LostInThought Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 So, the past couple of years, I’ve been trying to work out this part of me and figure things out. I ran a few experiments, including dating another possible ace for a while (who turned out to be most definitely not ace, but that’s another story for another time), and all signs point to me being on the spectrum somewhere. I do have one last experiment to try later, but that is a while away and I don’t have much hopes for it changing anything. So here are a few things I’ve figured out. For one thing, I’m definitely not fully ace. I think either demi or grey fits me, possibly autochorrisexual. I get aroused and have sexual thoughts and I still love physical bonding like kissing, cuddling, etc. The idea of never having sex again doesn’t scare me, but I can’t begin to imagine a marriage without any physical intimacy, even making out. One of the ideas I struggled with was wondering how this fit into my life and faith as a Christian. I think one of the reasons for this was that I always saw asexuality associated with the lgbt movement. But what I’ve realized is that for me, this isn’t really a matter of orientation. My orientation is straight; I love women and am attracted to them both physically and emotionally, and have no interest in men. This is not my orientation, but something that will affect the dynamics of my individual relationship with my future wife. As such, I see no need to one day disclose or “come out” to anyone. It’s no one else’s business, just like the sex life (or lack thereof) of any other couple. With this perspective, I am perfectly at peace with reconciling my potential aceness with my Christian life. That being said, I also don’t want to close the door entirely on sex. Since I’m not 100% ace, the impulse for sex may arise now and then. Perhaps it’ll be some primeval imperative to fulfill my animalistic duties, perhaps we’ll decide we want to have our own biological children, who knows. So, that combined with my aforementioned fondness for physical bonding and intimacy, and I could never date someone who is sex-repulsed or aro altogether. I’d need her to be open to the possibility, though I can guarantee it would be a very rare occurrence 😅 So yeah. That’s what I’ve figured out so far. Enough to start with while I work out other things. I guess I’m ready to try dating again, this time as an ace with other aces. Hopefully eventually I’ll find someone who can forgive me of all the dumbass things I did en route to figuring this out. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted September 14, 2019 Share Posted September 14, 2019 what aspect of Christianity demands that you afirm yourself as wholly heterosexual? Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 14, 2019 Author Share Posted September 14, 2019 Well that’s a widely disputed topic, but those who condemn homosexuality most often refer to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 do you adhere to the laws of the old testament? Leviticus describes them and romans refers to them in the verses you posted. Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 15, 2019 Author Share Posted September 15, 2019 The laws themselves, no. The moral principles behind the laws, yes. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 and what would be the moral root of this law? Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 15, 2019 Author Share Posted September 15, 2019 That’s the disputed part. Some will argue that the moral root is that homosexuality is wrong, which would transcend time and culture and be relevant today. Others argue that the moral root was something more time/culture specific. A common theory is that it was pushing for heterosexual relationships for the purpose of the propagation of the race, since they were about to form their own nation and needed numbers. In that case, that idea would have been irrelevant by New Testament times and certainly by modern times with the advent of artificial insemination, surrogacy, and the such. Link to post Share on other sites
banana monkey Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 I struggle with this too. Interesting to know your thoughts. I havent really come to a conclusion about it yet. Given that some churches believe it is wrong not to have sex in marriage etc. Regrading the verses you quoted, I cant see how the romans verse refers to the old testament and generally I tend to go by the thought that if old testament verses are quoted in the new testament it means it still relevant (unless of course its Jesus quoting it to say its silly or not needed during his preaching.) Though that does makes my life difficult in the sense of blood products. Link to post Share on other sites
crazy ace Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 @LostInThought How can you agree with moral principles that you don't understand? Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 7 hours ago, banana monkey said: I struggle with this too. Interesting to know your thoughts. I havent really come to a conclusion about it yet. Given that some churches believe it is wrong not to have sex in marriage etc. Regrading the verses you quoted, I cant see how the romans verse refers to the old testament and generally I tend to go by the thought that if old testament verses are quoted in the new testament it means it still relevant (unless of course its Jesus quoting it to say its silly or not needed during his preaching.) Though that does makes my life difficult in the sense of blood products. it was Paul, writing to the jews/christians in rome, to paraphrase he was giving an example of non jewish sinners to compare with jewish sinners, as jewish and non jewish chritians were having trouble getting along Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 16, 2019 Author Share Posted September 16, 2019 11 hours ago, crazy ace said: @LostInThought How can you agree with moral principles that you don't understand? Because the validity of morality isn't dependent on whether I understand them or not. As a Christian, I have decided that there is a higher authority who established morals, and therefore whose authority I have agreed to concede to. Just like I am still obligated to follow any laws of my country even if I don't understand them, I am similarly obligated, as a Christian, to acknowledge God's morality, even if I don't understand them. Link to post Share on other sites
gisiebob Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 is that higher morality comunicated to you from the church or from your faith? Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 16, 2019 Author Share Posted September 16, 2019 Both. I defer to the church on a number of issues that I don't fully understand, and their teachings also serve as the starting point of my faith. But then I also study the Bible on my own, and there are several issues on which I would disagree with what, for example, your typical evangelical church would say about it. Link to post Share on other sites
Charna Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 On 9/15/2019 at 1:16 AM, LostInThought said: Well that’s a widely disputed topic, but those who condemn homosexuality most often refer to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans 1:26-27. Out of curiosity, have you read the Jewish interpretations of Leviticus? Link to post Share on other sites
LostInThought Posted September 16, 2019 Author Share Posted September 16, 2019 I have read some, yes. I'm not sure which specific "the" Jewish interpretations you're referring to. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.