. When you don't know God's intentions you don't fully know God's heart which is what all Christians are pursuing. So for the sake of knowing God's heart better we should attempt to know why homosexuality is a deviation from God's intent in creation.
I do believe that when people truly understand what heterosexuality is then they will have a good foundational understanding of what it means to have unity within cultural diversity. This is because I believe all heterosexuals have an intuitive understanding of what it means to pursue cultural diversity by virtue of what it means to be heterosexual. Thus I believe that since most people are heterosexual most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means to pursue cultural diversity. I recognize that it's unintuitive to say that heterosexuals inherently have high intuition in understanding pursuit of cultural diversity. Nonetheless, I want to show that understanding the idea of pursuing cultural diversity is an inherent intuition for heterosexuals. The fact that I have to go to great lengths to show it would suggest that it is not an inherent intuition but I'm attempting to show that heterosexuals are overlooking the obvious with respect to their heterosexual desires.
In summary my motivation for defining heterosexuality is to be able to define homosexuality in order to have a definition of what we are saying is morally wrong, to understand why homosexuality is morally wrong, to understand God's heart and to reveal heterosexuality's inherent concept of pursuing cultural diversity.
People should really know the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Since people define homosexuality in terms of its deviation from heterosexuality but they cannot define heterosexuality it is safe to say that people don't really know what homosexuality is. Thus they don't really know the difference between the two and so they don't know what may be morally good about the one and morally bad about the other.
This means that people don't know why homosexuality may be a deviation from God's intent of creation. When you don't know God's intentions you don't fully know God's heart which is what all Christians are pursuing. So for the sake of knowing God's heart better we should attempt to know why homosexuality is a deviation from God's intent in creation.
I do believe that when people truly understand what heterosexuality is then they will have a good foundational understanding of what it means to have unity within cultural diversity. This is because I believe all heterosexuals have an intuitive understanding of what it means to pursue cultural diversity by virtue of what it means to be heterosexual. Thus I believe that since most people are heterosexual most people have an intuitive understanding of what it means to pursue cultural diversity. I recognize that it's unintuitive to say that heterosexuals inherently have high intuition in understanding pursuit of cultural diversity. Nonetheless, I want to show that understanding the idea of pursuing cultural diversity is an inherent intuition for heterosexuals. The fact that I have to go to great lengths to show it would suggest that it is not an inherent intuition but I'm attempting to show that heterosexuals are overlooking the obvious with respect to their heterosexual desires.
In summary my motivation for defining heterosexuality is to be able to define homosexuality in order to have a definition of what we are saying is morally wrong, to understand why homosexuality is morally wrong, to understand God's heart and to reveal heterosexuality's inherent concept of pursuing cultural diversity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)