Marriage and Gender: What defines gender in Christianity?

The definition of marriage in Christianity is defined with a man and a woman. Gay men are said to have the brains of females. This happens because the default gender inside the womb is female. What is said to happen is that the body is masculinized while the brain remains female. If this is so, would this one be considered a male or female? And if female, can this one marry a male while still going along the Christian definition of marriage?

What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Is it the shape of the brain or is it the shape of the genitals? Personally, I think it's the brain since the brain is basically the seat of our soul. Whatever good or bad we choose to do, comes from the mind.

 

Who the heck says gay men have the brains of females???! Sounds dubious to me. I think you might possibly be confusing trans-sexuals, trans-gendered people, and/or hermaphrodites with gays. As for what makes a man a man, I'd say genitals, hormones, self-perceptions and/or cultural expectations. In my part of the country, if a person has a dick, he's generally considered a man, but if he eats quiche he's not a "real" man! (at least not in Oklahoma!) Far be it from me to get into the theological implications of being a man trapped in a woman's body. The "Christian" definition of marriage you refer to is really a traditional definition based on inferences about a subject that scripture doesn't specifically address. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and He didn't make people with wings, so He must not have intended for them to fly. So how does that apply in the Space Age?

 

Firstly, it is true that gay men do have more feminine styled brains. I just want to expand on this and help OP out

Women have a larger right hemisphere and smaller left hemisphere, males have even size. Gay males have the structure of most females - gay females have the structure of most males.
The theory stated about why it happens does not make sense, though.

Secondly, it is not true that Christianity defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The Bible doesn't define marriage; some Christians define it as between a man and a woman.
The closest the Bible comes to defining marriage is by saying in Genesis after God created man, he decided man should not be alone, so he creates Eve. And then throughout the Bible, it defines aspects of marriage such as "wives must accept the authority of your husbands, even those who refuse to accept the Good News."
but there is no evidence that the Bible even considers the possiblity of gay marriage.

 

It was from a documentary that was aired on National Geographic channel. And, I am remembering that other documentaries were making this conclusion too but I forgot what they were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saO_RFWWVVA&list=FLKbbYQD8C1ZwmT48080xItw&index=36&feature=plpp_video"]National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality - YouTube

It's just one ways to explain the orientation by epigenetic. To be honest, it makes sense to me. Maybe it's not politically correct, but many gay men seem effeminate to me. Although, that could just be confusing cause and effect...? Kinda like this fellow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVMCfIfakJQ"]How To Tell If Someone Is Gay - Foolproof! - YouTube

I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all. I just mean to make a point that there may be something to the feminized brain thing - Many gay men were defined as 'gender non conformist' as children, such as playing with a baby dolls instead of Hulk Hogan figurines --Running wild all over you. Personally, I believe gender is more like a spectrum in the same way that sexual orientation is on a spectrum.

lol

To me, if Christianity can't specifically define what a man and woman are then the 'traditional' sense of marriage as 'male' and 'female' may as well be thrown out the window as it would be meaningless.

 

TY. I didn't mean to offend anyone by me stating that gay males have female brains. But if you think on it, why would that be offensive? Women are great!

I posted the National Geographic tidbit on top. Basically, they conducted a study on twin males. One was gay and another wasn't. They concluded from this that it's neither genetic or environmental. The cause cause be epigenomes. These epigenomes turn on or turn off certain genes and it can happen throughout ones lifetime.

The Bible doesn't specifically talk to much about this. It does focus on what adultery is and what one can do to avoid it but the definition has very limited and specific verses. The only verse is when Jesus says to the Pharisee's that God made them male and female.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/...pital-for-kidney-stone-discovers-hes-a-woman/

"Man Admitted to Hospital for Kidney Stone, Discovers He’s a Woman"

 

Gender is an identity of our's.
Like my height or my weight.

Gender shapes a person's identity. Just like being overweight or skinny can shape someone's identity and esteem, and just like people feel bound to their race for some odd reason.
All these things affect our soul in that it affects our life experiences.

I personally don't think much about the 'male brain' and 'female brain'. If a person's brain is programmed to control a male body, then that's what he is. If he was born male then he was born with a male brain otherwise he would not have the physical aspects of a male.

Moreover, the brain in other areas that are not part of our primitive brain and linked to our physical control, is extremely adaptive. People tend to ignore how amazingly our brain adapts. There is much confusion between cause and effect imo.

 

There are few if any direct definitions in the Bible, the Bible is not a dictionary.

But in reading the Bible certain things can be determined.

Such as, no where in the Bible is there doubt about whether a person is a man or a woman. The Bible mentions men who lie with men, it does not say people who look like men but are really women who lie with people who look like men but are really women. So it would seem that plumbing that can be seen has more to do with what the Bible calls a man than the brain which can not be seen.

As for marriage, the Bible speaks of joining a man and a woman together and they become one flesh. There is nothing about the joining of two of the same sex being joined together or of the joining of two of the same sex who think they are a man and a woman.

If two of the same sex marry how do they follow the counsel for married couples found in the Bible? The Bible lays specific roles for the man and the woman, there is no counsel for the second man or woman in a marriage. For instance, the Bible speaks of the man being the head of the family, in a same sex "marriage" who is the head of the family? Rock, paper, scissors? Flip a coin? Trade off after each decision?

Also the Soul is the person's life and is not a separate entity and thus has no seat in the body.

 

if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. But I think if people love each other, that's all the matters, with all this hate in the world.

 

That's how I feel too. Gay's getting married has no affect at all on heterosexuals marriages. The religious who try to prevent people from marrying is akin to forcing religious institutions to marry who they do not want to marry. That's hypocrisy. -However, there are many who don't get involved politically and I respect their views and how they go about their faith - And I fully support allowing the institutions to choose who they will marry. It's like forcing an all men club to accept female members. Seems silly that you would want to be a part of something that doesn't want you. Seems counterproductive and more spiteful than anything.

The best argument I have seen in not allowing gays to marry, which isn't even good, is that marriage is based on reproduction. However, if that is so then couples who either can't or don't want to have children should also not allowed to be married. Legally speaking, apparently the government, because of privacy laws, aren't allowed to know your medical history and therefore infertile couples get a lucky break via a loophole in laws. The other point they make is that it's based on inherent possibility and that same sex couples never have an inherent possibility (even though surrogates exist). But that's wrong too because they you'll have issues where someone's partner is sick and dying in a hospital and isn't given right to visitation because civil unions don't have the same rights as marriage. There is a recent story where someone's partner was arrested for visiting his loved one in a hospital because he didn't have visitation rights. The last thing this couple needed was this nonsense.

Not sure what the obsession with reproduction is. There is 7 billion people, many of which are starving, and millions of orphans needing families. Studies show that children who are raised by gay parents are actually more likely to succeed because gays are incapable of accidentally starting a family suddenly. When a gay couple decides to have a child, they really know what they want and better prepare for it. The best argument against it is that children of gay parents will be ridiculed by their peers and suffer from that. However, the same could have applied during the whole interracial marriage ordeal back in the 70's. Harassment isn't a good reason to be against it. The problem lies with the harassers brought on by ignorance not the one being harassed.

 

Yeah. The Bible was written before transgender surgery and before there was a sophisticated understanding about the transgender phenomenon. But then there were those "eunuchs".

Maybe those roles reflect conditions at the time the Bible was written and were not intended as universals to apply to future generations. Early Christians were anxious to make sure that they were not seen to be challenging Greco-Roman cultural mores concerning women and slaves. Women were quite prominent in the early Church, but were later put in their place by the male patriarchy in the name of God. As you know, most of the New Testament letters about family members being subject to other family members also contained similar statements about slaves being subject to their masters. Should we still adhere to those, or could it be that our newfangled ideas about slavery since the Emancipation Proclamation might have some merit?

As a modern married men, I'd find it offensive (as would my wife) to think that she should be subject to me, and I can't think that a true relationship based on love could be consistent with the subordination of one party to another. If those archaic values appeal to you, join the Taliban!

 

I have heard the odd decent homily about that sort of subjugation by women really only has its place once the man is prepared to lay down his life for his wife as Christ did for the Church.

I have also heard the odd one about mutual subjugation.

 

The structural similarities between the brain of gay men and straight women is miniscule, and based on a tiny number of samples. Gay men typically exhibit the same sexual drive as males with the only difference being that the object of their desires is another man. Gay men exhibit the same sexual drive as straight men, which is why gay men both claim to want, and actually have, many more sexual partners than straight women claim to want or actually have. Gay men show greater levels of aggression than straight females. The idea that a gay man possesses a feminine brain simply does not pan out when examined in detail.

 

So, I guess you also find it offensive to be subject to God and the Christ.

 

Gender isn't binary; language used in gender discussions often implies otherwise.

 

Not in the least. Only to humans like you and the pseudographers who have misguided ideas about what God and the Christ want.

 

Actually, you are the one that ignores what God has said and obey only what you want to believe and do not follow God's directions.

(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

The headship principle, the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is the Christ, the head of the Christ is God, thus by denying that the man is the head of the woman you're are negating the headship principle and denying that Christ is your head.

 

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." (Gal. 3:28) Now there's a principle I can live by! And it came from Paul.
You cite a letter written by Paul to the Corinthians in the first few decades of Christianity. The implication is that any statement in the letter is meant to apply for all time to all people, whatever the context or changing conditions. Paul is talking about covering the head in worship. That's the context. He was addressing a situation in which Corinthian Christians, in defiant challenge to tradition, reversed the modes of head covering in prayer. As for the "headship principle", I don't see any such "principle" explicitly identified that's meant to apply for all times to all people. The term has been coined by contemporary fundamentalists to justify their claims to continued patriarchy, just as pro-slavery advocates used similar passages in Paul to justify slavery in the antebellum South. Paul instructs slaves to be obedient to their masters. Do you think that should apply today? Why, or why not?

The term "kephale", that male supremacists render "head", can also be translated "source", and if that is done, the hierarchical meaning disappears. It is otherwise difficult to make sense of Paul's observation in the same letter to the Corinthians that; " In our life in the Lord...woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence." Paul was operating in a Greco-Roman culture, where Christians were accused of undermining family values. His advice to women and slaves under those circumstances was sound. Times change.

 

Fantastic! I can't wait to see a response to this.

 

In true Christianity there is no gender.

The first shall be last and the last shall be first. Paul wasn't refering to whether the social structure was correct or not. He was decribing how in the Kingdom of God each person depending on their postion can best serve the true Master.